Research Year - What is "productive"?

[12floz]

So I'm finishing up the last few weeks of my research year between M3/M4 right now, and am trying to gauge whether it was successful on paper (it was definitely worth it in personal growth!).

People always say that you should do it if "you'll be productive" but no one ever throws around any numbers on what exactly that means. Does anyone have any rules of thumb? I joined a lab that doesn't exactly pump out papers as it is fairly new and is doing large multi-year projects; so I've been trying to flesh out with clinical stuff I could get my hands on. I'll also be some mid-author on 2-3 basic science papers, but likley in the spring of next year, way past applications.

As of now though,

My pre-break CV consisted of 1 first-author clinical pub, a 1st author reply for a critique on that paper, one 2nd-to-last author clinical pub, one national podium, one school podium, and one departmental poster.

This year, I've so far added 2 second-author letter-to-the-editor-type papers, two podiums at one regional conference, and one departmental poster. Further, I've submitted a co-first-author (listed-second) clinical pub.

Additionally, I'm writing one basic-science manuscript right now for my main project, as well as a first-author systemic review, and first-author clinical survey paper. To what extent I'll be able to submit/accept these by September is unknown >.> I'll be submitting abstracts for these later in the year, but these will obviously not be presented before ERAS.

While I obviously would love some feedback on my "productivity," I also wanted to start the discussion of what exactly that means for a research year...? What do people think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gurby]

My pre-break CV consisted of 1 first-author clinical pub, a 1st author reply for a critique on that paper, one 2nd-to-last author clinical pub, one national podium, one school podium, and one departmental poster.

Question: Does anyone care about school podiums and departmental posters (aside from people who may be writing letters for you)? Can you even put them on ERAS?

 

[evilbooyaa]

That is not productive, IMO.

A research year in a lab that only puts out multi-year projects that isn't close to putting out a slew of publications (with offering of some authorship to you for contributing) is not a useful one to a MS3. You are not there to be a lab tech. You are there to get your name on papers, and are willing to trade hard work for it.

If a basic science year didn't lead to at least 1-2 in press papers by time of ERAS, that'd be questionable. If a clinical research year didn't lead to at least 3-5 papers in press by ERAS, that'd be questionable as well.

 

[Donald Juan]

It would be really nice to have a basic science publication by the time of ERAS given all your hard work and the fact that you might eventually have real things. 2 clinical publications isn't terrible though, but I would do whatever I could to try and push something through before ERAS if possible.

To answer @Gurby, yes you can list things done at a local symposium. No, they do not look as impressive as things at national conferences or official publications, but they do contribute to your overall portfolio as a med student and show you can get some things accomplished.

 

[mw18]

Question: Does anyone care about school podiums and departmental posters (aside from people who may be writing letters for you)? Can you even put them on ERAS?

That's how the average # of posters, presentations, publications on nrmp charting outcomes get pretty high.

 

[CyrusHabs7695]

That's how the average # of posters, presentations, publications on nrmp charting outcomes get pretty high.

This was about to be my next question

 

[Osteoth]

That is not productive, IMO.

A research year in a lab that only puts out multi-year projects that isn't close to putting out a slew of publications (with offering of some authorship to you for contributing) is not a useful one to a MS3. You are not there to be a lab tech. You are there to get your name on papers, and are willing to trade hard work for it.

If a basic science year didn't lead to at least 1-2 in press papers by time of ERAS, that'd be questionable. If a clinical research year didn't lead to at least 3-5 papers in press by ERAS, that'd be questionable as well.

Yeah I'd say 3-5 would be a good number. Not hard to hit if you put out a couple of abstracts, a poster or two and one manuscript thats a compilation of those.

 

[12floz]

That is not productive, IMO.

A research year in a lab that only puts out multi-year projects that isn't close to putting out a slew of publications (with offering of some authorship to you for contributing) is not a useful one to a MS3. You are not there to be a lab tech. You are there to get your name on papers, and are willing to trade hard work for it.

If a basic science year didn't lead to at least 1-2 in press papers by time of ERAS, that'd be questionable. If a clinical research year didn't lead to at least 3-5 papers in press by ERAS, that'd be questionable as well.

Thank you for your candid response. I’d like to clarify what you mean by those numbers though, as I believe you mean ~any authorship on the paper? I hope that you come from a large research powerhouse and have a skewed vision of the rest of the country. Frankly, I think pushing out 1 basic science and 3 clinical first author papers in a year is not less than productive. PhD students spend 5 years to put out an average of 3 first author papers. In your interpretation, which does unfortunately seem to be the reality, it seems heavily biased towards these large groups I’ve seen who put everyone else on everyone’s paper even when they did nothing. I think that in combination with the poster and abstracts leads to rampant ERAS inflation that really doesn’t represent the scientific thought and skills that people have put in.

 

[12floz]

Yeah I'd say 3-5 would be a good number. Not hard to hit if you put out a couple of abstracts, a poster or two and one manuscript thats a compilation of those.

I believe the previous poster seemed to imply 3-5 papers (i.e full manuscripts of different projects), not an inflated 5 versions of the same project. If it’s what you’re saying though, I totally hope your right as I’ve definitely passed that!

 

[evilbooyaa]

Thank you for your candid response. I’d like to clarify what you mean by those numbers though, as I believe you mean ~any authorship on the paper? I hope that you come from a large research powerhouse and have a skewed vision of the rest of the country. Frankly, I think pushing out 1 basic science and 3 clinical first author papers in a year is not less than productive. PhD students spend 5 years to put out an average of 3 first author papers. In your interpretation, which does unfortunately seem to be the reality, it seems heavily biased towards these large groups I’ve seen who put everyone else on everyone’s paper even when they did nothing. I think that in combination with the poster and abstracts leads to rampant ERAS inflation that really doesn’t represent the scientific thought and skills that people have put in.

First off, you're not going for your PhD here. Your goal as a medical student doing a research year means you are trying to show interest in a field and garner additional consideration. Unless your first author publication is going to be in some insanely good journal (depends on what specialty you're going for) it doesn't mean as much as you think it means.

3-5 clinical papers as first or second author, mostly in press or at least submitted by the time ERAS comes out is what I meant. Not abstracts. Papers. For basic science that number can drop to 1. They don't all have to be first author. Ideally at least one first author to show you can take lead on writing a manuscript (doesn't necessarily mean you did every experiment).

Listen, if you get all your first author stuff through and accepted for publication before September 15th, then more power to you. I'm just referencing with where you are now.

You stated you wanted feedback on your "productivity" and I gave it. If you don't want to hear it, then don't ask for it. My research lab was built for medical students who were trying to beef up resumes in return for an extraordinary year of hard work to improve the status of the lab. While the 6 pubs I achieved in my basic science research year, mostly as first or second author, are not the norm, asking for half of that should not be unreasonable. You have to know, especially in a basic science year, of what your goals are - do you want do get published or not? If you're in the middle of a multi-year project, it's not going to lead to the publications you are seeking for.

Most places don't overtly care if you're first or second author. Yes, ideally not being in the second half of authorship would be the way to be.

 

[12floz]

First off, you're not going for your PhD here. Your goal as a medical student doing a research year means you are trying to show interest in a field and garner additional consideration. Unless your first author publication is going to be in some insanely good journal (depends on what specialty you're going for) it doesn't mean as much as you think it means.

3-5 clinical papers as first or second author, mostly in press or at least submitted by the time ERAS comes out is what I meant. Not abstracts. Papers. For basic science that number can drop to 1. They don't all have to be first author. Ideally at least one first author to show you can take lead on writing a manuscript (doesn't necessarily mean you did every experiment).

Listen, if you get all your first author stuff through and accepted for publication before September 15th, then more power to you. I'm just referencing with where you are now.

You stated you wanted feedback on your "productivity" and I gave it. If you don't want to hear it, then don't ask for it. My research lab was built for medical students who were trying to beef up resumes in return for an extraordinary year of hard work to improve the status of the lab. While the 6 pubs I achieved in my basic science research year, mostly as first or second author, are not the norm, asking for half of that should not be unreasonable. You have to know, especially in a basic science year, of what your goals are - do you want do get published or not? If you're in the middle of a multi-year project, it's not going to lead to the publications you are seeking for.

Most places don't overtly care if you're first or second author. Yes, ideally not being in the second half of authorship would be the way to be.

I apologize if I came off as argumentative. Thank you for providing me with a frame of reference.