Impact Factor & psychiatry applicants: what's too low?

[235750]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Quick question to both you PDs out there, as well as residents, attendings, etc, who evaluate applicants:

In short:
In assessing MS4 applicants, how important to you is the impact factor (IF) in determining whether or not their publications are a plus to their app? I don't have a lot of time to make it to the 40+ journals, but what would you think about a person who publishes in the 3-4 range?


My thoughts:
I'm just a normal med student who plans to go into psychiatry, no dual degree. I would love to have time to edit my manuscripts with care and get them into better journals, but it's just not an option for me, plus their application fee is higher too.

The problem is, I don't want to come off as being some sort of parasite to the research process. Truth be told, I think there is a glut of unhelpful psychiatry journals out there that aren't serving their intended purposes, eg advancing knowledge in the field. I don't want to be lumped into this category by PDs and have my hard work backfire on me. Does that make sense?

As a general rule I try not to go below 4. Now I'm thinking, 3-4 isn't so bad....what do you all think? Like a young man at a pub on a Friday night, I feel my standards are slowly dropping as time goes on...

Again, I'm not taking about publications in general, but rather the IF in regards to assessing a psych applicant. I would imagine the bar would be set a bit lower for us. Also, I'm planning to go to a community program or some other low/middle tier site for my residency.

Thank you as always for your comments.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Unless you're aiming at a "top 10" (whatever that is) academic program with intent of building an academic career, it really doesn't matter. The fact that you have cared enough to do work that was publishable is already a plus. Most of our applicants will have nothing, or perhaps an abstract somewhere. Everything else is icing on the cake. What IS important, imho, is that YOU actually care about what you're publishing...that you're not just padding out the CV because you heard "you need to have publications" somewhere, and that you went through the motions for that reason.

 

[whopper]

A problem with PDs is one may write a paper with a good "impact factor" but the PD is not aware of the research enough to know of it's true impact.

For one to know if the paper has good academic impact, they have to know the subject well and be informed of what's going on with the research. Very few people have that knowledge unless they've thoroughly kept up with the research in that specific topic.

Take for example psychopathic personality. Very few psychiatrists don't even know what that is. Of those few, even less of them know what the current research is in that area.

A person could write a landmark article in the area of a psychopathic personality and several PD won't know what the heck it is or it's impact.

Aside from that, I completely agree with OldPsychDoc. It's hard to have a good research paper done before residency. It's somewhat easier to have one done by fellowship but it's not easy either.

 

[SmallBird]

One would perhaps hope that the quality of the research will not be assessed based on the impact factor of your chosen journal. I have recently completed some research in medical education, and although my hope is that it will prove to be of great significance to the field, the highest impact factor of any journal covering this topic ("Medical Education") is just over 2! I have heard that they reject 95% of their submissions, but perhaps due to the nature of the field, their impact factor does little to emphasize this fact.

 

[235750]

What IS important, imho, is that YOU actually care about what you're publishing...that you're not just padding out the CV because you heard "you need to have publications" somewhere, and that you went through the motions for that reason.

I definitely do care about the topics of my research, but I will admit that I publish papers/abstracts only to help boost my CV.

I loathe research. By that, I mean the process one has to go through, eg the IRB approval, trying to get funding, etc. I enjoy coming up with the idea and actually doing it, but that's a pretty small part of 'research' as I know it.

For example, if I constructed my research proposals with a timeline that was honest, it would include 6 months for my co-investigators to get back to me for a paragraph worth of edits. In reality I call this period "editing" when it actual fact it's just clinicians who don't care because they're not going to be 1st/2nd author

What I'm trying to gauge is, as I'm not going to be published in Science, is this worth my time? It sounds like it is so I'll probably continue doing it so long as I don't dip too low in the IF scores.

(Also, i don't mean to knock IRBs, I know they are completely necessary)

 

[235750]

One would perhaps hope that the quality of the research will not be assessed based on the impact factor of your chosen journal.

I agree 100% with this, and with what Whopper said.

In a perfect world the PD or whoever's reading my application would just pick up my articles and read them. But I'm sure they're too busy for that

Using the IF might be like the USMLE in that it gives a quick- if not accurate - method of gauging the quality of the applicant. And just like the standardized exams, I'm sure there is a lower cutoff point.

 

[nitemagi]

As a resident and doing interviews for several years, and as a research resident, I think it matters minimal. What it shows is some level of organization and interest in research early on. I've never seen an applicant who had any papers in the niche they would like to research.

More useful in my mind is someone with an authentic dedication and a clear idea of where they want to go, or even more importantly where their deficits are and what they want to work on.

 

[Doc Samson]

Agree with what's already been said - pubs on residency applications are, for the most part, used as an indication that you have the discipline and organization to stick with a project and write it up in a coherent manner. Thus, IF is almost entirely irrelevant except if you're applying to a research-track program somewhere. That said, an article in Nature will certainly raise some eyebrows no matter which institution you're applying to.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

....Using the IF might be like the USMLE in that it gives a quick- if not accurate - method of gauging the quality of the applicant. And just like the standardized exams, I'm sure there is a lower cutoff point.

Actually, I'd compare the IF more to "medical school reputation" as a quick (and poor) assessment of quality. It may catch the eye of Dr. AverageProgramDirector, but if he/she is basing a decision to interview or not on that alone, then they're not looking at the rest of the application.

(And btw--in most of the world, NO ONE KNOWS what "impact factor" is, just like no one really knows whether or not Michigan's medical school is really better than Ohio State's or Duke's.)

 

[Psychiatrypd]

Since you said you "LOATHE" research, the IF is totally irrelevant as you do not want to do research. Find programs that are doing what you get really excited about. Then craft your application so that the program director understands your level of understanding and commitment to that type of psychiatry. True dedication and commitment are backed up not only by words, but by relevant experiences and then, in an essay, by statements that show how much thought and energy you have put into those experiences.

 

[loveoforganic]

One would perhaps hope that the quality of the research will not be assessed based on the impact factor of your chosen journal. I have recently completed some research in medical education, and although my hope is that it will prove to be of great significance to the field, the highest impact factor of any journal covering this topic ("Medical Education") is just over 2! I have heard that they reject 95% of their submissions, but perhaps due to the nature of the field, their impact factor does little to emphasize this fact.

This is the point I was going to make. Depending on the area of your research, there may not even be a high IF journal that fits the area.

 

[atsai3]

If you're trying to pad your CV in order to apply to residency, then publishing in journals with an IF in the 3-5 range will be fine and will help you at most competitive programs. That quality range includes journals like the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, and Psychosomatics.

If you loathe research and don't intend on staying in research after you get into a competitive residency and you already have a few publications under your belt, then maybe you should just focus on other things. The marginal benefit you derive from spending more time grinding out a few more IF 3-5 type papers is pretty small.

-AT.

 

[235750]

If you're trying to pad your CV in order to apply to residency, then publishing in journals with an IF in the 3-5 range will be fine

I'm not trying to 'pad' my CV so much as build a solid application. I do care about my research, even if I hate doing it.

maybe you should just focus on other things. The marginal benefit you derive from spending more time grinding out a few more IF 3-5 type papers is pretty small.

I'm president of the psych club, I talk to psychiatrists/residents to try to build a solid network, I do my own funded research....what else should I do?

I know I need decent step 1/2 scores, to do well in my clinicals, and not fail anything. Beyond that, what else is there?

Maybe nothing? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

I have nightmares about scrambling in 2 years time (seriously) and I'd really like to avoid that if at all possible. I'm an osteopathic student so I know that puts me at a disadvantage. I would prefer to stay in or around Philly because I bought a house that has lost some value and need to ride things out. This adds to the stress as you might imagine

I'm not looking at UPenn, literally anywhere within an hour of the city is fine. It would be lovely to match at a site that I actually like, but the way the match has progressed over the last 10 years, I'd really just be happy being a psychiatrist.

I appreciate the consensus regarding the IF score. Thanks again for your comments

 

[notdeadyet]

There was a recent Psych meeting at my medical school and pre-clinical students were asking similar questions.

The takeaway seemed to be that if you perform well on your Step 1/2, get good evals and a few honors on your clinical rotations (especially Psych), and work well enough to get a few strong LORs, you're 95% there for most psych programs.

When the issue of research was brought up, most of the psychiatrists in attendance indicated that it's a nice add-on to applications at the more competitive programs, but isn't necessary at most of them. The response was largely, "Do you like research? Are you interested in it? Then pursue it. If you're not? Don't."

There was also consensus that although research is a nice-to-have, it makes for poor compensation for failed boards or poor third year performance.

I know I need decent step 1/2 scores, to do well in my clinicals, and not fail anything. Beyond that, what else is there?

You seem to have the right idea. Given that you're not hell-bent on a "top 10" program, if you follow the plan you're outlining, I can't imagine you not finding a happy home. If you end up applying with 4 pubs, you'll be far ahead on that yardstick than most psych applicants...

 

[235750]

You seem to have the right idea. Given that you're not hell-bent on a "top 10" program, if you follow the plan you're outlining, I can't imagine you not finding a happy home. If you end up applying with 4 pubs, you'll be far ahead on that yardstick than most psych applicants...

Just woke up from one of my nightmares about scrambling. Hopefully your post, plus some warm soymilk, will put me back to sleep 🙂

I'm not the best standardized test taker so perhaps I'll devout more energy to step 1 prep. Cheers for your post

 

[whopper]

I definitely do care about the topics of my research, but I will admit that I publish papers/abstracts only to help boost my CV.

I hate and love doing research.

Research usually doesn't bring in money unless you become very big and respected in the field. Then, even if you do the research, there's several ethical arguments against mixing it with making money.

I have several research ideas. E.g. I'd like to expand the existing research data on people who are conditionally-suicidal (E.g. give me a sandwich or I'll kill myself!) I'm also convinced that MMORPG playing is addictive and mimics several aspects of substance abuse. I wanted to expand on the existing data. Another idea I've had is I wanted to update the current data on those found not guilty by reason of insanity because most of the data forensic psychaitrists use is from the 80s. I'm currently working on research in the area of the psychological autopsy. Each one of them would require that I put in at least 20 hours per week for several weeks. Then, before I submit everything, I'm sure I'd hit a zone where I'd have to do 40 hrs for at leats some time.

To mix that in with my current schedule would nix the possibilty of maintaining my marriage, the hope of having children, and being able to have some alone time where I can have something of a social life. What I love about research is when you do it, it IMHO is one of the only reliable indicators that you are a psychiatrist of quality. Every researcher I knew, knew their material. I've met so many clinical doctors that don't know what they're doing, but to be with a guy who actually advanced a field--those are the doctors that really knew what they were doing (as a demographic--there's several great clinical doctors out there). Doing research--if it gets somewhere is very satisfying and fulfilling.

Someone brought up the idea of asking for some grants. I've been involved in that. I can't stand that either. Writing a grant proposal is a big pain in the butt (at least for me), while seeing patients is a joy to me. Doing research, while I like it, there's the chance you might not come up with the results you want, which will then possibly nix the result of months of research. That is a very heartbreaking experience. I've been through that--I did brain surgery (each one about 3-5 hrs) on dozens of rats and no significant results turned up. 6 months of my life down the tubes, though I learned from it.

I'm currently in what is ironically a very strange and uncomfortable zone for me. I got several people asking me to do things that I'm not sure I'd be happy doing, but are bigger stake and a part of me thinks that I'm being a fool to not take up these opportunities. If I don't take up those opportunities, they may slip.


I don't think what I wrote answers what was brought up, but I wrote it because these are thoughts that some of you residents may encounter once you get some successful research off the ground. Being in a comfortable zone where you're making good money doing clinical and then considering doing more research that'll not bring anywhere near as much money, but may open some big academic doors, I'm still wondering what to do.