Publication Expectations

[1 Ku MuDaPhuDka]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What's up guys,

So I have been accepted into an MSTP for the Fall of 2010 and am curious as to what you all feel is a reasonable amount of publications someone on this track should shoot for? Obviously one first author (dissertation), but how many other first or co-authors are you all anticipating during your tenure? Or for those that have already completed such a program, how many publications did you receive? I would like to get an idea of this so that I can talk to future PIs about setting realistic expectations in regards to publishing in his or her lab

Be Easy.

 

[Neuronix]

Minimum: 1

I ended up with five first author manuscripts.

In the long run, it doesn't seem to matter one bit. My buddy who will be AOA with 270 step 1 and one publication is way better off when it comes to applying to residency than I am. The fellows assure me all faculty positions care about is what you did in fellowship. Most people switch fields anyways, which kind of negates your earlier work. Just get done grad school in a reasonable amount of time. Don't let anyone convince you to stay to get more papers if you have at least 1 strong paper or maybe 2-3 weak papers.

 

[Freak]

Ours is 2 pubs (I think the 2nd is just submitted though, so that could mean 1).

 

[dmblue]

I have to do 3...yay engineering

 

[Neuronix]

Just in general my graduate program did not have any set minimums. The minimum I gave was my opinion. I'd try to avoid any minimum requirements greater than 1 if I were any of you. I've seen some extremely hard working folks due to issues out of their control not get past 1 paper in many years of fighting. There was a push by the students to make a 1 and done policy, i.e. you could go if you had one publication, but it was squelched. Graduation requirements are set by the committee, and I have actually seen people graduate with 0 publications.

Meanwhile, at one point I had 2 publications and 2 in review when my committee chair told me I needed 3 accepted manuscripts to finish. When I told him that was BS, he told me instead they need to be 3 publications on the topic of my thesis. I had to get my MD/PhD program director to bail me out of lab. I wrote a lot about this back then.

Im not sure how to fix this problem, but I'm glad I had some external oversight to back me up.

 

[Freak]

I feel you Neuronix ... my chair also wants 2 on the topic of my thesis (I already have 2 other collaborative papers). There is no written requirement either for our program, but I think 1-2 is generally expected.

 

[docbill]

Depends on the place you are at. Usually the PhD department you are in has some guidelines on what constitutes a PhD thesis.

My previous school, a PhD student needed work equaling 3 publications to graduate. Now if you end up getting 1 nature or cell article then it is acceptable instead of the 3 pubs. It all depends on the amount of work you get done. Or if you get two strong articles (Impact Factor of 10 or above each).

1 low impact article, in my opinion, is not enough. Especially since you are trying to build up your experience and publications for future position.

 

[dl2dp2]

D
1 low impact article, in my opinion, is not enough. Especially since you are trying to build up your experience and publications for future position.

So this is the issue...suppose you are not interested in science anymore and would like to practice medicine 100%, is it fair to have the same standard applied to you as it is applied to those who are interested in basic science research? Secondly, how much does 3 vs. 1 low impact paper influence the decision process of a competitive clinical residency program application? I'd venture to say none whatsoever. Thirdly, if you are interested in research in more clinically oriented domains, how much difference is 3 low impact vs. 1 N/C/S vs. 1 low impact etc. going to have on your future career? Very minimal influence...VERY VERY minimal influence. You'll STILL need to do a residency, a fellowship, etc. And what if you want to remain in basic research, but will switch fields. What's the difference between those scenarios? VERY VERY minimal again.

These above scenarios (1. mostly clinical career in traditional specialty. 2. competitive proceduralist 3. patient oriented research career 4. basic science oriented, but different field) probably constitute the VAST VAST majority of trajectories of MD/PhD graduates. The only situation where people should stay and lengthen their PhD for number of papers is where a minimum additional amount of work will result in a substantial breakthrough.

If you can convince your committee that you should get out with 1 paper, then try. Stay around in PhD especially when the length exceeds 8 yrs IMHO is a waste in the VAST majority of scenarios.

 

[docbill]

If someone is unsure if they want a career in research then definitely don't do an MD/PhD.

You can do a PhD in clinical research as well. So that is not a limiting factor. If someone is in an MD/PhD program, just started and have not put too much in to it, and is not interested in it any more, I would suggest speaking to your school about switching back to MD only program. Don't waste time if you are not interested.

Residency programs won't care unless you are applying for research track program. At least I don't think they will care if you did MD or MD/PhD for clinical training.

 

[Neuronix]

If someone is unsure if they want a career in research then definitely don't do an MD/PhD.

Agreed. Except... I'm not sure if I want a career in research. I only figured that out towards the end of my PhD. Does that mean I should drop out? Seppaku perhaps?

Residency programs won't care unless you are applying for research track program. At least I don't think they will care if you did MD or MD/PhD for clinical training.

An MD with a year research track only beat out an MD/PhD at the program I'm most familiar with this past year for a research track spot. The MD/PhD had a much stronger publication record. Reasons the MD beat him out? Higher clinical grades and research more closely related to the specialty.

 

[1 Ku MuDaPhuDka]

From the looks of it, the question I posed should not be taken to seriously, unless there is a specific requirement from the graduate department and or committee. The publish or perish dogma is not taken into significant consideration for graduate students and has little bearing on future success afterwards. Thanks for all the advice peoples.

 

[JmanDO]

I was wondering, when you get around to publishing, say 2 papers, what's the timeline? Do you usually work for 3 yrs, publish the first and tidy up with some leftover work for a second? Or do You work like a maniac and publish the first after the second year and start a new project for the remaining two?

You still only have to defend once right?

 

[Neuronix]

I was wondering, when you get around to publishing, say 2 papers, what's the timeline? Do you usually work for 3 yrs, publish the first and tidy up with some leftover work for a second?

Typically this. Don't start a new project to get more papers. I knew a student who after getting a first author nature paper quickly got sweet talked into staying in lab and starting a new project. His new project didn't work and he ended up being a 9 year, very bitter student. Another friend of mine got a first author science paper very quickly, was sweet talked into staying in lab, and despite spending almost two extra years, never published again.

Get in, get done, get out. Easier said than done when PIs need cheap labor.

 

[alphacentauri1]

An MD with a year research track only beat out an MD/PhD at the program I'm most familiar with this past year for a research track spot. The MD/PhD had a much stronger publication record. Reasons the MD beat him out? Higher clinical grades and research more closely related to the specialty.

I'm a bit confused about how much research (thesis or otherwise) needs to relate to a particular specialty if you want to pursue that specialty. I ended up interviewing with an administrator for the cards fellowship at UCLA a few months ago and he told me that for research residency at UCLA (STAR), they like applicants who've had experience in areas not necessarily immediately relevant to cardiology. Are there two camps about thinking about this, as there are with virtually all other things, or what?

 

[Neuronix]

Are there two camps about thinking about this, as there are with virtually all other things, or what?

As always, yes. My advice is to do research tailored to your area of clinical interest, if you know what your area of clinical interest is. It's certainly not critical, but it will help.

 

[Gyric]

My thesis committee required 3 first author publications to be accepted by the time of defense.

For residency, in my experience, more publications are expected as you take longer to finish the PhD. For example, 5 publications would be fine for someone taking >8 years, but only 1-2 would raise a red flag in this time frame. Demonstration of a strong academic record could certainly compensate for only one paper (eg AOA and high board scores), but among stellar applicants (to my program at least), those that were offered ranked to match calls generally had multiple publications in high impact journals.

 

[URHere]

From the looks of it, the question I posed should not be taken to seriously, unless there is a specific requirement from the graduate department and or committee.

While department/program rules are definitely a big factor, I think it is always a good idea to throw this question at potential mentors before choosing a lab. If you end up with someone who personally believes that a PhD student isn't worth anything without an extensive publication record, the fact that your department or program doesn't set an official number won't keep you away from those hurdles.

 

[nomogram3]

An MD with a year research track only beat out an MD/PhD at the program I'm most familiar with this past year for a research track spot. The MD/PhD had a much stronger publication record. Reasons the MD beat him out? Higher clinical grades and research more closely related to the specialty.

This seems...unfortunate. May I ask what specialty this was for? The goal of physician-scientist programs is to develop young faculty, so having someone with a strong publication record would be a plus. Now, if the MD/PhD had dramatically lower board scores and the committee felt they would not take care of patients as well, then all bets are off (but the gap would have to be pretty wide, and given that both interviewed at a pretty good institution, I can't imagine that it was).

 

[Neuronix]

This seems...unfortunate. May I ask what specialty this was for? The goal of physician-scientist programs is to develop young faculty, so having someone with a strong publication record would be a plus.

The goal of residency programs IS NOT the goal of physician-scientist training programs. There are far fewer research track residency positions than there are MD/PhDs, and then when you throw year out MDs into the mix it becomes very competitive for those positions. The competition for those spots is still highly based on clinical measures (again at least for the specialty I'm most familiar), and at competitive programs this isn't "would not take care of patients as well", but a question of 260 step 1 vs. 240 or AOA vs. not AOA but still reasonable med school performance. However, this varies by specialty, and since some specialties aren't that competitive to begin with, when you knock off the top programs you won't have any problems getting a research track spot as an MD/PhD who did okay in medical school. But in other specialties as an MD/PhD with a strong PhD who did okay in medical school, you may not match at all, let alone to a research track position.

Now, if the MD/PhD had dramatically lower board scores and the committee felt they would not take care of patients as well, then all bets are off (but the gap would have to be pretty wide, and given that both interviewed at a pretty good institution, I can't imagine that it was).

Unfortunately I can not comment further, because things need to remain anonymous. The rest of this person's application was quite good, but they still matched far down their rank list to a program that is not strong in research and does not have a research track. Having talked to the department and to the person, what I already said in my last post is the best of my knowledge why.

I just wanted to add that you are only as good as where you last trained. The PhD record DOES NOT MATTER when it comes to getting faculty positions, as told to me unanimously by every senior resident and fellow I have talked to in several specialties.

 

[nomogram3]

The goal of residency programs IS NOT the goal of physician-scientist training programs.

True. BUT the goal of physician-scientist training programs, or research residency pathways or what have you, IS. And I quote:

"Transition to Junior Faculty Position: Trainees who apply for an external career development grant award in the final year of their fellowship will be given consideration for "bridge" funding to a faculty position in their respective section. This bridge funding would provide assistance in the transition from fellowship to a junior faculty position within the University of Chicago's Department of Medicine."

From their webpage. http://imr.bsd.uchicago.edu/psdp.html And I can tell you that this is not a unique sentiment at programs around the country, which is why there is only a few spots at each program.

I just wanted to add that you are only as good as where you last trained. The PhD record DOES NOT MATTER when it comes to getting faculty positions, as told to me unanimously by every senior resident and fellow I have talked to in several specialties.

True, if you haven't done anything since you finished your PhD. But if you went from MD/PhD training to clinical training to a fellowship where you published and showed a good track record, you will find yourself attractive to multiple places looking for faculty (according to the young faculty that I have met at multiple institutions, as well as senior residents looking for jobs.)

Which was why I inquired about the specialty involved. I am talking about internal medicine. If you are talking about something else, then the points you make apply to something else.