First author pub vs. group pubs

[inycepoo]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey there,

I've been involved with a health services research (quality of care, spending growth, etc.) group since freshman year. Currently a rising junior. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the research, though it is focused on cardiology (e.g., AMI, PCI, stroke, HF), the work I've done to date have all been part of a large group of people. I'm slated to have 3 publications by the end of the year, including one in JAMA, but not as first author. Instead, I'm always the 3rd or 4th listed out of ~8-9.

As I'm planning my commitments for the fall, I can either stick to what I've been doing and get more publications like this, or take the lead on something as a first author. I'm currently indifferent between the two choices, but am looking to go to a research-geared med school. I could definitely use the extra time to make up my GPA for a sub-par (sub-3.7) semester in sophomore year, though.

Would a first author pub in a lower-ranked journal due to my inexperience look better or would higher impact articles in a group help more? I'm applying in 2015, so plenty of time left to do a first-author.

Hate to boil things down to "impressiveness," but I can't figure out another way to pick.

Thanks! Any input would be appreciated.

 

[loveoforganic2]

Hey there,

I've been involved with a health services research (quality of care, spending growth, etc.) group since freshman year. Currently a rising junior. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the research, though it is focused on cardiology (e.g., AMI, PCI, stroke, HF), the work I've done to date have all been part of a large group of people. I'm slated to have 3 publications by the end of the year, including one in JAMA, but not as first author. Instead, I'm always the 3rd or 4th listed out of ~8-9.

As I'm planning my commitments for the fall, I can either stick to what I've been doing and get more publications like this, or take the lead on something as a first author. I'm currently indifferent between the two choices, but am looking to go to a research-geared med school. I could definitely use the extra time to make up my GPA for a sub-par (sub-3.7) sophomore year, though.

Would a first author pub in a lower-ranked journal due to my inexperience look better or would higher impact articles in a group help more? I'm applying in 2015, so plenty of time left to do a first-author.

Hate to boil things down to "impressiveness," but I can't figure out another way to pick.

Thanks! Any input would be appreciated.

Fix your GPA. You're strong in the research department as is. I wouldn't commit my time further to a strong element of my application until I fixed an obvious weakness (and if you're shooting for a research driven med school, sub 3.7 is definitely a weakness)

 

[inycepoo]

Fix your GPA. You're strong in the research department as is. I wouldn't commit my time further to a strong element of my application until I fixed an obvious weakness (and if you're shooting for a research driven med school, sub 3.7 is definitely a weakness)

To clarify, it was only <3.7 for one semester this past year. Otherwise, it's been 3.75-3.8. I'll be taking lots more non-science classes in my non-science major, so that should hopefully help a bit as well.

 

[loveoforganic2]

To clarify, it was only <3.7 for one semester this past year. Otherwise, it's been 3.75-3.8. I'll be taking lots more non-science classes in my non-science major, so that should hopefully help a bit as well.

Does <3.7 mean in the 3.6's? If so, your cumulative GPA is still solid, and one 3.6-something semester isn't a red flag by any means, so unless you tanked your BCPM (or anticipate that adding on additional responsibility pursuing a 1st author level project), I'll change what I said and say go for the 1st author if you think it's a reasonably attainable goal

 

[inycepoo]

That one semester it was. Took two grad classes at the MBA and MPH schools and didn't expect the rough grade conversions. But my cGPA/sGPA could still use some work and I definitely want it >3.8 when I apply. Just don't know how to gauge the first-author responsibility. Don't want to bail on it either 'cause I know my PI well and he'd be disappointed, though not mad or anything.

 

[Benedictus123]

For what it's worth, there's actually a formula that some use to gauge the 'points' you earn for authorship and journal prestige. You take the impact factor of the journal, then you multiply it by 1/authorship. So for example, if you are second author on a pub that goes to a journal with an IF of 10, you get 5 points. If you were third author, you get 3.333 points, etc etc. Most PhD students should aspire to 25 points from all their work, though obviously this heavily depends on the field, the lab, and your adviser.

But none of this should matter to an undergrad applying to med school. Most undergrads don't even get one publication, let alone multiple ones. And a first author paper is very rare for an undergrad - I don't think it's ever happened in my lab (though clearly it does in others sometimes).

 

[carnelian]

Personally, I'd try to pull up the GPA. It's one of the first things people look at before they see anything else. Plus, 3 published papers is already quite impressive. Higher GPA will raise interest, and those 3 authorships will keep it.

 

[Long Way to Go]

For what it's worth, there's actually a formula that some use to gauge the 'points' you earn for authorship and journal prestige. You take the impact factor of the journal, then you multiply it by 1/authorship. So for example, if you are second author on a pub that goes to a journal with an IF of 10, you get 5 points. If you were third author, you get 3.333 points, etc etc. Most PhD students should aspire to 25 points from all their work, though obviously this heavily depends on the field, the lab, and your adviser.

[citation needed]

 

[AdmAckbar]

When it comes to publications, don't stress over what looks better than what. Any publication is great and shows meaningful research/contributions.

A first author pub in a lesser known journal may show leadership and initiative, as well as good applied intelligence. But a 3rd/4th author in a well respected journal shows just how meaningful the research was. If you really want to compare, I suppose a first author is best bc it was obviously more your research than anyone else.

I think I just talked myself in a circle and didn't really say anything.

 

[Aerus]

Your GPA is competitive. Even if you do go to an Ivy, it still sounds impressive that you maintained a good GPA while competing with incredibly bright and hard working individuals. I would try to go for the first author at this point. It's only natural after all these publications. 😛

 

[inycepoo]

Your GPA is competitive. Even if you do go to an Ivy, it still sounds impressive that you maintained a good GPA while competing with incredibly bright and hard working individuals. I would try to go for the first author at this point. It's only natural after all these publications. 😛

That's the point, though. I realize that many would kill to be in my position, so I try not to sound like an ungrateful $@#% and complain too much. Leaving aside the 3.6 semester, my GPA is probably generally competitive, but against my peers it is not up to par, so to speak. Gah.

 

[Aerus]

That's the point, though. I realize that many would kill to be in my position, so I try not to sound like an ungrateful $@#% and complain too much. Leaving aside the 3.6 semester, my GPA is probably generally competitive, but against my peers it is not up to par, so to speak. Gah.

A first author publication would definitely put you over par. If we're speaking from a strictly application standpoint, there's a margin of diminishing return when it comes to increasing your GPA above a 3.7-3.8.

 

[inycepoo]

A first author publication would definitely put you over par. If we're speaking from a strictly application standpoint, there's a margin of diminishing return when it comes to increasing your GPA above a 3.7-3.8.

Perhaps, but the prevailing idea I've encountered seems to suggest otherwise, especially as the schools get more selective and seemingly more "random." Ah well, as I've said before elsewhere, it looks like none of us will ever really know what gives better returns, but a higher GPA could hardly hurt.

 

[magicm]

I cant really comment on GPA but here is a more research focused answer

being 3rd or 4th author means you contributed a little and means very little when I review peoples CVs UNLESS its in a very high impact journal ie. Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, NEJM, JCI If however its in a medium impact journal ie Molecular Micro, PLOS Pathogens, JBAC then I put very little weight in it. Thats because the first/senior authors typically come up with the experiments and protocols. As such having a first author shows you can develop a research area or project and see it through. It is also an added bonus if you want to do research in med school since most proffs i know prefer to take students that already have first author publications


N.B. As pointed out subsequently this applies primarily to bench research (and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt if you aren't doing bench research)

 

[jeghaber]

I seem to remember LizzyM saying that at her school, all publications -- regardless of whether you're first or second from last -- get the highest score possible in the research section. So in terms of admissions, I don't think it makes a huge difference as an authorship is an authorship.

I think the scoring was something like*:
4 = authorship; significant contribution, above and beyond
3 = conference/poster presentation; significant contribution
2 = average experience
1 = some exposure

*This is from what I remember from a few years ago, so this may not be *completely* accurate, but the gist of it is, I believe, correct. It might have been a scale of 1 to 5.

 

[inycepoo]

being 3rd or 4th author means you contibuted a little and means very little when I review peoples CVs UNLESS its in a very high impact journal ie. Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, NEJM, JCI If however its in a medium impact jounral ie Molecular Micro, PLOS Pathogens, JBAC then I put very little weight in it.

Um, forgive me, but I can't help but chuckle to hear of a premed "reviewing CVs" and judging "how little" something means. Especially if he/she has very little idea of how the field of health services research works, since none of those journals besides NEJM are ever in my targets. Thanks for the input, though...

 

[inycepoo]

On a related note, though, when I do mark this experience as one of my "most meaningful," would a slight explanation in there about the nature of and how the group works be overkill?

I don't want to make excuses, but HSR is a lot different from lab ratting in the sense that the first 3-5 people may have all contributed a big amount to the project. Administrative red tape also puts the project managers more in front. If my contributions to the data gathering/cleaning/analysis and manuscript writing are going to be interpreted as contributing very little and just being lucky to run into a PI who's nice enough to include me in papers, I'm going to be sad.... 🙁

 

[magicm]

Um, forgive me, but I can't help but chuckle to hear of a premed "reviewing CVs" and judging "how little" something means. Especially if he/she has very little idea of how the field of health services research works, since none of those journals besides NEJM are ever in my targets. Thanks for the input, though...

The "chuckle" is fully understood but for context I have spent ~3 years as a research associate, which included hiring hence why I was reviewing CVs.

And I was referring to the tier of journal, It was the same advice I was given back in undergrad and I found it very useful.

The point I was trying to get at was since you have the 3 papers coming out Having additional 3rd and 4th author papers doesn't add as much as your own first author

 

[LizzyM]

I cant really comment on GPA but here is a more research focused answer

being 3rd or 4th author means you contibuted a little and means very little when I review peoples CVs UNLESS its in a very high impact journal ie. Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, NEJM, JCI If however its in a medium impact jounral ie Molecular Micro, PLOS Pathogens, JBAC then I put very little weight in it. Thats because the first/senior authors typically come up with the experiments and protocols. As such having a first author shows you can develop a research area or project and see it through. It is also an added bonus if you want to do research in med school since most proffs i know preffer to take students that already have first author publications

Health Services Research (HSR) is a lot different than bench research so your paradigm isn't of much value to the OP.

With any luck, the OP gets reviewers who understand HSR. For the most part, a publication by a pre-med is a rarity and it will give the applicant a bump with regard to research. Of course, that is just one component of a holistic evaluation of an application.

 

[inycepoo]

Health Services Research (HSR) is a lot different than bench research so your paradigm isn't of much value to the OP.

With any luck, the OP gets reviewers who understand HSR. For the most part, a publication by a pre-med is a rarity and it will give the applicant a bump with regard to research. Of course, that is just one component of a holistic evaluation of an application.

Omg no way LizzyM commented on one of my posts. *fangirls* Thanks for the advice! Either way, I'm happy to be where I am, but deciding on what to do next has been annoying because it's a choice between inertia and making big trade-offs. Getting told to "follow my interests" doesn't help either because it's all fun and interesting....

In any case, are reviewers ever assigned based on expertise? Would it be completely random if I get a primary reviewer who knows HSR, or do I bank on having someone on the adcom who "understands" it?

 

[inycepoo]

The "chuckle" is fully understood but for context I have spent ~3 years as a research associate, which included hiring hence why I was reviewing CVs.

Understood. Being on SDN for a long time inevitable trains one to be wary of the many clueless premeds offering advice to those who are just as clueless as themselves (i.e., me lol). Thanks regardless!

 

[DrEnderW]

I cant really comment on GPA but here is a more research focused answer

being 3rd or 4th author means you contibuted a little and means very little when I review peoples CVs UNLESS its in a very high impact journal ie. Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, NEJM, JCI If however its in a medium impact jounral ie Molecular Micro, PLOS Pathogens, JBAC then I put very little weight in it. Thats because the first/senior authors typically come up with the experiments and protocols. As such having a first author shows you can develop a research area or project and see it through. It is also an added bonus if you want to do research in med school since most proffs i know preffer to take students that already have first author publications

I truly don't think is the norm and what is expected as an undergrad - and this is coming from someone with a first author pub as an undergrad and multiple non-first authors since then. How many med applicants do you see with first author in medium impact journals or even 3rd author in Nature? I find it VERY hard to believe no stock is put in medium impact, or even low impact, authorship before you're doctoral level. Maybe if we're talking HMS MD/PhD program... But this isn't the case or guidelines for 95% of applicants. No one would be able to land med school research if this was the case.

Edit: I just saw you were looking for more career bench research CVs, my bad.

 

[LizzyM]

Omg no way LizzyM commented on one of my posts. *fangirls* Thanks for the advice! Either way, I'm happy to be where I am, but deciding on what to do next has been annoying because it's a choice between inertia and making big trade-offs. Getting told to "follow my interests" doesn't help either because it's all fun and interesting....

In any case, are reviewers ever assigned based on expertise? Would it be completely random if I get a primary reviewer who knows HSR, or do I bank on having someone on the adcom who "understands" it?

I think that these things are assigned in a random fashion. That said, you'll get 4 reviewers at my place before the interview so it is likely that at least one of the 4 will have some knowledge of what you are doing wheher it is HSR or PCR and will have a comment about the strength of the work.

 

[Donald Juan]

I cant really comment on GPA but here is a more research focused answer

being 3rd or 4th author means you contributed a little and means very little when I review peoples CVs UNLESS its in a very high impact journal ie. Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, NEJM, JCI If however its in a medium impact journal ie Molecular Micro, PLOS Pathogens, JBAC then I put very little weight in it. Thats because the first/senior authors typically come up with the experiments and protocols. As such having a first author shows you can develop a research area or project and see it through. It is also an added bonus if you want to do research in med school since most proffs i know prefer to take students that already have first author publications


N.B. As pointed out subsequently this applies primarily to bench research (and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt if you aren't doing bench research)

I don't know why you posted this at all, other than to confuse/intimidate your peers because you're a bad person with a very mean spirit who is trying to gain a sense of superiority over your fellow premeds. I guess I should just post criteria for Nobel Prize winners insinuating that it is criteria for consideration to med school, then follow it up with, "oh, sorry, I only review CVs for potential Nobel Prize winners."

 

[Benedictus123]

I don't know why you posted this at all, other than to confuse/intimidate your peers because you're a bad person with a very mean spirit who is trying to gain a sense of superiority over your fellow premeds. I guess I should just post criteria for Nobel Prize winners insinuating that it is criteria for consideration to med school, then follow it up with, "oh, sorry, I only review CVs for potential Nobel Prize winners."

Nicely put. I was annoyed by the attitude of that post too.