Publications - Yes we all know they aren't necessary but how much do they help?

[backsideatk]

I feel like they'd help more for MD/PhD applicants than straight MD applicants. Do you think having them helps a lot?

Obviously it means more if you're the first author, who designed the experiment etc etc but how much more valuable is published research over unpublished research in an adcom's eye? If all else is equal, is the difference between the two marginal? or does it make a significant difference?

sorry if this thread sounds a little too.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PfNO22]

Obviously it means more if you're the first author, who designed the experiment etc etc but how much more valuable is published research over unpublished research in an adcom's eye? If all else is equal, is the difference between the two marginal? or does it make a significant difference?

There are a lot of reasons research doesn't get published, and you can get your name on a paper without doing much. So a paper, on its own, doesn't mean a lot.

When a paper means a lot is as a conclusion or stepping stone during a serious research commitment, about which you can speak coherently. Big bonus if you're the first author because normally that means you wrote the manuscript and understand the process of making a paper. BIG NEGATIVE if you don't understand the project or somehow you didn't actually write the paper and you are the first author.

My paper came from the shortest project I did that I was the least involved in.

 

[Neuronix]

You can't get an absolute answer to this question because the weight given to any given factor is dependent on the application reviewer and admissions committee. This is hardly a standardized process, and even standardization between adcoms at the same institution is weak.

 

[bd4727]

There are a lot of reasons research doesn't get published, and you can get your name on a paper without doing much. So a paper, on its own, doesn't mean a lot.

When a paper means a lot is as a conclusion or stepping stone during a serious research commitment, about which you can speak coherently. Big bonus if you're the first author because normally that means you wrote the manuscript and understand the process of making a paper. BIG NEGATIVE if you don't understand the project or somehow you didn't actually write the paper and you are the first author.

My paper came from the shortest project I did that I was the least involved in.

I think this is good advice.

Another way of thinking about it is looking at the distrubtion of what applicants have on the resume when applying. Most have zero publications but can talk about their research well (I would guess within 1SD of all applicants). At the upper end of the bell curve (>1SD of applicants perhaps), there will be people with co-author pubs who can talk about their research well. The furtherest to the right are people with first author pubs who can talk intelligently about their work (I would guess >2SD of applicants). These last set are few so it is obviously something that will set you apart from other applicants.

Like others said, though, as long as you are not to the left of the bell curve (ie cannot talk intelligently about your research) you should be okay. But like in any competative venture, the more you can set yourself apart the better so I do tend to think having a first author pub makes a difference overall just by the virtue of how rare it is.

 

[whiteshadodw]

don't get bogged down on the necessity of papers etc. there are things you can do on your own to make your research stand out that don't depend on other factors (PIs being picky about which journal to submit to, PIs, other people in your lab, editors at journals, etc etc).

you can apply to competitive scholarships based on research proposals (beckman, hhmi, etc or if you're a grad student NSF GRFP). poster competitions and stuff for conferences (the bigger conferences have these, like ACS, EB, etc). the list goes on. ultimately in these things, YOU are in control of how far you get. papers in journals... unfortunately very few PIs will trust undergrads with very little experience to be 1st authors. if you're a coauthor, someone is essentially using your data, but its not a bad thing.

 

[eighty-twenty]

A publication is only as good as how vested you were in it and if you can articulate how you contributed to it and explain it's overall significance. Saying this with genuine enthusiasm will win points. I had one bad experience training a new post-doc in our lab with an impressive list of publications (several first author). Unfortunately, he could not explain the significance of his work and it turned out his PI had written most of his publications. He was merely the technician who did the protein expression/folding. He was hired in our lab for his technical expertise rather than his critical thinking skills.

You may be asked questions to ferret out your involvement in the research listed on your CV. Were you the person just running the gels or injecting the mice or did you sit down with the PI and try to analyze the data and come up with some post-hoc explanation of results that weren't entirely expected? If the latter is the case, then a publication would not matter as much since you have shown the ability to think critically, which is a hallmark of a potential scientist.

 

[snobored18]

You can't get an absolute answer to this question because the weight given to any given factor is dependent on the application reviewer and admissions committee. This is hardly a standardized process, and even standardization between adcoms at the same institution is weak.

Sage advice...it all depends on when your app goes up in committee and who is in the room. I've seen applicants applauded for junk first author pubs, and brought down for not being the first author on groundbreaking work out of Nobel laureate/HHMI labs. As much as one might hope that all ADCOM members are grounded individuals without inherent biases this is far from reality. In general though, having a publication and being able to demonstrate that you absolutely "owned" that project in an interview is a nice card to have in your pocket.