Research and publications (legitimate question)

[Gigantron]

---

Members do not see this ad.

This is a question that I've had on my mind, and I was hoping some people on SDN could clarify this for me.

What is the difference between:
-Several small different research experiences (in different scientific subjects) with multiple publications

and

-A very long research experience (in one specialized subject) over the four years you spend in undergrad with one major publication?


Like colleges, do medical schools care about the "depth vs. breadth" aspect where research is concerned?

 

[jsh52]

This is a question that I've had on my mind, and I was hoping some people on SDN could clarify this for me.

What is the difference between:
-Several small different research experiences (in different scientific subjects) with multiple publications

and

-A very long research experience (in one specialized subject) over the four years you spend in undergrad with one major publication?


Like colleges, do medical schools care about the "depth vs. breadth" where research is concerned?

It depends.

I'm not the right person to answer how medical schools peceive various publictions, but I do think it is better to have, say, one first author publiction than two second or third author publications. To be first author, you are not only collecting data, but you also planned the experiments (in theory lol). It should mean more to medical schools that you started one project and saw it through to the end.

Now if you are asking whether it's better to have ONE paper in Cell, Nature, or Science vs. 3 papers in Frontiers in Neuroscience....absolutely ONE PAPER in Cell, Nature, or Science. If you said 1 C, N, or S paper vs 3 J Neuroscience/J Physio....I would say 3 J Neuro/J Physio. It all depends on the specifics.

 

[fishbait63]

I think they care about both breadth and depth. It is very difficult to get multiple articles, especially if you are moving from lab to lab. It is probably easier to get multiple articles if you stay in one lab. However, it is probably easier to learn more from working in multiple labs concentrating on very different topics. The first 90% of any lab is easier to learn then 10% remaining so that you can complete independent projects and work towards a first author pub.

In some regards I liked my experiences working in different labs solely because it gave me more exposure to who kind of research I actually liked as opposed to just saying one kind is my favorite because I had more exposure.

 

[235009]

research isn't really a "breadth" kind of thing ...to do anything meaningful (especially in basic science research) you usually have to have pretty lengthy experiences and it is quite difficult if not impossible to get published or make a meaningful contribution when you are jumping form experience to experience every few months or every year.

Now if you are asking whether it's better to have ONE paper in Cell, Nature, or Science vs. 3 papers in Frontiers in Neuroscience....absolutely ONE PAPER in Cell, Nature, or Science. If you said 1 C, N, or S paper vs 3 J Neuroscience/J Physio....I would say 3 J Neuro/J Physio. It all depends on the specifics.

ummm...what? this isn't how it works. First of all there is VERY little chance an undergrad is getting published in Cell/Nature/Science. Second of all your position on the paper is very important with first/second author being much more impressive than somewhere in the middle.

 

[Catalystik]

What is the difference between:
-Several small different research experiences (in different scientific subjects) with multiple publications

and

-A very long research experience (in one specialized subject) over the four years you spend in undergrad with one major publication?

The latter will result in a much more meaningful Letter of Recommendation from a PI you worked with long term, which could be highly important if you're applying to research giants. One SDNer was even told by a PI he'd worked with for a year that a LOR would not be forthcoming as the PI didn't know him well enough yet.

A longer time with a lab is more likely to result in a substantive research contribution where you have increasing control over the process.

 

[jsh52]

research isn't really a "breadth" kind of thing ...to do anything meaningful (especially in basic science research) you usually have to have pretty lengthy experiences and it is quite difficult if not impossible to get published or make a meaningful contribution when you are jumping form experience to experience every few months or every year.



ummm...what? this isn't how it works. First of all there is VERY little chance an undergrad is getting published in Cell/Nature/Science. Second of all your position on the paper is very important with first/second author being much more impressive than somewhere in the middle.

What are you talking about??? I am not saying that at all. You completely misread what I wrote. What I said was a "for instance." We have HAD an undergrad on Cell/Nature/Science papers (but not as first author-certainly in the middle). The 1 vs 3 referred to number of publications in the journals NOT author position. Therefore, it's generally accepted that 1 Nature paper is great, but if you get THREE J Neuroscience or J Physiology papers, that is more indicative of consistent research success. I am getting my PhD in Physiology and Biophysics...I'm pretty sure I know which author position is most "impressive." 🙄

 

[235009]

What are you talking about??? I am not saying that at all. You completely misread what I wrote. What I said was a "for instance." We have HAD an undergrad on Cell/Nature/Science papers (but not as first author-certainly in the middle). The 1 vs 3 referred to number of publications in the journals NOT author position. Therefore, it's generally accepted that 1 Nature paper is great, but if you get THREE J Neuroscience or J Physiology papers, that is more indicative of consistent research success. I am getting my PhD in Physiology and Biophysics...I'm pretty sure I know which author position is most "impressive." 🙄

1. didn't say it was impossible i said it was VERY unlikely. this one undergrad is certainly an exception
2. nothing you said is "generally accepted" ...stop trying to make your argument stronger by using meaningless terms like that
3. my point was that you completely ignored/omitted author position in your response. are these three publications 1st/2nd author or somewhere in the middle? i would argue that 3 authorships in a moderate IF journal where you are somewhere in the middle is no more prestigious than one authorship also somewhere in the middle in a very high IF journal. however, discussing these hypothetical situations is pointless and there is no "generally accepted" view.

either way that doesn't really matter and doesn't answer the OP's question. bottom line is that it is better to stick to one research experience than jump around in order to get "diverse" experiences

 

[jsh52]

1. didn't say it was impossible i said it was VERY unlikely. this one undergrad is certainly an exception
2. nothing you said is "generally accepted" ...stop trying to make your argument stronger by using meaningless terms like that
3. my point was that you completely ignored/omitted author position in your response. are these three publications 1st/2nd author or somewhere in the middle? i would argue that 3 authorships in a moderate IF journal where you are somewhere in the middle is no more prestigious than one authorship also somewhere in the middle in a very high IF journal. however, discussing these hypothetical situations is pointless and there is no "generally accepted" view.

either way that doesn't really matter and doesn't answer the OP's question. bottom line is that it is better to stick to one research experience than jump around in order to get "diverse" experiences

1) Yes, it is generally accepted (meaning, most scientists believe) that a consistent research record in respected journals (and the IF of the journals I provided is around 10) is better than a once-every-5 years publication in Nature (IF of 30).
2) If I wanted the author position to deviate, I would have mentioned that. Assume first author position. Certainly, a first author on ONE Nature paper is better than 3 third authors on J Physiology. But a first author on ONE Nature vs 3 first author J Neuro/Physio are almost equal in terms of IF, but 3 publications in J Neuro/Physio show a consistent publication record.

As far as undergrad's on Nature papers...this happens a lot. Then again, everyone and their brother is added to publications in high IF journals.

I think everyone that has responded is in agreement that it is better to stay in one lab longer, as you are more likely to obtain publications (and in the case of LORs, a better LOR for medical school).

 

[drizzt3117]

This is an inane discussion. For the purposes of med school
admission the impact factor of the journal is for the most part irrelevant for a lot of reasons. 1) you're being compared against other candidates, who for the most part aren't published. 2) the people evaluating you may (and in the majority of cases do) not have a clear idea of the impact factor of journals 3) research plays a relatively small role in md only admissions.

The story for residency is slightly different but is more field specific. We decided to submit a neurorads pub to radiology vs nature neuroscience bc of relevance issues even though it'd be equally likely to be accepted in either.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

This is an inane discussion.

In the discussion of undergrads applying to med school, getting published at all is the exception, not the rule. Yes some undergrads are extraordinary and get into unusual circumstances and CAN get first authorship on a paper...but more likely what we talk about in this game is an undergrad getting his name slapped on somewhere in the middle of a list of authors. In these vast-majority cases, the factors determining whether or not you "publish" are things like: there was a successful project planned or already underway when you joined the lab; the PI is generous in putting undergrads' names on papers; and other things not directly related to your intellectual capacity, approach to scientific inquiry, or even general work ethic. My point here is to point out that adcoms know these things, and they do not place the value of a research experience on whether or not you "got published". A research experience is not deemed unsuccessful (as an undergrad in the application game) if you do not get published, so this should not be a driving force. Get involved with something you are interested in and would like to work on.

 

[random cell]

In all likelihood if you are multiple programs, say 4 summer programs you will not get published at all. An abstract is not a publication. A poster is not a publication.

Going to multiple labs will give you a better scope of what research is about in different areas. Staying with 1 lab will give you better chances at actually publishing something.

 

[CoolWhipp]

This is an inane discussion. For the purposes of med school
admission the impact factor of the journal is for the most part irrelevant for a lot of reasons. 1) you're being compared against other candidates, who for the most part aren't published. 2) the people evaluating you may (and in the majority of cases do) not have a clear idea of the impact factor of journals 3) research plays a relatively small role in md only admissions.

The story for residency is slightly different but is more field specific. We decided to submit a neurorads pub to radiology vs nature neuroscience bc of relevance issues even though it'd be equally likely to be accepted in either.

I was always told a pub looks very very good on an app, but maybe only for research oriented med schools.

 

[Catalystik]

I was always told a pub looks very very good on an app, but maybe only for research oriented med schools.

A pub always looks good, but how much it matters varies by school.

 

[drizzt3117]

I was always told a pub looks very very good on an app, but maybe only for research oriented med schools.

It does look good, my point was that the impact factor of the journal is less important than author position which is less important than number of pubs (primarily 0 vs 1).

 

[jsh52]

It does look good, my point was that the impact factor of the journal is less important than author position which is less important than number of pubs (primarily 0 vs 1).

For med school apps, I agree.