No point in research if you're not going to publish?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

CaliGirl14

No worries.
Removed
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,779
Reaction score
11
I recall reading somewhere a couple of years ago that research doesn't really matter if you're not going to publish. Is that still true or was I going crazy at that time? Does it still apply to the top 20 research heavy schools?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Research, in theory, shows critical thinking skills and ability to move from a realm of the conceptual to more of a practical world. This applies to a lot of research experiences, in my opinion, but certainly not all. You also get some hands-on skills out of it, too, if anything.
 
Research is always better than no research. Lots of people are not able to publish during UG, but getting research experience is still valuable.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I recall reading somewhere a couple of years ago that research doesn't really matter if you're not going to publish. Is that still true or was I going crazy at that time? Does it still apply to the top 20 research heavy schools?

It matters for personal growth. ;)
 
You still need to do it to check off the research checkbox on your app. Residencies probably only care about published research though, so that sucks if you have to do it all over again in med school for pubs.
 
You still need to do it to check off the research checkbox on your app. Residencies probably only care about published research though, so that sucks if you have to do it all over again in med school for pubs.

It wouldn't matter too much if you had pubs from UG. I don't think competitive residency programs would say "Oh, it's cool, he published a couple papers in UG, he's good to go!" The expectation of productive research during med school would still be there.
 
It wouldn't matter too much if you had pubs from UG. I don't think competitive residency programs would say "Oh, it's cool, he published a couple papers in UG, he's good to go!" The expectation of productive research during med school would still be there.

Either way it's going to be easier to be involved in research in medical school if you have experience.
 
It wouldn't matter too much if you had pubs from UG. I don't think competitive residency programs would say "Oh, it's cool, he published a couple papers in UG, he's good to go!" The expectation of productive research during med school would still be there.

What about research published during gap years at a medical school/hospital? I really don't want to do research again in medical school after doing it full-time for the past 2 years.
 
Research is always better than no research. Lots of people are not able to publish during UG, but getting research experience is still valuable.

Either way it's going to be easier to be involved in research in medical school if you have experience.

+1

I did research in college (needed a job and money), and I never ended up with a publication. However I think medical schools were impressed that I had a few presentations, and it has been easy to find a pretty sweet research position for this coming summer after MS1.
 
What about research published during gap years at a medical school/hospital? I really don't want to do research again in medical school after doing it full-time for the past 2 years.

Eh, I mean, I'm just an incoming student so I'm mostly hypothesizing here, but for very competitive residencies that expect research I don't know that pre med school research would carry as much weight. If a residency program wants someone with a strong research interest I can't see why they'd pick someone who didn't continue research in med school vs an applicant who has a strong and continuing record of research involvement. Research involvement in med school could also be crucial to getting a glowing LoR from the chair of whatever dept for the specialty into which you're hoping to match. Just my 2 cents, maybe Mimelim or neusu will see this thread and correct me.
 
I recall reading somewhere a couple of years ago that research doesn't really matter if you're not going to publish. Is that still true or was I going crazy at that time? Does it still apply to the top 20 research heavy schools?

If you're a professor/researcher/etc, then yeah, you better publish. But if you're an undergrad? Most don't get the opportunity to publish and still get into Top 20 schools. Get experience and use that experience to hopefully get into a lab in med school (or later) where you will be able to publish. You have to start somewhere.
 
A funded research project's logical and successful conclusion is publication.

Little projects, from junior high school science projects and onward, can teach you something about scientific methods of hypothesis testing and specific technical skills without advancing science through development of generalizable new knowledge.

What is your goal? To advance scientific knowledge? To learn some skills? To get a better idea about how research works so as to be a better, more critical consumer of research studies?
 
As an undergrad trying to get into medical school? Of course it's beneficial even if you don't publish anything. You can at least do like a poster presentation of it somewhere. Why would you think there's no point? I can think of at least 5 points off the top off my head in a few seconds.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Eh, I mean, I'm just an incoming student so I'm mostly hypothesizing here, but for very competitive residencies that expect research I don't know that pre med school research would carry as much weight. If a residency program wants someone with a strong research interest I can't see why they'd pick someone who didn't continue research in med school vs an applicant who has a strong and continuing record of research involvement. Research involvement in med school could also be crucial to getting a glowing LoR from the chair of whatever dept for the specialty into which you're hoping to match. Just my 2 cents, maybe Mimelim or neusu will see this thread and correct me.

I thought this too but apparently undergrad pubs still matter. Unpublished research experience though I'm not so sure.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
 
I thought this too but apparently undergrad pubs still matter. Unpublished research experience though I'm not so sure.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

I didn't mean to imply that they didn't matter, but I don't think they'd matter as much as more recent research in med school. If candidate A has pre-med but no med school research and candidate B has med school but no pre-med research, I'd expect candidate B to be looked upon more favorably.

Perhaps I'm mistaken...
 
I didn't mean to imply that they didn't matter, but I don't think they'd matter as much as more recent research in med school. If candidate A has pre-med but no med school research and candidate B has med school but no pre-med research, I'd expect candidate B to be looked upon more favorably.

Perhaps I'm mistaken...

Oh. Well yes I would expect the same.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
 
I've found my basic science research experiences to heavily influence everything else that I do. My current job is public health related but everyone comments on how systematic my methods are. I think that a good research experience where you are able to learn good methodology and work ethic is really worthwhile regardless of wether you publish or not.
 
What makes you think you won't publish? If there is the possibility that you will and you're wondering about the worst case scenario, fair enough. But if there's no possibility based on lab dynamics/politics I'd consider looking for a different project.
 
I didn't mean to imply that they didn't matter, but I don't think they'd matter as much as more recent research in med school. If candidate A has pre-med but no med school research and candidate B has med school but no pre-med research, I'd expect candidate B to be looked upon more favorably.

Perhaps I'm mistaken...

Sure.. but change that up with candidate A is published and candidate B might only have some poster presentation if that..

I don't think they're equal.. but frankly my opinion doesn't matter.
 
Sure.. but change that up with candidate A is published and candidate B might only have some poster presentation if that..

I don't think they're equal.. but frankly my opinion doesn't matter.

Also depends on where the presentation was. If it's a national conference and the poster is associated with a published abstract, that's good. School research symposium, student research conference, etc: not as impressive.
 
I don't think any grad/med program out there expects its applicants to have published. From what I hear it's a big boost if you have published as first author of an actual study, and doing the same in a top tier journal like Nature or Science will pretty much give you a ticket to any school you want. However, it's rare for undergrads to get 1st author publications, and almost unheard of to get 1st author Nature publications. Schools only want to see that you've had experience doing hypothesis-driven research at as many stages as possible. Just get your own project to work on, don't screw up so bad your PI refuses to write you a good LOR, and you're golden.
 
You still need to do it to check off the research checkbox on your app. Residencies probably only care about published research though, so that sucks if you have to do it all over again in med school for pubs.

Am I the only one who thinks research is frickin awesome? I see volunteering as much more of a checkbox than research.
 
Am I the only one who thinks research is frickin awesome? I see volunteering as much more of a checkbox than research.

Nope, I think the potential intellectual stimulation is unparalleled. Plus the idea of actively contributing to the progression of medicine is much more appealing than passively applying what others have discovered. Despite the numerous downsides of research (dominated by the stress of funding), I'll almost definitely continue to do it throughout my life.
 
I recall reading somewhere a couple of years ago that research doesn't really matter if you're not going to publish. Is that still true or was I going crazy at that time? Does it still apply to the top 20 research heavy schools?

I never liked this mentality one bit. I will say this to all people wanting to go into research: Do it because you like it and don't do it because you are expecting to publish. You may never get published by the time you apply to medical school or even a masters (unless you start freshman year plus are heading your own project). Make sure you gain an understanding of the scientific process of coming up with a hypothesis, testing it, recording the results, and interpretation of those results. The process is the important part.
 
Well, considering that most undergrads don't have publications at all, I would say that the answer to the OP's question is "no". You should get into research for the purpose of pursuing a topic or question you are interested in, not simply for the goal of boosting your resume through a publication. You can still get a lot out of research even if you don't get published, mostly through learning from the process. A poster or oral presentation of your research is also valuable and definitely a fulfilling experience.
 
Ok, I guess I will chip in here while I have a few minutes.

For medical school admissions and residency match lists, in short, yes, it is pointless to undertake a research position (project) and not publish. For gaining life experience and learning how to become a researcher, it is not. Gaining scientific understanding during your undergrad years will come in handy later in your life if you want to perform research down the road.

Why is it pointless to undertake research without a publication? Well, adcoms want to see performance rather than experience. Think of it as taking the MCAT. We all experience studying hardcore for the MCAT, but do adcoms give a damn? No, they judge you on your performance. Everything about admissions is a number game. Your GPA, your MCAT, your number of leadership activities, $$$ to nonprofit organizations, and yes # of publications (preferably first author).

What is the difference between an undergad who works in a lab 40 hours a week and has no publications to show for at graduation and one that works 3-4 hours a week during his or her junior year with no publications. Absolutely NOTHING (they are = in this game) in terms of med school admissions. No performance = no merit. No publication and you perish.

If there are two things that will really boost your application it is a first author publication and a high (34+) MCAT score. In this discussion, to adcoms your research is meaningless without a publication.
 
Ok, I guess I will chip in here while I have a few minutes.

For medical school admissions and residency match lists, in short, yes, it is pointless to undertake a research position (project) and not publish. For gaining life experience and learning how to become a researcher, it is not. Gaining scientific understanding during your undergrad years will come in handy later in your life if you want to perform research down the road.

Why is it pointless to undertake research without a publication? Well, adcoms want to see performance rather than experience. Think of it as taking the MCAT. We all experience studying hardcore for the MCAT, but do adcoms give a damn? No, they judge you on your performance. Everything about admissions is a number game. Your GPA, your MCAT, your number of leadership activities, $$$ to nonprofit organizations, and yes # of publications (preferably first author).

What is the difference between an undergad who works in a lab 40 hours a week and has no publications to show for at graduation and one that works 3-4 hours a week during his or her junior year with no publications. Absolutely NOTHING (they are = in this game) in terms of med school admissions. No performance = no merit. No publication and you perish.

If there are two things that will really boost your application it is a first author publication and a high (34+) MCAT score. In this discussion, to adcoms your research is meaningless without a publication.

False. False.False.False. And a 34+ is not a high MCAT score at some schools. :p

While a first author publication won't hurt you, and any publication is a plus, having substantial research experience is better than a little and both count.

Really :confused: why do people with a couple years of undergrad experience and a failed application cycle come along & think that they know what adcoms want??
 
Not to hijack the thread but I have a research related question (and didn't want to make an entirely new thread, hey I'm considerate).

So my scenario is that I am in the spring semester of my Junior year. I have zero research experience. I wish it was just as simple as just asking a professor to take me on for research, but it's not. I work full-time (40 hours a week) and do classes full-time. I feel like my schedule is just so full that I barely have any time for myself. I know I need some research experience but I don't know what to do. Not working is not an option though. I have rent to pay and I have to support myself. I haven't taken out loans yet and I don't plan on it until medical school. My question is, how many hours a week do most people spend doing research. I know it can vary greatly, but just in general. Would using one or two of my days off from work and doing research after classes be enough? I'm thinking perhaps like 4-8 hours a week? Unfortunately my classes aren't going to be getting any easier. I have daunting organic 1 and 2 glaring at me next academic year and if all goes according to plan taking my MCAT next spring before the test changes. I might be able to switch positions with one of the girls at work since she only works Friday, Saturday, Sunday and then just pick up hours as I want them but then my insurance goes up. I know I will have to take an extra semester in order to graduate, so should I just worry about doing research after my MCAT (spring 2014) and just do research the following fall (and perhaps spring) to get the experience. Would you recommend doing research that counts for college credit? Any help would be appreciated.

Oh and as a side note my university is rather small. Some of the professors projects are interesting, but I question the resources the school actually has. And as for doing research this summer, that's out because I am taking Physics 1 and 2 (hopefully)
 
Not to hijack the thread but I have a research related question (and didn't want to make an entirely new thread, hey I'm considerate).

So my scenario is that I am in the spring semester of my Junior year. I have zero research experience. I wish it was just as simple as just asking a professor to take me on for research, but it's not. I work full-time (40 hours a week) and do classes full-time. I feel like my schedule is just so full that I barely have any time for myself. I know I need some research experience but I don't know what to do. Not working is not an option though. I have rent to pay and I have to support myself. I haven't taken out loans yet and I don't plan on it until medical school. My question is, how many hours a week do most people spend doing research. I know it can vary greatly, but just in general. Would using one or two of my days off from work and doing research after classes be enough? I'm thinking perhaps like 4-8 hours a week? Unfortunately my classes aren't going to be getting any easier. I have daunting organic 1 and 2 glaring at me next academic year and if all goes according to plan taking my MCAT next spring before the test changes. I might be able to switch positions with one of the girls at work since she only works Friday, Saturday, Sunday and then just pick up hours as I want them but then my insurance goes up. I know I will have to take an extra semester in order to graduate, so should I just worry about doing research after my MCAT (spring 2014) and just do research the following fall (and perhaps spring) to get the experience. Would you recommend doing research that counts for college credit? Any help would be appreciated.

Oh and as a side note my university is rather small. Some of the professors projects are interesting, but I question the resources the school actually has. And as for doing research this summer, that's out because I am taking Physics 1 and 2 (hopefully)

To be honest, if I were in your situation I would look at doing research full time during the summer. A lot of programs offer stipends that can pay any expenses you would need during this time, and it wouldn't interfere with your priorities during the school year. I would go that route if possible, since it seems like you're pretty occupied at the moment during the academic year.
 
To be honest, if I were in your situation I would look at doing research full time during the summer. A lot of programs offer stipends that can pay any expenses you would need during this time, and it wouldn't interfere with your priorities during the school year. I would go that route if possible, since it seems like you're pretty occupied at the moment during the academic year.

Unfortunately my job is year round. I don't live on campus and live in the town that I actually go to school in. I don't live with my parents so a job is necessary year round. At this point I feel like my only option is really doing research after next year during the summer, fall and spring and just take a gap year to make sure my application is as strong as possible. I guess this could give me time to do any re-take that I might need as well.
 
False. False.False.False. And a 34+ is not a high MCAT score at some schools. :p

While a first author publication won't hurt you, and any publication is a plus, having substantial research experience is better than a little and both count.

Really :confused: why do people with a couple years of undergrad experience and a failed application cycle come along & think that they know what adcoms want??

It's kind of his thing now. I would hope all those applying would know to ignore his advice.
 
Really :confused: why do people with a couple years of undergrad experience and a failed application cycle come along & think that they know what adcoms want??

Too bad internet anonymity and my likely application stats decrease the chance of us meeting, I would probably enjoy the conversation.
 
Is having your name on an abstract (but not able to go to the conference) worth mentioning? I never put the abstract publication on my AMCAS application. Is an abstract publication even considered a publication?
 
Okay so I have a slightly different question.

I have done a "research" analysis paper for one of my classes; it is more social science/ policy research than anything, not bench lab work or clinical. However, I did submit it to my University's journal to publish it. I am the first and lone author...and I may even be presenting my "research" at a symposium.

Will this be worth listing on my apps for med school?
 
Okay so I have a slightly different question.

I have done a "research" analysis paper for one of my classes; it is more social science/ policy research than anything, not bench lab work or clinical. However, I did submit it to my University's journal to publish it. I am the first and lone author...and I may even be presenting my "research" at a symposium.

Will this be worth listing on my apps for med school?
Yes, absolutely.

Is having your name on an abstract (but not able to go to the conference) worth mentioning? I never put the abstract publication on my AMCAS application. Is an abstract publication even considered a publication?
No, abstracts are next to garbage. Unless you presented a poster or did talk, it's not worth mentioning.
 
Ok, I guess I will chip in here while I have a few minutes.

For medical school admissions and residency match lists, in short, yes, it is pointless to undertake a research position (project) and not publish. For gaining life experience and learning how to become a researcher, it is not. Gaining scientific understanding during your undergrad years will come in handy later in your life if you want to perform research down the road.

Why is it pointless to undertake research without a publication? Well, adcoms want to see performance rather than experience. Think of it as taking the MCAT. We all experience studying hardcore for the MCAT, but do adcoms give a damn? No, they judge you on your performance. Everything about admissions is a number game. Your GPA, your MCAT, your number of leadership activities, $$$ to nonprofit organizations, and yes # of publications (preferably first author).

What is the difference between an undergad who works in a lab 40 hours a week and has no publications to show for at graduation and one that works 3-4 hours a week during his or her junior year with no publications. Absolutely NOTHING (they are = in this game) in terms of med school admissions. No performance = no merit. No publication and you perish.

If there are two things that will really boost your application it is a first author publication and a high (34+) MCAT score. In this discussion, to adcoms your research is meaningless without a publication.
This is perhaps the WORST advice I have heard on here.

Research experience is highly regarded regardless of publication. Clearly you don't know how science works. It's not as easy as saying "well, I'm going to work on a project and 6 months in I will get a publication." I'm currently working in one of the top labs in the world. One of our post-docs is about to publish after 3 years of working on one project. His paper on Cell is going to be worth 3+ FA in other journals. Science is not straightforward at all.

When it comes to being a student and getting into a doctoral program (Professional or PhD), experience can be worth substantial amounts. When it comes to being a career scientist, publications, but also depending on their quality, matters most.
 
:bow::bow:
False. False.False.False. And a 34+ is not a high MCAT score at some schools. :p

While a first author publication won't hurt you, and any publication is a plus, having substantial research experience is better than a little and both count.

Really :confused: why do people with a couple years of undergrad experience and a failed application cycle come along & think that they know what adcoms want??
 
Yes, absolutely.

Sweet! Who knew putting some extra work in a class assignment would pay off so well. Phew.

Now I just gotta hope that it gets selected for publication and presentation.
 
Is having your name on an abstract (but not able to go to the conference) worth mentioning? I never put the abstract publication on my AMCAS application. Is an abstract publication even considered a publication?

Yes, absolutely.

No, abstracts are next to garbage. Unless you presented a poster or did talk, it's not worth mentioning.

An abstract isn't considered a publication in the sense that it doesn't go under that heading on a CV. However, some big conferences publish all of the abstracts in a special issue of their society's journal; these are called published abstracts (sometimes proceedings) and deserve a spot on your CV. Google an academic physician's CV and you'll see what I mean ("harvard {insert specialty} CV" should work). Some really famous guys will just list "100+", "numerous" or might leave this category off completely, but you can throw them on there. If it's just a local symposium or something sponsored by your school, you probably don't have an "abstract" in the traditional sense of the word, but you can create another category called "presentations" and add it there.
 
Yes, absolutely.
No, abstracts are next to garbage. Unless you presented a poster or did talk, it's not worth mentioning.

I couldn't go due to work/school but my colleague did present a poster with my name on it.

An abstract isn't considered a publication in the sense that it doesn't go under that heading on a CV. However, some big conferences publish all of the abstracts in a special issue of their society's journal; these are called published abstracts (sometimes proceedings) and deserve a spot on your CV. Google an academic physician's CV and you'll see what I mean ("harvard {insert specialty} CV" should work). Some really famous guys will just list "100+", "numerous" or might leave this category off completely, but you can throw them on there. If it's just a local symposium or something sponsored by your school, you probably don't have an "abstract" in the traditional sense of the word, but you can create another category called "presentations" and add it there.

The abstract was presented at ThymUS, not a big symposium/conference like AACR but much bigger than a local one.
 
It's kind of his thing now. I would hope all those applying would know to ignore his advice.

This is why people need to be careful about what they believe when browsing on SDN for advice. There is a lot of great information on here, but at the same time there are also a lot of trolls and people that don't really know what they're talking about. You have to get pretty good at filtering out the bad stuff to get the most out of this forum.
 
Top