How do you get research published?

[SilverBandCry!]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I've seen a lot of threads about people having research published and so I was wondering how do you get published? Most of the people I know usually only do a poster presentation

Thanks.

 

[g3pro]

Why are you concerned about getting research published? Has someone told you that you increase your chances of getting accepted to medical school because of it?

 

[2010WFUdoc]

I've seen a lot of threads about people having research published and so I was wondering how do you get published? Most of the people I know usually only do a poster presentation

Thanks.

This is a really open ended question- so I'll try to answer a piece of it.
If you are working towards a poster presentation, then you are working through the process neccessary to being published. That means you have found a mentor and a project to work on and are developing ways to answer your hypothesis. Both a poster presentation and publication are ways of sharing your work with the larger scientific community. For poster presentations, depending on the venue, they can present anything from only an outline of the anticipated project, to high quality publishable material. Poster presentations sponsored by schools tend to be a way for students to highlight their work, while poster presentations at scientific meetings tend to be a way to get feedback and constructive (hopefully) criticism before submitting the manuscript for the intense review process associated with publication. In order for you to move your work from poster presentation to publication it has to be novel and the hypothesis well explored , with high quality data (appropriate controls, repetitions, and well chosen experiments) supporting the conclusions. My mentor always said "you have to tell a story" and it has to be one that someone in your field would care to read- meaning it presents something new and ususally relevent to what is currently hot in the field. My bias is that I come from a biological sciences background, so those in other fields may have slightly different interpretations. Post if you have more specific questions, since that is a pretty general answer to a very large topic.

 

[Em1]

Why are you concerned about getting research published? Has someone told you that you increase your chances of getting accepted to medical school because of it?

I wanna get published b/c I've put a lot of work into the lab over the years and would love to see it pay off as a pub.

 

[Rogue Synapse]

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is one of the tougher things I think one can do in science. I'm always slightly amazed when I read stories (that are surely never exaggerated) here about undergrads who have put out multiple publications. I submitted my premiere first-author publication in January, and it's still bogged down in the peer-review process. Writing an article for publication in a high-impact journal (mine was J Neurosci - maybe I just need to aim for a lesser journal) is easily the hardest thing I've ever been involved in.

First, you have to make sure that whatever research you're trying to get published addresses some sort of novel problem. It has to be a little something, or a certain way of analyzing something, that nobody has ever done before. It has to fit into the current direction of whatever field you're working in. You also have to find the appropriate home for your data. Not every paper will make it into a high-impact journal - the big names for me would be Journal of Neuroscience or Brain Research. I pushed a second paper (that I was NOT, in fact, first author on) to the Journal of Biological Psychiatry, a second-tier neuroscience journal that was more likely to look kindly on my project that involves stress and antidepressants. The best advice I can give is that it takes a village to push a pub - get as many eyes on your manuscript as possible. This isn't a paper for class, and you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

Go here to get an idea of what's required for a paper.

 

[ADeadLois]

I've seen a lot of threads about people having research published and so I was wondering how do you get published? Most of the people I know usually only do a poster presentation

Thanks.

It really depends. I have worked in a research department at a hospital off and on for about 5 years. I have gotten my name on 4 abstracts and 1 manuscript, all in relatively big journals. However, I don't think my contribution to these was that signficant. I spent a few summers updating and maintaining a database where most of the data for these studies came from, so my name was on the studies merely as an obligation. As a result, I'm not going to play them up that much on my AMCAS.

Anyways, I think the best way to get published (if you really want to) would be to try to shadow a doc who's interested in research, or apply for a summer student research internship/fellowship. But like other people said, it's not at all necessary to get any publications. I wasn't involved in much of the science behind the studies I got my name on so I'm not going to harp about them on my applications.

 

[JMAT]

I dont imagine how someone, besides a professor, could get a paper published as first author because the person who runs the lab is the one who gets first author even if they had nothing to do with the research. In an undergraduate class of mine we had to write a mock manuscript for iGenetics journal. The conventions are so highly stringent its a pain! I think that graduate students typically are the ones who gain publication for their thesis project etc because who really finds major opportunity at the undergraduate level???

 

[ltrain]

first, it takes awhile. i'm always very impressed with undergrads who have publications. if you want a publication, find a lab and keep working there long term. whether or not the prof will throw your name on a paper also depends on the lab. you could try to find a lab in which you know undergrads have been published in the past.

i've been working in research full-time after college. after 18 months, i just finally got my first 2 pubs accepted. i did a lot of work on the projects and i'm the 4th and 5th author. it takes a long time to do the work and even longer for it to get accepted. and i'm also getting the chance to finally lead a project. which means at the end of year 3 of full-time research, i'll probably be submitting my first first-author paper. sigh.

 

[Hassler]

I dont imagine how someone, besides a professor, could get a paper published as first author because the person who runs the lab is the one who gets first author even if they had nothing to do with the research. In an undergraduate class of mine we had to write a mock manuscript for iGenetics journal. The conventions are so highly stringent its a pain! I think that graduate students typically are the ones who gain publication for their thesis project etc because who really finds major opportunity at the undergraduate level???

That is not correct. A person who has nothing to do with the research DOES NOT get first authorship, unless he is writing a review article about the field in general. Someone who has done the most work and probably the person writing the manuscript is usually the 1st author. PI's are usually the last authors in a research article.

 

[Monette]

That is not correct. A person who has nothing to do with the research DOES NOT get first authorship, unless he is writing a review article about the field in general. Someone who has done the most work and probably the person writing the manuscript is usually the 1st author. PI's are usually the last authors in a research article.

Word.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I too question how some ugrads are first-authors, especially considering the length of the peer-review process and the depth of knowledge required to push a paper through the peer-review process without the paper being rejected.

 

[Chopianista]

That is not correct. A person who has nothing to do with the research DOES NOT get first authorship, unless he is writing a review article about the field in general. Someone who has done the most work and probably the person writing the manuscript is usually the 1st author. PI's are usually the last authors in a research article.

As a cautionary note... Even if someone does the most lab work on a project ( a research technician, for example), this does not entitle someone to authorship. Most PI's expect a significant amount of intellectual contribution from the prospective author before they'll add your name to the paper.

 

[nubbey24]

I dont imagine how someone, besides a professor, could get a paper published as first author because the person who runs the lab is the one who gets first author even if they had nothing to do with the research. In an undergraduate class of mine we had to write a mock manuscript for iGenetics journal. The conventions are so highly stringent its a pain! I think that graduate students typically are the ones who gain publication for their thesis project etc because who really finds major opportunity at the undergraduate level???

Allow me to disagree with you on this point here. As an undergraduate I did just what you said is impossible. I completed my very own research project, and wrote up the results to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and I was first author on the publication. (Journal of Applied Physiology). What you say about the professor being the first author on publications, is in fact not the way it is most of the time. The professor is usually the person who is the last person on the list of authors, and the person who has done all the grunt work (collecting data), and writen up the manuscript (usually same person) is the person who will be afforded first authorship. It is the first person on the manuscript and the last person on the manuscript that are the most prestigous positions. The first person because they did the brunt of the work, and the last because it is usually their laboratory funds, and ideas that helped make the work in the manuscript even possible. I hope this helps clear up some misconceptions.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Allow me to disagree with you on this point here. As an undergraduate I did just what you said is impossible. I completed my very own research project, and wrote up the results to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and I was first author on the publication. (Journal of Applied Physiology). What you say about the professor being the first author on publications, is in fact not the way it is most of the time. The professor is usually the person who is the last person on the list of authors, and the person who has done all the grunt work (collecting data), and writen up the manuscript (usually same person) is the person who will be afforded first authorship. It is the first person on the manuscript and the last person on the manuscript that are the most prestigous positions. The first person because they did the brunt of the work, and the last because it is usually their laboratory funds, and ideas that helped make the work in the manuscript even possible. I hope this helps clear up some misconceptions.

Were you the one also responsible for defense of the paper during the peer-review process?

 

[psymedicus]

Working at a research lab while an undergraduate and having supervised high school and undergrad students, I've decided it really depends on the PI and the lab structure. Research can be really cutthroat. If there're a lot of senior staff who have a stake in the project (eg supervised, did preliminary work, wrote the paper), it'll be difficult to be published because most papers have only 5-6 authors. Some PIs think that doing all the grunt work is part of a student's job and he/she doesn't deserve more than a mention in the acknowledgements, while others will give authorship. It also depends on who did the analysis and wrote the paper; usually the writer will get authorship somewhere, but not necessarily first. My PI is very supportive, I wrote up a paper after doing conference presentations (first author, accepted to Pediatric Blood & Cancer), and I'm working towards another 2 hopefully before secondaries. I agree, writing a research paper is incredibly taxing and by the time you're done with it you never want to read it again because you've edited it 10 thousand times.

 

[nycpizza]

I worked at a neuro (epilepsy) lab for two years.... the publications just came naturally. I'm not sure what to say here... I guess spend alot of time at the lab you're at and discuss things with your PI?

 

[relentless11]

I dont imagine how someone, besides a professor, could get a paper published as first author because the person who runs the lab is the one who gets first author even if they had nothing to do with the research. In an undergraduate class of mine we had to write a mock manuscript for iGenetics journal. The conventions are so highly stringent its a pain! I think that graduate students typically are the ones who gain publication for their thesis project etc because who really finds major opportunity at the undergraduate level???

Traditionally, first author is reserved for the person who put in the most writing and research on the paper. On a paper with more than two authors, the second author is usually the one who contributed the next most amount of work, and/or mentored the first author (e.g.: an undergrad). The last author is usually the PI.

A few journals (e.g.: JAMA, NEJM) require you to follow this format, and require you to sign a form that the authors have significantly contributed to the paper. Ultimately, as an undergrad it is also very much dependent on the relationship you have with your PI in sharing the work, authorship, etc.

As an undergrad I had several publications including first-authorships in journals including peer-reviewed journals. The only time when I should have been first author but my PI put me as second author was when the paper was controversial, and lawyers may come calling. I don't see why undergrads who put in the amount of research can submit (successfully) a paper to a peer-reviewed journal.

Now, I'm a graduate student, I have continued this tradition of providing highly motivated undergrads with the possibility of publications. One thing we have been taught in grad school is to maintain a good relationship with our PI. This applies to publications and research. Clearly this also applies to undergrads. Its up to you and your PI. The PI will ALWAYS have first dibs on where his/her name goes, not to mention everything you did in the lab...since it is the PI's lab.

 

[dr.z]

I've seen a lot of threads about people having research published and so I was wondering how do you get published? Most of the people I know usually only do a poster presentation

Thanks.

Depends on your boss. If he/she thinks it is good enough, manuscripts will be prepared and sent to journals for review. It can then be accepted or rejected. If rejected, one can send it to other journals.

 

[Vizious]

Much of this depends on your PI/boss, how often they publish, and do they think your work is publishable. If you dont think you'll get published, you can still do poster presentations or try to publish in an undergraduate science journal (if your school has one). May not be as "good" as a "real" publication, but I would think that they would still show interest in science/research. Just my opinion.

 

[pokeytu]

It is very easy to get some type of poster presentation, particularly at annual conferences of student organizations such as BMES and SFB etc. Most faculty at universities will want to publish because when it comes to grants popularity counts and numbers matter. If you go and talk to your research advisor I can't imagine them not encouraging publication if they feel that the research is of a high enough quality.

Now the quality of research makes a big difference. I find it hard to beleive that undergrad research for 1 or 2 semesters is enough to have a publishable paper. I have 2 papers submitted after 2 1/2 years of grad school and most 2nd year masters students only get 1 or 2 papers out of it.

 

[bdibble]

http://www.box.net/signup/invitation/[email protected]