The how to get published thread

[ninetynine]

---

Members do not see this ad.

For those who have published, what are strategies you have used that have helped you to navigate research and get published?

I've been working in a lab for a year, I have 3 posters and no papers. Another guy in my lab joined the lab for 2 months, by luck got put on a hot topic in the lab and got his name - 2nd author - on a paper. all he did was trace brain scans. I've been working my butt off, reading literature, actually knowing what I'm doing, coming up with lots of creativity - all for 3 measly posters. I feel like I've hit a dead end. I don't have the creativity or knowledge of the field yet (being a 2nd year) to be able to direct my research into novel paths. I finally got frustrated and just wrote my own review on something random and got it published in an undergrad journal.

I'm just wondering, for those of you who have published, what are strategies you used?

For example, I have a friend who published 8 papers from his undergrad lab (I searched him on google scholar lol) and he said spent all his free time reading papers and thinking of new ideas and going to lab meetings.

What are your suggestions?

 

[Greonis]

As your example has shown, for undergraduates, it is largely a matter of luck. Try not to associate the value of your research experience (what you learned, the relationships you developed, etc...) with a number of publications. If you focus only on being published, then you could wind up being miserable if good fortune does not fall upon you (your post already suggests this). Moreover, a publication is just a cosmetic byproduct of what should be an incredible learning experience, and not having one is not going to harm your chances of getting into medical school (even research-oriented programs).

As for strategies, there really are none. You could try (tactfully) talking to your lab supervisors and see if your current line of research has any potential to net you a publication. Or, if you're absolutely set on being published, you could change your project and/or find a new lab. In reality, however, it is not unusual for undergraduates to put a lot of work into a lab and not be published. But, I must stress again, in no way does that harm their future in any way; what you got out of the research that is not put down on paper is of far, far greater value. So, while it is certainly easier said than done, I encourage you not to focus so much on a publication, since for an undergraduate that is no easy feat to accomplish.

Good luck to you!

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

I've been working in a lab for a year, I have 3 posters and no papers. Another guy in my lab joined the lab for 2 months, by luck got put on a hot topic in the lab and got his name - 2nd author - on a paper. all he did was trace brain scans.
...
For example, I have a friend who published 8 papers from his undergrad lab (I searched him on google scholar lol) and he said spent all his free time reading papers and thinking of new ideas and going to lab meetings.

What are your suggestions?

you outlined two methods to getting published, and here's a third: develop a close relationship with a professor/researcher, preferably in a small lab. this allows for greater opportunities to learn and contribute, and if you do enough grunt work on a specific project, you could get rewarded with a 2nd or 3rd spot without having to do any of the novel thinking. i had several friends working in the same lab for one professor, and that's how it worked out for them.

a few notes:
1. as previously stated, getting published isn't necessary. being able to passionately articulate your projects and contributions is sufficient for the application process. if you base the quality of your research experiences on the number of your publications, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. at the undergrad level, especially if you are just using it to get into med school, it is meant to be a learning experience.
2. many times when undergrads say they are published as primary authors, it is in undergrad journals. so i hope you're not hoping to get first author in Science...yeah f@#$%*! right.
3. try not to give the impression that you are only interested in research to get your name on a paper. chances are that if you have to ask about it, your work does not warrant authorship. and you don't want other lab members to think that you're only there to pad the resume.

 

[funkymunkytoes]

You answered your own question.

Do this:

Another guy in my lab joined the lab for 2 months, by luck got put on a hot topic in the lab and got his name - 2nd author - on a paper. all he did was trace brain scans.

Trace brain scans.

 

[BlueElmo]

I guess a certain amount of luck, at the right place and at the right time, is involved.

 

[efitzpat]

Well my strategy was hypnosis. I cornered the PI, hypnotized him, and then forced him to put my name on a paper he was writing.




Really, there are no strategies to get published. For me, I just did good work and then eventually gave me bigger and bigger projects. I've been in my lab for about 2.5 years, and a paper that I'm co-author on just got published in Nature Geoscience, and I'm writing 2 papers that I'll be 1st and 2nd author on. Plus there are a lot of things in the works where I'll a contributor due to all the work I've done on so many different things. I had no publications when I applied and still have successful cycle.

 

[URHere]

While publication for undergrads is mostly a matter of luck, here are a few "tips" to increase your chances:

1) When you are looking for a lab, settle on one with a solid publication record - you are more likely to publish with a lab if they get out 5-6 papers per year than you are if they publish one paper every other year.

2) Ask the PI or people in the lab what the required contribution for publication is. Some labs will put you on a paper if you help with the data in any way, while others require you to be active in the planning process from start to finish. I found this out the hard way - I wrote the testing software for one lab AND ran all of their subjects but still didn't make it on to the paper because I wasn't responsible for brainstorming the stusy. Trust me, ask.

3) If you have the time, put your hands in a few different pots. The more projects you are involved with, the higher your chances. (Note: You must still make worthwhile contributions to each project for this to work)

 

[ProteinChemist]

Being published is based on how much the PI likes you.

 

[armybound]

I told my bosses that I wanted to work on a project that would lead to a publication, then told them I would like the opportunity to write most of it.

It's only paid off with a poster abstract so far, but it's better than nothing. I also try to get involved in as many projects as possible that will end up getting published.

 

[not so calm now]

It's a combo of getting in the right lab and getting lucky. Adcoms know this, and won't favor someone because they're an 8th author in a niche journal over someone who's had a similar amt of experience.

 

[kansaskid]

It's definitely a luck thing. I have one in the works, but it was random and unexpected. You just think of some interesting ideas, ask your PI and test them out! If something cool happens or (as in my case) you just add to the general scientific knowledge of the world...you might just get lucky.
But like others have said: you really don't need to published for medical school unless you are super focused on doing research in med school...and if you are looking for tips here, I would hope it's not your primary focus! Research, for me, was mostly about figuring out that I did not want to do research forever...
Good luck!

 

[MDman87]

I'm really tired of everybody obsessing over publications. It's getting ridiculous. Just do the damn research, and if you get published, fine. If you don't, fine. Everybody's obsession about publications, it seems to me, is just going to result in a lot more s***** articles that no one will ever read. If you work hard enough and your work is good enough, you'll probably get published. If not, tough luck. That's life

 

[UVAbme2009]

You have more than me, and I've been working non-stop for almost two years now.

Like you mentioned, getting a paper published as an undergrad really is a stroke of luck. Some work is involved, but it's mostly about being in the right place at the right time. With research, you never know what will work. If you're like me, you do your experiments correctly, but nothing worthwhile ever comes out.

But like MDman87 above said, it's really about the experience. Being able to put on your application that you've done real research for an extended period of time is very important. Nobody will fault you for not having a publication. I've never been asked why I haven't published anything.

 

[pathophys17]

you outlined two methods to getting published, and here's a third: develop a close relationship with a professor/researcher, preferably in a small lab. this allows for greater opportunities to learn and contribute, and if you do enough grunt work on a specific project, you could get rewarded with a 2nd or 3rd spot without having to do any of the novel thinking.

a few notes:
1. as previously stated, getting published isn't necessary. being able to passionately articulate your projects and contributions is sufficient for the application process. if you base the quality of your research experiences on the number of your publications, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. at the undergrad level, especially if you are just using it to get into med school, it is meant to be a learning experience.

3. try not to give the impression that you are only interested in research to get your name on a paper. chances are that if you have to ask about it, your work does not warrant authorship. and you don't want other lab members to think that you're only there to pad the resume.

This third method is how I did it....formed a great relationship with an MD mentor who was heading the project, it was a small lab, did a lot of the "grunt work"...I don't really kow how much of the novel thinking we would be able to do at this stage. You definitely have to read the literature and understand everything about the project, but I'm not sure that we've studied enough in a particular field to develop our own research (that would end up in a prominent journal, anyway). A lot of it has to do with luck either way, though. I just happened to be on a project they were considering publishing in AJOG.

And I'd like to totally agree with points 2 & 3. It is much more important that you are passionate about/enjoy the research and are interested in it when it comes time to interview. Do not come across to the doctors/researchers that you're only in it for a pub. Research isn't meaningful only if it's published. You're learning a lot to hopefully (if you want) apply it to research experience in your future career, published or not.

 

[SBK]

I think all that matters is the LOR that you potentially recieve from any lab supervisor...way more personable that randomly listing a publication.

 

[SiR99]

I think a big factor in getting published is the amount of time you put into a project.

The luck stuff helps too

 

[bozz]

For those who have published, what are strategies you have used that have helped you to navigate research and get published?

I've been working in a lab for a year, I have 3 posters and no papers. Another guy in my lab joined the lab for 2 months, by luck got put on a hot topic in the lab and got his name - 2nd author - on a paper. all he did was trace brain scans. I've been working my butt off, reading literature, actually knowing what I'm doing, coming up with lots of creativity - all for 3 measly posters. I feel like I've hit a dead end. I don't have the creativity or knowledge of the field yet (being a 2nd year) to be able to direct my research into novel paths. I finally got frustrated and just wrote my own review on something random and got it published in an undergrad journal.

I'm just wondering, for those of you who have published, what are strategies you used?

For example, I have a friend who published 8 papers from his undergrad lab (I searched him on google scholar lol) and he said spent all his free time reading papers and thinking of new ideas and going to lab meetings.

What are your suggestions?

you've done enough research
the best strategy is to forget worrying about stuff like this and ace the MCAT and get those grades.

 

[ninetynine]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. 👍

Some clarification - I'm going for MD/PhD, and it's because I actually care about research - the reason why publications are important is not because I'm "some premed freak" but because I see publicatins as necessary to indicate actually having a significant contribution in my undergrad experiences, and thus containing significant potential for my future.

A lot of times, the people who get their names on papers aren't really the ones who know what they're doing - for some, it indicates a significant amount of creatiivty and ingenuity - for some, it's just getting lucky. Either way, all that matters is the result - the guy who gets published early (like the guy in my lab) might not know much (he could also), but in the end will end up having a better chance at a great research education because he got lucky in the beginning - so in the end, he's better off than me, who is learning a lot early on. Yes, the learning experience is important, but just getting a great learning experience and not having publications is like having lots of good food to eat and then starving for the next 6 months because you didn't have any ...hm... how should I say this... anything to propel you into the future with. it's about angling for the best opportunity, because I know I can get the learning experience either way. And that learning experience is so, so valuable - but in my opinion, less so than something that will get me an even BETTER experience later on.

 

[ninetynine]

I agree with everyone else about forming a good relationship, putting your hands in many pots, and also being in the right place at the right time. I think those are good points.

 

[DOquestions]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. 👍

Some clarification - I'm going for MD/PhD, and it's because Iactually care about research - the reason why publications are important is not because I'm "some premed freak" but because I see publicatins as necessary to indicate actually having a significant contribution in my undergrad experiences, and thus containing significant potential for my future.

A lot of times, the people who get their names on papers aren't really the ones who know what they're doing - for some, it indicates a significant amount of creatiivty and ingenuity - for some, it's just getting lucky. Either way, all that matters is the result - the guy who gets published early (like the guy in my lab) might not know much (he could also), but in the end will end up having a better chance at a great research education because he got lucky in the beginning - so in the end, he's better off than me, who is learning a lot early on. Yes, the learning experience is important, but just getting a great learning experience and not having publications is like having lots of good food to eat and then starving for the next 6 months because you didn't have any ...hm... how should I say this... anything to propel you into the future with. it's about angling for the best opportunity, because I know I can get the learning experience either way. And that learning experience is so, so valuable - but in my opinion, less so than something that will get me an even BETTER experience later on. My question is more aobut how to angle myself to A. not only get the best learning experience I can, but B. to angle myself to get published - it's really all a game - because undergrad is so short, and our knowledge so limited - that we can't get published "on our own strength" - just by ourselves - we can't sit down and think of a great idea and then fund our own project and just DO IT (unless you're a superhero, and there are a few of those) - we need the support of others (i.e. a supportive PI), the right timing (entering an already existing project at the right time, i.e. when results are ready, since projects often take multiple years to complete, more than 4 for many), and many other factors unrelated to our own ability. To me, getting published is about angling yourself - choosing the right lab, right project, etc. - and it's the same with anything in research - in grad school, choosing a good PI, a good project, etc. makes all the difference in getting out early and paving the way for a good career. So my question is more geared at what strategies, such as these, have you found beneficial for your lab.

People can care about research but not "do" the research. I find lab research very, very important. But I don't want to slave my days away at the bench. The type of research that I'm interested is more clinical-genome based.

If you were to ask me to run a blot for two years to see how a protein acts, I would run the other way as fast as possible.

 

[ninetynine]

People can care about research but not "do" the research. I find lab research very, very important. But I don't want to slave my days away at the bench. The type of research that I'm interested is more clinical-genome based.

If you were to ask me to run a blot for two years to see how a protein acts, I would run the other way as fast as possible.

How do you define the difference between "doing" research versus bench work?

 

[Neuronix]

not having publications is like having lots of good food to eat and then starving for the next 6 months because you didn't have any ...hm... how should I say this... anything to propel you into the future with.

You're just making things up now. I'll keep this simple.

You're an undergrad. Publications are not that important for MD/PhD admissions. Getting one as an undergrad IS mostly about luck. What you do as an undergrad has little influence on the rest of your life. Get a grip, keep your GPA and MCAT super high, get a good LOR, know what's going on, and you'll get where you want to go.

Oh, and I'd look more favorably on an undergrad with 3 first-author conference posters than one with a second-author publication. At least it shows that person actually wrote the darn thing.

 

[DOquestions]

How do you define the difference between "doing" research versus bench work?

To do is the act of doing. To do bench research, you have to do it. One can love learning about the research in the literature but not do it.

I like tacking the basic sciences into the bed side (for genomic information if I get into medical school)

 

[Greonis]

the reason why publications are important is not because I'm "some premed freak" but because I see publicatins as necessary to indicate actually having a significant contribution in my undergrad experiences, and thus containing significant potential for my future.

So basically, you want it to boost your resume. I don't see any other way of translating what you just said, as there are a million other ways to "have a significant contribution" as an undergraduate, and many of them don't require research or publications.

The best way to help yourself is a change of perspective. Focus on using the research experience as an opportunity to learn and to prepare yourself for the rigors of getting your PhD (a venture that will likely net you several publications). As it has been said repeatedly, getting published as an undergraduate requires a good deal of luck, and you should not go into research at this point with that as your primary motivating factor. The fact that you've done several years of research will be incredibly useful during your application cycle, and the boost netted from an additional publication would likely be negligible in comparison (AKA: not having it won't hurt you).

 

[Spiker]

You answered your own question.

Do this:



Trace brain scans.

Lol i am about to start tracing antibody stained nerv branching for fruit fly, which is basically just that....my PI told me he will get my name on there if i do it but I been delaying this crap for like 5 month cuz i dont like it x.x

 

[Siverhideo1985]

What are your suggestions?

I would start by curing cancer...

 

[Red Leader]

I would start by curing cancer...

That was so clever, not.

Alright OP, here is how you get published:

1. Talent
2. Hardwork
3. Luck

Without one of those you will fail. Talent is your intuition in research, which basically you can develop by reading papers, and having just innate curiosity to want to know stuff. Hardwork is self explanatory. Don't dick around in lab and use it as a hang out. Learn as much as you can from post docs. This way at the very least at least you will have knowledge about the research despite no papers. Luck sounds like a crapshoot, but I assure you it is not. Play your cards right, find the right people to know in the lab, have them put in a good word or two, show that you are responsible and can handle a project and bam --> paper.

Profs always tell me, "if you didn't publish it, you didn't do it." So basically I could slave away on a project for 6 months and have no results, I might as well have been a bum on the street for 6 months. Hyperbole of course, and probably for MD-PhD your experiences are most important, but a paper can't hurt. Anyways, that's how you publish in a nutshell. Hardwork + talent + luck (luck also plays a role in your research as I'm sure you've seen).

Whatever happens, know your field. That guy with 2nd author...good job, but if he can't say what the paper was about or doesn't know the big picture like someone who has designed experiments from the beginning then he is no good.

 

[Neuronix]

That guy with 2nd author...good job, but if he can't say what the paper was about or doesn't know the big picture like someone who has designed experiments from the beginning then he is no good.

A good point. If that person leaves after a few months in the lab with that second authored paper and a high GPA and MCAT, that person will not get a MD/PhD spot.

If someone spends 4 years in a lab with 0 publications and a high GPA (3.8+) and MCAT (36+), but worked hard, gets good LORs, and knows what's going on, that person will probably get a top-tier MD/PhD spot.

So what's the important factor here?

 

[jdtx]

I think all that matters is the LOR that you potentially recieve from any lab supervisor...way more personable that randomly listing a publication.

🙂

 

[Siverhideo1985]

That was so clever, not.

...that, my friend, was a joke...now stand up, there is a stick you need to remove.

Alright OP, here is how you get published:

1. Talent
2. Hardwork
3. Luck

Way to repeat the other 15 posts before you.

 

[Red Leader]

...that, my friend, was a joke...now stand up, there is a stick you need to remove.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm really not into that kind of thing.

 

[Siverhideo1985]

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm really not into that kind of thing.

That was so clever, not.

.

 

[ninetynine]

great responses - thank you ALL so much.

i just emailed my prof, and i'm going to find something new to work on, putting all your advice to good use in my project choice. (i just finished a project, so a perfect time to find a good launch pad). thanks!

 

[Kaustikos]

So basically, you want it to boost your resume. I don't see any other way of translating what you just said, as there are a million other ways to "have a significant contribution" as an undergraduate, and many of them don't require research or publications.

The best way to help yourself is a change of perspective. Focus on using the research experience as an opportunity to learn and to prepare yourself for the rigors of getting your PhD (a venture that will likely net you several publications). As it has been said repeatedly, getting published as an undergraduate requires a good deal of luck, and you should not go into research at this point with that as your primary motivating factor. The fact that you've done several years of research will be incredibly useful during your application cycle, and the boost netted from an additional publication would likely be negligible in comparison (AKA: not having it won't hurt you).

Precisely. In undergrad, you should be focusing on getting familiar with research and how things "work", not padding your resumes with publications.


Also, what the hell is wrong with you people? The mere fact that some of you pre-meds try and think you're more knowledgeable than Neuronix on the subject of MD/PhD programs is assanine. He is one of the few people here and amongst the first to pursue this program. He has insight that none of you have.


Also, you can have a million publications, but if it has no impact, you're just wasting paper.

 

[Siverhideo1985]

Also, what the hell is wrong with you people? The mere fact that some of you pre-meds try and think you're more knowledgeable than Neuronix on the subject of MD/PhD programs is assanine. He is one of the few people here and amongst the first to pursue this program. He has insight that none of you have.

What a rant.

Did I miss something?

 

[DOquestions]

What a rant.

Did I miss something?

Apparently he thinks that no pre-med SDNer besides that MD/PhD person should not have any thoughts about what the negatives are for the MD/PhD. He must be stressed over exams or something. His flip out was funny to read.

 

[Kaustikos]

What a rant.

Did I miss something?

Apparently he thinks that no pre-med SDNer besides that MD/PhD person should not have any thoughts about what the negatives are for the MD/PhD. He must be stressed over exams or something. His flip out was funny to read.

I reread and realized it was only a couple people. It wasn't even directed at either of you....so

 

[AtheGre]

1. Talent
2. Hardwork
3. Luck

👍


AtG