Lots of research, no publications

[Beaverfan]

I am currently planning on applying next cycle. I’d say for the most part that I am a fairly competitive applicant (ORM) – 3.9x, 52x, 200 clinical volunteering, 160 non-clinical, 85 shadowing, ~6,000 hrs research, 2 oral presentations and 4 posters. However, despite all the time that I’ve spent in lab, I don’t have any publications to show for it yet, and I may not by the time May 31 rolls around. My manuscript from undergraduate (2nd author) has been in final preparation for months, and my PI will most likely delay the publication of my current manuscript (also 2nd author) because they are looking to maximize the impact factor.



My question, then, is two-fold: Firstly, how poorly will it look to MSTPs to have such a huge amount of research but no publications? It’s not like I don’t have data – both of my PIs are just sitting on it. Secondly, if 1 / both of my manuscripts are indeed submitted or published as a pre-print sometime before the cycle opens, but I don’t have anything that’s been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal, will this make any difference, or is it functionally the same as having no publications? Unfortunately, this is the one aspect of my application that I can’t control, and it’s stressing me out. I know that it’s often said you don’t need publications to matriculate into an MSTP, but is this true? And to what extent? My field is niche, so it’s difficult to find many labs outside of the T30’s or so.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dimplesage]

I'm currently applying to MSTP's without any official publications. I had 3 posters, 1 paper under revision which was also a pre-print, and other papers being submitted when I first applied this cycle, and I've been fortunate to interview at quite a few places so far. In my experience, all of the directors I spoke to mentioned that publications were absolutely not necessary because they know it can be dependent on luck, what field you're in, etc. In my opinion, your posters and presentations are signs that you have been productive and if you can get your PI to mention the preparation of manuscripts in your LORs, I think that would help as well.

 

[Beaverfan]

I'm currently applying to MSTP's without any official publications. I had 3 posters, 1 paper under revision which was also a pre-print, and other papers being submitted when I first applied this cycle, and I've been fortunate to interview at quite a few places so far. In my experience, all of the directors I spoke to mentioned that publications were absolutely not necessary because they know it can be dependent on luck, what field you're in, etc. In my opinion, your posters and presentations are signs that you have been productive and if you can get your PI to mention the preparation of manuscripts in your LORs, I think that would help as well.

Thanks so much for the insight! That makes me feel much better. Good luck to you and I hope the rest of your cycle goes well!

 

[Neuronix]

I look for evidence of quality first author work in some capacity--either reputable conference presentations or manuscripts. It's not a mandatory thing for me to see, just bonus points. Undergrads get stuck on or left off publications all the time.

All the other middle author and undergrad or local conference presentations don't do much for me personally.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. There is no standard for this across adcoms or institutions.

 

[Beaverfan]

I look for evidence of quality first author work in some capacity--either reputable conference presentations or manuscripts. It's not a mandatory thing for me to see, just bonus points. Undergrads get stuck on or left off publications all the time.

All the other middle author and undergrad or local conference presentations don't do much for me personally.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. There is no standard for this across adcoms or institutions.

Makes sense to me. Unfortunately, I don't have either - my manuscripts are both second author, and all of my presentations have been at local / undergrad conferences. I've tried to convince my PI to let me present at some larger national conferences, but they typically refuse because travel is quite expensive. I'm not really sure what to do, then - I feel as if I've produced quite a bit of quality data, and my PI has told me as such, but I don't have very much to show for it...

That being said, I'd be interested in understanding what carries the most weight for you from a research perspective if first author publications / presentations at notable conferences are just a bonus. Is there any one singular factor that attracts you to an applicant (time spent in lab, strong writing, etc.), or is it a constellation of factors?

 

[Neuronix]

I wrote a sticky about it that is now ancient.

GPA, MCAT, and research experience get you in the door and continue to matter

Letters, interviews, essays, extracurriculars matter to get you interview and acceptance.

All of these things need to be at least decent to get the acceptance. How much they matter and how they're evaluated... Well there's no standard.

Where I work now, there's also an emphasis on would this person seriously consider us or are we just a safety program. This didn't exist as much at the top-5 program I trained at and was involved in admissions on the student side.