publications

[ptiger]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm wondering if anyone can give me a sense of how important publications are in one's application. I didn't think they were very important beforehand, but after going through this application process I feel like they are extremely important. As my interviewer at Stanford told me, "Your application is great except you have no publications." I didn't get a call from Marjorie yesterday, so I'm assuming I didn't get in there, and given that comment during my interview, I'm assuming I know why as well. I don't mean to complain at all -- I'm very happy with my choices of schools. I'm just very suprised. What do you all think?

 

[jmed]

I think you can do really great work in a lab as an undergrad without haveing a publication to show when you apply to MSTP. On the other hand, I've seen preceptors for summer programs advertise that they could almost guarantee pubs for their summer students due to the nature/stage of the research project. I didn't have any publications when I applied to Stanford and no one brought it up in interview. Just because you didn't get any phone calls, ptiger, doesn't mean you won't get in- although it may be a month or so before you hear! You know how they are at Stanford....🙄

 

[ptiger]

I think you're right, jmed. My impression is that you either get lucky as an undergrad and work in a lab that includes your name on a paper, or you are unlucky and they don't include you. I was listed in the acknowledgments of one paper -- if they had wanted, they could have added me as another author. I don't care that I'm not an author, but I'm surprised that the adcoms do.

My advice to future applicants -- try to find a good lab asap and stay in it. I worked in three separate labs, learned a lot of different techniques and lab environments, and I think I'll be able to pick my thesis lab better in the future. But I didn't get any pubs out of it, and that most likely hurt me in the admissions process. Just something to consider ...

 

[ready]

I think anybody familiar with research (IE interviewers) can recognize that what constitutes authorship varies from lab to lab. Some labs list technicians and transient undergrads as others while other labs have a different idea of what constitutes an authorship level contribution.

IMO Publications, oral presentations, and posters can do a great deal to get a person an interview. However, in the end, it is really your ability to explain both the broad scope and the intricate details of your work. So, these students who get their name on a pub from a 6-week summer program are going to be easily identified.

I do think that if you work in a lab for a significant amount of time you should at least have a poster somewhere. I have worked in the same lab for two and a half years and have had several posters, an oral pres, and am currently writing a first author pub in entirety. It seems like compared to other people on this board, this is slightly below average, but I feel I have learned a great deal and never had an interviewer bring up my lack of pubs.

 

[Vader]

Publications can certainly help an application, but are by no means necessary. I didn't have any publications when I applied, although I did give poster and oral presentations at some meetings. The main thing is to be able to discuss what you actually did and what the results mean. I would rather see an applicant who has contributed significantly to a project than one who simply got on a nice paper because he/she was there at the right place, right time.

 

[ATLien1224]

Yo ptiger,
I definitely didn't have any publications when I applied to programs (I had one come out in June after I graduated, but that didn't make any difference for most of the places I was applying since it came out/was in press too late). I don't think most programs see it is a minus...just a plus if you have 'em. That was probably just that one rando's views at Stanford. Also as a little anecdote, a friend of mine in the med school class here at Columbia (i.e. non-MSTP) had a second author paper in Nature...and couldn't describe the research to me to save her life. Basically she did whatever her post-doc told her to do, and it turned out to be pretty badass. That might work to get into med school, but the MSTPs would much rather see that you have a deep understanding of what you're doing and why you're doing it as opposed to getting your name on a paper by following instructions. They want to get a sense of your scientific mind and whether you can design and follow through on experiments, not whether you got lucky enough to get sufficient data (in what they know is a limited amount of time during your undergrad years) to get your name on a paper.

 

[Sonya]

Originally posted by ptiger

My advice to future applicants -- try to find a good lab asap and stay in it. I worked in three separate labs, learned a lot of different techniques and lab environments, and I think I'll be able to pick my thesis lab better in the future. But I didn't get any pubs out of it, and that most likely hurt me in the admissions process. Just something to consider ...

That is the best advice for getting a good application. However, it's not always the best learning experience. There are two other advantages of staying in one lab 1. It shows commitment. 2. your PI (hopefully) knows you very well when he/she writes a rec letter.

Nonetheless, no when to get out of a bad lab situation. Also, another problem, unless your undergrad area is your area you want to stay in as your research interest (and that's often unlikely b/c you don't know that area at the begining of undergrad), you really know little about other areas. You need to be active about learning about other areas. I stayed in one lab all through undergrad. I got published second author in a good journal. But (especially since the tecniques we did were VERY out of the ordinary... actually more like invented by us), i got a somewhat unrealistic idea of research, and have more uncertanties about my area of research, or even whether i really want to go into research.
So, ptiger, you probably learned something else valuable by being in three different labs. But, i'd still advise to stick to one lab (but we aware of the negatives).

regarding publications... it can't hurt to be damn blunt and ask about it when deciding a lab. Don't go into a lab that doesn't publish (in decent journals) at least once a year. I ALWAYS look up the PIs publication record in pubmed before I interview with them.

vader... this might be a stupid/facisious (sp?) question... but what do you mean "contributed significantly". I mean, isn't getting data contributing? are you saying bringing original ideas?
(just trying to get an idea what to elaborate about research on the PS's and secondaries).

Sonya