MD/PhD or MD - Research with no publications

[Fdsa2495]

I have researched for about 3.5 years in a lab. Began with computational research as a bio major which caused me to spend more time learning how to research "computationally" rather than actually working on a project of my own. I helped out a grad student but my name is not on the paper. During my senior year I am currently working in the wet lab and have started a project of my own and not much results have come by. I will be applying this cycle and I really want to apply to MD/PhD programs but I do not have any publications.

The most I've done is gave oral presentations in front of graduate students about my research. For my computational research I have created some graphs with data but analyzing and actually writing a paper may still take some time. I have been taking research units and my PI had me write out a manuscript about my research.
My question is should I just forget about MD/PhD programs and focus on applying to MD schools. How important are publications? I would be able to explain both my projects thoroughly if asked as I have given multiple presentations about it and am doing all of the work.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Noctámbulo]

You do not need publications to successfully apply to MD/PhD programs. You might find it helpful to read this FAQ on applying to MD/PhD programs: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/what-are-my-chances-read-before-asking.539268/

 

[Fdsa2495]

You do not need publications to successfully apply to MD/PhD programs. You might find it helpful to read this FAQ on applying to MD/PhD programs: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/what-are-my-chances-read-before-asking.539268/

Thank you, I was trying to find a thread but wasn't able to find it, thanks for the link.

 

[efle]

My understanding is that pubs are the norm at the top level schools but not necessary overall

 

[aldol16]

For MD/PhD programs, publications would definitely give you an advantage, but I think a sustained research effort is also important. So is being able to write/talk about your research in a logical manner. And a strong PI letter. Those factors tell them more about your abilities as researcher than a publication or lack thereof. Whether or not you get a publication can depend on many factors that are independent of how good of a researcher you are.

 

[eteshoe]

My understanding is that pubs are the norm at the top level schools but not necessary overall

The only program I remember where everyone pretty much had a pub was the nih oxcam one. Of course at top schools there's always a few pubs here and there but was pretty normal not to have one (at least like 5 yrs ago or so when I interviewed)

 

[Lucca]

The only program I remember where everyone pretty much had a pub was the nih oxcam one. Of course at top schools there's always a few pubs here and there but was pretty normal not to have one (at least like 5 yrs ago or so when I interviewed)

In 2015 Stanford's MD-only class of 90 students included 40 who had published prior to matriculation -- that's almost half. In 2013 about 1/3 had published prior to matriculation.

I can only assume that this trend would have been at least consistent if not more pronounced in the MD/PhD cohort. Like you said, this is more like to be an outlier for places like Stanford (which explicitly want to train physician scientists) and NIH OxCam than for MD/PhD in general which values evidence that its students will stick with the scientist path long after it ends for most of their peers, i.e. matching into their desired residency

 

[BeddingfieldMD]

If you are interested in pursuing a career that includes research, then by all means apply to MD/PhD programs. Worst case (aside from getting no interviews anywhere) is you get accepted only to an MD program--in which case you can reevaluate how important an MD/PhD is to you and just accept the MD school.

Publications definitely help when applying to MD/PhD programs, but they are not required. Sustained research experience and proving to admissions committees that you know what you're getting into are more important.

 

[Shaq]

I have researched for about 3.5 years in a lab. Began with computational research as a bio major which caused me to spend more time learning how to research "computationally" rather than actually working on a project of my own. I helped out a grad student but my name is not on the paper. During my senior year I am currently working in the wet lab and have started a project of my own and not much results have come by. I will be applying this cycle and I really want to apply to MD/PhD programs but I do not have any publications.

The most I've done is gave oral presentations in front of graduate students about my research. For my computational research I have created some graphs with data but analyzing and actually writing a paper may still take some time. I have been taking research units and my PI had me write out a manuscript about my research.
My question is should I just forget about MD/PhD programs and focus on applying to MD schools. How important are publications? I would be able to explain both my projects thoroughly if asked as I have given multiple presentations about it and am doing all of the work.

Publications help, but are not required. When I was interviewing for MD-PhD programs I was once asked why my undergraduate research hadn't resulted in a paper, so it can be an issue, but it DEFINITELY is not the norm. I did have 2-3 papers (not as first author) during my post-undergraduate research experience, so that helped a bit.

Echoing the sentiments of many other posters here, I would agree that you need to have a strong LOR from your research adviser(s) and that you need to be able to explain your research clearly. You need to understand not only what you did, but also the rationale for your work, the conclusions and the future directions. This is critical - if you cannot do this, you stand very little chance of getting into the MD-PhD program. If I were you, I'd spend time with mock interviewers to practice talking about your research.

 

[DameJulie]

In 2015 Stanford's MD-only class of 90 students included 40 who had published prior to matriculation -- that's almost half. In 2013 about 1/3 had published prior to matriculation.

I can only assume that this trend would have been at least consistent if not more pronounced in the MD/PhD cohort. Like you said, this is more like to be an outlier for places like Stanford (which explicitly want to train physician scientists) and NIH OxCam than for MD/PhD in general which values evidence that its students will stick with the scientist path long after it ends for most of their peers, i.e. matching into their desired residency

Looks like that number is going on an upward trend. Probably by 2019, half of the matriculants will have a publication.

 

[moggat]

I applied MD/PHD with no pubs and had a good cycle, so N=1 but it certainly wasn't a problem. What's more important is being able to show the quality o your research--you should be doing publishable research, even i it doesn't necessarily get published. Your interviewers will know that there are a lot more elements that go into being published than are within your control. I did get asked once or twice about why my 3 years UGrad research didn't get published (administrative reasons) but it didnt seem to be held against me at all. Deinitely let them know about prospective UPCOMING papers though, that will help, even i they don't really count now.

 

[efle]

Stanford is a particularly pub-obsessed school, I think. I remember the secondary was pretty bare bones but included a box to enter your publications - and it explicitly said no posters or conference abstracts allowed!

 

[narla_hotep]

I applied MD/PhD this cycle with very similar research experience (3.5 years, a few presentations, but no pubs) and got a decent amount of interviews, got into 3 programs and waitlisted at 2 more. Sure, some of the higher tier places like Harvard (MD only interview for me) and Stanford (pre interview rejection) might prefer publications, but it's definitely not a requirement.

 

[Gcuvier]

In 2015 Stanford's MD-only class of 90 students included 40 who had published prior to matriculation -- that's almost half. In 2013 about 1/3 had published prior to matriculation.

I can only assume that this trend would have been at least consistent if not more pronounced in the MD/PhD cohort. Like you said, this is more like to be an outlier for places like Stanford (which explicitly want to train physician scientists) and NIH OxCam than for MD/PhD in general which values evidence that its students will stick with the scientist path long after it ends for most of their peers, i.e. matching into their desired residency

I’m actually in the reverse situation (1 yr of research w/ a publication). Would this productive year make MD/PhD an option for me? Please advise. Thanks!

Edit: the research was done in my last year of undergrad. I had transferred from a CC if it matters.

 

[JoaoMoutinho]

I’m actually in the reverse situation (1 yr of research w/ a publication). Would this productive year make MD/PhD an option for me? Please advise. Thanks!

Edit: the research was done in my last year of undergrad. I had transferred from a CC if it matters.

The one year would be an absolute minimum for just about any MD/PhD program, and having at least another year would probably be necessary to be competitive even though you already have a publication. It is becoming increasingly common for people to take 1-2 gap years to do research full-time after having done research for multiple years in undergrad (I did, and am certainly better off for it). I think there is only one student in my cohort who did not take at least one gap year, and at least half of us did 2+. It's not necessary, but can definitely be helpful. It is difficult to tell you what would be advisable in your situation without knowing the whole picture.

There are several MSTP program directors active in the Physician Scientist forum–you would likely get a clearer idea if you posted there with more specific information.

 

[Gcuvier]

The one year would be an absolute minimum for just about any MD/PhD program, and having at least another year would probably be necessary to be competitive even though you already have a publication. It is becoming increasingly common for people to take 1-2 gap years to do research full-time after having done research for multiple years in undergrad (I did, and am certainly better off for it). I think there is only one student in my cohort who did not take at least one gap year, and at least half of us did 2+. It's not necessary, but can definitely be helpful. It is difficult to tell you what would be advisable in your situation without knowing the whole picture.

There are several MSTP program directors active in the Physician Scientist forum–you would likely get a clearer idea if you posted there with more specific information.

Will do! I’m currently in my first gap year and have found no success in getting into a lab precisely because of only have one year of undergrad research experience despite the pub.

 

[Lucca]

I’m actually in the reverse situation (1 yr of research w/ a publication). Would this productive year make MD/PhD an option for me? Please advise. Thanks!

Edit: the research was done in my last year of undergrad. I had transferred from a CC if it matters.

Like JM said I think it would be better to have a more substantial experience under your belt. The pub is nice but you also need more experience to be seriously competitive.