Publishing without a faculty member?

[Foot Fetish]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have a very cool idea for a literature review article. Since it's just a systematic review with no human subjects, there's no need for IRB approval. My question is how feasible would it be to get it published in a legitimate journal without a faculty co-author. I know there are plenty of garbage journals out there that will publish just about anything...At the same time, I don't need it to be JAMA -tier. I'd just like to avoid something like the Zimbabwean Journal of Venereology, which would raise PDs' eyebrows, you know?

Is this within the realm of possibility? I have a family member (PhD candidate in his final year) who is an expert on the topic, and I can recruit him as a co-author if that would help my cause.

I should preemptively mention that I am well aware of the plethora of benefits (e.g networking) that comes with working with a faculty member. I'm already on that. I am working on a cohort study with a mentor in my home department. I just want to take on this lit review paper as my own special little project.

Any advice would be be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

[Amygdarya]

If your review is in the general area of your mentored research, I see no reason not to run the idea of the review by your mentor and see if (s)he'd be interested in co-authoring. Thing is, pretty much any paper can benefit from an extra pair of eyes and a brain - especially if you're writing this kind of review for the first time. Also, it's typically *much* easier to get something published if some of the authors are recognizable names. There are other benefits of including your mentor as a coauthor, eg. (s)he may pay the publishing costs and you'll earn some browny points by coming up with a neat review idea and doing most of the work on it independently.

Why *don't* you want to include a faculty member as a coauthor? What kind of disadvantages do you expect?

 

[mcloaf]

You should involve a coauthor. Having someone established lends your work credibility, and even if you think you're a great writer who knows the literature having someone with experience read and edit the paper is almost sure to improve it.

 

[mimelim]

I have a very cool idea for a literature review article. Since it's just a systematic review with no human subjects, there's no need for IRB approval. My question is how feasible would it be to get it published in a legitimate journal without a faculty co-author. I know there are plenty of garbage journals out there that will publish just about anything...At the same time, I don't need it to be JAMA -tier. I'd just like to avoid something like the Zimbabwean Journal of Venereology, which would raise PDs' eyebrows, you know?

Is this within the realm of possibility? I have a family member (PhD candidate in his final year) who is an expert on the topic, and I can recruit him as a co-author if that would help my cause.

I should preemptively mention that I am well aware of the plethora of benefits (e.g networking) that comes with working with a faculty member. I'm already on that. I am working on a cohort study with a mentor in my home department. I just want to take on this lit review paper as my own special little project.

Any advice would be be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

The value of a literature review is the critical analysis of the relationship between different sources/papers. What makes YOU qualified to analyze and discuss this information? There is plenty of garbage that ends up in even JAMA or NEJM despite safeguards, but this is the reason that people do look at who the authors are. There is a fair amount of interpretation and original thought that goes into good literature reviews. If I pick up a journal and want to read a systematic review on a topic, I'm not really looking for a medical student's opinion on the topic.

 

[seeinghowitgoes]

I have a very cool idea for a literature review article. Since it's just a systematic review with no human subjects, there's no need for IRB approval. My question is how feasible would it be to get it published in a legitimate journal without a faculty co-author. I know there are plenty of garbage journals out there that will publish just about anything...At the same time, I don't need it to be JAMA -tier. I'd just like to avoid something like the Zimbabwean Journal of Venereology, which would raise PDs' eyebrows, you know?

Is this within the realm of possibility? I have a family member (PhD candidate in his final year) who is an expert on the topic, and I can recruit him as a co-author if that would help my cause.

I should preemptively mention that I am well aware of the plethora of benefits (e.g networking) that comes with working with a faculty member. I'm already on that. I am working on a cohort study with a mentor in my home department. I just want to take on this lit review paper as my own special little project.

Any advice would be be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Literature reviews especially warrant an expert in the field - unless you have a PhD in the subject or spent 10 years in industry before medical school, I think you should absolutely have a faculty member. Additionally, systematic reviews are incredibly rigorous and really require a minimum of 2 reviewers, proper data extraction forms, understanding of use of standardized bias assessments, and knowledge of meta-analytic statistics (when appropriate) just to name several of the intricacies involved in the research process - I absolutely do not know your background but I have met very few medical students who have a background conducting systematic reviews, which would suggest the need for at least a methods expert. If you mean a narrative review then I refer back to my first point - you need a content expert to make sure you're review is including the proper papers and what you're saying has relevance to the field.

I don't say this because I think every article requires a faculty member (oh academia and your hierarchies). I have conducted a cross-sectional study where I included a faculty member and as we went to submit he insisted he not be included because he felt he hadn't contributed enough to the paper (he took a place in the acknowledgements section - I know, the opposite of most stories you hear). That paper was accepted to an admittedly mediocre, but pubmed indexed, journal. I have another similar example of a study out for external review. The difference is 1) these types of papers are experimental designs that rely less on an expert making sure the right articles are included and 2) I have a graduate degree covering biostats/epi in addition to experience. And even then, these studies are smaller, less impactful, and I miss out on mentoring compared to the ones I do with faculty.

So TL/DR,with the caveat of I don't know your background, I'd get at least a content-expert faculty member, and probably a methods expert faculty member, to join you for the benefit of your study as well as your own professional benefit.

For the record - I do think it's cool you're forming your own study ideas! Good luck getting this study off the ground and out there!

 

[Goro]

Sometimes journals request reviews from authors, especially if said authors are experts in their field.

Some journals allow for reviews to be submitted and have a section in the journal for such article type.

However the journal editors are going to look at who you are and say "who the hell is this person?" when they see that you have no expertise in the field.

I have a very cool idea for a literature review article. Since it's just a systematic review with no human subjects, there's no need for IRB approval. My question is how feasible would it be to get it published in a legitimate journal without a faculty co-author. I know there are plenty of garbage journals out there that will publish just about anything...At the same time, I don't need it to be JAMA -tier. I'd just like to avoid something like the Zimbabwean Journal of Venereology, which would raise PDs' eyebrows, you know?

Is this within the realm of possibility? I have a family member (PhD candidate in his final year) who is an expert on the topic, and I can recruit him as a co-author if that would help my cause.

I should preemptively mention that I am well aware of the plethora of benefits (e.g networking) that comes with working with a faculty member. I'm already on that. I am working on a cohort study with a mentor in my home department. I just want to take on this lit review paper as my own special little project.

Any advice would be be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

[BeddingfieldMD]

Agree with the general consensus here... It would behoove you to submit this with an established faculty member. As many have stated, a busy academic physician frequently has several emails sitting in their inbox at any given time from journals asking if they are interested in submitting review articles and such. I don't know why you would want to needlessly make work for yourself and most likely end up getting your review article published in a lesser quality journal--if at all.

 

[Foot Fetish]

If your review is in the general area of your mentored research, I see no reason not to run the idea of the review by your mentor and see if (s)he'd be interested in co-authoring. Thing is, pretty much any paper can benefit from an extra pair of eyes and a brain - especially if you're writing this kind of review for the first time. Also, it's typically *much* easier to get something published if some of the authors are recognizable names. There are other benefits of including your mentor as a coauthor, eg. (s)he may pay the publishing costs and you'll earn some browny points by coming up with a neat review idea and doing most of the work on it independently.

Why *don't* you want to include a faculty member as a coauthor? What kind of disadvantages do you expect?

I guess there really is no good reason why I couldn't benefit from a second set of eyes to review the paper. The topic is indeed within the general area of my mentored research but only tangentially so. The real bulk of the topic lies outside of medicine. My PhD candidate cousin who I mentioned is the real expert on the topic. I don't know if he will have those letters behind his name in time for article submission, however! lol

One question I have: If I do pursue faculty co-authorship, should I approach my current PI/research mentor or seek out a second mentor in order to branch out in the department? I have a faculty member in mind whose academic interests are more in line with the topic than my current mentor. There's nothing wrong with collaborating with multiple faculty members, right? It means more LoR's down the line.

The value of a literature review is the critical analysis of the relationship between different sources/papers. What makes YOU qualified to analyze and discuss this information? There is plenty of garbage that ends up in even JAMA or NEJM despite safeguards, but this is the reason that people do look at who the authors are. There is a fair amount of interpretation and original thought that goes into good literature reviews. If I pick up a journal and want to read a systematic review on a topic, I'm not really looking for a medical student's opinion on the topic.

Fair enough. What if the first author is a med student, but the second and third are an MD and a PhD, respectively? Would that be up to snuff?

Literature reviews especially warrant an expert in the field - unless you have a PhD in the subject or spent 10 years in industry before medical school, I think you should absolutely have a faculty member. Additionally, systematic reviews are incredibly rigorous and really require a minimum of 2 reviewers, proper data extraction forms, understanding of use of standardized bias assessments, and knowledge of meta-analytic statistics (when appropriate) just to name several of the intricacies involved in the research process - I absolutely do not know your background but I have met very few medical students who have a background conducting systematic reviews, which would suggest the need for at least a methods expert. If you mean a narrative review then I refer back to my first point - you need a content expert to make sure you're review is including the proper papers and what you're saying has relevance to the field.

I don't say this because I think every article requires a faculty member (oh academia and your hierarchies). I have conducted a cross-sectional study where I included a faculty member and as we went to submit he insisted he not be included because he felt he hadn't contributed enough to the paper (he took a place in the acknowledgements section - I know, the opposite of most stories you hear). That paper was accepted to an admittedly mediocre, but pubmed indexed, journal. I have another similar example of a study out for external review. The difference is 1) these types of papers are experimental designs that rely less on an expert making sure the right articles are included and 2) I have a graduate degree covering biostats/epi in addition to experience. And even then, these studies are smaller, less impactful, and I miss out on mentoring compared to the ones I do with faculty.

So TL/DR,with the caveat of I don't know your background, I'd get at least a content-expert faculty member, and probably a methods expert faculty member, to join you for the benefit of your study as well as your own professional benefit.

For the record - I do think it's cool you're forming your own study ideas! Good luck getting this study off the ground and out there!

Thank you for the detailed reply. This was super helpful. Honestly, I didn't realize so much went into a review paper. I guess I was thinking more of a narrative review when I first thought of this project, but now I am thinking that a systematic review would be more "impressive." What is your opinion on that? Is one more highly regarded than the other? Moreover, is it easier to PUBLISH one over the other? The caveat is that there are very, very few papers on the topic I aim to review. This leads me to believe that it's more amenable to narrative review instead of systematic/metanalysis. Is that a fair point?

 

[mimelim]

I guess there really is no good reason why I couldn't benefit from a second set of eyes to review the paper. The topic is indeed within the general area of my mentored research but only tangentially so. The real bulk of the topic lies outside of medicine. My PhD candidate cousin who I mentioned is the real expert on the topic. I don't know if he will have those letters behind his name in time for article submission, however! lol

One question I have: If I do pursue faculty co-authorship, should I approach my current PI/research mentor or seek out a second mentor in order to branch out in the department? I have a faculty member in mind whose academic interests are more in line with the topic than my current mentor. There's nothing wrong with collaborating with multiple faculty members, right? It means more LoR's down the line.



Fair enough. What if the first author is a med student, but the second and third are an MD and a PhD, respectively? Would that be up to snuff?




Thank you for the detailed reply. This was super helpful. Honestly, I didn't realize so much went into a review paper. I guess I was thinking more of a narrative review when I first thought of this project, but now I am thinking that a systematic review would be more "impressive." What is your opinion on that? Is one more highly regarded than the other? Moreover, is it easier to PUBLISH one over the other? The caveat is that there are very, very few papers on the topic I aim to review. This leads me to believe that it's more amenable to narrative review instead of systematic/metanalysis. Is that a fair point?

It isn't about MD, PhD or other letters after your name. It is about your status in the field. I mean it is definitely a part of it tangentially. There is nothing you specifically learn in medical school that would make you a better fit for it. The main thing is experience in the field to lend credibility to your analysis.

 

[seeinghowitgoes]

Thank you for the detailed reply. This was super helpful. Honestly, I didn't realize so much went into a review paper. I guess I was thinking more of a narrative review when I first thought of this project, but now I am thinking that a systematic review would be more "impressive." What is your opinion on that? Is one more highly regarded than the other? Moreover, is it easier to PUBLISH one over the other? The caveat is that there are very, very few papers on the topic I aim to review. This leads me to believe that it's more amenable to narrative review instead of systematic/metanalysis. Is that a fair point?

No problem. Systematic reviews are definitely viewed more favorably (from a rigor standpoint and skill standpoint) because they are a type of research study - the goal of a systematic review is to answer a question with the level of data being the studies themselves. Think of it a bit like a research study vs a case report (though a narrative review is more useful than the latter so the analogy only fits so well). That being said you're right in that if there aren't many studies in a field the systematic review cannot be completed, so that's where a narrative approach is probably more helpful to the field. In either case, having that expert only makes the work more valuable.

 

[Amygdarya]

One question I have: If I do pursue faculty co-authorship, should I approach my current PI/research mentor or seek out a second mentor in order to branch out in the department? I have a faculty member in mind whose academic interests are more in line with the topic than my current mentor. There's nothing wrong with collaborating with multiple faculty members, right? It means more LoR's down the line.

It's up to you. It's probably easier to bring the idea of a meta-analysis to your current mentor, but there is nothing wrong with approaching someone else in the department, especially if their interests align more closely with the topic of the review.

In general, I don't see an issue with working with more than one PI, as long as your PIs are aware of it (so it's not like you're sneaking behind their backs) and you can honor all of your commitments.
Update: this may be an issue if a PI is paying your salary from their grants or something along these lines, then they may expect a 100% commitment. But it's not usually the case with med students.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Not even I have the balls to write a review article by myself (nothing to do with having the prestige of the author, but more because I need guidance from an expert). I say this as someone who has actually published one.

 

[Foot Fetish]

Not even I have the balls to write a review article by myself (nothing to do with having the prestige of the author, but more because I need guidance from an expert). I say this as someone who has actually published one.

Eh, I am focusing on a very niche topic. There's not a tremendous amount to say. I'm gonna keep it short and sweet. And like I said, I have access to experts. Also, I'm not above publishing in mediocre journals. It's unfortunate, but the reality is that the residency application process is a numbers game. Obviously, well-known, high impact journal pubs are way more valuable, but, as someone who currently has zero abstracts, posters, or pubs, I'll take what I can get.

All that being said, I literally spent 9 hours straight doing literature searches today. @seeinghowitgoes was totally right. The methodology aspect is a real pain in the butt. My main issue was not knowing what to search in Pubmed and other article databases. The authors tend to use inconsistent terminology, which is making it very tough to compile a comprehensive article list...I sat down with a librarian to go over it, which helped quite a bit. I know I got the vast majority of the literature collected, but I am still worried about missing articles that should be included. It's imperative that 100% of the relevant articles are included, correct? I am finding that slight variations in search terms can make you miss articles...which makes me question the methodology of other systematic reviews I've read. Some of them just say "searched PubMed for "X" and "Y"...but I'm finding that not all of the relevant articles are even on PubMed..

 

[Anti-PD1]

Publish with a mentor for infinity reasons.

 

[751866]

... these types of papers are experimental designs ...

Experimental designs (designed experiments) are different from observational studies...

I agree with you though that it's typically better to include some more established and experienced faculty in a project. Anything we think we know about it probably pales in comparison to what they know from their years of practice.

 

[Amygdarya]

Just to throw it out there, there are journals that accept reviews written by med students and co-authored by, say, residents or postdoc (eg. American Journal of Psychiatry's Resident Journal in psych). However, these publications are not held in high regard to put it mildly (say, as opposed to the parent American Journal of Psychiatry) and are considered sort of a playground. So publish at your own risk.

 

[Foot Fetish]

Just to throw it out there, there are journals that accept reviews written by med students and co-authored by, say, residents or postdoc (eg. American Journal of Psychiatry's Resident Journal in psych). However, these publications are not held in high regard to put it mildly (say, as opposed to the parent American Journal of Psychiatry) and are considered sort of a playground. So publish at your own risk.

It's certainly better than no pubs though. It's not like it would be seen as a negative. At worst, it's a neutral point on your application. I think, if nothing else, it at least shows initiative.

 

[mimelim]

It's certainly better than no pubs though. It's not like it would be seen as a negative. At worst, it's a neutral point on your application. I think, if nothing else, it at least shows initiative.

That is definitely false. Publishing in no-name journals can definitely hurt a residency application. Not all of these apply every time, but certainly come up. Demonstrating poor decision making...

#1 Time is precious. Your time is precious. Spending excessive time/energy on projects with poor yields/waste of time journals shows poor insight into what you are doing.
#2 There are plenty of journals out there that publish anything that gets sent to them. My spam folder gets 5-6 messages a day asking me to send them things. After you attend enough conferences and publish enough, your e-mail ends up in print and people start hammering you from bull**** journals. If people don't recognize the journal, they will often look it up. If it is less than reputable, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth.


You clearly have not done this before. You don't know the basic methodologies or even what a literature review entails. Maybe YOU think that jumping in shows initiative. But, most of us on the other side recognize it as naïveté at best and a big red flag at worst. Putting out garbage can hurt you going forward. Most likely won't, but it can. But, more importantly, you aren't getting anything out of it. You aren't learning how to do something effectively. You aren't getting your name on something worthwhile. You are just adding to the ever growing pile of junk science.

 

[deferment baby]

What kinds of publications are good for med students to do w/o a mentor or w/o little guidance from a mentor?

I know they have literature review, peer review articles, narratives, case studies, opinion, research letter, observation and etc. Are there any other research brackets out there?

Like the OP, I have a research topic I want to talk about in a lit review process, but wasn't sure if I need a faculty member or not. I will start school this year, so basically I can find articles and compiled them and write something and then find a faculty member to help me.

Can a lit review have a poster?

 

[Foot Fetish]

That is definitely false. Publishing in no-name journals can definitely hurt a residency application. Not all of these apply every time, but certainly come up. Demonstrating poor decision making...

#1 Time is precious. Your time is precious. Spending excessive time/energy on projects with poor yields/waste of time journals shows poor insight into what you are doing.
#2 There are plenty of journals out there that publish anything that gets sent to them. My spam folder gets 5-6 messages a day asking me to send them things. After you attend enough conferences and publish enough, your e-mail ends up in print and people start hammering you from bull**** journals. If people don't recognize the journal, they will often look it up. If it is less than reputable, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth.


You clearly have not done this before. You don't know the basic methodologies or even what a literature review entails. Maybe YOU think that jumping in shows initiative. But, most of us on the other side recognize it as naïveté at best and a big red flag at worst. Putting out garbage can hurt you going forward. Most likely won't, but it can. But, more importantly, you aren't getting anything out of it. You aren't learning how to do something effectively. You aren't getting your name on something worthwhile. You are just adding to the ever growing pile of junk science.

Ok, good to know. What would you say is the cut-off for a respectable journal? I am restricted to Open Access journals due to funding constraints. The journal that I had in mind has an impact factor of ~1.6. I know that's low, but is it unacceptably low?

 

[751866]

Ok, good to know. What would you say is the cut-off for a respectable journal? I am restricted to Open Access journals due to funding constraints. The journal that I had in mind has an impact factor of ~1.6. I know that's low, but is it unacceptably low?

People pay to publish in real journals? Most good journals that I know of don't require any payment. Some offer open access for a fee, but if you decline, your article is only available to subscribers. I've only really heard of predatory journals charging for publication.

 

[Foot Fetish]

People pay to publish in real journals? Most good journals that I know of don't require any payment. Some offer open access for a fee, but if you decline, your article is only available to subscribers. I've only really heard of predatory journals charging for publication.

Uhh, I don't know where you're getting this from. It costs thousands of dollars to publish in the vast majority of journals. Take a look at this list of Elsevier journal fees:

https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf

 

[MSTP18]

People pay to publish in real journals? Most good journals that I know of don't require any payment. Some offer open access for a fee, but if you decline, your article is only available to subscribers. I've only really heard of predatory journals charging for publication.

Care to list the journals? The good journals I know of all require a small fee. The predatory ones require exorbitant amounts. In fact "no fee" is a selling point I've seen for some truly garbage journals.

To be clear - I'm not talking about SUBMISSION fees. Those are a scam. I'm talking solely about post acceptance publication fees.

E.g. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS: The Journal of Virology, Publication Fees

 

[Amba]

Ok, good to know. What would you say is the cut-off for a respectable journal? I am restricted to Open Access journals due to funding constraints. The journal that I had in mind has an impact factor of ~1.6. I know that's low, but is it unacceptably low?

Uhhh. Don't know how to break this to you, but it generally costs more to publish open access than in a regular journal requiring a subscription (I mean, just think about what the idea of open access is ).

Seriously, find a mentor. It's painfully obvious that you don't know what you are doing or talking about. And that's fine - you literally have zero publications at this point, so you aren't expected to know the intricacies of publishing.

I know you have a history of not really listening to what people say to you on here. But Allo is generally full of tough love with people much more experienced than you. You would be well advised to begin listening.

 

[Lawpy]

But Allo is generally full of tough love with people much more experienced than you. You would be well advised to begin listening.

yeah the same is true for preallo and pretty much all of SDN

 

[751866]

Care to list the journals? The good journals I know of all require a small fee. The predatory ones require exorbitant amounts. In fact "no fee" is a selling point I've seen for some truly garbage journals.

To be clear - I'm not talking about SUBMISSION fees. Those are a scam. I'm talking solely about post acceptance publication fees.

E.g. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS: The Journal of Virology, Publication Fees

About | JAMA | The JAMA Network ... "Without any author fees, all research articles are made free access online 6 months after publication on the JAMA website."
http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/manuscript-submission ... can't find anything on here actually saying they charge or don't.

Did I miss something with these?

Would you post some of the journals you're referring to that do require a small fee? I also wouldn't rule out a truly "small" fee for good journals, but the foot guy said he's restricted to journals based on the fees, which makes me think it's something more than 50 bucks.

Also, is this what you were referring to, " Authors who choose open access will be assessed an article processing charge (APC). For a corresponding author who is an active member of ASM at the Contributing or Premium level, the APC is $2,250 ..."? If so, I made a point to say most good journals that I know of wont require you to pay anything. If you want to pay for open access you can, but that's not mandatory. I also wouldn't call 2k a "small fee."


Check these out for suspected predatory journals/publishers: LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS | Scholarly Open Access and LIST OF PUBLISHERS | Scholarly Open Access

 

[Foot Fetish]

Uhhh. Don't know how to break this to you, but it generally costs more to publish open access than in a regular journal requiring a subscription (I mean, just think about what the idea of open access is ).

Seriously, find a mentor. It's painfully obvious that you don't know what you are doing or talking about. And that's fine - you literally have zero publications at this point, so you aren't expected to know the intricacies of publishing.

I know you have a history of not really listening to what people say to you on here. But Allo is generally full of tough love with people much more experienced than you. You would be well advised to begin listening.

The reason I am targeting Open Access is not because they have lower fees...it's because my school has a specific fund in place where they will cover your authorship fee if and only if it is with an Open Access journal. I am hoping to take advantage of that.

Also, I just found out that in a hybrid open access journal, you only have to pay the fee if you want your article to be freely available online. If you don't pay, then it will only be available to subscribers.

 

[751866]

Uhh, I don't know where you're getting this from. It costs thousands of dollars to publish in the vast majority of journals. Take a look at this list of Elsevier journal fees:

https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf

The "vast majority" of journals aren't that great. I mean, if you really believe this, then I have some herba life merchandise for you to sell. Seriously, it's great. Just buy 3-4k worth of your own merchandise upfront and I bet you'll be back in a week cause you sold it all so quickly. You'll be begging us to let you carry 10k worth of merchandise at a time! In fact, you seem like a top notch salesman...we're gonna let you buy 6k right now.

The reason I am targeting Open Access is not because they have lower fees...it's because my school has a specific fund in place where they will cover your authorship fee if and only if it is with an Open Access journal. I am hoping to take advantage of that.

Also, I just found out that in a hybrid open access journal, you only have to pay the fee if you want your article to be freely available online. If you don't pay, then it will only be available to subscribers.

Must have missed when I pointed that out in the initial post you disagreed with...

 

[deferment baby]

Just wanted to bump my message 🙂

I know there are different types of publications. They have literature review, peer review articles, narratives, case studies, opinion, research letter, observation and etc. Are there any other research brackets out there?

Like the OP, I have a research topic I want to talk about in a lit review process, but wasn't sure if I need a faculty member or not. I will start school this year, so basically I can find articles and compiled them and write something and then find a faculty member to help me.

Can a lit review have a poster?

 

[NotYou20]

Publish with a mentor for infinity reasons.

because @Foot Fetish has a yuge ego

 

[Anti-PD1]

@Foot Fetish
I don't have time to read all this, just listen to what everyone is saying.

You don't know what you don't know. The oversight a mentor provides is invaluable. They have their finger on the pulse of the current literature. They know what's BS and what is substantive. Unless you literally invented something, or are the first to make a real discovery, there's just no way going solo is not hurting your cause.

 

[emnotsureanymore]

That is definitely false. Publishing in no-name journals can definitely hurt a residency application. Not all of these apply every time, but certainly come up. Demonstrating poor decision making...

#1 Time is precious. Your time is precious. Spending excessive time/energy on projects with poor yields/waste of time journals shows poor insight into what you are doing.
#2 There are plenty of journals out there that publish anything that gets sent to them. My spam folder gets 5-6 messages a day asking me to send them things. After you attend enough conferences and publish enough, your e-mail ends up in print and people start hammering you from bull**** journals. If people don't recognize the journal, they will often look it up. If it is less than reputable, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth.


You clearly have not done this before. You don't know the basic methodologies or even what a literature review entails. Maybe YOU think that jumping in shows initiative. But, most of us on the other side recognize it as naïveté at best and a big red flag at worst. Putting out garbage can hurt you going forward. Most likely won't, but it can. But, more importantly, you aren't getting anything out of it. You aren't learning how to do something effectively. You aren't getting your name on something worthwhile. You are just adding to the ever growing pile of junk science.

Poor insight for publishing in a low impact journal, really? is this really how GME faculty really see things? Is this your opinion as a resident, or is this legit the way PDs see things? I am losing more and more respect for academic physicians by the second.

 

[mimelim]

Poor insight for publishing in a low impact journal, really? is this really how GME faculty really see things? Is this your opinion as a resident, or is this legit the way PDs see things? I am losing more and more respect for academic physicians by the second.

Do me a favor. Read my post again. Then tell me where I said anything about the impact factor. Hard to have a discussion if you just make **** up.

 

[PantsOnFire]

Poor insight for publishing in a low impact journal, really? is this really how GME faculty really see things? Is this your opinion as a resident, or is this legit the way PDs see things? I am losing more and more respect for academic physicians by the second.

It is legit his opinion as a resident. There really can't be a down side to publishing in a low impact journal vs. opposed to not pubs at all. For the record, I agree that OP should get extra eyes on his project, solely to verify the importance of his review. However, you guys gotta remember that @mimelim isn't God; just because he says he wouldn't read your paper, doesn't mean other more prestigious people in your field wouldn't see the initiative the paper would present. In fact, he's not even in a influential academic center, so you REALLY should take his word with a grain of salt.

 

[mcloaf]

Poor insight for publishing in a low impact journal, really? is this really how GME faculty really see things? Is this your opinion as a resident, or is this legit the way PDs see things? I am losing more and more respect for academic physicians by the second.

IMO it's readily apparent he was talking about publishing in scientifically suspect journals, not simply journals with low impact factors.

 

[mimelim]

It is legit his opinion as a resident. There really can't be a down side to publishing in a low impact journal vs. opposed to not pubs at all. For the record, I agree that OP should get extra eyes on his project, solely to verify the importance of his review. However, you guys gotta remember that @mimelim isn't God; just because he says he wouldn't read your paper, doesn't mean other more prestigious people in your field wouldn't see the initiative the paper would present. In fact, he's not even in a influential academic center, so you REALLY should take his word with a grain of salt.

#1 Link to where I said I wouldn't read a paper.
#2 Link to where I mention anything about low impact journal vs. not publishing at all.

I'll repeat since you seem to have difficulty with this. If you make **** up left and right, you are basically arguing with yourself. If you want to have a real discussion, maybe try actually reading my posts and responding.

Further, I am in one of the largest academic centers in the world in a competitive program in one of the most competitive specialties. Again, making **** up left and right makes you look like a *****. If you actually want to discuss the topic at hand, lets. Otherwise, kindly leave the blatant fabrications at the door.

 

[Dwan]

It is legit his opinion as a resident. There really can't be a down side to publishing in a low impact journal vs. opposed to not pubs at all. For the record, I agree that OP should get extra eyes on his project, solely to verify the importance of his review. However, you guys gotta remember that @mimelim isn't God; just because he says he wouldn't read your paper, doesn't mean other more prestigious people in your field wouldn't see the initiative the paper would present. In fact, he's not even in a influential academic center, so you REALLY should take his word with a grain of salt.

You'll see once you've published a first-author paper. Once they get ahold of your email, you'll start being spammed with tons of emails from bogus journals inviting you to publish your paper with them. These journals publish anything and the papers don't undergo peer review (many have tested this by submitting completely made up papers and they are always instantly accepted), usually while charging you excessive fees. There is zero merit to publishing in these journals and feeding them money only further promotes bad science. The type of journals he was referring to are not "low" impact factor, they have 0 impact, although many of them will make up impact factors and even have fake impact rating websites listing their journals.

 

[MSTP18]

About | JAMA | The JAMA Network ... "Without any author fees, all research articles are made free access online 6 months after publication on the JAMA website."
http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/manuscript-submission ... can't find anything on here actually saying they charge or don't.

Did I miss something with these?

Would you post some of the journals you're referring to that do require a small fee? I also wouldn't rule out a truly "small" fee for good journals, but the foot guy said he's restricted to journals based on the fees, which makes me think it's something more than 50 bucks.

Also, is this what you were referring to, " Authors who choose open access will be assessed an article processing charge (APC). For a corresponding author who is an active member of ASM at the Contributing or Premium level, the APC is $2,250 ..."? If so, I made a point to say most good journals that I know of wont require you to pay anything. If you want to pay for open access you can, but that's not mandatory. I also wouldn't call 2k a "small fee."


Check these out for suspected predatory journals/publishers: LIST OF STANDALONE JOURNALS | Scholarly Open Access and LIST OF PUBLISHERS | Scholarly Open Access

Nope, I was referring to the part later on that says:

Authors who do not choose open access and whose research was supported by grants, special funds (including departmental and institutional), or contracts (including governmental) or whose research was done as part of their official duties (government or corporate, etc.) are required to pay page charges (based on the number of typeset pages, including illustrations, in the article) and to sign the ASM copyright transfer agreement. Corresponding authors of articles accepted for publication will receive an e-mail notifying them how to pay page and any other applicable publication charges (see below).

For a corresponding author who is an active member of ASM at the Contributing or Premium level, page charges are $75 per page (subject to change without notice).

For a nonmember or Supporting member corresponding author, page charges are $150 per page (subject to change without notice). Nonmember corresponding authors or Supporting members may join ASM and renew or upgrade membership online to obtain discounts on publication fees.

If the research was not supported by any of the means described above, a request to waive the charges may be sent to the ASM Journals Department (e-mail, jnachman{at}asmusa.org [after acceptance of the manuscript]). The request must include the manuscript control number assigned by ASM and indicate how the work was supported. Waivers apply only to page charges; responsibility for supplemental material fees remains with the author.

I think you might still be right though - I don't think I realized how many quality journals have gone open access.

 

[Optimus-Prime]

judging by your avatar is it foot and ankle related?

 

[IslandStyle808]

Eh, I am focusing on a very niche topic. There's not a tremendous amount to say. I'm gonna keep it short and sweet. And like I said, I have access to experts. Also, I'm not above publishing in mediocre journals. It's unfortunate, but the reality is that the residency application process is a numbers game. Obviously, well-known, high impact journal pubs are way more valuable, but, as someone who currently has zero abstracts, posters, or pubs, I'll take what I can get.

All that being said, I literally spent 9 hours straight doing literature searches today. @seeinghowitgoes was totally right. The methodology aspect is a real pain in the butt. My main issue was not knowing what to search in Pubmed and other article databases. The authors tend to use inconsistent terminology, which is making it very tough to compile a comprehensive article list...I sat down with a librarian to go over it, which helped quite a bit. I know I got the vast majority of the literature collected, but I am still worried about missing articles that should be included. It's imperative that 100% of the relevant articles are included, correct? I am finding that slight variations in search terms can make you miss articles...which makes me question the methodology of other systematic reviews I've read. Some of them just say "searched PubMed for "X" and "Y"...but I'm finding that not all of the relevant articles are even on PubMed..

Unfortunately you cannot gather every article in existence. You need enough to make sure what you are stating has enough solid evidence to back up your claim. You don't need to include data as old as 20 years, some that data would be outdated and incorrect. This is why you need to look at the most recent literature, usually around the last 5-10 years depending on the topic. Having that "PI" can help you focus on what articles to read and also when enough is enough. I would have probably wouldn't know when to stop if I didn't have my PI to guide me. I also would have made wrong assumptions about the data because I had almost no background in the subject.

Plus Pubmed's search engine is garbage (IMO). It doesn't pull up the relevant works or synonyms. I usually use scienedirect or some other article search engine.

Just remember a publication isn't always a good thing. If done wrong, it can hurt your reputation.

 

[aalamruad]

Eh, I am focusing on a very niche topic. There's not a tremendous amount to say. I'm gonna keep it short and sweet. And like I said, I have access to experts. Also, I'm not above publishing in mediocre journals. It's unfortunate, but the reality is that the residency application process is a numbers game. Obviously, well-known, high impact journal pubs are way more valuable, but, as someone who currently has zero abstracts, posters, or pubs, I'll take what I can get.

All that being said, I literally spent 9 hours straight doing literature searches today. @seeinghowitgoes was totally right. The methodology aspect is a real pain in the butt. My main issue was not knowing what to search in Pubmed and other article databases. The authors tend to use inconsistent terminology, which is making it very tough to compile a comprehensive article list...I sat down with a librarian to go over it, which helped quite a bit. I know I got the vast majority of the literature collected, but I am still worried about missing articles that should be included. It's imperative that 100% of the relevant articles are included, correct? I am finding that slight variations in search terms can make you miss articles...which makes me question the methodology of other systematic reviews I've read. Some of them just say "searched PubMed for "X" and "Y"...but I'm finding that not all of the relevant articles are even on PubMed..

It's ideal obviously, but it's rarely possible. Use a funnel plot to check for publication bias, and contact experts in the field to get ahold of unpublished data. No offense intended, but even questions like the ones in this post make it clear that you're in desperate need of a mentor.

Unfortunately you cannot gather every article in existence. You need enough to make sure what you are stating has enough solid evidence to back up your claim. You don't need to include data as old as 20 years, some that data would be outdated and incorrect. This is why you need to look at the most recent literature, usually around the last 5-10 years depending on the topic. Having that "PI" can help you focus on what articles to read and also when enough is enough. I would have probably wouldn't know when to stop if I didn't have my PI to guide me. I also would have made wrong assumptions about the data because I had almost no background in the subject.

Plus Pubmed's search engine is garbage (IMO). It doesn't pull up the relevant works or synonyms. I usually use scienedirect or some other article search engine.

Just remember a publication isn't always a good thing. If done wrong, it can hurt your reputation.

Sure about that? Have you looked into MeSH terms?

 

[IslandStyle808]

It's ideal obviously, but it's rarely possible. Use a funnel plot to check for publication bias, and contact experts in the field to get ahold of unpublished data. No offense intended, but even questions like the ones in this post make it clear that you're in desperate need of a mentor.


Sure about that? Have you looked into MeSH terms?

Well, I said IMO and it was a basic science review article (with some medical diseases I admit, but it wasn't a terminology issue most of the time). Sciencedirect was definitely easier and I didn't need to scroll 10 pages to get to the articles that were relevant.

 

[Foot Fetish]

I might give up on the project :\
I spent like 3 days obsessively working on it (days which could have been spent studying for upcoming exams)...I even wrote a protocol. But being the risk averse guy that I am, I feel like it's risky to keep sinking more time into this when there's no guarantee of it going anywhere. Maybe I was too ambitious. I'm gonna put it on the backburner for now, focus on classes and my actual project with my PI, and maybe revisit it sometime this summer...*sigh*
I still feel an immense pressure to get research done. It sounds like most of my classmates have at least a few pubs from undergrad, and here I am hoping to match one of the most research-heavy specialties with not even a stinkin' poster to my name...I guess I'll just do what everyone else does and pump out garbage case reports...I recently found out that you can even publish abstracts on case reports, which sounds like an absolute joke to me, but I guess I gotta start playing "the game" like everyone else. It's a shame that research among med students has become such a charade.

 

[Foot Fetish]

.

 

[aalamruad]

I might give up on the project :\
I spent like 3 days obsessively working on it (days which could have been spent studying for upcoming exams)...I even wrote a protocol. But being the risk averse guy that I am, I feel like it's risky to keep sinking more time into this when there's no guarantee of it going anywhere. Maybe I was too ambitious. I'm gonna put it on the backburner for now, focus on classes and my actual project with my PI, and maybe revisit it sometime this summer...*sigh*
I still feel an immense pressure to get research done. It sounds like most of my classmates have at least a few pubs from undergrad, and here I am hoping to match one of the most research-heavy specialties with not even a stinkin' poster to my name...I guess I'll just do what everyone else does and pump out garbage case reports...I recently found out that you can even publish abstracts on case reports, which sounds like an absolute joke to me, but I guess I gotta start playing "the game" like everyone else. It's a shame that research among med students has become such a charade.

In what way is research among med students a charade? It's not like PDs think that garbage case reports are just as impressive as high-quality, important research.

 

[Foot Fetish]

In what way is research among med students a charade? It's not like PDs think that garbage case reports are just as impressive as high-quality, important research.

Sure, but virtually no one is publishing 12 high quality, unique, pubs on important research. The average # of research items for derm was 12 last year. You can bet the vast majority of those projects were filler items of garbage research...things like case report abstracts. People game the system. It has become a numbers game that makes a mockery of what research is actually supposed to be. Do you really think most med students are doing research because they want to advance humanity's collective knowledge? ..I can barely keep a straight face while typing that...it's clearly just a check-the-box numbers game that we are all forced to play. Sure, there are some med students out there (probably MD/PhD's) who actually care about research in and of itself, but the vast majority are just playing the game, adding to the ever-growing pile of worthless literature. That's why it's a charade.

 

[aalamruad]

Sure, but virtually no one is publishing 12 high quality, unique, pubs on important research. The average # of research items for derm was 12 last year. You can bet the vast majority of those projects were filler items of garbage research...things like case report abstracts. People game the system. It has become a numbers game that makes a mockery of what research is actually supposed to be. Do you really think most med students are doing research because they want to advance humanity's collective knowledge? ..I can barely keep a straight face while typing that...it's clearly just a check-the-box numbers game that we are all forced to play. Sure, there are some med students out there (probably MD/PhD's) who actually care about research in and of itself, but the vast majority are just playing the game. That's why it's a charade.

No, it's not a "numbers game." It's a numbers and quality game. PDs don't just look at your number of pubs+abstracts+posters/etc and blindly compare that to other applicants' numbers. They care about quality of research, and level of involvement (e.g. 1st author>>>3rd author, pub>>>poster, etc.). The average number of research items for derm was 12 but the average number of pubs is probably closer to 2-3, and I really doubt it's that hard to get 2-3 reasonably high-quality pubs during 4 years of med school if you really work for it and have a solid mentor.

I don't mean any disrespect, but instead of whining about the requirements to get into derm, why don't you just work harder at research instead of giving up on your systematic review/meta-analysis after 3 days of working on it?

Also, a lot of people are doing research they genuinely care about. Find something you're actually passionate about studying and I bet you'll have a lot fewer complaints about research requirements for competitive specialties.

 

[sammiesings]

It's a shame that research among med students has become such a charade.

No offense, but you don't seem like you know anything about conducting research. In this situation, don't blame the game, blame the player .

But anyway, that you decided you were just going to "pick up" research and publish something on your own was hilarious. If you don't even have an abstract "to your name," maybe recognize your own shortcomings and put in the sustained effort required to learn how research is conducted before attempting to publish a paper on your own.

Frankly, your idea might be horrible but you don't have the lens to even recognize that. That's also what a PI/mentor is for.

 

[PantsOnFire]

#1 Link to where I said I wouldn't read a paper.

If I pick up a journal and want to read a systematic review on a topic, I'm not really looking for a medical student's opinion on the topic.

So I will admit; You said that you wouldn't take the post seriously. Still doesn't detract from my point; just because YOU don't take it seriously, doesn't mean other PD in his area wouldn't. His paper would, at worst, be equivalent to all other papers that people write in medical school.

#2 Link to where I mention anything about low impact journal vs. not publishing at all.

That is definitely false. Publishing in no-name journals can definitely hurt a residency application. Not all of these apply every time, but certainly come up. Demonstrating poor decision making...

#1 Time is precious. Your time is precious. Spending excessive time/energy on projects with poor yields/waste of time journals shows poor insight into what you are doing.

You clearly have not done this before. You don't know the basic methodologies or even what a literature review entails. Maybe YOU think that jumping in shows initiative. But, most of us on the other side recognize it as naïveté at best and a big red flag at worst. Putting out garbage can hurt you going forward. Most likely won't, but it can. But, more importantly, you aren't getting anything out of it. You aren't learning how to do something effectively. You aren't getting your name on something worthwhile. You are just adding to the ever growing pile of junk science.

This whole post shows this point. You strongly allude to the paper being a waste of time and showing bad judgement, which could be construed as being worse than nothing. In fact, the post you replied to was about this very topic. Did you forget you posted this or...?

Further, I am in one of the largest academic centers in the world in a competitive program in one of the most competitive specialties. Again, making **** up left and right makes you look like a *****. If you actually want to discuss the topic at hand, lets. Otherwise, kindly leave the blatant fabrications at the door.

No, you're not. When people talk about top academic centers, they mean 1) the coasts or 2) Chicago or St. Louis. If someone in your position told me they would not read my paper, I wouldn't take them seriously, and OP shouldn't either.

 

[aalamruad]

*poof*