Publications before internship

[AryaStark]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi All,
what would you all consider to be a competitive number of journal publications prior to internship?

 

[futureapppsy2]

Hi All,
what would you all consider to be a competitive number of journal publications prior to internship?

For what kind of site?

 

[erg923]

considering most applicants have zero (according to appic's stats), then I would say one.

 

[Ollie123]

Depends heavily on the details.

One isn't likely to make you competitive for any clinical science internships. As erg says, it is over the modal value...so it likely is fine at many other places.

It also matters a lot what type of publication it is. 5th author on something in your state psychological organizations newsletter likely won't mean squat. A first author in Science or Nature actually might be enough on its own to get you interviewed at clinical science programs. A first author on a small survey of undergraduates meant to be a pilot study is not going be as impressive as first author on a full-blown clinical trial.

As a general rule, I'd say 5+ pubs in solid journals (IF > 2, hopefully some with IF > 4), with at least one first-author, should at least put you "in the running" for anyplace. I know several people who were interviewed at a huge range of clinical science programs with around that many. Some get by with less. Some have 10+ pubs and don't get interviewed. With the system being what it is right now, there are no guarantees.

 

[futureapppsy2]

^
I'm assuming Science and Nature would be for people who do neuroscience research, right?

 

[Ollie123]

Well, Science & Nature certainly don't exclusively publish neuroscience, but either way it was a gross exaggeration (which was kind of the point). Very few psychologists, neuroscientists, or anyone for that matter is likely to publish there at any point in their career, let alone as a grad student. They are just my "Go to" prestigious journals as they publish stuff in my area so they are first ones that come to mind, are widely known, and carry weight across pretty much all fields. Feel free to insert any other journal of your choosing with an IF > 20🙂 Not that IF is the end all, be all...

More realistically for most of us, a publication in Psych Science, JPSP, Abnormal or JCCP will almost certainly open doors. Not that they are really in the same league as Science/Nature in terms of prestige, but within psychology specifically they are top of the line, though I'm still not certain I'd expect one first-author pub in one to guarantee one would be competitive at research-heavy internships.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Well, Science & Nature certainly don't exclusively publish neuroscience, but either way it was a gross exaggeration (which was kind of the point). Very few psychologists, neuroscientists, or anyone for that matter is likely to publish there at any point in their career, let alone as a grad student. They are just my "Go to" prestigious journals as they publish stuff in my area so they are first ones that come to mind, are widely known, and carry weight across pretty much all fields. Feel free to insert any other journal of your choosing with an IF > 20🙂 Not that IF is the end all, be all...

More realistically for most of us, a publication in Psych Science, JPSP, Abnormal or JCCP will almost certainly open doors. Not that they are really in the same league as Science/Nature in terms of prestige, but within psychology specifically they are top of the line, though I'm still not certain I'd expect one first-author pub in one to guarantee one would be competitive at research-heavy internships.

Ah. Got it. I was just curious, as psychology journals tend to have lower IF than medical journals in general in my experience.

As a side note, I have actually published something (although not a peer-reviewed article, sadly 🙁 ) in a 20+ IF journal, and boy does it generate attention and interest! Unfortunately, I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to publish an actual article in that league of journal, but in the unlikely event that happened, I'd be beyond thrilled.

 

[AryaStark]

Thanks for all the responses! I'm more interested in more clinically based internships. Considering that, how many publications are competitive (and does it matter order of authorship)

 

[Ollie123]

Generally true that medical journals are higher impact (though ironically, I've heard many argue they are usually easier to publish in). Science and Nature are definitely not medical journals though - if anything they seem to trend more towards basic sciences (e.g. physics), though they certainly publish medical research too. General rule is that the more "general" the journal the more prestige it carries. That gets convoluted fast though (i.e. is a psychology journal spanning many disorders more or less general than one focusing on a specific disorder that spans psychology, medicine, public health, etc.).

All besides the point though. The point here is just that not all publications are created equal. At least from what I've seen (not on internship yet - so what do I know?).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks for all the responses! I'm more interested in more clinically based internships. Considering that, how many publications are competitive (and does it matter order of authorship)

Honestly, I'd imagined that what erg mentioned above (i.e., 1) is likely true at many/most sites that aren't highly research-focused. This is, of course, assuming it's an actual peer-reviewed publication, and not an encyclopedia entry or book chapter (not that those aren't necessarily helpful, but they don't carry the same weight, and having too many of them could be a bad thing).

 

[futureapppsy2]

Honestly, I'd imagined that what erg mentioned above (i.e., 1) is likely true at many/most sites that aren't highly research-focused. This is, of course, assuming it's an actual peer-reviewed publication, and not an encyclopedia entry or book chapter (not that those aren't necessarily helpful, but they don't carry the same weight, and having too many of them could be a bad thing).

By bad thing, do you mean being seen as not spending your time efficiently/effectively?

Ollie: I agree that not all journals are created equal. My point was that we just don't see the same types of IFs as they do in medicine and basic science. Psychology's ceiling is substantially lower (although psychologists can publish in medical journals, of course).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

By bad thing, do you mean being seen as not spending your time efficiently/effectively?

Ollie: I agree that not all journals are created equal. My point was that we just don't see the same types of IFs as they do in medicine and basic science. Psychology's ceiling is substantially lower (although psychologists can publish in medical journals, of course).

Essentially, yes. Relatedly, I've heard that having a slew of encyclopedia entry-type pubs can be seen as an effort to build up a CV with a lot of "fluff" over substance.

 

[Member1928]

I think there is some understanding that opportunities to publish are sometimes highly variable both across graduate training programs and within individual programs themselves. Some mentors may not allow their students opportunities to publish as first author until it comes time to write up the student's dissertation. That same mentor might be outstanding and the student might have 4 or more very solid, high impact papers come off his/her dissertation. In other words, I think some of these sites also attempt to predict future research productivity, and there may be indicators other than how many papers a student has published that factor into the process. So yes, I think one first author paper in a respectable journal might help you make it past that first cut, but I also think being a co-author on a couple other papers might also help you make it past that first cut. Then other factors might be used to indicate future research potential and "fit" within a given internship program.

 

[Pragma]

Thanks for all the responses! I'm more interested in more clinically based internships. Considering that, how many publications are competitive (and does it matter order of authorship)

Well as others have said, you probably don't need much. But given how competitive things are, I don't think it would hurt to have at least a couple. It may set you apart.

Interestingly, when I went up for internship I had a good number of pubs (10+) at the time. We never talked about them at all at interviews. But I did go for clinically oriented sites as well, as I was not picky being geo restricted. Some sites will want pubs, and some even may want to see that you have gotten funding (these places like to groom researchers and keep interns for postdoc)

 

[wigflip]

I recall this same discussion on a previous thread (1 year ago?)

Essentially, yes. Relatedly, I've heard that having a slew of encyclopedia entry-type pubs can be seen as an effort to build up a CV with a lot of "fluff" over substance.

I think this probably depends on the discipline (i.e. more true in psych than in other social science disciplines) and the context (internship vs. going for faculty job at teaching institution that has low publication expectations anyway). That said, what happens if you simply enjoy writing and your non-peer-reviewed pubs overshadow your J articles? Or if you publish a lot of this type of thing early on, before you figure out the above (bias against lower prestige pubs, need to skew towards peer-reviewed J articles)? Do you just take some of them off your CV? No one is likely to track down your encyclopedia entries anyway.

 

[Pragma]

I think this probably depends on the discipline (i.e. more true in psych than in other social science disciplines) and the context (internship vs. going for faculty job at teaching institution that has low publication expectations anyway). That said, what happens if you simply enjoy writing and your non-peer-reviewed pubs overshadow your J articles? Or if you publish a lot of this type of thing early on, before you figure out the above (bias against lower prestige pubs, need to skew towards peer-reviewed J articles)? Do you just take some of them off your CV? No one is likely to track down your encyclopedia entries anyway.

Yes I agree, it probably does vary by discipline. I have a handful of things that were invited (book chapters, invited commentaries, an article/quiz for granting CEUs), but I honestly don't think those things carry much weight in most Universities.

Now, they will go in your tenure file and won't hurt you. But you'll get more credit for something that is peer-reviewed, at least in my area.

That said, folks who are in other humanities, etc. might get more credit for writing a book or something like that. A very teaching-oriented place may look favorably on writing a textbook or something.

Personally, if I look at someone's CV, an encyclopedia entry isn't going to stand out at me. I wouldn't get rid of it necessarily, but I'd hope that you have something peer-reviewed as well. Also, one of my own pet peeves is when people don't separate peer-reviewed items from non peer-reviewed items. I hate that and I have a negative emotional reaction. I'm not selecting students for internship, but I am sure others feel similarly.

 

[wigflip]

Yeah, it's just that my ratio of peer-reviewed to non-peer reviewed is off. Too many of the latter, too few of the former.

I wouldn't get rid of it necessarily, but I'd hope that you have something peer-reviewed as well. Also, one of my own pet peeves is when people don't separate peer-reviewed items from non peer-reviewed items. I hate that and I have a negative emotional reaction. I'm not selecting students for internship, but I am sure others feel similarly.

I see that (bold above) a lot, especially for folks who haven't published very much. I'm never sure how to organize the damn thing (i.e. separate sections for J articles and book chapters, both of which include peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed, or separate section for peer reviewed only, which includes both J articles and book chapters, etc.). I've nosed around and read CVs in my discipline and others and have seen it done both ways. Of course my encyclopedia and other stuff (book reviews, etc.) is separate, but I'm never sure how many OCD subcategories to make.

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, it's just that my ratio of peer-reviewed to non-peer reviewed is off. Too many of the latter, too few of the former.



I see that (bold above) a lot, especially for folks who haven't published very much. I'm never sure how to organize the damn thing (i.e. separate sections for J articles and book chapters, both of which include peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed, or separate section for peer reviewed only, which includes both J articles and book chapters, etc.). I've nosed around and read CVs in my discipline and others and have seen it done both ways. Of course my encyclopedia and other stuff (book reviews, etc.) is separate, but I'm never sure how many OCD subcategories to make.

Well having publications is impressive no matter what, and it is still currency. You've mentioned that you are in a different area as well, so I'd imagine that those non peer-reviewed things may get more weight. But some may view lumping them together as an attempt to misrepresent yourself. I have seen even faculty do this (e.g., put a published abstract with their peer-reviewed articles to make it look like a full publication - ick!).

FWIW, I organize my CV into 4 sections for this kind of stuff: "Peer-reviewed publications", "Manuscripts under review", "Other publications", and "Presentations"

I haven't gotten to the point where specifying further seems practical. But perhaps after a few more invited works, it would make sense to do something like "Book Chapters" and such.

 

[wigflip]

Well having publications is impressive no matter what, and it is still currency. You've mentioned that you are in a different area as well, so I'd imagine that those non peer-reviewed things may get more weight. But some may view lumping them together as an attempt to misrepresent yourself. I have seen even faculty do this (e.g., put a published abstract with their peer-reviewed articles to make it look like a full publication - ick!).

FWIW, I organize my CV into 4 sections for this kind of stuff: "Peer-reviewed publications", "Manuscripts under review", "Other publications", and "Presentations"

I haven't gotten to the point where specifying further seems practical. But perhaps after a few more invited works, it would make sense to do something like "Book Chapters" and such.

Me too (bold #1)--I usually only bother to look at faculty CVs--I figure most other grad students probably don't know any more than I do about this kind of thing, at least if they haven't been on the job market. I'd say that more often than not, I see "books," "J articles," and "book chapters" separated out by category, regardless of status (p-r vs non-p-r). But I see it the other way too.

Interesting (bold #2). No "works in progress," eh?

 

[Pragma]

Me too (bold #1)--I usually only bother to look at faculty CVs--I figure most other grad students probably don't know any more than I do about this kind of thing, at least if they haven't been on the job market. I'd say that more often than not, I see "books," "J articles," and "book chapters" separated out by category, regardless of status (p-r vs non-p-r). But I see it the other way too.

Interesting (bold #2). No "works in progress," eh?

This was frowned upon where I was taught. I view it as fluff. Wait until you've submitted it somewhere at least. You could mention "research interests" or something else on the CV to get the point across. But "works in progress" could mean I talked about it with some other student at a bar, but haven't collected any data or started writing as far as I'm concerned.

When I see it on a CV, I have a negative reaction as well.

 

[wigflip]

This was frowned upon where I was taught. I view it as fluff. Wait until you've submitted it somewhere at least. You could mention "research interests" or something else on the CV to get the point across. But "works in progress" could mean I talked about it with some other student at a bar, but haven't collected any data or started writing as far as I'm concerned.

When I see it on a CV, I have a negative reaction as well.

Had a hunch you'd feel that way.

The one psychologist I know who got an academic job in the last year had a slew of "works in progress" on the most recent copy of her/his CV, but even more published J articles, so I suspect it didn't count against.

 

[Pragma]

Had a hunch you'd feel that way.

The one psychologist I know who got an academic job in the last year had a slew of "works in progress" on the most recent copy of her/his CV, but even more published J articles, so I suspect it didn't count against.

I'm sure a lot more goes into the tenure track job evaluations. But I also am a psychologist who got a TT job - and not having "works in progress" didn't work against me, either 😉

I suppose I consider "manuscripts under review" to be my works in progress, since that is what I have been working on and am still in the process of trying to get published.

My approach is to keep it simple and to the point. That's how my mentor taught me and I respect that. There's nothing more annoying than a CV that is pages longer than it should be because someone is trying to inflate their credentials. Of course, others may feel differently.

 

[wigflip]

There's nothing more annoying than a CV that is pages longer than it should be because someone is trying to inflate their credentials.

Yeah, I agree. I've seen some grad students pad with some real nonsense. Kinda reminds me of when UGs plagiarize: who do they think they're fooling?

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, I agree.

Wait, I did think of something more annoying: The lack of religious conservatives suggesting that Tropical Storm Isaac is 'God's punishment" for the GOP convention goers. That would have made my day.

After that, it's a toss-up between padded CVs and people who have poor elevator etiquette.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Well having publications is impressive no matter what, and it is still currency. You've mentioned that you are in a different area as well, so I'd imagine that those non peer-reviewed things may get more weight. But some may view lumping them together as an attempt to misrepresent yourself. I have seen even faculty do this (e.g., put a published abstract with their peer-reviewed articles to make it look like a full publication - ick!).

FWIW, I organize my CV into 4 sections for this kind of stuff: "Peer-reviewed publications", "Manuscripts under review", "Other publications", and "Presentations"

I haven't gotten to the point where specifying further seems practical. But perhaps after a few more invited works, it would make sense to do something like "Book Chapters" and such.

I have one or two non-peer-reviewed pubs (e.g., book chapters and the like) along with a couple published abstracts, so I might actually steal those categories from you so that I can group them together rather than needing to have separate sections.

As for encyclopedia entries, I personally don't think there's anything at all wrong with them. I've just heard that if it's ALL you have, for example, it might not look terribly strong.

And re: CV padding, I do sometimes feel mine could currently come across that way with respect to clinical experiences. At the moment, I've got them separated into internship and grad school categories, which I figured would be useful for the postdoc application process, and then within each of those two categories it's further divided into individual practica/rotations. However, given how many such rotations I've had at this point, those two sections alone are somewhere between two and three pages. Definitely need to see if I can somehow cut that down a bit, depending on the type of jobs I'm applying for after fellowship.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I format my CV similarly:
-Peer-reviewed publications (subsection for under review and in revision)
-Book chapters
-Non-peer-reviewed scholarly publications (encyclopedia entries, test reviews, invited commentary, etc)
-Presentations (divide into national and state and local plus non-referred professional)

I've almost always seen book chapters grouped as their own category on faculty CVs, hence why I did the same.

In the past, I've put a couple of manuscripts in preparation just to sure what I was currently working on, but now that I have a decent body of journal articles to my name, I'll likely leave it off.

 

[Pragma]

I have one or two non-peer-reviewed pubs (e.g., book chapters and the like) along with a couple published abstracts, so I might actually steal those categories from you so that I can group them together rather than needing to have separate sections.

As for encyclopedia entries, I personally don't think there's anything at all wrong with them. I've just heard that if it's ALL you have, for example, it might not look terribly strong.

And re: CV padding, I do sometimes feel mine could currently come across that way with respect to clinical experiences. At the moment, I've got them separated into internship and grad school categories, which I figured would be useful for the postdoc application process, and then within each of those two categories it's further divided into individual practica/rotations. However, given how many such rotations I've had at this point, those two sections alone are somewhere between two and three pages. Definitely need to see if I can somehow cut that down a bit, depending on the type of jobs I'm applying for after fellowship.

I think it completely depends on the purpose. You definitely will want to condense that down for job applications (IMO), but it probably made a lot of sense for postdoc applications.

I am currently in the process of overhauling mine. I used to include a brief description of activities I did in each position (tried to keep it at 3 lines or less), but that would likely be viewed as silly now in a prof role. I also listed all the courses I have taught (for the academic job market) but that is no longer necessary either. Most folks just list what their position was and when they had it. Grants and pubs are more important now. My "delete" button is going to get a workout this fall.

 

[wigflip]

I format my CV similarly:
-Peer-reviewed publications (subsection for under review and in revision)
-Book chapters
-Non-peer-reviewed scholarly publications (encyclopedia entries, test reviews, invited commentary, etc)
-Presentations (divide into national and state and local plus non-referred professional)

I've almost always seen book chapters grouped as their own category on faculty CVs, hence why I did the same.

In the past, I've put a couple of manuscripts in preparation just to sure what I was currently working on, but now that I have a decent body of journal articles to my name, I'll likely leave it off.

Thanks, future.

So if you have a peer-reviewed book chapter, do you put it in "peer-reviewed," or in "book chapters"?

 

[Pragma]

I format my CV similarly:
-Peer-reviewed publications (subsection for under review and in revision)
-Book chapters
-Non-peer-reviewed scholarly publications (encyclopedia entries, test reviews, invited commentary, etc)
-Presentations (divide into national and state and local plus non-referred professional)

I've almost always seen book chapters grouped as their own category on faculty CVs, hence why I did the same.

In the past, I've put a couple of manuscripts in preparation just to sure what I was currently working on, but now that I have a decent body of journal articles to my name, I'll likely leave it off.

Yeah maybe it is more acceptable when you are just getting started. It seems like padding to me after you have a few articles to your name.

I like your division of sections. My own personal preference is that I don't like having entire categories with only 1-2 things under them. So maybe after I have done, say 4 book chapters, I'll probably separate that out. Until then, I just don't like how it looks. Keeping all of the non peer review things in one place seems to flow the best, at the moment.

Interesting subdivisions for conferences. I might consider that in the future.

 

[Pragma]

Thanks, future.

So if you have a peer-reviewed book chapter, do you put it in "peer-reviewed," or in "book chapters"?

I have never heard of that. How does the review process compare to the review process in a PR journal?

 

[wigflip]

My own personal preference is that I don't like having entire categories with only 1-2 things under them.

I think that's why sometimes you see folks combining J articles, book chapters, pedagogical publications, book reviews, encyclopedia entries and the like under one heading. Maybe they have 3-5 things and it seems odd to separate by peer-review status, etc.

I have never heard of that. How does the review process compare to the review process in a PR journal?

Similar, from what I've seen.

It's probably not the best place to publish your empirical work, unless the volume becomes a seminal text in the subfield, in which case you kinda gotta get in there if you can.

 

[LETSGONYR]

I think that's why sometimes you see folks combining J articles, book chapters, pedagogical publications, book reviews, encyclopedia entries and the like under one heading. Maybe they have 3-5 things and it seems odd to separate by peer-review status, etc.

Yeah, that's the case for me. I have a section for "publications," under which I have two entries... a (non-PR) book chapter and a peer-reviewed article in a journal. It seems silly to separate them into two categories. I also have a section for posters/presentations.

 

[wigflip]

Yeah, that's the case for me. I have a section for "publications," under which I have two entries... a (non-PR) book chapter and a peer-reviewed article in a journal. It seems silly to separate them into two categories. I also have a section for posters/presentations.

Actually, I just checked my advisor's CV and it turns out there's only two categories: books, and articles and chapters. It's all mashed in there together. Doesn't seem to have hurt her/him any, as s/he's a leader in the subfield.

 

[Pragma]

Actually, I just checked my advisor's CV and it turns out there's only two categories: books, and articles and chapters. It's all mashed in there together. Doesn't seem to have hurt her/him any, as s/he's a leader in the subfield.

It just depends who you talk to. Peer-review status was considered the most important factor in judging the value of applicant publications at my institution. I tend to agree - I worked a lot harder to get my peer review stuff published, and it is better work than my non-peer review stuff. These days, it is also easier to get different methods published (e.g., qualitative) in peer-review journals.

We had a lot of CV workshops as a part of my graduate program and while I was exposed to a lot of ways of doing things, it was clear to me that indicating whether something was under peer review was of high importance. It is a value I have taken with me, having published both types of work myself.

I still am very impressed by folks with lots of chapters and other non peer review work. But when you are invited to do something, the editing process is so much less scrutinizing (in general).

 

[Pragma]

I think that's why sometimes you see folks combining J articles, book chapters, pedagogical publications, book reviews, encyclopedia entries and the like under one heading. Maybe they have 3-5 things and it seems odd to separate by peer-review status, etc.

Yeah before I had a few peer-review publications to my name, I was still advised by multiple faculty to keep that section separate.

I guess my preference for having substantial sections is after already making that peer review distinction. Looking at those 1-2 pubs in that section years back actually became quite a motivator to get some more of them submitted.

 

[Pragma]

Actually, I just checked my advisor's CV and it turns out there's only two categories: books, and articles and chapters. It's all mashed in there together. Doesn't seem to have hurt her/him any, as s/he's a leader in the subfield.

I'd imagine that a leader in the field can put whatever they want on their CV. I wonder if it looked the same earlier, and what the norms are in the subfield. Within clinical psychology, I was taught a certain way and I trust those who taught me. It has never led me the wrong way.

Interestingly, I looked at my mentor's CV recently (also a leader in the field...and close to retirement). I don't want to say exactly how long it was, but it was between 100 and 150 pages. I guess that is what happens when you go on a publishing rampage for a few decades 😉 And yes - there was a book chapters subsection.