Research for Residency

[ElloMellowYellow]

---

Members do not see this ad.

When it comes to applying for residencies, what distinction is placed on research?

Do directors discern between authorship level and journal prestige?
Or does any kind of publication hold the same weight?

Is basic science research frowned upon vs. Clinical work?

 

[sella.turcica]

Is basic science research frowned upon vs. Clinical work?

If you believe that the coffee from Starbucks is frowned upon vs from Dunkin, then yes. Otherwise no, a solid basic science record tops everything else.

 

[ElloMellowYellow]

So....which is dunkin and which is Starbucks?

 

[aldol16]

Do directors discern between authorship level and journal prestige?

It will depend on who's reading your application but most likely. They won't care if it's like 6th vs. 7th or 8th author. But first authorship means something and if you have multiple first author papers, I would emphasize that. It sets you apart from the rest of the pack. Journal prestige, probably less so. Unless you're talking about something that's very familiar to them, like NEJM, JAMA, or Lancet or a prestigious field-specific journal. Otherwise they probably won't care.

Or does any kind of publication hold the same weight?

Any publication = good. First author = even better.

Is basic science research frowned upon vs. Clinical work?

Not at all. Some highly academic specialties even like/prefer basic science research. Neurosurgery comes to mind. But keep in mind that it's a lot harder to publish in basic science and the rate is slower so ideally, you'd have a mix of both.

 

[ElloMellowYellow]

It will depend on who's reading your application but most likely. They won't care if it's like 6th vs. 7th or 8th author. But first authorship means something and if you have multiple first author papers, I would emphasize that. It sets you apart from the rest of the pack. Journal prestige, probably less so. Unless you're talking about something that's very familiar to them, like NEJM, JAMA, or Lancet or a prestigious field-specific journal. Otherwise they probably won't care.



Any publication = good. First author = even better.



Not at all. Some highly academic specialties even like/prefer basic science research. Neurosurgery comes to mind. But keep in mind that it's a lot harder to publish in basic science and the rate is slower so ideally, you'd have a mix of both.

Thanks for the input!

Do you know how feasible is it to do sustained basic science work while keeping up in med school?

I know some schools allow you time for a project in 3rd or 4th year, but what about since day 1?

 

[aldol16]

Do you know how feasible is it to do sustained basic science work while keeping up in med school?

I know some schools allow you time for a project in 3rd or 4th year, but what about since day 1?

Your question brings up several important points:

1) It is very feasible to do basic science work while keeping up in med school, depending on your curriculum. If it's the standard 2-year curriculum, then you should have plenty of time to do research while also doing well in school, given that most basic science research requires a lot of waiting. You just have to be efficient with your schedule.

2) That being said, academics always comes first. Don't underestimate the importance of doing well in classes or that will come back to bite you come time to take Step 1. Always make sure that you're doing well in classes and doing adequate preparation for Step 1. Outside of that, what you do with your time is your choice, including spending it in a wet lab.

3) I would actually advise starting basic science work as early as possible. I wouldn't do it Day 1. I would take a couple of months to get situated. Once you've taken a few exams to convince yourself that you've successfully adapted to med school life, that's the time you can start adding more commitments like basic science research. But with basic science, starting early is key because basic science takes a long time to do and publish. It's not something you can crank out in a month's time. It takes time to come up with hypotheses, tune them, do the experiments, re-do the experiments, and analyze the data. The goal is to maximize your research output by the time you apply to residency. It's okay to have ongoing projects but it's more impressive to have a list of publications to your name when it comes time to apply.

 

[ElloMellowYellow]

Awesome!

You have a great point with waiting until after a few tests.

 

[seeinghowitgoes]

When it comes to applying for residencies, what distinction is placed on research?

Do directors discern between authorship level and journal prestige?
Or does any kind of publication hold the same weight?

Is basic science research frowned upon vs. Clinical work?

The answers to these are often very specialty and then even program-specific. For example, I know some IM program care more about advocacy work than research, and some program directors prefer basic science to clinical while others do not. Since it’s so hard to know exactly what type of research will be looked st most favorably by your hypothetical number 1 program in the future, just assume if you publish in any field prior to residency you’re setting yourself up well.

Will also just say from my experience in IM, most programs (including the big academic powerhouses) don’t distinguish beyond the “JAMA, NEJM, BMJ vs Other” dichotomy and they note first author vs not first author. Otherwise most program leadership is not well-versed enough in research to really judge (remember program leaders at many places in many specialties are more educators than researchers, and very few are NIH funded).

Point of me saying all this is again, just do the research you’re interested in because the nuances of your research record will likely be way less important than you think.

 

[phonyreal98]

Minority opinion here but I don’t really care about Cell/Nature/Science/NEJM/PNAS papers. The most successful researchers I’ve worked with make their living by publishing mostly in good field journals.