Importance of Research publication.

[zusammen]

This is Research thread with a couple of things I just want to be clear on.


There are two different types of research one can do:

1. Basic Scientific Research - usually in a lab setting like those of the lab courses you take in college, and usually investigating a scientific phenomena that can be indirectly related to medicine but primarily to a topic in Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, etc.

2. Clinical Scientific Research - usually done through studies and experiments with patients, and directly related to medical phenomena.

I'm a Biochemistry major, so I'll be looking into the Basic Scientific Research field more thoroughly but since I am also pre-med, I won't overlook the Clinical Research topics. My first question is, in the eyes of the med schools, is either one ever better?

My second question is, what is the importance of authoring a publication? It seems that the bar for med school admissions is consistently being raised, and it would seem likely that a publication will be more and more expected as the years pass. With that said, my third question is, which of the types of research (above) is more likely to yield that research publication?

Let us assume that I am already aware that any research is good research, and that I should choose a topic that I am genuinely interested in, and let's also assume that I will have a decent relationship with the PI and other grad students working on the project.

Edit: Additional question, what type of hours are you expected to put into research at a lab? I understand that this is totally subjective, and depends on the lab you work at as well as your PI. A couple of students I know who have publications have put in 30-50+ hrs./wk at their labs. This is a lot for unpaid lab work. However, I do want lab work to be a major part of my application so I will be down to put in at least 20 hrs./wk in my lab work. Is this expected?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dreaming big]

Clinical will lead to more likely publication

 

[Drexon]

Most people applying to medical school DON'T have a publication. However a majority of students applying to medical school do have research experience (clinical or basic science).

You don't need to publish to be considered a very competitive applicant (you will need a pub for MD/PhD even though many people tell you it's not a requirement, it's an unspoken requirement ), there are other things you should be focusing on rather than research to be viewed as a competitive applicant.

As for which research is considered to push papers out the fastest.. clinical vs basic science and in what field... It really depends on the field and the research and PI. My friend is getting a second author publication for the work she did in our lab. But the thing is.. she's already in a PhD graduate program ! Haha my PI sat on the data for almost 2.5 years before the post doc and my PI decided to write up a manuscript for the work (still relevant tho). So my bottom line is that you will never know concerning publications but that's from my own experience.

As for basic science vs clinical for ADCOMs.. I always figured some research better than none and that as long as you had an active role and not just pushing paper work or cleaning beakers then you're fine.

Best of luck

 

[Frazier]

This is Research thread with a couple of things I just want to be clear on.

There are two different types of research one can do:
1. Basic Scientific Research - usually in a lab setting like those of the lab courses you take in college, and usually investigating a scientific phenomena that can be indirectly related to medicine but primarily to a topic in Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, etc.

2. Clinical Scientific Research - usually done through studies and experiments with patients, and directly related to medical phenomena.

Well actually there is more than that if you know much about public health research, etc. [Insofar as that it often doesn't involve bio/chem lab settings nor directly related to medical phenomena.]

 

[duress]

Undergrad publications to me seem like absolute luck both in choice of PI and when you join the lab. Of course there's some element of personal dedication, but it totally feels secondary.

 

[Naijaba]

Yes, publishing in a good journal generally requires blood, sweat, and LUCK as an undergrad. However, many undergraduate schools have undergraduate journals that are attainable if you work hard enough.

I've heard that medical schools *prefer* wet lab (hard/basic science) research because it is less "fluffy" than clinical research, if you take my meaning. As another poster said, it is easier to get a clinical publication through a case-study or whatnot, whereas wet lab research requires laborious hours in the lab.

 

[Maneuver]

It is easierto get a clinical publication through a case-study or whatnot, whereas wet lab research requires laborious hours in the lab.

^ This is so true.

Also getting a pub isn't just luck. It's a combination of doing research on the following:

• the type of research you will be doing - techniques involved, training required, time required for trials, how many trials etc. Look at previous studies published by the PI. Many biologists I've met stick to what they know (and use the same or similar techniques/assays again and again).
• Subject of research - Has something similar been done before? Make an assessment about the probability of getting positive (publishable) results. This can sometimes be difficult, but you could possibly enlist the help of more knowledgeable friends (grad students etc) when making an assessment
• The PI you will be signing up with (ask around, if you're not socially smooth you might risk leaving the wrong impression or not getting useful information). You want to find out if he/she is the type to put your name on a paper at all.

In my case, I "selected" my PI with every intention of obtaining a pub and a LOR.

 

[TexasPhysician]

While not many undergrads publish, it would be great if you could.

It is relatively useless in your career to spend hours doing bench research without a publication. Some medical schools like seeing you put effort into something that at least smells of research because those students are more likely to continue research in the future.

Those that have already published something are already an asset, whether it be clinical or bench. The publishing process (research, writing, grants, editing, etc.) is very long and is an acquired skill of sorts.

Publishing in anything > any other research experience. Not having to carry medical students through the publishing circus is priceless.

 

[duress]

^ This is so true.

Also getting a pub isn't just luck. It's a combination of doing research on the following:

• the type of research you will be doing - techniques involved, training required, time required for trials, how many trials etc. Look at previous studies published by the PI. Many biologists I've met stick to what they know (and use the same or similar techniques/assays again and again).
• Subject of research - Has something similar been done before? Make an assessment about the probability of getting positive (publishable) results. This can sometimes be difficult, but you could possibly enlist the help of more knowledgeable friends (grad students etc) when making an assessment
• The PI you will be signing up with (ask around, if you're not socially smooth you might risk leaving the wrong impression or not getting useful information). You want to find out if he/she is the type to put your name on a paper at all.

In my case, I "selected" my PI with every intention of obtaining a pub and a LOR.

true, but even those steps you listed have a large element of luck for the typical undergraduate; starting with whether the PI will accept you for his/her lab in the first place, whether the brief time you have (in comparison with a formal Ph.D student) produces anything worthwhile, whether the reviewers got up on the wrong side of the bed, and so on.

while I do acknowledge there's a secondary element of personal determination, luck plays far too significant a role in the whole process for a publication to become the standard of a meaningful research experience, though I do like the expression 'icing on the cake'.

 

[orrghead16]

(you will need a pub for MD/PhD even though many people tell you it's not a requirement, it's an unspoken requirement )

I agree that MD/PhD applicants tend to be far more published than MD-only. Bomb GPA and MCAT are requirements, but I would say <30% of MSTP interviewers I met on the trail were listed on pubs that were actually in press or published; of those the vast majority were a middle or low author. Less than 1 in 20 had first authors. About half those that had publications truly published had more than one. Probably over a half had publications "in preparation". From what I have heard, most classes seem to be about half and half published to unpublished. Take that for what it is worth; just something I paid close attention to this last year.

However, a truly BA letter from your PI absolutely cannot be underrated. IMO, it is the most important criteria along with your interview (Of course, high GPA and MCAT are merely requirements). I saw quite a few people with publications get rejected this year, while others without got in. That said, interviewers do and enjoy talking about your publications. It makes for a spring board for a good interview.

I don't think it is necessary to publish per se, but I think it is necessary to be in a laboratory and with a PI that will allow you to publish if you generate, contribute, and stay around long enough. Most pre-med researchers simply do not fulfill enough to get into that category; 2 years of 10 to 20 hours a week is generally just not enough in wet science. If you happen to love research and stick around all undergrad and generate some sick data, then it really would be a pity to leave with only a university poster to throw on your CV. The best PIs will champion their students (whether undergrads, post- or pre-docs), above (almost) anything else. I cannot emphasize enough how important getting in with an excellent PI can be and how many potential problems it solves.

 

[Drexon]

I agree that MD/PhD applicants tend to be far more published than MD-only. Bomb GPA and MCAT are requirements, but I would say <30% of MSTP interviewers I met on the trail were listed on pubs that were actually in press or published; of those the vast majority were a middle or low author. Less than 1 in 20 had first authors. About half those that had publications truly published had more than one. Probably over a half had publications "in preparation". From what I have heard, most classes seem to be about half and half published to unpublished. Take that for what it is worth; just something I paid close attention to this last year.

However, a truly BA letter from your PI absolutely cannot be underrated. IMO, it is the most important criteria along with your interview (Of course, high GPA and MCAT are merely requirements). I saw quite a few people with publications get rejected this year, while others without got in. That said, interviewers do and enjoy talking about your publications. It makes for a spring board for a good interview.

I don't think it is necessary to publish per se, but I think it is necessary to be in a laboratory and with a PI that will allow you to publish if you generate, contribute, and stay around long enough. Most pre-med researchers simply do not fulfill enough to get into that category; 2 years of 10 to 20 hours a week is generally just not enough in wet science. If you happen to love research and stick around all undergrad and generate some sick data, then it really would be a pity to leave with only a university poster to throw on your CV. The best PIs will champion their students (whether undergrads, post- or pre-docs), above (almost) anything else. I cannot emphasize enough how important getting in with an excellent PI can be and how many potential problems it solves.

Haha so true. Undergraduate research alone seldom can get someone into a MSTP program. One of my former mentors is on the ADCOM for the MSTP at my school. She told me that on average applicants who wish to pursue MSTP generally take an extra year or two after undergrad to get more research time under their belts. Usually this extra time would reflect their serious dedication to the cause (translational medicine) and hopefully would generate a publication for the applicant. Although the process of getting publish is very tedious and sometimes a matter of luck. The process of paper submission to either rejection or acceptance can take anywhere from weeks to months and which results in having a paper in limbo. All the while you're left to ponder if your data will still be "up to date" or will someone else come in and swoop my work etc. Haha but i digress.

best of luck on the road to those interviews!

 

[jla314]

Edit: Additional question, what type of hours are you expected to put into research at a lab? I understand that this is totally subjective, and depends on the lab you work at as well as your PI. A couple of students I know who have publications have put in 30-50+ hrs./wk at their labs. This is a lot for unpaid lab work. However, I do want lab work to be a major part of my application so I will be down to put in at least 20 hrs./wk in my lab work. Is this expected?

It depends on what you want to get out of it. I only did about 10-15 hours/week during the school year but I worked two summers full time. My PI is awesome and has gotten me 3 publications out of roughly two years of work, and I have a first author paper in the works now.

You can gauge the kind of hours you'll need to put in based on the type of research your potential PI is doing. If you'll be culturing cells, be prepared to live on your cells' schedule rather than your own (going into lab to split cells at midnight is not uncommon). If you do computational biology, you can most likely make your own hours and probably accomplish a lot on your own at home.