How many /journal/ publications is considered a lot?

[atile]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I realize that I have no frame of reference regarding journal count on ERAS. Would 5 publications (with first or second authorship) be a lot? Would 15? Would 20? Sorry for the ridiculous question, but I haven't been able to find a semi-decent answer so far 🙁

Thank you all!!

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

5 is a lot if you haven't earned additional degrees.

 

[J ROD]

To be safe, I would recommend at least 25 first author and IF you have to second author then probably closer to 40.

 

[Psai]

Depends. If you are peds then 1 is a lot. If you are derm then 10 is a lot

 

[grt398]

There's no good answer b/c there is an element to quality too...if you have one first author Nature paper it's going to dwarf 10 case reports/review articles. But I know applicants who took time off for research, but didn't do a PhD, with 60+ papers and about half of them first author. You'll find people with crazy numbers who are just insanely productive. Most people will be lucky to have 1 good first author article though, maybe a few if they were really productive and had the ability to data mine.

 

[familyaerospace]

Right now I have 3 peer-reviewed journal articles at first author, like 8 or 9 presentations (all I believe were first author), and a few other articles where they were not peer reviewed including one normal review article. Two of the journal articles were from undergrad work.

 

[CubsFan314]

Looking at my med school class, most medical students don't have first author papers from medical school, so having any, I suspect, would be an important distinction. More would, of course, be better, especially if looking at highly competitive specialties or programs. Better to have a first author paper than several second author papers.

 

[gobigorgohome22]

Most students at my school rarely have any. I know of a few with 1 or 2. I have 3. On charting outcomes, attached below, you can see what the average number of publications are for each specialty.

 

[Amba]

Right now I have 3 peer-reviewed journal articles at first author, like 8 or 9 presentations (all I believe were first author), and a few other articles where they were not peer reviewed including one normal review article. Two of the journal articles were from undergrad work.

Lol the question was not, "How many papers do you have?"

 

[piii]

Question: do publications from before med school matter at all? I would assume marginally, as long as the student continues research in med school.

 

[Salt Salt]

Question: do publications from before med school matter at all? I would assume marginally, as long as the student continues research in med school.

I've heard they're actually pretty meaningful, about the same as publications during medical school. After all, why wouldn't they be?

 

[Law2Doc]

For the specialties that like to see research, most people have a couple of publications. So if you have more than a couple that's impressive. And if you have even more than that it's "a lot".

As mentioned, if you were a scientist with an advanced degree before medicine, rather than just a premed college student, it's really not uncommon to have written and worked on a few papers a year every year since college, so there will be a few applicants with dozens of publications out there (20 would not be a record).

 

[Goro]

Here's a rough rule of thumb from the PhD side of the coin.

15 papers: PhD getting first Faculty job
30: Ass't Prof getting tenure
60: Making full Professor.

Any decent grad student should have 2-5 papers at thesis defence time.
A decent post-doc should turn out two papers a year.
A PI, at least three.

The giants in my own field can crank out 1/month!!

And here's Mt Olympian levels: a Nobel Laureate who had SIX Cell papers in one year!

I realize that I have no frame of reference regarding journal count on ERAS. Would 5 publications (with first or second authorship) be a lot? Would 15? Would 20? Sorry for the ridiculous question, but I haven't been able to find a semi-decent answer so far 🙁

Thank you all!!

 

[Amba]

Here's a rough rule of thumb from the PhD side of the coin.

15 papers: PhD getting first Faculty job
30: Ass't Prof getting tenure
60: Making full Professor.

Any decent grad student should have 2-5 papers at thesis defence time.
A decent post-doc should turn out two papers a year.
A PI, at least three.

The giants in my own field can crank out 1/month!!

And here's Mt Olympian levels: a Nobel Laureate who had SIX Cell papers in one year!

Appreciate the input. I assume those numbers for faculty positions reflect middle authorship papers as well?

 

[Goro]

Yup...that's total output. PIs need to know how the be part of, or assemble a team to solve scientific problems. This is THE thing now for getting an NIH grant.

Appreciate the input. I assume those numbers for faculty positions reflect middle authorship papers as well?

 

[familyaerospace]

Lol the question was not, "How many papers do you have?"

Well considering as I was told I needed way more than what I have and some people are saying that it depends on the specialty and other are saying that med students don't have any. Obviously since people are publishing and people are saying that I do not have enough, obviously the answer is that the answer is more than what I have. For the record, I am likely going into either neurology or internal medicine. If 3 publications, 9 presentations, and a book chapter is not enough by M1, I really don't know what they are aiming for.

@Goro's information is pretty accurate PhD wise as that is always what I was aiming for although he is making me feel like I did not perform as well as I should have. I suspect it is a field difference. When I was in undergrad, I used to help professors put together tenure and promotion packages so I saw how many of each they had at different stages of their careers.

 

[PL198]

Yup...that's total output. PIs need to know how the be part of, or assemble a team to solve scientific problems. This is THE thing now for getting an NIH grant.

so basically just getting other people to do their work for them, and then tack their name on at the end for some credibility?

 

[Goro]

No, it's all team work.

so basically just getting other people to do their work for them, and then tack their name on at the end for some credibility?

 

[Low Flow]

Right now I have 3 peer-reviewed journal articles at first author, like 8 or 9 presentations (all I believe were first author), and a few other articles where they were not peer reviewed including one normal review article. Two of the journal articles were from undergrad work.

How does a non peer reviewed review article work? What does that process entail? Is it just a literature review?

 

[familyaerospace]

How does a non peer reviewed review article work? What does that process entail? Is it just a literature review?

Of my non-peer-reviewed publications... I have three right now published and one in press, three were encyclopedia articles that were specially commissioned for me to write by the editor of the encyclopedia. That did more to improve my writing ability than likely anything I had ever done.

The other I was asked to take a peer-reviewed journal article, summarize it to 250-500 words, state how it could apply to my medical school, and submit it to Journal Scout which is my school's journal. It was definitely an odd experience to me to not go through a full peer-review. It was looked over, a single suggestion was made (basically one could tell I had not done this type of article before), and I resubmitted it and it is now accepted. Not sure when it will come out.

A full literature review would generally be peer-reviewed. I have to update something and actually submit a literature review to JHPEE just to get out another article. The editor is actually waiting for it.

 

[LostinLift]

In terms of ERAS, how would you report an abstract that you presented at a conference, that was then turned into a paper. Would that be abstract, presentation, and paper? Just presentation and paper?

 

[clementane]

Not trying to steal thread here, but can anyone clarify for me what a typical chart review research is? does any retrospective study count as one of them?

 

[Ophthoseidon]

In terms of ERAS, how would you report an abstract that you presented at a conference, that was then turned into a paper. Would that be abstract, presentation, and paper? Just presentation and paper?

Wondering this same question

 

[GadRads]

Here's a rough rule of thumb from the PhD side of the coin.

15 papers: PhD getting first Faculty job
30: Ass't Prof getting tenure
60: Making full Professor.

Any decent grad student should have 2-5 papers at thesis defence time.
A decent post-doc should turn out two papers a year.
A PI, at least three.

The giants in my own field can crank out 1/month!!

And here's Mt Olympian levels: a Nobel Laureate who had SIX Cell papers in one year!

Let's be realistic here, and I am speaking for basic science. These numbers are grossly inflated. I know many HHMI investigators, and the vast majority publish 1-3 good papers per year on the average. I can give you names to "PubMed" if you don't believe me. I know a postdoc who had 1 paper in 5 years, albeit in Nature and got a faculty position. In the department I worked (at a research powerhouse), we had new hires with 2-4 solid papers in a 4-6 yr postdoc. No one had 8 or more published papers from their postdocs, maybe only one published in Nature, Cell or Science; and he wasn't even the department's top choice.

The trend I have noticed is that labs with insanely high and seemingly quality productivity can, at times, suffer from problems with scientific fraud. There was a lab in my field with such productivity, and we were always cautioned that we read any papers from that group cautiously.

 

[familyaerospace]

In terms of ERAS, how would you report an abstract that you presented at a conference, that was then turned into a paper. Would that be abstract, presentation, and paper? Just presentation and paper?

I once asked my adviser what he did in a case like that. He said it depended on some factors and him explaining it confused me. Some of my presentations have papers attached to them and others don't. The ones with papers which were published in the conference proceedings simply for me stayed as presentations. If they were picked up by another journal for example COSPAR tends to publish things in Advances in Space Research, I would have had it separate.

 

[Goro]

Two can play this game.

As a post-doc, I had eight papers in ~6.5 years. Any HHMI PI cranking out 1 paper per year would get kicked out of HHMI very quickly. I actually did my grad and post-doc work in HHMI labs, so I know a little something from first-hand experience myself.

The rule of thumb I mentioned in my post comes from having looked at tons of faculty and post-doc hires, and seeing friends and colleagues get hired or go up for tenure, over the past 20+ years..

Let's be realistic here, and I am speaking for basic science. These numbers are grossly inflated. I know many HHMI investigators, and the vast majority publish 1-3 good papers per year on the average. I can give you names to "PubMed" if you don't believe me. I know a postdoc who had 1 paper in 5 years, albeit in Nature and got a faculty position. In the department I worked (at a research powerhouse), we had new hires with 2-4 solid papers in a 4-6 yr postdoc. No one had 8 or more published papers from their postdocs, maybe only one published in Nature, Cell or Science; and he wasn't even the department's top choice.

The trend I have noticed is that labs with insanely high and seemingly quality productivity can, at times, suffer from problems with scientific fraud. There was a lab in my field with such productivity, and we were always cautioned that we read any papers from that group cautiously.

 

[GadRads]

Two can play this game.

As a post-doc, I had eight papers in ~6.5 years. Any HHMI PI cranking out 1 paper per year would get kicked out of HHMI very quickly. I actually did my grad and post-doc work in HHMI labs, so I know a little something from first-hand experience myself.

The rule of thumb I mentioned in my post comes from having looked at tons of faculty and post-doc hires, and seeing friends and colleagues get hired or go up for tenure, over the past 20+ years..

One "paper" per year is probably on the lower end, however one paper every year in a Nature or Science level journal or a range of 1-3 very good papers in society-level journals per year is not little at all. Zhe Lu (HHMI) at Penn and the distinguished biochemist Ulrich Laemmli come to mind.

Even you said a decent postdoc should have 2 papers/yr but you "only" had 8 in a 6 yr post-doc. Does that mean you weren't decent? Regardless, the numbers you posted above are still on the very very high end for basic science and I feel they are generally inflated. 8 good papers in a 6 yr post-doc is very high, particular if they were first-author. If a post-doc started writing and publishing two papers year, I would start getting suspicious. Reminds me of the story of Mark Spector http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26694/title/My-Favorite-Fraud/

 

[scoKraz4]

If I were looking at applicants, I would look for strong letters of recommendation from their PI, just their past research experiences in general, and if they have anything published or just presented research somewhere. The last 2 would show me they clearly have an interest in research and the first would show they work hard and can contribute. Especially a med student coming to me with a nature pub, chances are it is a right place right time scenario..of course there are few people with it that have significant roles in the research and that has to be considered.

 

[Goro]

Nope, wasn't a decent post-doc at all. I was and am a great gene-jock, but protein biochemistry is an art that was my downfall. it didn't help that my post-doc advisor had a very hands-off mentorship style. About half of his (including me) floundered) and half were successful.

In hindsight, I think you're right that a paper a year might be OK, but I could and should have done better. And hindsight is always 20-20.

ANY productivity for a UG or medical student is excellent, outside of MD/PhD track.

Even you said a decent postdoc should have 2 papers/yr but you "only" had 8 in a 6 yr post-doc. Does that mean you weren't decent? Regardless, the numbers you posted above are still on the very very high end for basic science and I feel they are generally inflated. 8 good papers in a 6 yr post-doc is very high, particular if they were first-author. If a post-doc started writing and publishing two papers year, I would start getting suspicious. Reminds me of the story of Mark Spector http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26694/title/My-Favorite-Fraud/

 

[Hangry]

In terms of ERAS, how would you report an abstract that you presented at a conference, that was then turned into a paper. Would that be abstract, presentation, and paper? Just presentation and paper?

Presentation and paper. It is generally accepted that you have to submit an abstract to get accepted for a presentation, and most CVs I've seen have a "publications" section and a "presentations/abstracts" section. So the paper goes in publications and the presentation goes in the other one.

Now if the abstract and presentation were at separate meetings, it may be appropriate to list separately, but I personally would probably look at that as fluff unless there were significant differences in content.