Nature Papers

[Walter Raleigh]

How rare are first-author Nature/Science/Cell papers for students at top-20 schools? @skk_ said between zero and three Stanford students each year had 'em; multiplying that out by about 20, that implies there's around twenty or thirty applicants a year with first-author Nature papers. Does this sound about right? It's a significant number of papers.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[puahate]

Sounds plausible.

 

[eteshoe]

Each of those journals are publishing hundreds* of articles each year so does it really matter?

* = not counting the additional thousands of articles from all the sub-journals w/i their publishing umbrella

 

[WedgeDawg]

The first guy I met at my school’s second look had a nature paper

 

[Walter Raleigh]

First-author?

 

[YasssQueen]

Usually, labs have postdocs or grad students who churn out nature quality work. I highly doubt either of those would let an undergrad become the first author of a paper. Those students that have first author papers are probably phd students who decided to apply to medical school.

 

[jessicajonesharvard]

Getting a first author in C/N/S is extremely rare- and difficult- even for a PhD candidate. 2~3 first author nature papers put you in a solid track for K grants (early investigator awards). That being said, middle author C/N/S is definitely possible for undergraduate students. It just depends on your luck and which lab you are in. I know several colleagues who worked 2~3 months during summer to get a decorated middle authorship in Science. It's really not a big deal.

 

[Goro]

How rare are first-author Nature/Science/Cell papers for students at top-20 schools? @skk_ said between zero and three Stanford students each year had 'em; multiplying that out by about 20, that implies there's around twenty or thirty applicants a year with first-author Nature papers. Does this sound about right? It's a significant number of papers.

The wise @LizzyM, whose school is up there in the ionosphere, has commented:
The proportion of top applicants who have a publication or a thesis is relatively low -- maybe <20% if you include undergrad thesis. Publications? Less than 5% have anything in a reputable peer reviewed journal.

Hence, it's going to be rare, but not unheard of. I've interviewed kids with a Nature or a Cell paper.

 

[efle]

Basically unheard of to first-author a Nature caliber paper while a full-time student in undergrad, barring something questionable like your parent being the PI. Even if someone takes a gap year or two in a full time research gig like NIH IRTA, it becomes more common to have a first author paper or two, but still very rare for them to be in the biggest journals.

That said I know one guy in our class had two papers while in college in 25+ IF Nature sub-journals. It does happen. I'd expect only a few of these peeps per year though and they'll cluster at the very tip top research powerhouses.

 

[dodolol21]

Basically unheard of to first-author a Nature caliber paper while a full-time student in undergrad, barring something questionable like your parent being the PI. Even if someone takes a gap year or two in a full time research gig like NIH IRTA, it becomes more common to have a first author paper or two, but still very rare for them to be in the biggest journals.

That said I know one guy in our class had two papers while in college in 25+ IF Nature sub-journals. It does happen. I'd expect only a few of these peeps per year though and they'll cluster at the very tip top research powerhouses.

lol a few days ago I saw some guy on LinkedIn current student at Stanford Med with 3-4 first author Nature and Cell papers

 

[efle]

lol a few days ago I saw some guy on LinkedIn current student at Stanford Med with 3-4 first author Nature and Cell papers

At schools like Stanford there are usually a few people coming in with full PhDs already, my class has at least a couple people I can think of. Maybe that's the case here. For the typical applicant straight from college or maybe one year out, that would be insane

 

[Goro]

SDNers have to remember that simply having a first author Nature etc paper is worthless if the rest of the app isn't good.

 

[TeddyBears]

SDNers have to remember that simply having a first author Nature etc paper is worthless if the rest of the app isn't good.

Sobering but absolutely spot on. No golden bullets in this process!

 

[Means]

An undergrad student with a first author C/N/S paper is either an extremely impressive person or an extremely lucky person that happened to join a lab with the resources to put out that caliber of work.

 

[931408]

Why does this matter? Are you going to be gunning for a C/N/S pub if you see others doing it?

Seriously, instead of focusing on the "noise" around you or even contemplating on the competitiveness on applicants, do good research that you enjoy and find advisers who will encourage and motivate you. Undergrad and grad school years are all about developing a foundation in science, learning how to think, acquiring different skills, finding a specific field that you envision yourself pursuing as an academic physician. It is not about gunning for a paper in these journals.

 

[FlowRate]

We had someone whose article in Nature was actually published during our first year. I think it was his master's thesis.

 

[Lucca]

An undergrad student with a first author C/N/S paper is either an extremely impressive person or an extremely lucky person that happened to join a lab with the resources to put out that caliber of work.

My money is on both. A good friend got a first author Nature pub in UG. She is brilliant, very hardworking, and had been doing research for all 4 yrs of UG at that point.

AND she picked the right project, with the right PI, at the right time.

She’s doing very well as a PhD student at Harvard.

 

[manofsteel9]

My money is on both. A good friend got a first author Nature pub in UG. She is brilliant, very hardworking, and had been doing research for all 4 yrs of UG at that point.

AND she picked the right project, with the right PI, at the right time.

She’s doing very well as a PhD student at Harvard.

Mad respect to your friend. Glad she’s devoting her career to the advancement of science- the world needs more people like her. Low-key sad that so many people with amazing research talent go into medicine, instead of the PhD route. But I guess the problem lies in the lack of compensation/job prospect after getting a PhD...

 

[Lucca]

Mad respect to your friend. Glad she’s devoting her career to the advancement of science- the world needs more people like her. Low-key sad that so many people with amazing research talent go into medicine, instead of the PhD route. But I guess the problem lies in the lack of compensation/job prospect after getting a PhD...

One can attempt both 😉

 

[Walter Raleigh]

SDNers have to remember that simply having a first author Nature etc paper is worthless if the rest of the app isn't good.

True: not even the Medal of Honor could salvage a 2.8 and 497 MCAT.

 

[puahate]

That 20% includes ANY publication, poster or presentation at a campus level or higher. The vast majority of matriculants have none

????? are you sure??? i understand pubs but even posters??????

 

[puahate]

Yup

@LizzyM can you confirm????? Does the 20% include posters?

 

[Walter Raleigh]

That is actually surprising that only 20 percent of accepted students at LizzyM's stratospheric school have publications or posters, as any author, even in a campus research conference!

 

[LizzyM]

That is actually surprising that only 20 percent of accepted students at LizzyM's stratospheric school have publications or posters, as any author, even in a campus research conference!

I never said, accepted applicants. I said applicants. I think 20% is accurate when speaking of applicants to top 20 schools. Those folks are disproportionately represented among the interviewed and admitted. to the top 20. Among the admitted, maybe 30% have a publication or poster at something beyond an on- campus event.

 

[scrapy]

I never said, accepted applicants. I said applicants. I think 20% is accurate when speaking of applicants to top 20 schools. Those folks are disproportionately represented among the interviewed and admitted. to the top 20. Among the admitted, maybe 30% have a publication or poster at something beyond an on- campus event.

Edit: redacted after I read the whole comment

 

[scrapy]

To expand on this, these can be at say at USC student research symposium, which invites from UGs across southern California, presentation at a national minority student research conference, and a poster at something similar. This is a real world example of a recent advisee

Are you saying the examples you listed would be considered "something beyond"? Or are you saying those examples are just as "ordinary”. I ask because although applicants have posters at off-campus, geographically-inclusive events, many of these events are somewhat open conferences.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

My money is on both. A good friend got a first author Nature pub in UG. She is brilliant, very hardworking, and had been doing research for all 4 yrs of UG at that point.

AND she picked the right project, with the right PI, at the right time.

She’s doing very well as a PhD student at Harvard.

Agree, it's definitely both luck and hard work. I got lucky enough during my gap years to be a middle author on a Nature-family paper (not the main Nature, but a very high impact factor subjournal). I got very lucky in that I was working on the right program at the right time, and a couple of the other authors were very big names in the field. I obviously put a lot of hard work into that paper, but I know people who worked just as hard or harder and never published/published in smaller journals just because they didn't happen to get the same luck. I'd imagine that a first-author, main-Nature paper requires about ten times the luck and hard work.

 

[scrapy]

Do you all think that pubs actually help that much? Considering how few have them, and considering how much work it takes to get on one (effort that could be spent elsewhere), what's the fine line? Do you all think we are better off doing first author posters/talks at as selective of conferences as possible rather than vying for a published manuscript? Personally I think so, because posters/talks are still tangible and leagues more controllable. I also highly doubt that middle author pubs are given more weight or even that much weight in general in the admissions process. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

Do you all think that pubs actually help that much? Considering how few have them, and considering how much work it takes to get on one (effort that could be spent elsewhere), what's the fine line? Do you all think we are better off doing first author posters/talks at as selective of conferences as possible rather than vying for a published manuscript? Personally I think so, because posters/talks are still tangible and leagues more controllable. I also highly doubt that middle author pubs are given more weight or even that much weight in general in the admissions process. It just doesn't make sense.

Sometimes I think people emphasize the publications themselves too much over the actual experience that led to the publication. I don't think the paper I mentioned in my previous comment helped me at all (in large part because it was only published after my app was submitted, though I did include it in updates to all my schools that accepted them). However, I do think that the employment experience that the paper came out of probably helped a lot more than the paper itself. I had a lot of posters on my application but no one really asked about any of them specifically - I did, however, talk a lot about the overall research experiences that led to those posters.

 

[931408]

Do you all think that pubs actually help that much? Considering how few have them, and considering how much work it takes to get on one (effort that could be spent elsewhere), what's the fine line? Do you all think we are better off doing first author posters/talks at as selective of conferences as possible rather than vying for a published manuscript? Personally I think so, because posters/talks are still tangible and leagues more controllable. I also highly doubt that middle author pubs are given more weight or even that much weight in general in the admissions process. It just doesn't make sense.

Publications are icing on the top. If the cake is not made well, pubs are not going to matter. In my experience, top research schools want to see a baseline MCAT and sub-sections before they even consider these as relevant to your candidacy.

 

[scrapy]

Publications are icing on the top. If the cake is not made well, pubs are not going to matter. In my experience, top research schools want to see a baseline MCAT and sub-sections before they even consider these as relevant to your candidacy.

I'm arguing that if you've done productive research for a while and you've got a good LOR, pubs that aren't first author might not help as much as a talk or a poster that is first author at an off-campus conference. If I were an adcom that would be my own opinion, as per the explanation I gave above. Of course, if you can, get posters, talks, and manuscripts, but only having mid-author manuscripts might leave some doubt as to whether you're carrying out a project to something tangible or if your just lucky enough to have a mentor who is. Now of course, the research LOR will still tell the tale even if your reserach products don't.

idk if you're applying in this current 2019 cycle, but it seems like the only people getting accepted even to mid-tier privates now are the EC superstars we muse about. The mid-tiers may have more leeway on stats, but this discussion about research productivity is still helpful info for people with the lower LM's shooting their shot at mid-tiers.

I wanted to get all this out because I spent a while in undergrad worrying more than I needed to about getting on a manuscript in one of my labs.

 

[931408]

I'm arguing that if you've done productive research for a while and you've got a good LOR, pubs that aren't first author might not help as much as a talk or a poster that is first author at an off-campus conference. If I were an adcom that would be my own opinion, as per the explanation I gave above. Of course, if you can, get posters, talks, and manuscripts, but only having mid-author manuscripts might leave some doubt as to whether you're carrying out a project to something tangible or if your just lucky enough to have a mentor who is. Now of course, the research LOR will still tell the tale even if your reserach products don't.

idk if you're applying in this current 2019 cycle, but it seems like the only people getting accepted even to mid-tier privates now are the EC superstars we muse about. The mid-tiers may have more leeway on stats, but this discussion about research productivity is still helpful info for people with the lower LM's shooting their shot at mid-tiers.

I wanted to get all this out because I spent a while in undergrad worrying more than I needed to about getting on a manuscript in one of my labs.

I agree with you, and I think it's great that you are trying to get posters or talks at conferences -- those are also important for academic purposes (get to see others' research, networking, etc.) and look good on a resume (obviously oral > poster). However, nobody is going to doubt your ability to do your own project by having a middle author paper. That means that you contributed to the study in some way, but you best know the study inside-out and be prepared to discuss your role in the work if asked in an interview. Also, I want to emphasize that you are not applying for a post-doc position as a grad student: you are, most probably, an undergrad who should be spending time on classes first and making sure you have a solid foundation in subjects that will be tested on the MCAT.

I know plenty of people who had an excellent relationship with their PI (thus, great letter) + a middle author in a paper, or simply just a glowing letter, who received interviews at T5 schools and eventually matriculated to Hopkins/Stanford/etc. You can do just fine in this process without having publications, which is why I saw it's icing on the top. You also can't assume you will do well in this process by having pubs without having the necessary MCAT composite and sub-section scores because this is a stats-driven process at first, anything else next.

TLDR: I am not an admissions officer but have gone through the cycle as an applicant. I would advise students to gain research maturity, work in a lab that gives guidance to their undergrads, be the leader of your project and most importantly learn how to think about your work and troubleshoot. The purpose of undergrad years is seriously to figure out if you want to do research as a career; the faster you figure it out and even better, if you find the area of research that you're interested in, the more contributions you can have in your future academic career.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

I think it is more like 30. @skk_ said that between zero and three Stanford students had first-author papers in Nature or similar journals. There are about twenty top-20 schools. Running the numbers, we get roughly thirty students who've got papers in journals like that. Even if there's on average one person with a Nature paper per top-20 school per year, that's twenty students every year.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

@skk_ was talking about first authorship - not coauthor, not second, third, etc. author. First author on a Nature, Science, or Cell paper. Does Stanford get many more of these research superstars than Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the like?

 

[subdermallight]

I feel like anyone here saying that undergrads apply to med school with first author Nature caliber IF papers has barely ever worked in a lab and doesn’t understand what this means. Post-docs work years full-time just to maybe get a shot at those journals and most don’t. Only the luckiest and hardest working undergrads will ever reach that; I’m sure they are out there but they are unicorns. Like no more than 10 in the whole US and Canada in any given application cycle (and that’s generous) if I may pull a figure out of my butt. But I’d put money on that.

 

[LizzyM]

I feel like anyone here saying that undergrads apply to med school with first author Nature caliber IF papers has barely ever worked in a lab and doesn’t understand what this means. Post-docs work years full-time just to maybe get a shot at those journals and most don’t. Only the luckiest and hardest working undergrads will ever reach that; I’m sure they are out there but they are unicorns. Like no more than 10 in the whole US and Canada in any given application cycle (and that’s generous) if I may pull a figure out of my butt. But I’d put money on that.

I concur. It would be very unusual and more likely than not those applicants would already have PhD or would be applying MSTP.

 

[907914]

I concur. It would be very unusual and more likely than not those applicants would already have PhD or would be applying MSTP.

More realistic question of premed research: What portion of students even apply with any significant research accolades? Even just one or two school symposium poster presentations, maybe something regional?

 

[LizzyM]

More realistic question of premed research: What portion of students even apply with any significant research accolades? Even just one or two school symposium poster presentations, maybe something regional?

Hard to say. I see the tip of the iceberg -- hard to generalize based on the applications of top 10-15% of the pool. Someone who sees a different subset of the pool might see something much different.

Why does it even matter? If you have it, great. If you don't, you aren't alone among people who eventually matriculate.

 

[907914]

Hard to say. I see the tip of the iceberg -- hard to generalize based on the applications of top 10-15% of the pool. Someone who sees a different subset of the pool might see something much different.

Why does it even matter? If you have it, great. If you don't, you aren't alone among people who eventually matriculate.

That would make sense being the top 10-15% likely all have some form of significant research.

It really doesn’t matter. As others have said, beyond the top schools, most schools generally don’t care for research. More of just a curiousity of mine.

Every pre-MED post about research on SDN seems to be asking things like “do my 10,000 hours of research and 15 1st author pubs meet the criteria?” I am just curious what portion even have just the most basic of research accolades, because SDN makes it seem like every other student is concerned about tippy topness (which, again, as stated, is absolutely NOT needed or even specifically sought after).

 

[LizzyM]

That would make sense being the top 10-15% likely all have some form of significant research.

It really doesn’t matter. As others have said, beyond the top schools, most schools generally don’t care for research. More of just a curiousity of mine.

Every pre-MED post about research on SDN seems to be asking things like “do my 10,000 hours of research and 15 1st author pubs meet the criteria?” I am just curious what portion even have just the most basic of research accolades, because SDN makes it seem like every other student is concerned about tippy topness (which, again, as stated, is absolutely NOT needed or even specifically sought after).

Back when the MSAR was published in hard copy (2010, 2011...) I recall that 86%+ of matriculants at every med school in the country reported research experience of some sort. However, correlation does not mean causation. It might be just as likely that 86% of matriculants have eaten a hamburger at sometime in their life. Research is really common although for many there is no progress beyond the basics.

 

[907914]

Back when the MSAR was published in hard copy (2010, 2011...) I recall that 86%+ of matriculants at every med school in the country reported research experience of some sort. However, correlation does not mean causation. It might be just as likely that 86% of matriculants have eaten a hamburger at sometime in their life. Research is really common although for many there is no progress beyond the basics.

Aside from the top schools where it is a necessity (or at least strongly recommended), research feels like scribing/EMT where students do it because they feel they need to in order to be competitive because of the whole 86% type thing. But in reality, those numbers are so high not because students need those activities but because they think they need them. Does that seem like an accurate assessment?

 

[subdermallight]

Back when the MSAR was published in hard copy (2010, 2011...) I recall that 86%+ of matriculants at every med school in the country reported research experience of some sort. However, correlation does not mean causation. It might be just as likely that 86% of matriculants have eaten a hamburger at sometime in their life. Research is really common although for many there is no progress beyond the basics.

Can we officially name this causation/correlation pre-med phenomenon the Hamburger Fallacy?

 

[aldol16]

First-author Nature paper? Pretty rare for a pre-med who isn't a non-traditional student (e.g. PhD or worked in industry for a long time). But having any sort of authorship on a paper published in a Nature-quality journal isn't that rare for students at top ten schools. At the end of the day, the important thing isn't having your name somewhere but rather being able to talk about your contributions and what you took away from it.

 

[LizzyM]

Aside from the top schools where it is a necessity (or at least strongly recommended), research feels like scribing/EMT where students do it because they feel they need to in order to be competitive because of the whole 86% type thing. But in reality, those numbers are so high not because students need those activities but because they think they need them. Does that seem like an accurate assessment?

Because they think that they need them or because they are switching to medicine from basic science or engineering.

Can we officially name this causation/correlation pre-med phenomenon the Hamburger Fallacy?

 

[Walter Raleigh]

Which do you think are more common for people at top-20 medical schools: first-author Nature papers, or Olympic medals?

 

[scrapy]

What I am saying is that ANY poster, presentation, or publication is already beyond. 80% of applicants have none of these. Less than 5% of applicants are associated with any “major” peer-reviewed publication or conference. The ones with 1st authorship in a “major” journal are probably measured in single digits.

Which do you think are more common for people at top-20 medical schools: first-author Nature papers, or Olympic medals?

Considering mid and low tier schools have Olympians I’d say that.

Are you even applying right now?

 

[Walter Raleigh]

Yeah: four interviews, three rejections and a waitlist.

 

[907914]

Yeah: four interviews, three rejections and a waitlist.

3 PII Rejects is a solid sign that the interview skills may be lacking....

Also, there are around 200 Olympic medalists every 2 years in the US, about half of those are less than 22 for typical application age, so an average of 50 college aged Olympic medalists each year. Let’s say half of them go to college, maybe 20% are going to be pre-MED....so probably like 5 Olympic medalists every year? So like 0.1% of the applicant pool...

 

[scrapy]

3 PII Rejects is a solid sign that the interview skills may be lacking....

Also, there are around 200 Olympic medalists every 2 years in the US, about half of those are less than 22 for typical application age, so an average of 50 college aged Olympic medalists each year. Let’s say half of them go to college, maybe 20% are going to be pre-MED....so probably like 5 Olympic medalists every year? So like 0.1% of the applicant pool...

Top schools and schools that overinterview give post II rejections routinely, not necessarily because of a bad interview.

 

[907914]

Top schools and schools that overinterview give post II rejections routinely, not necessarily because of a bad interview.

Righteous, thanks for the correction.