# of pubs vs. quality of pubs for residency purposes

[bd4727]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I was having a discussion with a student in my program who is currently interviewing for Neuro. He had a PNAS pub and 2 other pubs in quality basic neuroscience journals during his PhD. He was telling me that he thinks that for resdiency purposes, having a greater number of pubs will actually probably help you more than having a PNAS-caliber paper because the clinicans interviewing you don't read those types of journals anyway.

Any thoughts on this? I find it absurd, but I suppose the reasoning is somewhat logical.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

I've heard this multiple times from multiple people, and there is a kernel of truth to it. Some folks will never have heard of Science, Nature, or Cell, and will have little idea what the second tier or lower journals are (they all count the same to them). Experienced residency directors and research oriented programs with researchers heavily involved in ranking decisions will be more sophisticated. In general, publication in high impact journals raises eyebrows and based on what (little) I've seen I think does have an impact on ranking at the places MD/PhDs want to go.

I don't know much about number of publications other than most folks want to see one, preferably two quality first author papers for a PhD. Beyond that I'm not sure that the number is critical.

Finally, though impact of publication might not matter so much for residency application, it will have an impact on future success in faculty search and new investigator grant applications. Some grant programs even explicitly state that they're looking for new faculty that have "hit two home runs" - one in their PhD, the other in their postdoc.

 

[Neuronix]

Any thoughts on this? I find it absurd, but I suppose the reasoning is somewhat logical.

It's splitting hairs and doesn't much matter. I've had the: "You published during your PhD right? Ok good." talk several times by residency adcoms in different fields. It's a mostly clinical selection process, where mostly clinical things matter (step 1, step 2, clinical grades). This was a shock to me.

The fellows who hung out around my lab would routinely tell us to publish just about anything and get out of PhD as quickly as possible. This was coming from the mouths of the guys with the 5 PNAS first authors as equally as the guy with 1 paper in an IF 2.5 journal. They claim nobody will look back on grad school when you go to get jobs or funding and that it becomes all about fellowship. You just don't want to burn out before you get there.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

So I was having a discussion with a student in my program who is currently interviewing for Neuro. He had a PNAS pub and 2 other pubs in quality basic neuroscience journals during his PhD. He was telling me that he thinks that for resdiency purposes, having a greater number of pubs will actually probably help you more than having a PNAS-caliber paper because the clinicans interviewing you don't read those types of journals anyway.

Any thoughts on this? I find it absurd, but I suppose the reasoning is somewhat logical.

Yes, I've heard the number of publications is generally more important for PDs than caliber, assuming the PD is not a big basic science researcher, which is likely the case (since he's PD!). PDs will recognize the big names like Science, Nature, maybe Cell and PNAS, but I doubt they'd be able to tell that Immunity and Neuron are higher caliber than JI and JNeuroscience.

Point being, just publish and get out. Do not agonize about publication prestige, unless you're dropping residency and going straight to post-doc (and even there it might not matter too much).

 

[gbwillner]

Yes, I've heard the number of publications is generally more important for PDs than caliber, assuming the PD is not a big basic science researcher, which is likely the case (since he's PD!). PDs will recognize the big names like Science, Nature, maybe Cell and PNAS, but I doubt they'd be able to tell that Immunity and Neuron are higher caliber than JI and JNeuroscience.

Point being, just publish and get out. Do not agonize about publication prestige, unless you're dropping residency and going straight to post-doc (and even there it might not matter too much).

IMHO the number of pubs are probably better for getting INTO residency, UNLESS you publish in a good journal within the field that the residency committee will recognize. I went into pathology with 1st author pubs in AJHG, HMG, and Am J hematology (IFs 12, 9, and under 2). During interviews, I got more questions on the IF <2 publication because it was more relevant/they had heard of it in the field.
HOWEVER, later on, when you want to become faculty, those other publications will be much more important. Your graduate work will count every bit as much as your post-doc pubs, and will matter much more than a number of crappy pubs. Chairmen want to know you can publish and publish well. While applying for faculty positions my publications in AJHG and HMG will stand out far more.
So I would say #pubs > quality pubs for getting into residency, but
# pubs < quality pubs for gettting a faculty job.

 

[angst019]

Sort of expected this thread to be about drinking establishments.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

IMHO the number of pubs are probably better for getting INTO residency, UNLESS you publish in a good journal within the field that the residency committee will recognize. I went into pathology with 1st author pubs in AJHG, HMG, and Am J hematology (IFs 12, 9, and under 2). During interviews, I got more questions on the IF <2 publication because it was more relevant/they had heard of it in the field.
HOWEVER, later on, when you want to become faculty, those other publications will be much more important. Your graduate work will count every bit as much as your post-doc pubs, and will matter much more than a number of crappy pubs. Chairmen want to know you can publish and publish well. While applying for faculty positions my publications in AJHG and HMG will stand out far more.
So I would say #pubs > quality pubs for getting into residency, but
# pubs < quality pubs for gettting a faculty job.

1: path is more basic science-y than other residencies, but it's interesting that it still somewhat holds #>quality.

2: I doubt that after your path residency, and a fellowship or two, your graduate work will be that important. You will have been out of the loop for years, and you're more likely to start a program based on your work during fellowship than during the PhD. Maybe it does matter for path? At any rate, I doubt an IM/peds department, much less something like radiology or surgery, are going to care too much about your PhD work when they hire you. They will want to see your residency/fellowship recommendations, how you performed there, what your recent research is like, and what "new" you can bring to them.

 

[Treg]

I am kinda hoping that they will add one point to my Step 1 score for every publication

 

[gaccboom]

It may depend somewhat on the specialty to which one is applying. But in preparation for residency applications this year, we were repeatedly warned not to rely on either number or quality of publications. The residency programs are, first and foremost, hiring house officers to take care of their patients (that's the bit that depends on specialty - certainly it's true in IM, etc). If you're not a good clinician, the research just isn't enough to make up for that.

 

[antoniosvidne]

It may depend somewhat on the specialty to which one is applying. But in preparation for residency applications this year, we were repeatedly warned not to rely on either number or quality of publications. The residency programs are, first and foremost, hiring house officers to take care of their patients (that's the bit that depends on specialty - certainly it's true in IM, etc). If you're not a good clinician, the research just isn't enough to make up for that.

This is too much of a blanket statement and frankly annoying, discouraging, and just patently not true. MD/PhDs, esp. from good programs, can match very well in IM/peds/path/neuro/psych/etc even if they have a P here and there. Stop this drivel about how the PhD doesn't matter. Perhaps you need to adjust your expectation a bit, true...but at the end of the day, MD/PhD candidates are highly valued, even with slightly less than stellar clinical grades for whatever reason.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

This is too much of a blanket statement and frankly annoying, discouraging, and just patently not true. MD/PhDs, esp. from good programs, can match very well in IM/peds/path/neuro/psych/etc even if they have a P here and there. Stop this drivel about how the PhD doesn't matter. Perhaps you need to adjust your expectation a bit, true...but at the end of the day, MD/PhD candidates are highly valued, even with slightly less than stellar clinical grades for whatever reason.

True. People have gotten some super matches from my school in neurology, IM, peds, and even derm. I doubt all were clinically superb. The PhD does count for a lot of specialties. But it can't make up for huge clinical deficiencies and it doesn't count for much in certain specialties.

 

[gbwillner]

2: I doubt that after your path residency, and a fellowship or two, your graduate work will be that important. You will have been out of the loop for years, and you're more likely to start a program based on your work during fellowship than during the PhD. Maybe it does matter for path? At any rate, I doubt an IM/peds department, much less something like radiology or surgery, are going to care too much about your PhD work when they hire you. They will want to see your residency/fellowship recommendations, how you performed there, what your recent research is like, and what "new" you can bring to them.

Those pubs are still on your CV and a tribute to your comittment to quality work, so they do still count. If you continue similar research during your fellowship, they will definitely care about what you worked on during your PhD, although it may not mean much if you totally switch fields. If they are hiring you for your research, they will only care that you are a competent clinician and not necessarily stellar. Your fellowship recommendations/clinical performance <<<<< pubs/grants for an MD/PhD. Note I did say competent. Those are words directly from my chairman.

 

[gbwillner]

True. People have gotten some super matches from my school in neurology, IM, peds, and even derm. I doubt all were clinically superb. The PhD does count for a lot of specialties. But it can't make up for huge clinical deficiencies and it doesn't count for much in certain specialties.

Just a thought- how does a program truly find clinical deficiencies in your application? Step scores have shown NOT to correlate with resident performance, so that's not a good way. Shelf boards are not really either- since some people are just good at taking those kinds of tests... Clinical grades are typically totally subjective, with total grade inflation at some schools.

There just doesn't seem to be a good way, which is why every year residency programs find that their new residents are a mixed bag- there's just not an accurate predictive measure for applicants.