Regarding the whole "submitted" vs. "published" debate

[chiapet874]

---

Members do not see this ad.

After reading many "publication" threads on SDN, I have come to realize that there is a huge gap in opinion regarding undergraduate research papers that are either in the "submitted" process or are actually officially "published" in a peer-review journal.

While I don't argue that being officially "published" is a great deed in itself, I am surprised that many people feel that having a paper that is only "submitted" or "in revision" is worthless.

The most common reason that I come across simmers down to: "oh, ANYONE can submit a paper to a journal! So, thus a submitted status is worthless".

Okay, yes- ANYONE CAN INDEED submit a research paper to a journal. But how many PIs out there are willing to sacrifice their good name, submitting a research paper that they didn't think was legit to begin with? Undergrads don't submit their paper by-themselves, they have to work through their PIs and no PI is gonna let total B.S. just pass through them.

I strongly feel that, while "submitted" papers are indeed not as good as officially published papers, there is still some validity in a submitted paper. It shows that the lab as a whole, is confident in their work- confident enough to let others read it and offer their suggestions.

Opinions?

 

[wolverinepwns]

After reading many "publication" threads on SDN, I have come to realize that there is a huge gap in opinion regarding undergraduate research papers that are either in the "submitted" process or are actually officially "published" in a peer-review journal.

While I don't argue that being officially "published" is a great deed in itself, I am surprised that many people feel that having a paper that is only "submitted" or "in revision" is worthless.

The most common reason that I come across simmers down to: "oh, ANYONE can submit a paper to a journal! So, thus a submitted status is worthless".

Okay, yes- ANYONE CAN INDEED submit a research paper to a journal. But how many PIs out there are willing to sacrifice their good name, submitting a research paper that they didn't think was legit to begin with? Undergrads don't submit their paper by-themselves, they have to work through their PIs and no PI is gonna let total B.S. just pass through them.

I strongly feel that, while "submitted" papers are indeed not as good as officially published papers, there is still some validity in a submitted paper. It shows that the lab as a whole, is confident in their work- confident enough to let others read it and offer their suggestions.

Opinions?

Who said every PI has a good name! some need to submit papers just to keep their grants/job.

 

[chiapet874]

Who said every PI has a good name! some need to submit papers just to keep their grants/job.

That may be true- but the ppl on the grant end aren't stupid, they can tell if you are publishing something truly worthwhile or not. Furthermore, while I can understand needing to publish stuff to keep ones job in industry, I haven't heard of a science professor/P.I. losing their job simply because they didn't publish enough. That may be a factor, but only one of many.

Maybe its just the work place surrounding I am in- all the professors in my department have very high standards when it comes to submitting papers for possible publication.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't put much weigh on "submitted". I want to see "accepted" or "accepted with revisions" before I'll give credit for a paper.

As for faculty, ever hear the expression "publish or perish"? They aren't kidding. If you don't produce results, as evidenced by published papers, you won't get promoted up the ladder and you won't get tenure. Once tenure is off the table, most faculty are pushed out for new blood.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

There is a huge amount of luck involved in getting research to work to the point that it's publishable (talking basic science research) with the limited amount of time most pre-meds spend in a lab. I worked full time in a lab at a big-name research institution for 2 years (which is nothing in research years) before I started med school. I worked as a tech on two projects that both began when I started. One was published 5 years after it began, and one is still in the revision phase (6 years after it started). The tech who was hired after me, who just matriculated to med school this year, got his name on that first paper before he started school simply because he came into the lab in the middle of a project, whereas I worked on it for a longer period of time and it wasn't on my application. Does that make his experience more valuable to a committee member than mine? While committee members should look favorably on applicants who actually have a published paper, they should not gloss over the valuable experience gained by the act of learning to generate hypotheses, design and carry out experiments, and analyzing data just because that student's project is not yet publishable for reasons often outside their control.

 

[chiapet874]

I don't put much weigh on "submitted". I want to see "accepted" or "accepted with revisions" before I'll give credit for a paper.

As for faculty, ever hear the expression "publish or perish"? They aren't kidding. If you don't produce results, as evidenced by published papers, you won't get promoted up the ladder and you won't get tenure. Once tenure is off the table, most faculty are pushed out for new blood.

Of course I am in no position to argue with your breath of experience. The best I can do is speak from my own experience and surroundings- in my school, almost all the P.I.s in my department has only published like 1 or 2 papers a year.. MAX. We don't seem to have that environment where you must "publish or perish".

In addition- "submitted status" shouldn't be automatically looked down upon because it also matters to which journal you submit too. Submitting to a specialized journal will lead to a quicker acceptance vs. say Science or a higher impact point journal.

 

[chiapet874]

There is a huge amount of luck involved in getting research to work to the point that it's publishable (talking basic science research) with the limited amount of time most pre-meds spend in a lab. I worked full time in a lab at a big-name research institution for 2 years (which is nothing in research years) before I started med school. I worked as a tech on two projects that both began when I started. One was published 5 years after it began, and one is still in the revision phase (6 years after it started). The tech who was hired after me, who just matriculated to med school this year, got his name on that first paper before he started school simply because he came into the lab in the middle of a project, whereas I worked on it for a longer period of time and it wasn't on my application. Does that make his experience more valuable to a committee member than mine? While committee members should look favorably on applicants who actually have a published paper, they should not gloss over the valuable experience gained by the act of learning to generate hypotheses, design and carry out experiments, and analyzing data just because that student's project is not yet publishable for reasons often outside their control.

That is the key phrase there. The thing is- does that actually happen? I feel that no matter what the circumstance, having a publication will be a huge plus to an application (regardless if that person mooched off that lab or not).

I just feel, since everyone agrees that this whole undergraduate publication thing is so much dependent on luck and timing- how can we be so clear cut about "submitted" vs. "published" statuses? If one kid who really put in the time and effort can only get "submitted" by the time he applies to med school, than ADCOMS shouldn't just ignore that work purely because it hasn't been officially accepted yet.

On the same token, ADCOMS shouldn't look favorably on published papers just because your name is on it- they need to look at the whole situation- which they can tell by the amount of details you put down on the application.

 

[armybound]

You don't have to have a PI on a paper to submit it. I can write a total piece of crap off the top of my head and submit it if I wanted to. I'd then have a paper "in submission" with 0 chance of acceptance.

 

[Dannyw]

Of course I am in no position to argue with your breath of experience. The best I can do is speak from my own experience and surroundings- in my school, almost all the P.I.s in my department has only published like 1 or 2 papers a year.. MAX. We don't seem to have that environment where you must "publish or perish".

If you go to a liberal arts school that may be the case. Every professor at my school is required to bring in funding and conduct research. They are let go if they are not tenured and are not bringing in money and doing publications.

A "submitted" paper means nothing until it is accepted. And the argument about PIs not wanting to risk their "good name" is rubbish.

 

[chiapet874]

If you go to a liberal arts school that may be the case. Every professor at my school is required to bring in funding and conduct research. They are let go if they are not tenured and are not bringing in money and doing publications.

A "submitted" paper means nothing until it is accepted. And the argument about PIs not wanting to risk their "good name" is rubbish.

I go to a huge research university and at least to my understanding- bringing money is critical- but pure publication #s are not. I always thought getting grants was more than a number of publication competition.

And perhaps for you, a good name means nothing, but for many others, their reputation is everything. That is a huge part in getting published in bigger name journals.

 

[chiapet874]

btw, liked how you used "rubbish"

 

[kami333]

One thing with regards to publishing is that not publishing in Nature/Science/Cell is excusable, but not publishing at all is not. While it isn't just a numbers game, it still does matter.

In my old lab we had a couple of papers that ended up being published in "International Journal of X" because of almost being scooped, this was a lab that had multiple NEJM/JCI/Science papers every year.

As far as submitted meaning something, it does, but I'd say not as much as premeds hope it does. I've had a couple papers stuck in perma-submitted mode, my record for submitted -> accepted is 3 years.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

there is no debate, submitted != publication

 

[LizzyM]

there is no debate, submitted != publication

Until it is rejected but before you get it out the door to another journal.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Until it is rejected but before you get it out the door to another journal.

and this chain can occur indefinitely, which is why i don't think "submitted" can ever be taken too seriously

 

[LizzyM]

Now I get it! != is your way of saying =/=

🙂

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Now I get it! != is your way of saying =/=

🙂

oh i see the confusion now.

for your future reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign#In_programming_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C++#Comparison_operators.2FRelational_operators

=)

 

[soundnin]

After reading many "publication" threads on SDN, I have come to realize that there is a huge gap in opinion regarding undergraduate research papers that are either in the "submitted" process or are actually officially "published" in a peer-review journal.

While I don't argue that being officially "published" is a great deed in itself, I am surprised that many people feel that having a paper that is only "submitted" or "in revision" is worthless.

The most common reason that I come across simmers down to: "oh, ANYONE can submit a paper to a journal! So, thus a submitted status is worthless".

Okay, yes- ANYONE CAN INDEED submit a research paper to a journal. But how many PIs out there are willing to sacrifice their good name, submitting a research paper that they didn't think was legit to begin with? Undergrads don't submit their paper by-themselves, they have to work through their PIs and no PI is gonna let total B.S. just pass through them.

I strongly feel that, while "submitted" papers are indeed not as good as officially published papers, there is still some validity in a submitted paper. It shows that the lab as a whole, is confident in their work- confident enough to let others read it and offer their suggestions.

Opinions?

um, even when a PI submits a solid paper, it doesn't mean it will get published. that's why submitted means nothing. at an extreme level, yes anyone can submit anything anywhere and label the manuscript as "submitted" only to be rejected immediately. but then the more relevant scenario is submitting somewhere reasonable, going through multiple rounds of revisions (anywhere from half a year to over a year later), and still getting rejected = no publication = submitted means nothing haha

 

[chiapet874]

I just feel that, since we all agree GETTING published is a matter of luck and chance... we shouldn't automatically give someone with a publication auto-props (or kudos... whatever you kids say now-a-days haha). We also shouldn't give someone with only a submitted paper auto-worthless. Its critical ADCOMS look at the experience that led up to each persons prospective paper status.

I do see everyone elses point though. I am just a little surprised at other people's poor experience with submitting papers. Submitting indefinitely? That just means your paper most likely has something gravely wrong with it.

 

[chiapet874]

and if it matters at all, a little bit about my research experience:

Undergraduate Junior: 2 years in Neuroscience Lab (20 hour-week, 50 hours-week during summer).

1 paper submitted- accepted with revisions. (3rd author) (Journal: Journal of Neuroscience)
1 paper submitted- haven't heard back yet (1st author)

Although the paper that has been accepted with revisions is of decent impact points, I heard back in like a month after submitting.

 

[LizzyM]

I just feel that, since we all agree GETTING published is a matter of luck and chance... we shouldn't automatically give someone with a publication auto-props (or kudos... whatever you kids say now-a-days haha). We also shouldn't give someone with only a submitted paper auto-worthless. Its critical ADCOMS look at the experience that led up to each persons prospective paper status.

I do see everyone elses point though. I am just a little surprised at other people's poor experience with submitting papers. Submitting indefinitely? That just means your paper most likely has something gravely wrong with it.

Yeah, sometimes a paper has major flaws and might be submitted to multiple journals before getting accepted somewhere. I know of one paper that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) after being rejected by at least 6 other journals. 😱 It had some methodologic flaws and it rasied questions but it also got very splashy coverage in the media (something JAMA & The New England Journal seem to love) because it reported something never reported before.

Who your parents are was a matter of chance when you came into the world and I suspect that it has more to do with whether you get admitted to medical school than many other things. (Not talking about legacies but the advantages that accrue to affluent students at every step in the process from infancy to pre-school and all the way up.)

A paper is very, very good. A poster session or podium presentation at a national meeting is very good. Getting funded to do summer research is very good. Getting funded to do a year of research (e.g. Fulbright) is very, very good. Doing some research in a lab as part of a work-study or for a class is OK. Doing some research on the side is good and how well you are able to describe it on paper and in -person will determine how much it gets "counted".

 

[soundnin]

I just feel that, since we all agree GETTING published is a matter of luck and chance... we shouldn't automatically give someone with a publication auto-props (or kudos... whatever you kids say now-a-days haha). We also shouldn't give someone with only a submitted paper auto-worthless. Its critical ADCOMS look at the experience that led up to each persons prospective paper status.

I do see everyone elses point though. I am just a little surprised at other people's poor experience with submitting papers. Submitting indefinitely? That just means your paper most likely has something gravely wrong with it.

i definitely agree that the experience matters much more than what is published --- for us premeds at least. also, going back to a point you mentioned previously, although it's true that getting grants are important, how does a PI keep securing grants? they keep publishing. the two are completely hand in hand, and that's why the phrase LizzyM brought up "publish or perish" is so true.

although the bolded text above has some truth, when you're submitting to the upper echelons of journals in a competitive/"hot" field, there's also a lot of politics involved, unfortunately. also, if your PI is a new PI, the process is at least 10 folds more difficult, even if the PI had a stellar track record as a postdoc.

 

[kami333]

Submitting indefinitely? That just means your paper most likely has something gravely wrong with it.

Or the PI(s) are being too ambitious with it.

Case in point. The my paper that took 3years to publish ultimately ended up in the Journal of Neuroscience. But only after we submitted it to:
Science - too specific/not general interest😳
rewrite!
Nature - not wide enough appeal🙁
add a couple more experiments and rewrite!
Nature Genetics - not novel enough:cry: (it was about a X-like protein, and they had already covered the original protein a few months ago)
changed aim of paper and rewrite!
(sort of lost track of the paper when I moved labs, but I kept getting submission notices and revision notices)
Journal of Neurscience - accepted with revisions😀

 

[chiapet874]

Or the PI(s) are being too ambitious with it.

Case in point. The my paper that took 3years to publish ultimately ended up in the Journal of Neuroscience. But only after we submitted it to:
Science - too specific/not general interest😳
rewrite!
Nature - not wide enough appeal🙁
add a couple more experiments and rewrite!
Nature Genetics - not novel enough:cry: (it was about a X-like protein, and they had already covered the original protein a few months ago)
changed aim of paper and rewrite!
(sort of lost track of the paper when I moved labs, but I kept getting submission notices and revision notices)
Journal of Neurscience - accepted with revisions😀

Man, I really admire your P.I.s persistence hahaha. Congrats!

 

[rhodesman]

A paper is very, very good. A poster session or podium presentation at a national meeting is very good. Getting funded to do summer research is very good. Getting funded to do a year of research (e.g. Fulbright) is very, very good. Doing some research in a lab as part of a work-study or for a class is OK. Doing some research on the side is good and how well you are able to describe it on paper and in -person will determine how much it gets "counted".

I am sorry, but repectively I disagree and would like to make a few points on what you said above...granted I may not have all the experience you have but this is what I have seen:

I agree that publishing a paper is very, very good. I was second author on a paper in a high tier journal and I believe this allowed me to do well in the Goldwater Scholarship. However, I believe that a FIRST author paper will in large make you stand out where a third or fourth author paper may or may not (unless it is Science, Nature, or the likes).

Poster presentation are as you say a step below publishing; especially if you are first author on the poster. Also, some conferences are very fun (I've been to some of the big ones and they are actually pretty interesting; I met some famous people in the field there)...

Getting funded to summer research in my opinion is OK. Everyone gets funded to do research over the summer even the pre-meds who have no idea what they are doing. Its too common and not hard to achieve.

Getting a Fulbright to do research is very, very good. Most likely it is the result of a published paper or presentation on your resume. Remember these national scholarships are uber competitive and the kids who get them are already standouts, so the question is does a Fulbright, Rhodes, Marshall or the likes really make you stand out even more? Maybe?

Doing research for a year is completely worthless, don't even waste your time if you are coming in once or twice a week and helping a grad student. They most likely won't put your name on any publication and you will have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.

 

[rhodesman]

Also, in the research world submitting a manuscript doesn't mean jack S-t. You only celebrate when it gets accepted.

If a faculty reads your application they WILL NOT be impressed, unless your name is first and followed by substantial names behind it (thus making it likely that it will be accepted)

 

[LizzyM]

I am sorry, but repectively I disagree and would like to make a few points on what you said above...granted I may not have all the experience you have but this is what I have seen:

I agree that publishing a paper is very, very good. I was second author on a paper in a high tier journal and I believe this allowed me to do well in the Goldwater Scholarship. However, I believe that a FIRST author paper will in large make you stand out where a third or fourth author paper may or may not (unless it is Science, Nature, or the likes).

Poster presentation are as you say a step below publishing; especially if you are first author on the poster. Also, some conferences are very fun (I've been to some of the big ones and they are actually pretty interesting; I met some famous people in the field there)...

Getting funded to summer research in my opinion is OK. Everyone gets funded to do research over the summer even the pre-meds who have no idea what they are doing. Its too common and not hard to achieve.

Getting a Fulbright to do research is very, very good. Most likely it is the result of a published paper or presentation on your resume. Remember these national scholarships are uber competitive and the kids who get them are already standouts, so the question is does a Fulbright, Rhodes, Marshall or the likes really make you stand out even more? Maybe?

Doing research for a year is completely worthless, don't even waste your time if you are coming in once or twice a week and helping a grad student. They most likely won't put your name on any publication and you will have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.

How many med school applications cycles have you been through? I've lost count after 10. That's what I used to base my assessment of good, very good and very,very good. Doing reearch for a day or two a week is not completely worthless. It is better than a sharp stick in the eye as my grandfather always said and it will be noted when the application is reviewed and assessed.

 

[Doodledog]

Doing research for a year is completely worthless, don't even waste your time if you are coming in once or twice a week and helping a grad student. They most likely won't put your name on any publication and you will have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.

With all due respect, LizzyM's perspective is close to my experience and perspective and I'm on my 15th year on an adcom at a research oriented school and am a federally funded investigator who has had many college students working in my lab over the last 20 or so years. Many students who do research once or twice a week, or over a summer gain valuable experience in a variety of ways. This includes developing lab skills, listening to faculty discuss research projects and interacting with more seasoned scientists. This experience often translates into material for essays and for interviews. Every adcomm member is different, but I have never ever heard a faculty adcomm member that was dismissive of a year of research at 5-10 hours (once or twice a week..) or an entire summer.

Also, in the research world submitting a manuscript doesn't mean jack S-t. You only celebrate when it gets accepted.

If a faculty reads your application they WILL NOT be impressed, unless your name is first and followed by substantial names behind it (thus making it likely that it will be accepted)

This issue is more complex leading to the contentious discussion in this thread. For advanced research positions (post-docs and above), there is no question that a manuscript needs to be "in press" to be considered as an endpoint of research. However, at the medical student application level, this is overstated. To have a first author publication, regardless of whose name is behind it shows some evidence of accomplishment. At an interview, the adcomm member can explore what you did, etc based on how you describe(d) the research. Even a non-first authored publication is at least evidence of some output and worth discussion.

As always, YMMV, but I enjoy talking to students about the research they have been part of, and, do not see the need to be highly judgmental at this level about where it was submitted, if it has been accepted yet and whether it was in a major journal. We are interviewing for med school, not for graduate school or post-doctoral fellowships/faculty positions.

 

[ponyo]

I'm almost afraid to ask--is it okay if you don't really like research and have only done some of it? My school requires that B.S. candidates (at least for chem) have completed an independent research-based thesis before graduation, and I have done some research, but I am not that into it and don't think I'll really get anywhere with it since I'm pretty sure you have to try really hard... Do I have to put a lot of efforts in ensuring I get my name on a publication or would I be better off spending the time in clinical settings, volunteering, etc.?

I'm MD not MD/PhD obviously 😛

 

[chiapet874]

I'm almost afraid to ask--is it okay if you don't really like research and have only done some of it? My school requires that B.S. candidates (at least for chem) have completed an independent research-based thesis before graduation, and I have done some research, but I am not that into it and don't think I'll really get anywhere with it since I'm pretty sure you have to try really hard... Do I have to put a lot of efforts in ensuring I get my name on a publication or would I be better off spending the time in clinical settings, volunteering, etc.?

I'm MD not MD/PhD obviously 😛

If you have some research experience, but really hate it- focus on your clinical experiences (that is by far the more important of the two). Research is usually considered a supplement EC, but clinical experience is absolutely critical for success in your application.