How much research is needed for the PhD?

[Hard24Get]

I am wondering what you all have seen at your schools. I know many people who have graduated from the PhD portion of the program with 1 publication + or just one on the way. Yet, I have 1 published, one under revision, and two in progress (+ co-authorships), and my thesis committee says I can write contigent upon submitting one of my two works in progress!

This seems unfair to me as other people are running around with PhDs from my school and back in the clinics, without any publications as of yet, and apparently I need 3! Which situation is more the norm in your school - no papers or three? Please let me know how I should be.

Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[physicsnerd42]

I am wondering what you all have seen at your schools. I know many people who have graduated from the PhD portion of the program with 1 publication + or just one on the way. Yet, I have 1 published, one under revision, and two in progress (+ co-authorships), and my thesis committee says I can write contigent upon submitting one of my two works in progress!

This seems unfair to me as other people are running around with PhDs from my school and back in the clinics, without any publications as of yet, and apparently I need 3! Which situation is more the norm in your school - no papers or three? Please let me know how I should be.

Thanks

How can you possibly complete a PhD with 0 publications? A PhD generally means that you've contributed something unique to the body of scientific knowledge. If you didn't publish in a respected peer-reviewed journal, you've contributed nothing (and thus don't deserve a PhD). Even 1 seems low to me, but I guess it depends on your advisor and department. If your department is asking you for three then, as unfair as it might be (compared to what other MD/PhDs at your school have done), it's something you have to do. Good luck!

 

[Hard24Get]

Thanks for your input, but since you are not in the PhD program yet I should clarify some things for you. Often, a manuscript is put together and submitted, but then you have to wait for reviews and then revise the manuscript accordingly. Because of this back and forth and clinical timing, many MD-PhDs (at least at my school) are back in clinics as their papers are being published. The expectation is generally that your work would result in two significant publications, rather than waiting for all of this to come through. Though publishing this manuscript and even another is a given for me by the time I graduate, what you may not realize yet is that too many delays can set a MD-PhD back a whole year.

It is your thesis committee, not your department, that decides when you graduate, but the school can set the tone. So I am wondering if other MD-PhD students in grad school or beyond have found such discrepancies.

How can you possibly complete a PhD with 0 publications? A PhD generally means that you've contributed something unique to the body of scientific knowledge. If you didn't publish in a respected peer-reviewed journal, you've contributed nothing (and thus don't deserve a PhD). Even 1 seems low to me, but I guess it depends on your advisor and department. If your department is asking you for three then, as unfair as it might be (compared to what other MD/PhDs at your school have done), it's something you have to do. Good luck!

 

[physicsnerd42]

Thanks for your input, but since you are not in the PhD program yet I should clarify some things for you. Often, a manuscript is put together and submitted, but then you have to wait for reviews and then revise the manuscript accordingly. Because of this back and forth and clinical timing, many MD-PhDs (at least at my school) are back in clinics as their papers are being published. The expectation is generally that your work would result in two significant publications, rather than waiting for all of this to come through. Though publishing this manuscript and even another is a given for me by the time I graduate, what you may not realize yet is that too many delays can set a MD-PhD back a whole year.

It is your thesis committee, not your department, that decides when you graduate, but the school can set the tone. So I am wondering if other MD-PhD students in grad school or beyond have found such discrepancies.

Oh, if that's the case, I apologize for my assumption. Yeah, that actually sounds right for an MD/PhD, especially since you're on such a tight clock. The whole point of your committee is to determine if you've done work that will result in new and significant science. In that case, I would definitely talk to the thesis committee and your advisor. Sorry again for not knowing what I'm talking about. Good luck!

 

[thos]

Sounds like you have a tough committee Hard24Get. I guess some of that falls on your mentor, either for suggesting those individuals or for not being stronger in his/her assertion that you've done enough. Have you talked to your mentor about this? Does your committee really appreciate the time crunch an MD/PhD has? Our program has an MSTP "mentor" that, among other things, sits on our committee and acts as an advocate in such times.

To answer your question, our paper requirements are department-dependent. My department put in place an absolute requirement of one paper accepted, with the general practice being to shoot for three. While I agree that the purpose of a PhD is to contribute new info, I'm not sure an absolute requirement is fair. In my case for a number of reasons, I left the lab with no pubs. We had submitted and re-submitted one paper, but I finally got to a point where my committee felt I had done enough work, and the details of papers were kind of caught in a limbo between my co-mentors (bad idea, by the way). I finally said "Here are three manuscripts I've prepared, do what you must." Once I left, because of a large grant being prepared, my work lay idle while I slogged through the clinics. Finally the ball was picked back up, but unfortunately my papers were picked at and what emerged is one big paper which has now been accepted for pub. I was definitely ready to graduate, and I had done the work, but in my case a pub record didn't show that. In your case, I think you have a real legitimate gripe, and maybe you should approach an impartial outsider for some advice. After that, get someone on your committee, mentor or not, to fight for you.

 

[Gfunk6]

Which situation is more the norm in your school - no papers or three? Please let me know how I should be.

Thanks

If it's any consolation at the department I recently got my PhD from, the policy is 3 first-author papers or 5 years, whichever comes first. I have to say, based on my observation alone, it seems that five years with one or two publications is more common than three publications in less than five years.

Sadly, as you probably know, "publication requirements" vary wildly from institution to institution AND from department to department WITHIN an institution! There is no real standard for graduate education unlike medical education.

I have met a few people that have graduated with no publications (usually they got their name on a paper after they graduate though). Generally, these are they guys that get disenchanted with science and end up going into business or law. Their mentors kind of let them graduate with the understanding that they will not do PhD-level biomedical research anymore.

 

[Vader]

At our program, we don't have an official publication requirement, though thesis committees generally expect that a significant amount of work has been done that will eventually lead to one or more first-rate publications. The thought is that whether a paper is accepted or not is somewhat beyond your control, while you have much more control over what type of body of work (i.e. your thesis) you accomplish.

For practical purposes, however, it is often easiest (and IMO somewhat of an abdication of responsibility) for committees to judge whether your work is acceptable for a thesis if they see it has appeared in peer-reivewed publications. In the biological sciences, it is not uncommon for students to include their papers directly in their thesis.

 

[Hard24Get]

Sounds like you have a tough committee Hard24Get. I guess some of that falls on your mentor, either for suggesting those individuals or for not being stronger in his/her assertion that you've done enough. Have you talked to your mentor about this? Does your committee really appreciate the time crunch an MD/PhD has? Our program has an MSTP "mentor" that, among other things, sits on our committee and acts as an advocate in such times.

I dunno, maybe I'm crazy. Last year, I decided to take the fourth year to not be rushed and get more publications and my committee commended me and said "come back when you're ready to ask". My chair is also the chair of someone who was granted their PhD the other day with 1 pub, so I was inclined to think I was being singled out. I had a long talk with my mentor, and even though she seemed pissed yesterday, she was like "oh, yeah, ha ha, they always try to get you to take the next step".

My official form has "Yes" under the permission to write section but under commentary it says I have permission "contingent" upon submission of this paper. But they know this is a big in vivo experiment for me and though I hope the result will be as amazing as it was last time, we still need some more mechanistic insights before sending it out.

So I am wondering how serious they are because the MD PhD coordinator (I guess our "mentor") is upset and wants to meet with me (I am scheduled to start surgery in September). Yet, I don't want to start a pissing contest if this is just a "cultural" thing to "encourage" my growth.

I should say that I agree with others that you can learn to be a PhD with or without a ton of papers - people get scooped, reviewers get greedy, experiments don't pan out - that's research. It doesn't mean you haven't learned how to think like a scientist.

 

[Gyric]

My mentor told me on day 1, 3 first author papers (accepted) were required no matter the time to move on to the clinic ... I cranked those out in 2 years of med school and 2 years of grad school so actually finished before everyone else in my entering class. I basically went into each committee meeting with new peer-reviewed/published data ... I did have to get aggressive with them, which I think is important ... I have seen grad students stuck for years because they do not defend themselves. The MD/PhD is just step 1, my advice is to work hard, be aggressive and move on as fast as possible.

 

[bluegrass_druid]

Our program requires 5 first author publications with a maximum of 2 reviews. I never thought that it was too unreasonable, given that a good PhD project should encompass a full understanding of a question, and that answering (or attempting to answer) any scientific question usually warrants papers in the forms of pilots, technical advancements, and/or several step-wise observations or conclusions. You are making me think that my program is too tough on us. I believe that they are lenient regarding papers-in-review, however.

 

[Hard24Get]

This is in the biological sciences in peer-reviewed journals? Most of the good ones seem to require that several advancements be made in a single paper (thus, most end up like thos with many potential stories forcibly clustered together). How many people actually accomplish this in 3-4 years at your program? I have only heard of so many papers with those getting their PhD in the social sciences or with a select few that have stayed extra years.

Our program requires 5 first author publications with a maximum of 2 reviews. I never thought that it was too unreasonable, given that a good PhD project should encompass a full understanding of a question, and that answering (or attempting to answer) any scientific question usually warrants papers in the forms of pilots, technical advancements, and/or several step-wise observations or conclusions. You are making me think that my program is too tough on us. I believe that they are lenient regarding papers-in-review, however.

 

[Habari]

At our program, we don't have an official publication requirement, though thesis committees generally expect that a significant amount of work has been done that will eventually lead to one or more first-rate publications. The thought is that whether a paper is accepted or not is somewhat beyond your control, while you have much more control over what type of body of work (i.e. your thesis) you accomplish.

For practical purposes, however, it is often easiest (and IMO somewhat of an abdication of responsibility) for committees to judge whether your work is acceptable for a thesis if they see it has appeared in peer-reivewed publications. In the biological sciences, it is not uncommon for students to include their papers directly in their thesis.

Ditto Vader on our schools policy. Publications aren't equal, and putting a number on them seems a little silly. Furthermore, while publications are an important pragmatic metric that obviously impacts careers, demonstrating the ability to think independently and creatively by the end of the phd is more important than having a Cell paper. Obviously the latter doesn't hurt.

 

[BozoSparky]

At my graduate school, it seems to vary from group to group. Some advisors have you out in 5. Some will get you out extremely early if you happen to pull off a HERO experiment. Some have paper requirements that serve as a guide to the amount of work done. Basically, it's up to the boss...whoever that may be. But I agree with the above...one nice paper can be much more impressive than 3 POS papers.

 

[Neuronix]

This seems unfair to me as other people are running around with PhDs from my school and back in the clinics, without any publications as of yet, and apparently I need 3! Which situation is more the norm in your school - no papers or three? Please let me know how I should be.

To chime in about variability, the last MD/PhD in my lab graduated in 6 years total (3 pubs). My mentor has told me there's no reason I shouldn't be able to do the same, and I'd say I'm definately on a 6-7 year track. In a neighboring lab, a MD/PhD just graduated with 0 first authored publications. My department tends to be more lax about these things, and the PIs are very sensitive to getting MD/PhDs out quickly.

 

[thos]

Our program requires 5 first author publications with a maximum of 2 reviews. I never thought that it was too unreasonable, given that a good PhD project should encompass a full understanding of a question, and that answering (or attempting to answer) any scientific question usually warrants papers in the forms of pilots, technical advancements, and/or several step-wise observations or conclusions. You are making me think that my program is too tough on us. I believe that they are lenient regarding papers-in-review, however.

Ouch. I'd be the 40 year-old grad student.

 

[venevite]

Our program requires 5 first author publications with a maximum of 2 reviews. I never thought that it was too unreasonable, given that a good PhD project should encompass a full understanding of a question, and that answering (or attempting to answer) any scientific question usually warrants papers in the forms of pilots, technical advancements, and/or several step-wise observations or conclusions. You are making me think that my program is too tough on us. I believe that they are lenient regarding papers-in-review, however.

I agree with the others- 5 papers published where? I've seen pple publish in the J of neurosurg cancer cases or even NEJM- that's not good enough for a basic science PhD frankly.

 

[dr.z]

My department took off the publication requirement since some PIs never publish. You can't blame the student if the PI doesn't publish.

 

[QofQuimica]

The rule I've heard is that you should have done three papers' worth of work, even if you don't actually publish anything. I think that's fair. Besides differences in mentors to consider, some students are luckier than others in terms of getting their projects completed, and it's not fair to penalize people who got hard projects that didn't work out through no fault of their own.

I've had two papers accepted and am writing the third now, so I'm squeaking by according to my own rule of thumb. Some of my later work is not complete, and it probably won't be published for several months or years until some of the younger students finish up the projects. I'm guessing I will end up with five or six publications from my dissertation work in the end, assuming I live that long. Probably half will be first-author. My friend, who graduated from the same lab at the same time, doesn't have any papers yet. Most of his projects didn't work, but he definitely deserves his Ph.D. IMO b/c he worked very hard, and it's not his fault that the molecules wouldn't cooperate. My PI and I are going to put him on my third paper because he made one of the reagents that I used, and he improved the literature procedure significantly. He might ultimately end up with even more papers than I will because other lab members are also using his reagent for their projects, but probably they won't be first-author papers since his own projects failed. We have often joked that there ought to be a Journal of Negative Results....

 

[bluegrass_druid]

Sorry, I should have been clearer about our requirements. The neuroscience requires 2 peer-reviewed independent work publications (which are the important ones), and I think at least one other (a review or another piece of work), but they are lenient as long as the project is worthwhile. The "all things bio" dept. requires 3 papers + 2 reviews, but have been known to be lenient. It is worthwhile to note that getting out in 8 years or less is pretty rare. Most people spend 5 years on their PhDs. The "+2" refers to work done that is often not the primary project; ie. establishes methodology, finishes an old project of the PI or is a review. it is sort of misleading and intimidating up front, but it is designed to force us to practice writing and to begin writing as soon as we enter the lab. all in all it is likely not any more punishing than any other school...just a little longer than most.

 

[SubAtomicStringTheory]

I agree with the others- 5 papers published where? I've seen pple publish in the J of neurosurg cancer cases or even NEJM- that's not good enough for a basic science PhD frankly.

I agree 5 papers in what journals????
5 in J NEUROMUSC SYS? (impact factor of 0.05) easy enough to do.


But the NEJM has an impact factor of 38.570 (I'd be happy with that). That is higher than Nature. And clinically relevant basic science articles can be found in the NEJM.

 

[mdphdhopeful]

bashing nejm as a bad journal. wow you know nothing. impact factors, its all about the impact factors.

 

[venevite]

bashing nejm as a bad journal. wow you know nothing. impact factors, its all about the impact factors.

NEJM is not a bad journal, it is a good clinical, not basic science, journal. Not for a serious basic science/translational researcher. Clinical research yes. How many top labs subscribe to NEJM? Not any, where I got my PhD- one of the very top biomedical schools in the US. I don't aspire to publish in NEJM- Nature medicine, yes. I haven't read NEJM in years.
Impact factor depends on citations, who is citing NEJM? Other clinical journals. Don't expect NEJM to be taken seriously by any top flight basic scientist, especially when you are looking for a job at a top institution.

 

[venevite]

bashing nejm as a bad journal. wow you know nothing. impact factors, its all about the impact factors.

That's so naive - it's much more than impact factors. A lot of clinical journals and review journals have high impact factors: doesn't mean much to basic scientists, and doesn't help your CV much getting a good job at a top school, all things being equal. Why get a PhD if your goal is to publish in NEJM or other clinically oriented journals? How do you differentiate yourself from an MD only? Think!

 

[arc1479]

That's so naive - it's much more than impact factors. A lot of clinical journals and review journals have high impact factors: doesn't mean much to basic scientists, and doesn't help your CV much getting a good job at a top school, all things being equal. Why get a PhD if your goal is to publish in NEJM or other clinically oriented journals? How do you differentiate yourself from an MD only? Think!

This is a common misconception among graduate students. NEJM is a clinical journal, yes. However, 'clinical research' refers to not just drug/device trials but also to basic science pertaining to disease with a human angle to the story. Think of it being like Nature Genetics in some ways where the process entails discovering a mutation in a family or group of individuals with a particular disease, and then proving that that mutation is infact the cause of the disease in cell culture or an animal. NEJM publishes such research routinely. Bottom line- NEJM wants data from human samples in addition to animals. It does not care what 'genre' that research falls under. BTW, there are not that many clinically oriented journals with outstanding impact factors. I can only think of NEJM, JCI and Nature Genetics (which is often not thought of as one). If one does disease oriented basic research, adding supportive human data only makes your study more robust and relevant.

 

[arc1479]

This is a common misconception among graduate students. NEJM is a clinical journal, yes. However, 'clinical research' refers to not just drug/device trials but also to basic science pertaining to disease with a human angle to the story. Think of it being like Nature Genetics in some ways where the process entails discovering a mutation in a family or group of individuals with a particular disease, and then proving that that mutation is infact the cause of the disease in cell culture or an animal. NEJM publishes such research routinely. Bottom line- NEJM wants data from human samples in addition to animals. It does not care what 'genre' that research falls under. BTW, there are not that many clinically oriented journals with outstanding impact factors. I can only think of NEJM, JCI and Nature Genetics (which is often not thought of as one). If one does disease oriented basic research, adding supportive human data only makes your study more robust and relevant.

Add Nature Medicine to the above list.

 

[arc1479]

Add Nature Medicine to the above list.

I need to get off my computer..
But, the Nature Med and JCI are different from NEJM and Nature Genetics (even though all are clinically oriented journals) in the fact that NEJM and NG want data from human samples in addition to animal data, whereas NM and JCI will let you through the door with disease oriented basic science that employs only animals.

 

[tbo]

I've heard some people measure 'paper quality' by how many times it's been cited - a paper-based impact factor, if you will (rather than a journal impact factor). Quite frankly, this actually seems to make sense. If your work is furthering or acts as launching pad for other people's work, you've made an impact (what the Impact Factor is intended to measure).

 

[Hard24Get]

At the hospital I work at, I've heard many Directors also measure 'paper quality' by how many times it's been cited - a paper-based impact factor, if you will (rather than a journal impact factor). Quite frankly, this actually seems to make sense. If your work is furthering or acts as launching pad for other people's work, you've made an impact (what the Impact Factor is intended to measure).

So in that case, we should just all write useful review articles, as these are the most cited. For the record, how often do basic scientists read and publish in NEJM? All the fabulous basic science medically related stuff seems to come out of Nature Genetics/Natue Med/JCI/JEM....

Anyway, wasn't this thread supposed to be about me?

 

[venevite]

This is a common misconception among graduate students. NEJM is a clinical journal, yes. However, 'clinical research' refers to not just drug/device trials but also to basic science pertaining to disease with a human angle to the story. Think of it being like Nature Genetics in some ways where the process entails discovering a mutation in a family or group of individuals with a particular disease, and then proving that that mutation is infact the cause of the disease in cell culture or an animal. NEJM publishes such research routinely. Bottom line- NEJM wants data from human samples in addition to animals. It does not care what 'genre' that research falls under. BTW, there are not that many clinically oriented journals with outstanding impact factors. I can only think of NEJM, JCI and Nature Genetics (which is often not thought of as one). If one does disease oriented basic research, adding supportive human data only makes your study more robust and relevant.

I am not a gradute student . I am an MD PhD. And I repeat, NEJM is basically a journal for clinicians- that is a well known fact, just look at its readership.
To quote: Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc. 2003 January; 91(1): 42–46:
We chose journals that we believed spanned a broad range of perceived quality and would be familiar to internists in the United States: American Journal of Medicine (AJM), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), Archives of Internal Medicine (Archives), Hospital Practice (HP), JAMA, Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM), The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and Southern Medical Journal (SMJ). All of these journals are categorized as journals of “clinical medicine” by ISI.* Some also publish basic science research and are therefore categorized as “life sciences” journals as well. We included these “hybrid” journals (AJM, Annals, Archives, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM)