First author paper

[Merlin0082]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Does it carry a lot of weight in res applications to have a first author paper/publication?

Is this something that is quite difficult to accomplish?

 

[kwel]

Does it carry a lot of weight in res applications to have a first author paper/publication?

Is this something that is quite difficult to accomplish?

of course it does. Being first author usually means you did most of the work (or at least that's what people will assume), which basically means it was YOUR project. Being 2nd, 3rd, etc is still definitely impressive, but it still implies you were more of a supportive effort rather than the primary effort on the project (again, there are exceptions but this is what others will assume).

It is very difficult to get a first author paper, not because you have to be a pro-researcher or anything, but because it just takes so much time. If it was truly your project you have to hash out an idea, write a proposal, get IRB approval, run pilot studies, do your actual study, analyze results, write the paper, submit, revise, revise again, and again, and again (the submission/revision process can take a year oftentimes). All the while you need to check in with your PI along the way, and if he/she is a busy person this can hold you up as well. All told, it's tough to do this in < 3 years of med school.

You can do case reports and get first authorships, but I personally can't speak to how those are viewed in relation to clinical/basic science research

 

[ReesesDoc]

of course it does. Being first author usually means you did most of the work (or at least that's what people will assume), which basically means it was YOUR project. Being 2nd, 3rd, etc is still definitely impressive, but it still implies you were more of a supportive effort rather than the primary effort on the project (again, there are exceptions but this is what others will assume).

It is very difficult to get a first author paper, not because you have to be a pro-researcher or anything, but because it just takes so much time. If it was truly your project you have to hash out an idea, write a proposal, get IRB approval, run pilot studies, do your actual study, analyze results, write the paper, submit, revise, revise again, and again, and again (the submission/revision process can take a year oftentimes). All the while you need to check in with your PI along the way, and if he/she is a busy person this can hold you up as well. All told, it's tough to do this in < 3 years of med school.

You can do case reports and get first authorships, but I personally can't speak to how those are viewed in relation to clinical/basic science research

I agree that have a first author pub is great, but takes a long time. Is there just as much significance if the paper is "submitted" by the time you apply, as opposed to completely published by then?

 

[RestoreSight]

Published is most important, but agreed it can take forever. I've had one paper under review at a top journal for almost a year. Submitted doesn't mean accepted. Most top ophtho journals reject 70-80% of submitted articles.

 

[razkui]

a serious question. in my 1st year of med school, a 1st author paper of mine was accepted into IOVS, but it was based on research that i did in undergrad. is this going to carry as much weight because the research was done during my UNDERGRAD, rather than during med school itself? sorry, but its just been a burning question of mine!

 

[Bluesclera]

Razkui, the general impression tends to be at your work ethic not necessarily when you published the paper. So residency directors/ anyone looking at your application will be impressed at the fact that you where thinking ophtho early and that you made something out of it...early. so mostly a win win

 

[RestoreSight]

It's a continuous body of work that is most impressive. Since you started early you have a big advantage. Keep working throughout med school and by the time you are ready to interview your CV will be in great shape.