Premedical research output: Quality vs. Quantity

[aegistitan]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I was browsing the Student researching forums and I came across this thread:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/journal-targets-increasing-your-research-output.1073599/

I was wondering, for medical school admissions would a school be more impressed by a first author publications in less prestigious journals (F1000, PLoS) or 1 second author publication in a more well known and prestigious journal? Does "the more the merrier" concept apply? As in a few (3 or 4) less prestigious publications is better than one fancy publication as a second author? The answers in the above thread are given from a non-premedical perspective, and I can understand the reasoning behind why when competing for residencies quality is more important than quantity. However, as an undergraduate isn't the point of research (in regards to medical school admissions) to clearly demonstrate that you know what it takes to be a successful scientist? Even if papers are not published in fancy journals (Journal of Food Protection, International Journal of Food Microbiology), wouldn't they still show that the undergraduate student that did the work knows how to take a project through analysis, writing, and the various steps of publication?

Would it be better to work in smaller labs where one might have a chance to work directly with the PI, as opposed to larger more competitive and larger labs where students work directly with a postdoc who works with a PI?

I have also heard through the grapevine that some labs are filled with depressed people, or some labs seem to have a great time while at work. Can anybody comment on this, and mention what qualities in a lab to look out for?

 

[allantois]

Medical schools will be impressed with any 1st author publication. 1st author> 2nd author>3 author, etc. The point of research is to demonstrate that you have a general idea of how it is done. Paper in any journal (except for maybe alternative medicine?) will be impressive. You should work in a lab setting you will enjoy most. The best way to experience what the lab and people in it are like is by volunteering there first.

 

[NickNaylor]

You aren't fooling anyone by thinking that adcoms don't understand the game of publications (i.e., that they are largely based on being lucky and getting in the right lab at the right time). Yes, pubs are always nice, but no one is going to think you're a budding Nobel laureate. A solid research experience - even without pubs - that allows you to work independently and engage in all aspects of the scientific process will help you the most, particularly if you can talk intelligently about the work that was done.

I would be more inclined to work in the smaller lab that might have less output for two reasons: one, you're more likely to learn from the experience by having the opportunity to work directly with the PI, and two, you will have a better chance at getting a high quality letter from the PI. These are generalizations, of course - working in a large lab doesn't inherently mean that you won't learn anything or won't ever interact with a PI - but they are things to keep in mind.

As far as picking a lab and trying to feel people out, try and figure out if the lab members seem like enjoyable people to be around and work with. It's hard to say for sure since you might meet them only once or twice before really diving into things, but beware if there are people that clearly have personalities that might be difficult to work with. It's entirely possible that you'll be working with one of them more than the PI, and that could make for a miserable experience.