My project is proceeding at a snail's pace

[solitude]

---

Members do not see this ad.

And for my second thread of the day...

I've been working in the same lab for over a year, but am not anywhere close to getting a publication. It is cutting-edge basic science, and it takes a long time to perfect the experiments so that we can get publishable data. Furthermore, I've had to change paths a few times because the story hasn't worked out the way we thought. I'm now about a year away from applying to MSTPs. I know everybody says that (lack of) publications is not a very important factor in admissions, but is this true in the case of an undergrad who has worked in the same lab for 2 academic years and 3 summers full-time, and - at best - will have one 2nd-author paper in submission when applying? From a long-term perspective, would it be better to publish in a crappy journal before I apply (which I could probably pull off), rather than wait until after I apply to publish in a good journal?

And on a more general note, how does everybody go about their science in order to maximize the rate or quantity of publications? I know I will get bombarded with rhetoric about how undergrad science should be about learning science and not getting publications. While I agree with this philosophy, I am in a competitive lab at a competitive institution, and I don't think my PI adheres to this ideology.

 

[passion4atcg]

And for my second thread of the day...

I've been working in the same lab for over a year, but am not anywhere close to getting a publication. It is cutting-edge basic science, and it takes a long time to perfect the experiments so that we can get publishable data. Furthermore, I've had to change paths a few times because the story hasn't worked out the way we thought. I'm now about a year away from applying to MSTPs. I know everybody says that (lack of) publications is not a very important factor in admissions, but is this true in the case of an undergrad who has worked in the same lab for 2 academic years and 3 summers full-time, and - at best - will have one 2nd-author paper in submission when applying? From a long-term perspective, would it be better to publish in a crappy journal before I apply (which I could probably pull off), rather than wait until after I apply to publish in a good journal?

And on a more general note, how does everybody go about their science in order to maximize the rate or quantity of publications? I know I will get bombarded with rhetoric about how undergrad science should be about learning science and not getting publications. While I agree with this philosophy, I am in a competitive lab at a competitive institution, and I don't think my PI adheres to this ideology.

first off, I've worked in the same lab for 3 years straight (minus 1 summer) and I haven't got a publication. Although, we are close to finishing things. I believe when applying to MSTPs it is neccessary to show progress in your research, even if you are not close to publishing. Scientists know that science isn't a linear path and much success in science is due to not only hard work, but luck. Also, I am working completely independently, and thats why my research as taken so long. If you are working independently also, then that will explain the slowness in your project. Its almost impossible to start a project, finish it, and publish in 3 years as an undergrad (my story). Adcoms know you have other responsiblities. If you are going to stay in science, it would be more important to publish in a good journal, rather than a crappy one. Definitely. I wouldn't worry about a publication before applying. If you show progress and fully understand your project, the question you are trying to answer, and its significance, that should be good enough. Also, if you've worked hard, that should show in your LOR from your PI. For your second note, QUALITY, not quantity of publications matters in science. One awesome Science or Nature paper will override 10 publications in lower-tier journals. And the most important aspect of undergraduate research is to learn. For a while, I was caught up in "publishpublishpublish" mindset, and it wasn't good for me as a young scientist. You'll have enough worrying about publishing if you become a PI, so don't worry about it now. Science is a long, hard process. Things don't always work and you must become comfortable with delayed gratification and failure. Get used to it or get out. I hope this helps you. and i also hope this makes sense.

http://mdapplicants.com/viewprofile.php?id=5706

 

[TheMightyAngus]

And for my second thread of the day...

I've been working in the same lab for over a year, but am not anywhere close to getting a publication. It is cutting-edge basic science, and it takes a long time to perfect the experiments so that we can get publishable data. Furthermore, I've had to change paths a few times because the story hasn't worked out the way we thought. I'm now about a year away from applying to MSTPs. I know everybody says that (lack of) publications is not a very important factor in admissions, but is this true in the case of an undergrad who has worked in the same lab for 2 academic years and 3 summers full-time, and - at best - will have one 2nd-author paper in submission when applying? From a long-term perspective, would it be better to publish in a crappy journal before I apply (which I could probably pull off), rather than wait until after I apply to publish in a good journal?

And on a more general note, how does everybody go about their science in order to maximize the rate or quantity of publications? I know I will get bombarded with rhetoric about how undergrad science should be about learning science and not getting publications. While I agree with this philosophy, I am in a competitive lab at a competitive institution, and I don't think my PI adheres to this ideology.

You really shouldn't be thinking about publications until you are at the grad school level. Most undergrads have limited responsibilities in the lab and most of their work depends on the postdoc/grad student they are collaborating with. Few undergrads are conducting research on their own.

Plus, with the peer-review process, publications often take a year or more from the date of submission to the date of publication, since copious amounts of time is needed to address questions and perform subsequent experiments.

If I were you, I'd shoot for a poster-presentation at a research conference. Talk to your PI about it. There are many conferences that let students present preliminary data either orally or via poster. One of these would look just as impressive as a publication.

 

[Hard24Get]

One awesome Science or Nature paper will override 10 publications in lower-tier journals. And the most important aspect of undergraduate research is to learn.

The LOR from your PI will be the most important thing, guaranteed. You just need to show potential. I think 10 Science vs 10 lower-tier is an exaggeration if you can publish in slightly less prestigious (JEM) or workhorse journals. These days, volume really does play more of a role than it used to.

And now for my usual advice to people when the project isn't going well - get a second project and work on it on the side - if it pans out, you can focus on it more. Everyone in science should have at least 2 projects at any given time.

 

[_ian]

I had a project crash and burn at no fault of my own... and now I'm working with a graduate student again, instead of independently because our lab is overspent on grants. No publications, and likely nothing better than a couple acknowledgements. The lab might be moving to the other side of the country, because the other side of the country is floating an awful lot of money in front of my advisor. Research is the only impressive extracurricular on my application, and it has all been in this lab.

If anyone is screwed, it's me 😉

 

[SeventhSon]

traditionally the strategy has been to have multiple projects... some low risk that are almost certain to work, and other high risk which are unlikely to work.

when the high risk works, you may get a publication in a great journal, which of course isn't often.

 

[Aptamer]

Honestly, while easier said than done, don't worry about publications. Speaking for myself, I've worked in one lab for almost four years...two and a half as an undergrad and a year and a half full-time. I have no publications. Some things work, and some don't. Trust me, many, many, many people understand this...including md/phd/mstp committee members.

I work in a lab that publishes 15-20 times a year. From our perspective, we like to try many things, however, only a few work. To answer your general question, if you really wanted to accelerate your 'rate or quantity' of publication, take on more projects...provided you have the time. When I was in undergrad, I carried five projects at any given time...I nearly killed myself trying to get things work and subsequently, publish. I did controls, I learned new techniques, I collaborated with researchers inside and outside our institution, but in the end, my science didn't work. However, what I did salvage from all that time and effort was an understanding of how the pursuit of science works and a firm understanding of my field of study. While my publication list on my CV is still blank, people know that I understand what I do and what my scientific goals are. So ultimately, on one hand, I think it sucks that I have nothing to show for my efforts...on the other hand, I'm experienced and well-versed in what I do. My colleagues see that, my peers see that, and people outside of my institution (ahem...admission committees) see that.

To answer your first question, it depends on what your project is as well as what your PI wants. If s/he wants to be in a high-impact journal, you're going to have to wait. If s/he is cool and letting you have complete independence of the direction of your project, publish in wherever you want whenever you want. If you want a crappy journal, publish now...if you want Cell, go for it. Things take time to publish and you also have the possibility of being rejected, you have to rewrite, carry out more experiments, or resubmit to a different journal and go through this process over again. You have almost no control over how the peer review process is handled and the time frame by which you will actually publish is difficult to prognosticate. I think the number is 8% of papers submitted to Science gets published...I think I pulled this number from that article about peer review in The Scientist. It's very likely that you'll go through a long and arduous process to get published.

For my last thought, if you're the second author on this paper, where does the first author want to publish? This rests on him/her and not you. I'm assuming you're working for a grad student or postdoc, both of which will probably want to publish in a highest profile journal possible for their own future benefit. Where do they want to go with this work?

And for my second thread of the day...

I've been working in the same lab for over a year, but am not anywhere close to getting a publication. It is cutting-edge basic science, and it takes a long time to perfect the experiments so that we can get publishable data. Furthermore, I've had to change paths a few times because the story hasn't worked out the way we thought. I'm now about a year away from applying to MSTPs. I know everybody says that (lack of) publications is not a very important factor in admissions, but is this true in the case of an undergrad who has worked in the same lab for 2 academic years and 3 summers full-time, and - at best - will have one 2nd-author paper in submission when applying? From a long-term perspective, would it be better to publish in a crappy journal before I apply (which I could probably pull off), rather than wait until after I apply to publish in a good journal?

And on a more general note, how does everybody go about their science in order to maximize the rate or quantity of publications? I know I will get bombarded with rhetoric about how undergrad science should be about learning science and not getting publications. While I agree with this philosophy, I am in a competitive lab at a competitive institution, and I don't think my PI adheres to this ideology.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Few undergrads are conducting research on their own.

Granted, getting your friends to eat snow and let you record their body temperatures in exchange for buying them beer later may not be defined as "research" by some, but.....

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Everyone in science should have at least 2 projects at any given time.

Currently I have four, well five if you count the one that I just submitted an abstract for.