Not impressed w. pub unless its a first author

[tgerwuds]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I have heard through the grapevine that, unless you have first (maybe even 2nd) authored anything, publications are kind of app fillers.

You PhDs and MSs out there should be money. If any of you BSs or BAs have them...

RESPECT

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Even a first authorship isn't anything that'll make or break an application, like most things.

 

[automaton]

any publication is significant and is not just app filler. certainly better than secretary of undergraduate premed club. a first author publication is much better, obviously. another thing to consider is the strength of the journal it's published in... is a first authorship in an insignificant journal just as good as being 3rd/4th+ author in nature? that i don't know.

 

[IndyZX]

I'll probably have a second author on a paper (that I didn't write, but helped out on), but I can't see it being a big deal. I mean, I've decided that I don't want to do science research in the future, so I can't see how it'd help. I guess it looks nice, but it'd be phony if I played if as something that was really meaningful to me.

 

[linuxizer]

is a first authorship in an insignificant journal just as good as being 3rd/4th+ author in nature?

My understanding for MD/PhD admissions is that they might well prefer the first authored-pub in this case. I have a fourth-authored pub in Nature Neuropsychopharm, and I definitely feel I learned more from my second-author pub which will likely publish someplace unimpressive. (Note, due to lab politics if you want a sense of my contributions to the paper, bump up one, so 1st author/3rd author). But basically for MuDPhuDs, what matters is how well you know your work and can explain the logic behind it in interviews. Ironically, this may mean that for MD-only admissions, authorship matters more than for MD/PhD, because you never really get a chance to explain your work, they just assume you published where you deserved.

--Ari

 

[Fermata]

Most MD/PhDer's didn't have a 1st authored publication before being accepted.

Heck...it even takes a while for a grad student working full time to get one sometimes.

Relax.

 

[stinkycheese]

any publication is significant and is not just app filler. certainly better than secretary of undergraduate premed club. a first author publication is much better, obviously. another thing to consider is the strength of the journal it's published in... is a first authorship in an insignificant journal just as good as being 3rd/4th+ author in nature? that i don't know.

Being on any paper in Nature or Science is extremely significant. Most people will not give a dish-washer authorship status on such an important paper because they want the achievement to mean something; therefore, presence as an author of a paper in one of these journals is a significant accomplishment.

 

[VienneseWaltz]

I wouldn't dismiss them as app fillers, as a lot of successful pre-meds don't have ANY publications. You can have a worthwhile research experience without publishing. If you have a pub, list it. It will be taken in the context of the rest of your application.

 

[uclabruin2003]

publications are better than no publications.

obviously 1st author is better than 2nd author. but is a 2nd author in a good journal better than a 1st author in a lower status journal?

i had a 1st author in vaccine but a 2nd author in Hepatology. hepatology is pretty well respected....well in GI circles anyways...but who the hell has heard of vaccine? ha. just something to ponder....

 

[dave613]

Based on my understanding, all publications are good, no matter what status your authorship is, as long as you can explain intelligently on an interview what the project was, and it's implications.

Hope that helped!

 

[KatieOConnor]

There is a certain amount of BS involved with getting your name on a paper. I had a PI who didn't believe in putting research technicians on papers, so I contributed a lot to her project, but my name was absent.

There are some politics in my lab right now, so I probably won't end up with my name on a paper here either.

For some reason, a professor I worked for as an undergraduate now wants my name on one, or possibly two, papers.

I am sure that admissions knows about all the politics and whatnot that go on in labs, and that having your name on a paper won't make or break your application into an MD only school.

 

[tgerwuds]

publications are better than no publications.

obviously 1st author is better than 2nd author. but is a 2nd author in a good journal better than a 1st author in a lower status journal?

i had a 1st author in vaccine but a 2nd author in Hepatology. hepatology is pretty well respected....well in GI circles anyways...but who the hell has heard of vaccine? ha. just something to ponder....

Absolutely not. There is a lot of difference between 1st author and 2nd author. 1st author means it's YOUR PROJECT AND YOU WROTE THE PAPER. 2nd author means you did a substantial amount of work to aid the 1st author.

 

[uclabruin2003]

Absolutely not. There is a lot of difference between 1st author and 2nd author. 1st author means it's YOUR PROJECT AND YOU WROTE THE PAPER. 2nd author means you did a substantial amount of work to aid the 1st author.

well supposedly that is the definition of what first author means. but everyone knows that office politics has a huge role. you can do 95% of the legwork and write a substantial amount of the paper and be considered to be a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th author depending how low on the totem pole you are....just my 2 cents.

 

[VienneseWaltz]

Absolutely not. There is a lot of difference between 1st author and 2nd author. 1st author means it's YOUR PROJECT AND YOU WROTE THE PAPER. 2nd author means you did a substantial amount of work to aid the 1st author.

Many journals put everyone in alphabetical order other than the first and last authors, so you really can't read much information outside first and last (who is often the PI). And uclabruin is right, first author does not necessarily imply that this person put in the most work.

 

[Sweet Tea]

well supposedly that is the definition of what first author means. but everyone knows that office politics has a huge role. you can do 95% of the legwork and write a substantial amount of the paper and be considered to be a 2nd, 3rd or even 4th author depending how low on the totem pole you are....just my 2 cents.

Completely agree. I'm currently trying to finish and submit a paper before the school year gets too hectic. I'm listed as second author, but in actuality I've written the whole thing and the first author has been more of an advison/proofreader. And well, it was his idea to begin with so I guess he should get some credit. 😉

 

[Dr.LeoSpaceman]

Completely agree. I'm currently trying to finish and submit a paper before the school year gets too hectic. I'm listed as second author, but in actuality I've written the whole thing and the first author has been more of an advison/proofreader. And well, it was his idea to begin with so I guess he should get some credit. 😉

Usually the first author is the one whose actual idea it is. If they came up with the theory, hypothesis, and overall experimental design, they will be the first author. Even if they have told someone else (lab tech, undergrad, etc) what to do and they have not done most of the experimental work.

 

[Sweet Tea]

Usually the first author is the one whose actual idea it is. If they came up with the theory, hypothesis, and overall experimental design, they will be the first author. Even if they have told someone else (lab tech, undergrad, etc) what to do and they have not done most of the experimental work.

I agree, but in this case he mostly just came up with the topic and I've done the rest. But it's been a good summer experience. 👍

 

[marctam86]

So I have heard through the grapevine that, unless you have first (maybe even 2nd) authored anything, publications are kind of app fillers.

thats jibba jabba. as long as you can expound upon your research in the interview/essay and demonstrate some enthusiasm, its an advantage. while i concede that first authorship is of more importance, i dont see how any adcom can ignore 2nd, 3rd, or 4th authorships.

 

[nina512]

Absolutely not. There is a lot of difference between 1st author and 2nd author. 1st author means it's YOUR PROJECT AND YOU WROTE THE PAPER. 2nd author means you did a substantial amount of work to aid the 1st author.

That's how I feel about first author papers. I did a ton of experiments for a manuscript, but am not first author on the paper. There's no way I'd go through the hassel of writing it up if I'm not first author.

 

[puppetmaster]

I agree, but in this case he mostly just came up with the topic and I've done the rest. But it's been a good summer experience. 👍

you got hosed and you're happy about it?

 

[xanthines]

Better than my previous experience: 90% of the work and not even an acknowledgement, much less co-authorship!

For THREE years!

-X

P.S. I AM aware I got screwed. The soreness in my ass was a hint. 😛

you got hosed and you're happy about it?