Heme/Onc interviewers, What research from an applicant has stood out to you the most?

[ayjaystudent]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Curious to find out what you've ran into that you found impressive.

 

[gutonc]

Curious to find out what you've ran into that you found impressive.

First author NEJM, JCO, Science/Nature/Cell. Everything else is trash.

 

[soccerusa]

Not a reviewer, but a somewhat recent applicant. My largest project I was working on was not published around the time of application but I think was the most relevant thing in my application and was discussed in detail at every interview. It was a relatively ambitious collaboration (for a resident) that included using banked tumor specimens for bulk RNA seq, a novel computational method developed in collaboration with the computer science department to analyze the data and correlating this with patient response.

I used this as a clear example of the kind of research I hoped to do as a fellow and junior faculty. This generated a lot of positive feedback and I think proved that I had spent time developing a project and working through the mechanics of getting it off the ground.

I agree with @gutonc that the first author papers in major journals are really the only thing that "count"; however, I will say that getting one of those as a resident who hasn't done a PhD or taken a year out for research often requires being in the right place at the right time in addition to being a research superstar. So don't sell yourself short if you are research motivated but haven't hit paydirt by the time you are applying and interviewing.

 

[randomhemoncpd]

First author NEJM, JCO, Science/Nature/Cell. Everything else is trash.

That's a little harsh IMO -- maybe you meant it to be somewhat tongue in cheek? Plenty of applicants with first author papers in journals with impact factors closer to 10 or low double digits (your Clinical Cancer Research, Blood Advances, AJH, Blood Cancer Journals etc. of the world). These are very difficult to pull off as a resident and are typically very high quality. OTOH, we can figure out within 1 minute if you truly understand the research on a reasonably deep level or whether it's all surface level, so if you have a paper like that, be prepared to be questioned on your work.

Random abstracts / posters presented at ACP are not helpful. If you have an abstract that you presented at one of the more important conferences (ASCO, ASH, SABCS, TCT, etc.) and can talk intelligently about it, that would be relevant.

Of note, no amount of papers in Cureus or other similarly worthless journals can help your cause. Those are pure CV fodder, and they don't count as research in my book.

Best of luck.

 

[gutonc]

Sorry everyone but @MD46 and @sloh missed the blindingly obvious sarcasm.

It's kind of a silly question because you pretty much just get what you get. Even if you're a PhD (I was), there's no guarantee of getting a bunch of first-author pubs in top tier journals. So you do what you can, with the time you have and be sure to be able to talk about what you did intelligently and in context.

 

[ayjaystudent]

That's a little harsh IMO -- maybe you meant it to be somewhat tongue in cheek? Plenty of applicants with first author papers in journals with impact factors closer to 10 or low double digits (your Clinical Cancer Research, Blood Advances, AJH, Blood Cancer Journals etc. of the world). These are very difficult to pull off as a resident and are typically very high quality. OTOH, we can figure out within 1 minute if you truly understand the research on a reasonably deep level or whether it's all surface level, so if you have a paper like that, be prepared to be questioned on your work.

Random abstracts / posters presented at ACP are not helpful. If you have an abstract that you presented at one of the more important conferences (ASCO, ASH, SABCS, TCT, etc.) and can talk intelligently about it, that would be relevant.

Of note, no amount of papers in Cureus or other similarly worthless journals can help your cause. Those are pure CV fodder, and they don't count as research in my book.

Best of luck.

Not a reviewer, but a somewhat recent applicant. My largest project I was working on was not published around the time of application but I think was the most relevant thing in my application and was discussed in detail at every interview. It was a relatively ambitious collaboration (for a resident) that included using banked tumor specimens for bulk RNA seq, a novel computational method developed in collaboration with the computer science department to analyze the data and correlating this with patient response.

I used this as a clear example of the kind of research I hoped to do as a fellow and junior faculty. This generated a lot of positive feedback and I think proved that I had spent time developing a project and working through the mechanics of getting it off the ground.

I agree with @gutonc that the first author papers in major journals are really the only thing that "count"; however, I will say that getting one of those as a resident who hasn't done a PhD or taken a year out for research often requires being in the right place at the right time in addition to being a research superstar. So don't sell yourself short if you are research motivated but haven't hit paydirt by the time you are applying and interviewing.

I completely agree with you all's point about the challenges of getting significant research done as a resident, especially when aiming for first-author publications in major journals. The issue with research as a resident often comes down to the fact that it's a realm that's more readily accessible to PhDs or those already embedded in academia. As residents, our time is limited and we often don't have the same dedicated research blocks that PhD researchers do. This can make it hard to pursue large-scale, impactful projects or establish the kind of academic momentum that leads to those highly coveted first-author papers.