Research: Which is better

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

def1

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
603
Reaction score
39
Do you think it would look more impressive to have 6 months research experience and 3 published case studies, or 4 years research experience but only 1 publication?

Is research commitment more important or is the amount of publications more important. Lets say the 4 year researcher was working on a really in depth study and it required a lot of data before it could be published.
 
Both experiences are awesome, but I would say the 4 year + 1 pub may be slightly better because 1) you have done meaningful research over a longer period of time, and 2) the rec letter you get from the PI should be pretty darn good since you have been working for such a long time.
 
Does it even matter at this point? It looks like you were accepted already.
 
Yea I was thinking in terms of residency, but it could apply to medical school admission too.

I was just curious of quantity vs quality
 
Depends what you make of it. Experiences can be completely different depending on the person. If all things are held constant, the 4 years and 1 pub sound better.
 
are you going to be first author on all?
and what journals are they going to ?
 
I think a lot of that depends on what you expect the quality of that 1 research paper is going to be (nature, science, cell, JAMA, NEJM), which author you are , and also if the research pertains to a certain field you may be interested in (but 4 years does still sound like a lot, even if it is a basic science paper.)

Case studies in all honesty doesn't mean much, but when I'm comparing something along the lines of having 24 case studies in 4 years (3 case studies per 6 months as you suggested) to 1 research paper, the answer starts getting clearer.
 
I think in general people are going to be more interested in long term research. I always side with quality over quantity.

Survivor DO
 
Top