research w/ no pub?

[bajoneswadup]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ive been working in a biology lab for a couple of semesters, if I don't get a pub or presentation before I apply, isn't that pretty silly? I mean if I think it's dumb that I dont have one, won't adcoms? ehh

 

[Knocked Up]

Ive been working in a biology lab for a couple of semesters, if I don't get a pub or presentation before I apply, isn't that pretty silly? I mean if I think it's dumb that I dont have one, won't adcoms? ehh

Get a life.

 

[aSagacious]

From what I've heard, only a small fraction of applicants have published before. If you are applying MD/PhD a publication (or lack thereof) might carry more weight. For the sake of MD admissions it's just gravy. In my conversations with AdCom members at three schools, the same can be said with presentations at regional/national conferences (as opposed to those hosted at your school for undergraduate research).

 

[Slowpoke]

Ive been working in a biology lab for a couple of semesters, if I don't get a pub or presentation before I apply, isn't that pretty silly? I mean if I think it's dumb that I dont have one, won't adcoms? ehh

A publication for an undergrad is not the norm. Don't feel bad that you don't have one lined up.

 

[silverlion]

Ive been working in a biology lab for a couple of semesters, if I don't get a pub or presentation before I apply, isn't that pretty silly? I mean if I think it's dumb that I dont have one, won't adcoms? ehh

I've been working at the NIH for exactly three years today. You'd be surprised to know that TODAY is also the day when my first paper got accepted. I applied to schools with the knowledge that there may or may not be a publication by the time I get an interview. I don't think you should be worried about not having a paper from your undergraduate research. I don't know the stats but if I were to guess, less than 5% of undergrad research fellows publish. Most of them just spend time in a lab doing stuff that doesn't warrant authorship.

 

[pooghe]

The majority of undergrads who do research do not have a publication. This is because as an undergrad the factors that lead to successful publication of a research project are largely out of your control. As such, it will not count against you. However, if you are able to talk intelligently about your research it will reflect positively on you.

 

[vc7777]

Ive been working in a biology lab for a couple of semesters, if I don't get a pub or presentation before I apply, isn't that pretty silly? I mean if I think it's dumb that I dont have one, won't adcoms? ehh

I have said many times on this forum that the "point" of research is not to check off a box on your application. Don't do research if you are not interested in it. Period. Spend your time volunteering or otherwise being engaged and intellectually challenged.

Having said that; an enriching research position is often one that doesn't result in a publication. It is much more important that you have a good experience with a mentor that walks you through the research project. You can discuss this kind of research on your application and in your interview. Good experiences will shine in the interview. With or without a publication. The converse - getting to an interview and not being able to talk cogently about your research - reflects very poorly on you as an applicant.

Do research because you like it. Don't do research because you don't. Sound like you are in it for the wrong reasons, OP. The silver lining for you may be that you have come to the realization that it isn't for you. Good luck.

 

[Caesar]

Next to no one gets published from undergrad.

 

[Calvinball]

Okay, so publications can be divided (roughly) into two general categories, and they are very different so let's treat them separately:

- 2nd or 3rd (or even later) Authorship: This is a project in which you played a supporting role but did not have creative control over it. The first author is responsible for the pace of this project, and there's nothing you can do to get it published if they're sitting on their hands.

- Primary authorship: You have direct control over whether you put out a first-author paper. They require more work but will be significantly more impressive on your CV. Here are the factors that determine if you will put one of these out:
1. Your ability to convince your PI that a) you have a sophisticated understanding of the lab's current research and b) are a hard worker. No PI will think, "Hm, I've got an intelligent hard-worker here who could put out a publication for my lab, but I'd rather they autoclave pipette tips and empty the tissue culture waste flasks."
2. Your skill at designing experiments that test a hypothesis, instead of nebulous experiments that at best can be considered "panning for gold." If, at the end of each week, you cannot say that you have new data that is directly relevant to your hypothesis, then you need to take more care in your experimental design. Of great value too, is being able to design experiments to efficiently kill a project if it is not moving along, instead of letting it eat up several more months of your life.
3. While research should always allow for the revision of a project as new data come to light, try to put together a rough idea of what the figures in your paper will look like earlier rather than later. This framework can change as the project runs its course, but if you're thinking in terms of your future publication's figures, step#2 will become much easier.
4. The amount of time you are willing to commit to the lab. Can you tell your buddies, "sorry I can't come to the bar, I've got a 10pm timepoint on Friday?"

Yes, undergraduate publication is difficult and rare, but it is not impossible. Prior to joining a lab, you can ask the PI what your tragectory looks like. If you're still washing dishes a couple months in, switch to a new lab.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[aSagacious]

Okay, so publications can be divided (roughly) into two general categories, and they are very different so let's treat them separately:

- 2nd or 3rd (or even later) Authorship: This is a project in which you played a supporting role but did not have creative control over it. The first author is responsible for the pace of this project, and there's nothing you can do to get it published if they're sitting on their hands.

- Primary authorship: You have direct control over whether you put out a first-author paper. They require more work but will be significantly more impressive on your CV. Here are the factors that determine if you will put one of these out:

Disagreed. As an undergrad you have absolutely no control over which author you end up on a publication. Case in point: I have 3 publications under my belt. The first two were admittedly in a supporting role, working closely with my PI. For the third publication, my PI essentially let me loose in her lab and merely supplied the goods (equipment, lab space, funding, etc). As a consequence she ended up as the first author on the publication. I'm not complaining, that's simply how the game is played. Authorship as an undergrad has little to do with 'creative control'.

 

[Narmerguy]

Disagreed. As an undergrad you have absolutely no control over which author you end up on a publication. Case in point: I have 3 publications under my belt. The first two were admittedly in a supporting role, working closely with my PI. For the third publication, my PI essentially let me loose in her lab and merely supplied the goods (equipment, lab space, funding, etc). As a consequence she ended up as the first author on the publication. I'm not complaining, that's simply how the game is played. Authorship as an undergrad has little to do with 'creative control'.

Getting published in general as an undergrad has little to do with creative control. It's very difficult because, as the lowest dude on the totem, politics can determine whether or not you're published at all.

Don't get too concerned with this. Almost every US graduate program knows and understands this. Even in MDPhD there is no expectation of you getting published and it doesn't hurt you.

As much as I wish people would never do research just to check it off, giving the clear willingness of schools to treat this like something for the applicants to check off makes it inevitable. Many people can do research for a year and talk interestingly about it to show aptitude, whether or not it was just a check-off for them. This will get you through almost any interview questions you will receive. It's very difficult to ascertain the motivations of one's research participation if the applicant is moderately intelligent about it.