How do people get so much research?

[ChymeofPassion]

New M3 here, getting excited being in the clinic, but a little self conscious about something my classmates are talking allllll about:

Research

I came into Medical School with a publication + poster presentation, and looks like I will finish off preclinical with another publication and 2 more poster presentations (unless you count undergrad/medical school summer program presentations). I am so confused as to how I read about people applying for residency with 20 publications and 20 poster presentations. Is this anomalous (aside from MD PhD/people with PhDs from previous careers)?? I feel like I missed the boat or the memo on this.

Also, given how busy I already feel during 3rd year, am I pretty much done with my research resume (5 total items??). Its not like I am Ortho/NSG or die (looking more at IM maybe), but do people do research during 3rd year??

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GoSpursGo]

(unless you count undergrad/medical school summer program presentations).

Yes, you should count these.

5 items is more than enough for a solid IM application. But if you want to get more, undoubtedly you can talk with the residents/attendings on your rotations and find some case reports/retrospective studies that you can help out with.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Some of these people may be charismatic and or very well liked. The PI will put their name on a paper for doing some basic editing. I’ve seen this in UG.

Disclaimer: not all people with many pubs are line this. Some of them take a research year or work really hard after class/weekends

 

[imidazzle92]

I'm going into M3 and have around 30+ research items (mix of basic science and clinical). Lots of late nights/giving up weekends/vacation time to get projects moving/done. There's some luck involved with how data will turn out. I do like research and want an academic career so I made it a priority.

You don't need a lot of research to match into most specialties, but it does help if you want to become a PI in the future.

 

[RocuROMANium]

I'm going into M3 and have around 30+ research items (mix of basic science and clinical). Lots of late nights/giving up weekends/vacation time to get projects moving/done. There's some luck involved with how data will turn out. I do like research and want an academic career so I made it a priority.

You don't need a lot of research to match into most specialties, but it does help if you want to become a PI in the future.

Is all of your research from your medical school or do you do research at other schools?

 

[ChymeofPassion]

Yes, you should count these.

5 items is more than enough for a solid IM application. But if you want to get more, undoubtedly you can talk with the residents/attendings on your rotations and find some case reports/retrospective studies that you can help out with.

Count them even if they were presented later in a more prestigious setting (university conference vs state)?

Thanks everyone for the info

 

[GoSpursGo]

Count them even if they were presented later in a more prestigious setting (university conference vs state)?

Thanks everyone for the info

At the faculty level you remove these, but I think as a med student you should include everything and let the PD decide if they mean anything or not. It’s resume padding, but resume padding is the only reason these university research days exist in the first place

 

[ChymeofPassion]

At the faculty level you remove these, but I think as a med student you should include everything and let the PD decide if they mean anything or not.

Brilliant, thanks for all your help.

 

[Dr. Anonymouss]

Yes, you should count these.

5 items is more than enough for a solid IM application. But if you want to get more, undoubtedly you can talk with the residents/attendings on your rotations and find some case reports/retrospective studies that you can help out with.

How many would you say are sufficient for orthopedics? Just looking for your opinion

 

[GoSpursGo]

How many would you say are sufficient for orthopedics? Just looking for your opinion

Look at charting outcomes to get a sense

 

[imidazzle92]

Is all of your research from your medical school or do you do research at other schools?

Most of it. Some from another institution I worked with during gap years prior to matriculation.

 

[Kracin]

I am applying with ~ 15 pubs, 4 first-author, 40 research items, and several research awards. What has worked for me is the following:

1) Find a PI who publishes frequently and knows how to publish
There are tons of doctors out there who work endlessly on manuscripts but never publish. Find a doctor who wants to publish everything reasonable you work on.

2) Get involved early
Not topical to you as an MS3, but for many research projects the key is to front-load onto MS1 or MS2, then let the publications roll in over the next year. Same advice for getting pubs in general, just have to hustle if you're an MS3 18 months out of applying.

3) For people who want 10+ pubs, publish database analyses or write an IRB protocol and spinoff multiple similar projects
This is the advice that's hard to come by. People with 10+ pubs typically do 1 of the 2: database reviews with a prolific PI, where they do all the data analysis themselves, write the entire manuscript, get edits from the PI, then publish. OR they write an IRB protocol for a study design, implement it at multiple institutions or with multiple variations, and publish the results. Both of these methods account for 90%+ of traditional med students who rack up crazy publications while students

 

[GoSpursGo]

I am applying with ~ 15 pubs, 4 first-author, 40 research items, and several research awards. What has worked for me is the following:

1) Find a PI who publishes frequently and knows how to publish
There are tons of doctors out there who work endlessly on manuscripts but never publish. Find a doctor who wants to publish everything reasonable you work on.

2) Get involved early
Not topical to you as an MS3, but for many research projects the key is to front-load onto MS1 or MS2, then let the publications roll in over the next year. Same advice for getting pubs in general, just have to hustle if you're an MS3 18 months out of applying.

3) For people who want 10+ pubs, publish database analyses or write an IRB protocol and spinoff multiple similar projects
This is the advice that's hard to come by. People with 10+ pubs typically do 1 of the 2: database reviews with a prolific PI, where they do all the data analysis themselves, write the entire manuscript, get edits from the PI, then publish. OR they write an IRB protocol for a study design, implement it at multiple institutions or with multiple variations, and publish the results. Both of these methods account for 90%+ of traditional med students who rack up crazy publications while students

I generally agree with most of this, with the caveat that I do think it's important to be realistic and recognize that not everyone needs to be shooting for 10+ pubs. I do feel like the pressure being placed on students gets to be a little ridiculous these days. I never wrote an IRB until I was a fellow, so if there are students out there who can write one then good luck, but nobody should feel bad if they are the student who is a deer in the headlights.

IF you are in the "deer in the headlights" position, I think you can still be productive. In that case, everything that is written above is still true but I would add that you should look for a PI who also has a fellow or resident (or in some cases junior faculty member) on the team who is independently productive/driven and who can hold your hand for the beginning of your first project. THIS is the piece where it may be totally luck-based as to whether you can find a PI who fits this description, but it is possible.

 

[Kracin]

Parsing the data, people have far fewer publications than you'd expect.

My experience is atypical, and like GoSpurs said -- the advice is a guide for people who either find themselves with an unintended research year that needs to be productive OR people like me that enjoy research and sometimes questions why they're going for an MD instead of a PhD

 

[aldol16]

Clinical research. Clinical papers don't take long to write if you're using retrospective data. Also get into a lab with a very productive history and adding you to papers.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Where can one gain access to this retrospective data?

I was actually looking this past weekend and needed to subscribe or pay

 

[GoSpursGo]

Where can one gain access to this retrospective data?

It's usually an internal institutional database. You need to work with a PI who has access.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

It's usually an internal institutional database. You need to work with a PI who has access.

When would you reccomend trying to connect with a PI and or asking for access? Or would it be better at this point to just focus on work/leisure, and maybe try to read up on a field of interest

 

[GoSpursGo]

When would you reccomend trying to connect with a PI and or asking for access? Or would it be better at this point to just focus on work/leisure, and maybe try to read up on a field of interest

It just depends on what field you're applying to and how seriously you want/need research experience. The sooner you can get access, the more productive you can be. If you are seriously considering something very competitive like ortho/neurosurg/derm, you really need to get started ASAP.

 

[mvenus929]

It's usually an internal institutional database. You need to work with a PI who has access.

Or manual chart review, or a data pull if you trust your IT people to pull data accurately (I don't... been burned one too many times). Or a dataset that someone else has already done a manual chart review for.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Or manual chart review, or a data pull if you trust your IT people to pull data accurately (I don't... been burned one too many times). Or a dataset that someone else has already done a manual chart review for.

Is there any open source stuff worth looking at in your opinion?

Open source is the only thing I hear about these days in most fields. But it doesn’t seem to extend to medical data

 

[GoSpursGo]

Or manual chart review, or a data pull if you trust your IT people to pull data accurately (I don't... been burned one too many times). Or a dataset that someone else has already done a manual chart review for.

I mean, I didn’t say it was a GOOD database, but the manual chart review still has to start from a list of patients with a diagnosis/treatment/whatever the common thread is. But yes, usually once you get your patient list there is a manual chart review.

Is there any open source stuff worth looking at in your opinion?

Open source is the only thing I hear about these days in most fields. But it doesn’t seem to extend to medical data

There are a few, particularly within oncology which I’m aware of like TCGA. But they are already so aggressively mined, that you’re going to be hard pressed to do something on your own that is novel and valid

 

[mistafab]

My recommendation for research is always the same. Start with the mentor, not with the project.

Don’t choose the big wig if you don’t actually work with them. Typically, work with the young/hungry faculty. Say up front you’re interested in their research, would like to get involved, and would like pubs. Don’t work with someone you don’t like - a miserable mentor makes for miserable projects. Make sure you’re choosing someone who is interested in investing on a mentee - preferably, someone you’d like to still stay in contact with years down the line.

 

[Browns99]

My recommendation for research is always the same. Start with the mentor, not with the project.

Don’t choose the big wig if you don’t actually work with them. Typically, work with the young/hungry faculty. Say up front you’re interested in their research, would like to get involved, and would like pubs. Don’t work with someone you don’t like - a miserable mentor makes for miserable projects. Make sure you’re choosing someone who is interested in investing on a mentee - preferably, someone you’d like to still stay in contact with years down the line.

While I agree with what your saying, I also believe that, for a lot of people wanting to go into specialities, especially the surgical ones, you may miss an opportunity of getting close to someone well-regarded in the field if you go merely with the "young/hungry faculty." Remember, a lot of these students are unfortunately doing the research merely for their application, and if that is so, why not make the most out of it by working with those who are well-known that can help with strong letters or phone calls. Just MHO.

 

[GoSpursGo]

While I agree with what your saying, I also believe that, for a lot of people wanting to go into specialities, especially the surgical ones, you may miss an opportunity of getting close to someone well-regarded in the field if you go merely with the "young/hungry faculty." Remember, a lot of these students are unfortunately doing the research merely for their application, and if that is so, why not make the most out of it by working with those who are well-known that can help with strong letters or phone calls. Just MHO.

IMO it’s not an either/or, but rather both. The bigwigs usually have junior faculty who they directly mentor, and you can usually wind up with the best of both worlds—hungry junior faculty who works with you and directs your progress, and a letter co-signed by the bigwig.

 

[mistafab]

IMO it’s not an either/or, but rather both. The bigwigs usually have junior faculty who they directly mentor, and you can usually wind up with the best of both worlds—hungry junior faculty who works with you and directs your progress, and a letter co-signed by the bigwig.

This exactly. The young faculty is going to be getting money from big wig’s lab. Big wig will be on your paper, but working with young/hungry gets you pubs and mentorship. The senior author opens the doors.

 

[Browns99]

IMO it’s not an either/or, but rather both. The bigwigs usually have junior faculty who they directly mentor, and you can usually wind up with the best of both worlds—hungry junior faculty who works with you and directs your progress, and a letter co-signed by the bigwig.

All provided that there is a "bigwig" associated with the research lab. And remember, a so-called co-signed letter of rec, doesn't carry the same weight as a "bigwig" non-generic letter.

 

[mvenus929]

Is there any open source stuff worth looking at in your opinion?

Open source is the only thing I hear about these days in most fields. But it doesn’t seem to extend to medical data

Cerner has some de-identified real-world data, but you really have to know what you're looking for and understand how to reduce the noise in the dataset. For instance, I'm doing a retrospective review on patients with DKA, and we got a data analyst to pull BMPs on a list of patients we had. Problem was, for some of the patients, it was not their first BMP upon arrival to the health system (it may have been the first BMP after admission, but not the one from the ED, for instance) and several patients were transferred from other hospitals where they had other initial labs done. For many, they had resolution of their DKA by the time they arrived to our hospital, so would have been misclassified as not having DKA if we just relied on the initial data pull. It's easier if you're looking at something done in the outpatient setting, where there typically isn't multiple values for the same encounter, but that can have its own issues. For instance, we monitor patient heights very closely because it impacts treatment decisions. In many offices, patients aren't asked to take off their shoes when measuring heights, or there is slouching because the MA rooming the patient doesn't instruct them to stand up straight against the wall. So, taking heights across the spectrum of clinics in our institution shows a lot of variability.

So those big datasets are usually hypothesis generating questions to see if it's worth doing a more controlled analysis or for rare conditions.

 

[moneymikekif]

did a research year at a bigname institution (just matched IM) with a bigwig. It definitely made me like 1000x more competitive

 

[Lawpy]

Yes, you should count these.

5 items is more than enough for a solid IM application. But if you want to get more, undoubtedly you can talk with the residents/attendings on your rotations and find some case reports/retrospective studies that you can help out with.

It’d be nice if ERAS didn’t stupidly lump presentations and publications together into a single research item category. Because someone with one paper at a solid journal pretty much overshadows many to most med students who are only going with crappy school posters or local presentations

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

It’d be nice if ERAS didn’t stupidly lump presentations and publications together into a single research item category. Because someone with one paper at a solid journal pretty much overshadows many to most med students who are only going with crappy school posters or local presentations

They don’t lump them, at least on the student side? I don’t know how it looks to programs but the eras choices include:

• Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts
• Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts (Other than Published)
• Peer Reviewed Book Chapter
• Scientific Monograph
• Other Articles
• Poster Presentation
• Oral Presentation
• Peer Reviewed Online Publication
• Non-Peer Reviewed Online Publication

They show up in separate sections when you look at the application. It’s the NRMP data (collected separately) that lumps everything into one category, making the statistics they publish confusing to compare yourself to, but PDs get more detail when reviewing apps. I don’t know if there is a filter for publication numbers, but if a PD is legitimately using that to find research focused applicants (at any threshold above like, 1-3) then they are doing themselves a disservice and selecting specifically for students publishing a lot of fluff. If I’m a “one really solid paper” kind of research student, I don’t think I would want that environment anyway

 

[GoSpursGo]

It’d be nice if ERAS didn’t stupidly lump presentations and publications together into a single research item category. Because someone with one paper at a solid journal pretty much overshadows many to most med students who are only going with crappy school posters or local presentations

I tend to agree with @TelemarketingEnigma . NRMP charting outcomes lumps everything together but if a PD open an app and sees 10 posters at the med school research day, that isn't going to be seen as on par with the same number peer-reviewed journal articles. But the way the output is presented in Charting Outcomes can lead to the misperception that all pubs are equivalent.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I think the biggest possible confusing point on the ERAS end is the ever contentious debate over listing abstracts from poster/oral presentations. I am of the opinion that if it’s associated with a poster/talk, it should only be listed in those categories and not double dipped as a separate journal abstract. But I’ve also never really seen stand alone “abstract” as a common publication type in the fields I’ve published in - possible there are situations where it makes more sense that I’m just not familiar with.

 

[deleted1065184]

Coming from the biomedical research world, I was so confused and overwhelmed when I got on SDN and first saw that so many medical students were applying to residency with tons of publications. I worked HARD to get several publications during my PhD (most biomedical PhD students only get 1 or two, plus maybe a middle author pub and/or a review article), and it just didn't make sense that medical students could get so many with a fraction of the time and effort. Then I realized that the vast majority of these are just case reports, small retrospective studies, etc. And those aren't technically difficult to get, they just take some networking, time, and a pinch of luck.

I bring this up bc OP should def try to work with somebody who publishes a lot, but keeping in mind that not all publications are created equally. If the goal is volume, you're not going to get that from most biomedical research labs in the time alloted during medical school...even a research year isn't much time unless theres a strong computational component or you're working on a virus that is causing an epidemic or pandemic. You may get on a paper in that lab, but it'll take a lot of hard work and luck for it to be first author...and even more luck to get 2+ papers. Keep that in mind when choosing who to work with. I personally think quality >>> quantity when it comes to research, but I'm not a residency director so idk lol

 

[mvenus929]

I think the biggest possible confusing point on the ERAS end is the ever contentious debate over listing abstracts from poster/oral presentations. I am of the opinion that if it’s associated with a poster/talk, it should only be listed in those categories and not double dipped as a separate journal abstract. But I’ve also never really seen stand alone “abstract” as a common publication type in the fields I’ve published in - possible there are situations where it makes more sense that I’m just not familiar with.

Agreed. The only time I've seen an abstract stand alone was when conferences were canceled at the beginning of the pandemic--when they were initially accepted for presentations (poster or oral), but not presented because the conference was canceled.

 

[Lawpy]

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Abstracts

This is part of my problem. Why are abstracts lumped together with journal articles as a single category?

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I mean the same argument could be made for “why are all journals lumped in together” rather than reporting it as some kind of index.

Plenty of pay to play academic journals out there

 

[Lawpy]

I mean the same argument could be made for “why are all journals lumped in together” rather than reporting it as some kind of index.

Plenty of pay to play academic journals out there

It’s pretty easy to tell which journals are good vs predatory garbage

 

[GoSpursGo]

It’s pretty easy to tell which journals are good vs predatory garbage

Your point is well taken, but it's also pretty easy to tell an abstract from a full-length journal article

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

It’s pretty easy to tell which journals are good vs predatory garbage

True. The more specific/longer the journal title, the less impact in my experience.

 

[Lawpy]

Your point is well taken, but it's also pretty easy to tell an abstract from a full-length journal article

Sometimes yes if supplement is highlighted but a lot of conferences publish abstracts in major leading journals that’s easy to gloss over. Separating publications from abstracts is therefore necessary

 

[aldol16]

Coming from the biomedical research world, I was so confused and overwhelmed when I got on SDN and first saw that so many medical students were applying to residency with tons of publications. I worked HARD to get several publications during my PhD (most biomedical PhD students only get 1 or two, plus maybe a middle author pub and/or a review article), and it just didn't make sense that medical students could get so many with a fraction of the time and effort. Then I realized that the vast majority of these are just case reports, small retrospective studies, etc. And those aren't technically difficult to get, they just take some networking, time, and a pinch of luck.

I think this is one fact that many med students tend to overlook. Basic science papers are much harder to publish than clinical papers. However, it's also something that you can't discount in the rat race that is the residency process. PDs don't assign as much weight to the basic science papers as they should. It's always going to be easier to count and use that as a metric rather than evaluating each paper by itself.

That being said, there are some fields that are known to be more academic and specifically, to require some basic science papers (e.g., neurosurgery).

 

[deleted1065184]

I think this is one fact that many med students tend to overlook. Basic science papers are much harder to publish than clinical papers. However, it's also something that you can't discount in the rat race that is the residency process. PDs don't assign as much weight to the basic science papers as they should. It's always going to be easier to count and use that as a metric rather than evaluating each paper by itself.

That being said, there are some fields that are known to be more academic and specifically, to require some basic science papers (e.g., neurosurgery).

I could see that, especially if some/most of the people reviewing the applications aren't too familiar with basic biomedical science.

But it is a bit scary to think that a person might have 1-2 first author basic science papers in good journals like Blood/Cell Host Microbe/Science Translational Medicine but be overshadowed by a person with 7 case reports and 1 larger clinical study.

But it would be nice for them to at least understand the vast difference in amount of time and effort it takes. I left my PhD with 15 papers total (including multiple first author, multiple co-author, and a couple reviews)...that was a huge feat and despite working my tail off for years, still required quite a bit of good fortune to pull off.

But in my first semester in med school, I helped with a clinical study for a few weeks and ended up with an abstract out of it. And it may later become a paper. The fact that some people may view this similarly to the grad school papers that required 2+ years and countless nights in lab is kinda frustrating.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I could see that, especially if some/most of the people reviewing the applications aren't too familiar with basic biomedical science.

But it is a bit scary to think that a person might have 1-2 first author basic science papers in good journals like Blood/Cell Host Microbe/Science Translational Medicine but be overshadowed by a person with 7 case reports and 1 larger clinical study.

But it would be nice for them to at least understand the vast difference in amount of time and effort it takes. I left my PhD with 15 papers total (including multiple first author, multiple co-author, and a couple reviews)...that was a huge feat and despite working my tail off for years, still required quite a bit of good fortune to pull off.

But in my first semester in med school, I helped with a clinical study for a few weeks and ended up with an abstract out of it. And it may later become a paper. The fact that some people may view this similarly to the grad school papers that required 2+ years and countless nights in lab is kinda frustrating.

While I agree with you to a large extent, a counter point: PDs who really care about research numbers also likely care about their programs research output, and it is unlikely they are specifically recruiting for bench researchers. They want that clinical research productivity, and therefore are seeking students who demonstrate that. The programs that might be specifically recruiting for more basic science researchers (research track programs for physician scientists, etc) likely know a bit more about the kind of research they are looking at and the work that goes into it

 

[deleted1065184]

While I agree with you to a large extent, a counter point: PDs who really care about research numbers also likely care about their programs research output, and it is unlikely they are specifically recruiting for bench researchers. They want that clinical research productivity, and therefore are seeking students who demonstrate that. The programs that might be specifically recruiting for more basic science researchers (research track programs for physician scientists, etc) likely know a bit more about the kind of research they are looking at and the work that goes into it

That makes sense!

 

[GoSpursGo]

I think this is one fact that many med students tend to overlook. Basic science papers are much harder to publish than clinical papers. However, it's also something that you can't discount in the rat race that is the residency process. PDs don't assign as much weight to the basic science papers as they should. It's always going to be easier to count and use that as a metric rather than evaluating each paper by itself.

That being said, there are some fields that are known to be more academic and specifically, to require some basic science papers (e.g., neurosurgery).

I actually believe this worry is something of an SDN myth--from my perspective, a meaningful first-author basic science paper *is* extremely impressive, and a PD in academia is going to understand the level of work that went into getting that paper done. Charting outcomes tends to skew towards an inflated number of publications because, as discussed, it lumps all abstracts/posters/publications together, and also because med students in general will choose to do the easy but pretty crappy clinical project over the difficult and time consuming basic science project. But for the rare students who do manage to get a first-author basic science paper, it definitely stands out in a good way.

Caveat--I don't really understand why it has to be an either/or proposition. As discussed, the clinical projects are all pretty easy and can be done while you're letting a PCR run. So if you're doing a research year or a PhD, why wouldn't you try to churn through a few case reports too?

 

[GoSpursGo]

While I agree with you to a large extent, a counter point: PDs who really care about research numbers also likely care about their programs research output, and it is unlikely they are specifically recruiting for bench researchers. They want that clinical research productivity, and therefore are seeking students who demonstrate that. The programs that might be specifically recruiting for more basic science researchers (research track programs for physician scientists, etc) likely know a bit more about the kind of research they are looking at and the work that goes into it

Just to expound on my point above, the bolded is an oversimplification. "Research output" on a programmatic level is more than just the number of pubs, they also look at things like impact factor and number of article citations. If a resident is just going to publish trash in a trash journal that nobody reads, that doesn't help much. Also, whether a program is recruiting for basic science or not just depends on the kind of program. If it's a clinical/community program, you may be right, but an academic PD will strongly consider someone with legitimate basic science background as that is the kind of research that could actually lead to things like extramural grant funding--which is much more important than a line on your list of pubs for the year.

So to reiterate, doing basic science research as a med student is difficult, and definitely isn't for everyone. But if someone commits and is actually successful, it can certainly be a substantial boost to a residency application. So it's an oversimplification to just add up your pubs and think that determines your level of competitiveness.

 

[deleted1065184]

So if you're doing a research year or a PhD, why wouldn't you try to churn through a few case reports too?

Thanks for the input, this makes sense. And I'm definitely planning to do some of those as well! But good to know that the years I put into basic science research will be well understood and appreciated.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

Just to expound on my point above, the bolded is an oversimplification. "Research output" on a programmatic level is more than just the number of pubs, they also look at things like impact factor and number of article citations. If a resident is just going to publish trash in a trash journal that nobody reads, that doesn't help much. Also, whether a program is recruiting for basic science or not just depends on the kind of program. If it's a clinical/community program, you may be right, but an academic PD will strongly consider someone with legitimate basic science background as that is the kind of research that could actually lead to things like extramural grant funding--which is much more important than a line on your list of pubs for the year.

So to reiterate, doing basic science research as a med student is difficult, and definitely isn't for everyone. But if someone commits and is actually successful, it can certainly be a substantial boost to a residency application. So it's an oversimplification to just add up your pubs and think that determines your level of competitiveness.

I actually agree with you - I meant more that if any PDs actually are using just research numbers as their main evaluation metric, then they’re clearly trying to select for a specific kind of productivity that may not be met by someone doing only basic science. I don’t think that’s a good thing, and I don’t even know if it’s actually common at all. But someone who is more sophisticated about evaluating research (hopefully far more PDs) will definitely recognize the value of a good basic science pub.

 

[Lawpy]

I’d like to think PDs anywhere can appreciate the hard work and value of basic science papers