Papers, Joyous Papers.

[catlady]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey,

I'm an undergrad looking at my options for summer research. I've spent the last several summers working in neuroscience labs, and I have a few offers to do neuroscience work this summer, as well. However...

While I was searching for a lab to host me, I started talking with this PI who does work completely unrelated to neuroscience, but he wants me to come to his lab over the summer and help him finish a paper, and he told me explicitly that I would be a coauthor.

Uh... should I jump at this opportunity? The work that this latter PI does is quite interesting, just not AS interesting to me as the neuroscience lab. I guess what I'm asking is, how golden are papers?

Thanks.

 

[marctam86]

I'd probably choose the work that would result in publication. As an undergrad, you can always spend next summer/year year working wherever, but the opportunity to publish only comes around so often.

 

[Vader]

Are you considering applying MD/PhD?

If you chose to jump for the paper (which is by no means certain or guaranteed), it would also raise questions as to your motivation for research. If it looks like you are just jumping for the chance to be on a paper without an actual proven interest in the field, then that will speak volumes when it comes time to apply. Most MD/PhD applicants do not have publications, but many have presentations, posters or abstracts, so it certainly isn't necessary to have publications.

It sounds like you have several options for labs and it also sounds like you have experience working in a number of different labs. Why have these not resulted in publications? Perhaps you were not the primary person on the projects and were helping out post-docs or grad students?

I would advise choosing a lab based on research interest and how well you get along with the PI and lab members. I would also recommend finding a project on which you can take the lead role and carry out. This will show intellectual growth and an increasing level of involvement, which is required for a career in research.

Hope this helps! 🙂

 

[catlady]

Thanks for the advice. And yes, I think I'll be applying for MD/PhD. I do actually have two papers from my previous labs. (But I've worked in more than two, so it's not like I have a paper from each.)

Maybe I should clarify what I'm asking...

I certainly didn't go paper hunting in any field under the sun. I contacted the PI because I was interested in his methods, and he mentioned that the project he had for me would guarantee my name on a paper.

So I guess I wasn't really asking if I should drop all other considerations and run to whomever may have a paper, but rather, how the draw of a possible paper (mentioned to me unsolicited at the outset) should influence my decision among labs that I am all independently interested in.

I also don't mean to sound like a huge tool... It's just... Papers are the currency. I feel like the draw of one deserves some (not all!) weight.

 

[StIGMA]

Papers are the currency. I feel like the draw of one deserves some (not all!) weight.

First author papers are currency. Mid-authors, not so much.

 

[itsallthesame]

First author papers are currency. Mid-authors, not so much.

I like to think of it more like Impact Factor/(Author #)^2 = value. A second author cell is might turn some heads at this level compared to a first author in a bad journal.

If the choice comes down to having your own project (no grad students or post docs) or not, ALWAYS go with your own project if you think you'll be happy in the lab. As far as publications, they are easy to promise; however, there's a good reason why good ones are valued. Don't just jump at the word though; look at that PI's track record. Where does (s)he publish? How do you get along with the people in the lab? Where do these other people publish? How much time will the PI spend with you personally teaching you? Yes, you want to be with someone who wants to publish with you... but every PI wants to publish. As long as you will have your own project, that will be the goal.

 

[Vader]

If you already are on a couple papers as an undergrad, you are already in good shape. If you are first author on the papers, even better. If they happen to be published in high-impact journals, then great. In any case, you must be able to detail your contribution to the projects, including your level of involvement (i.e. designing & executing experiments, analyzing data, organizing and presenting the results, writing the paper(s), etc) and how much independence you exhibited (did you do everything yourself? work under a post-doc/grad student? were just around peripherally and happened to be in the right place at the right time?, etc?). Also, you will need letters of recommendation from your research mentors detailing your contributions and potential as a physician-scientist.

To be successful in MD/PhD admissions, you really only need one long-term research experience. To maximize your experience at present, I would suggest that you find a lab in which you could remain on a long-term project as the lead person. If you are interested in this new lab because of new techniques you would like to learn/new approaches to problems, then that is a reasonable rationale. However, if you like the research in another lab better, and it fits in to your overall interests, you should go with that lab.

Personally, I think it is a little dishonest of that PI to wave a paper possibility in front of you like a carrot, when in reality getting published is a less than certain prospect and actually may not do that much for your application (especially with 2 other papers in the bag already). Realize that this is a technique that PIs will sometimes use to lure you in. Don't be fooled by running for the carrot if the experience itself will not benefit you to a greater degree than the other labs in which you are interested.

Hope this helps. 🙂

Thanks for the advice. And yes, I think I'll be applying for MD/PhD. I do actually have two papers from my previous labs. (But I've worked in more than two, so it's not like I have a paper from each.)

Maybe I should clarify what I'm asking...

I certainly didn't go paper hunting in any field under the sun. I contacted the PI because I was interested in his methods, and he mentioned that the project he had for me would guarantee my name on a paper.

So I guess I wasn't really asking if I should drop all other considerations and run to whomever may have a paper, but rather, how the draw of a possible paper (mentioned to me unsolicited at the outset) should influence my decision among labs that I am all independently interested in.

I also don't mean to sound like a huge tool... It's just... Papers are the currency. I feel like the draw of one deserves some (not all!) weight.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

If you already have two papers, go with the better lab, regardless of paper prospects. Go into something that interests you and will give you good involvement and be a challenge (but perhaps not too much, at this stage). You already have been published, which for many people is a mental barrier but many (most?) MD/PhDs get in without papers into superb places. GPA, MCAT, and recommendations are the biggest supports of your application, not the number of papers or even the profile at this point.