how important is a paper before applying?

[lolcats15]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi,
I am a current junior at college and I was interested in applying to MD/PhD programs. I currently work in a research lab (worked there since my freshman year), along with the other premedy ecs like volunteering, shadowing, leadership, etc... however I don't have a paper published yet (my lab has been working on a very intensive multiyear project and stuff has not been working out the way we would have liked it to...). I was wondering how important is it to have a paper published before you applied (we honestly should be finished with our project by next aug/sept if everything goes well, but that seems to never happen in a research lab!)? And a follow up to that is it worth to take a year off to get my name on a paper and then apply? I have also spent the past summer doing research and plan on spending this summer doing research.
Thanks in advance!

 

[Fencer]

Most successful MD/PhD matriculants do not have a scientific manuscript when they are been invited for interviews, but they have had significant research experiences. By the time of matriculation, quite a few of those research projects are in peer-review or already published, so that by the time MD/PhD students hit their PhD years, many (maybe 30-50%) have been co-authors in scientific research. A manuscript is evidence of significant research experience, but many students, particularly those who come directly from undergrad into the MD/PhD program do not have a published manuscript. Admission Committees are more concerned with the quality and quantity (time not number) of research experiences; a manuscript helps but it is not expected or required in the majority of circumstances.

 

[Labkid]

Most successful MD/PhD matriculants do not have a scientific manuscript when they are been invited for interviews, but they have had significant research experiences. By the time of matriculation, quite a few of those research projects are in peer-review or already published, so that by the time MD/PhD students hit their PhD years, many (maybe 30-50%) have been co-authors in scientific research. A manuscript is evidence of significant research experience, but many students, particularly those who come directly from undergrad into the MD/PhD program do not have a published manuscript. Admission Committees are more concerned with the quality and quantity (time not number) of research experiences; a manuscript helps but it is not expected or required in the majority of circumstances.

What do you suggest an applicant does if they do not have much time in a research position, lets say < 2 years? Is it possible to create a strong application around this and show that you belong in an MD/PhD program during an interview? I imagine it's very hard to compete with others who will undoubtedly know more about their project and the basic science behind it simply because most people have at least 2 years of research (from what I understand). So would applying to MSTP be worth the time or should that applicant direct their efforts to MD?

 

[HDACi]

What do you suggest an applicant does if they do not have much time in a research position, lets say < 2 years? Is it possible to create a strong application around this and show that you belong in an MD/PhD program during an interview? I imagine it's very hard to compete with others who will undoubtedly know more about their project and the basic science behind it simply because most people have at least 2 years of research (from what I understand). So would applying to MSTP be worth the time or should that applicant direct their efforts to MD?

It depends on what you were doing for < 2 years and how you can spin it. 2 years for someone applying as a junior is fine as long as you really became a part of the lab and can understand what it's like to do research -- you should at least have a poster (a local one is fine) from your work. Committing 7+ years of your life to an MD/PhD when you don't have a deep research experience is insane.

 

[Labkid]

It depends on what you were doing for < 2 years and how you can spin it. 2 years for someone applying as a junior is fine as long as you really became a part of the lab and can understand what it's like to do research -- you should at least have a poster (a local one is fine) from your work. Committing 7+ years of your life to an MD/PhD when you don't have a deep research experience is insane.

I work full-time there. I pretty much run two projects on my own, a third with a post-doc (since she's more an expert in cloning), make/maintain buffers/equipment that everyone uses. I've even started messing with our analysis software to make it easy to put images easy and get a histogram out of it (still working on it). I definitely understand what it's like to do research since that cloning project has been filled with trying every method possible to get the plasmid we need (imagine issues at every step possible, even sequencing done by third-parties). Now understanding what it's like to create a project rather than being assigned one with a defined goal and steps, that I do not know and I'm sure is whole levels harder than what I've experienced. Soon though my PI has mentioned getting me to do that so we will see if it is for me.

Either way I'm taking another gap-year, it's too late for me to go in this cycle. Whether I apply for the MD/PhD programs or not I don't know but right now it's a now because of my stats and probably will be next cycle too. I'm thinking more I'll try to transfer in after the first year in school and if that doesn't work just do research as an MD.

 

[dogeisdoge]

I applied to 20+ MD/PhD programs with ~7 months research experience at the time of application. I had a 36+ MCAT, 3.9+ GPA and no publications. I wound up with an acceptance to one fully funded non-MSTP program at the end of the day. I don't know how hard it is to get accepted with less research experience, but I know it happens.

 

[HDACi]

I work full-time there. I pretty much run two projects on my own, a third with a post-doc (since she's more an expert in cloning), make/maintain buffers/equipment that everyone uses. I've even started messing with our analysis software to make it easy to put images easy and get a histogram out of it (still working on it). I definitely understand what it's like to do research since that cloning project has been filled with trying every method possible to get the plasmid we need (imagine issues at every step possible, even sequencing done by third-parties). Now understanding what it's like to create a project rather than being assigned one with a defined goal and steps, that I do not know and I'm sure is whole levels harder than what I've experienced. Soon though my PI has mentioned getting me to do that so we will see if it is for me.

Either way I'm taking another gap-year, it's too late for me to go in this cycle. Whether I apply for the MD/PhD programs or not I don't know but right now it's a now because of my stats and probably will be next cycle too. I'm thinking more I'll try to transfer in after the first year in school and if that doesn't work just do research as an MD.

It sounds like a high level experience if you're working independently -- having one solid research experience is definitely enough. Something will come out in terms of a poster or pub if you're putting in that much effort (if it hasn't already). Having a pub is definitely not required for an MSTP but most of the applicants have a poster presentation even if it's just an undergrad symposium.

 

[Labkid]

It sounds like a high level experience if you're working independently -- having one solid research experience is definitely enough. Something will come out in terms of a poster or pub if you're putting in that much effort (if it hasn't already). Having a pub is definitely not required for an MSTP but most of the applicants have a poster presentation even if it's just an undergrad symposium.

I did a poster after four months in the lab however there still haven't been results from the project (the cloning one) because it's having lost of issues, for whatever reason. So my poster was really about troubleshooting cloning experiments.

I'm not too worried about a pub either, maybe something will be pub'd before next cycle but for now I just want to make sure I do solid science and actually understand what I am doing.

 

[downthedrain]

I had 4 publications when I applied and I think it made it up for my average application. I don't think it's necessary as long as you are actively engaged in your work and you clearly know you want to be a physician scientist. The biggest problems I've witnessed is that people apply to these programs without realizing that you are training to be a physician AND a researcher which are two very different things. You need to voice why you want to be a doctor, but also why you want to do research and prove that the research you are involved in now is not just for show. Without some decent research training when you come in to the PhD, I feel like a lot of people end up struggling in the beginning when it's critical to get your project off the ground.

So in the end, publications help, a lot in my opinion. Does it hurt you if you don't have them - it depends on the other applicants and their CVs, but is it the end of the world if you come from a great undergrad with good grades and a high MCAT, definitely not.