The truth about the Importance to Publish

[brotherbu]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I constantly hear that publications aren't necessary to get into MSTP programs, but then I also hear that given the high competition for admissions these days, it has become almost a necessity for top-tier programs.

I question the value of publications in certain situations. I have worked on x-ray crystallography at the same lab at my school for two years, and have done two summer programs, one at Mount Sinai (Genetics) and the other at Mayo (Pharmacology). I feel as though I have somewhat of a substantial research background for a junior undergrad, and that I have been involved in strong and interesting projects, but I do not have one publication.

When I discuss this with people in my labs (grad students and post-docs), they laught it off. They talk about how it took them a year or more on a single project, working full-time in a lab, to get their first publication. THey think its funny that I, even though I work hard with the limited time I have in the lab, would even worry about getting published as an undergrad, just because it takes so much more time than I have provided or can yet provide.

At the same time, I know undergrads who spend much less time in the lab than I do, and that I could probably describe their research better than they could. Yet, because they worked on the right thing at the right time, and they work in fields that publish a lot faster than in fields like crystallography, they are applying to schools with two or even three publications. I don't mean to be mad-mouthing these individuals, but I think the emphasis on publications is wrong. Some projects require more time and effort than others, and track-records for undergrad publications are too ambigousto compare and contrast.

I guess my question is if it is really true to need publications to get into top-tier schools. By top-tier schools, I mean Harvard-MIT, Cornell/Rockefeller/Sloan-Kettering, Stanford, UCSF, etc. Perspectives would be greatly appreciated.

 

[mudphudwannabe]

I'm not the definitive source on this (I haven't even interviewed anywhere, but I have a couple "top tier" interviews coming up)..but I don't think that publications are absolutely necessary. I have one publication and 2 abstracts, but no first authorships. Getting published isn't just about doing good science I think..it's also about whether you happened to get good results in the short timeframe of being an undergrad, which is honestly a lot of luck, whether what you're researching is "sexy" right now, and what level your lab is at -- you won't have to do something as profound to publish in some po-dunk journal as you would to publish in Nature. And, as you said, projects in different fields require different time investments. I think that adcoms take this into consideration. I think what they're looking for is the length of your commitment to research rather than whether you have trophies to show for it. It sounds to me like you're doing just fine, and if you ask me, it's a little unreasonable to expect first authorships from undergrads -- it's not like we can live in the lab like grad students.

BTW, I was rejected from stanford's MSTP pre-interview, so maybe they're looking for first authorships. 😀 j/k. It would be all to convenient to blame it on that.

 

[Neuronix]

I constantly hear that publications aren't necessary to get into MSTP programs, but then I also hear that given the high competition for admissions these days, it has become almost a necessity for top-tier programs.

Wrong. It has to do with how much research you've done, how well you understand it, your ambition for research, and your LORs. It's not a necessity or anywhere near it. I didn't have any pubs when I applied. I did end up with one, but after I was done with the admissions game. I know lots of people at top programs who had no publications. Too many factors are out of the undergrad's control when it comes to pubs. People get them who don't deserve them, and people don't get them who do. Adcoms understand this.

There's been several threads about this before in this forum and in pre-allo. Try a search for more info.

 

[ClarinetGeek]

I feel your pain, brotherbu. I am in my junior year heading into my 4th semester with my lab (mol. virology). I have been in two different projects; however, I have been with my current project under my post-doc for 1 year now. I will be continuing with the project next year and conducting a senior thesis, so I am starting to apply for grants. Nonetheless, I don't see any publication insight quite yet and cannot imagine it being published by the time I apply later this year. Looking at the recent publications produced from our lab in the past few years, I don't see any undergrads listed anywhere (just post-docs, research assistants, and grad students) despite the fact undergrads did work on those projects. I don't know if this common, especially for a HHMI labs or not. So for those of you, who have publications, congrats!

Here's are my questions:
Recently one of my biology lab professors made the suggestion of publishing in an undergrad journal. She claimed that with little extra work, the research we conducted in our classroom lab is publishable. These labs are designed such that smalls teams of 3-4 students conduct original sciectific research projects in a matter of 5 weeks from literature searchs to proposal to final presentations and (grant proposal or paper). Obviously the time limitations pose issues such as severe lackings in depth. Often projects aren't complete or thorough; however, sometimes things do work out. The projects can be pretty cool. Anyway, does anyone feel that this route to publishing is worth pursuing? or would this been deemed simply "child's play" in the big realm of things by ad. comms.?

Also, (the same professor) said there was a possibility that I could go with her to a national convention this summer and conduct a tag-team presentation with her (30 minutes total). It would be concering a new peer mentoring program we initiated in our honors bio sequence during the first semester. We'd be presenting the design, data, and my experiences as peer mentor. Again, (while I think I will do it no matter what) is this a good thing to pursue? Does a presentation at a national science convention somehow start to make up for a lack of publications?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, CG. 🙂

 

[Habari]

i can say quite certainly that publishing period isn't necessary for acceptance to 'top tier' mstps. they simply want evidence of your committment to following up on the physician-scientist thang, and that you are creative and motivated. this is conveyed by your essays and recommendations, which matter quite a bit for acceptance to most places (the essay is the most important factor to gaining admission at my school, with recommendations then grades/mcats following).

I guess my question is if it is really true to need publications to get into top-tier schools. By top-tier schools, I mean Harvard-MIT, Cornell/Rockefeller/Sloan-Kettering, Stanford, UCSF, etc. Perspectives would be greatly appreciated.

i personally didn't have any publications when i applied, and was accepted to ucsf, ucla(caltech), washU, columbia, yale, cornell/rockefeller/ski (attending) among other places. on the other hand, my roomate had a first author science paper before he started the program. another classmate was accepted to harvard/mit (np and hst) mstp and hopkins mstp without any pubs. i would say about half the people my year had previous publications.

programs are simply looking for potential, and understand that publishing is to some degree dependent on your advisor, project and luck.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Having publications can only help. Not having publications do not necessarily hurt. People who don't have publications can get into a top program whereas a person with publications doesn't necessarily get into a top program. I know this first hand. When I applied along with my peers, there were 6 of us that applied to all the top MSTP programs. 2 of us, including myself, had 3 or more publications whereas the others didn't have a single publication. We all had stellar grades and MCATs (3.9+/35+). The two of us that did have publications didn't necessarily get into all of the top programs (and by top programs, I mean places like Harvard, Hopkins, WashU, UCSF, and a few others). Personally, I was rejected without interview at Harvard, rejected post-interview at Hopkins and WashU. The people who ended up getting into Hopkins and WashU had no publications. None of us got accepted into Harvard so the six of us scored a big 0-fer on that end.

What I'm trying to say is that there are many other aspects of one application than a publication list. Letters matter big time, the kind of research you did is important too, the political connections between your research PI and folks at a given institution matter, and especially your ability to discuss your research intelligently and eloquently discuss your passion for wanting to become a physician-scientist. There is also a sense of randomness too...just because you think you're a kickass candidate doesn't mean you're gonna get into the best place. **** happens and you have to deal with it cuz guess what, life isn't fair and you need to accept it.

 

[1Path]

Letters matter big time, the kind of research you did is important too, the political connections between your research PI and folks at a given institution matter

I agree 100% with Andy. But I just wanted to emphasize based purely on my own expereinces with a top-5 school that, these 3 highly subjective factors play as large a role or larger than test scores/GPA's. And if you can throw in a publication from a well polictically connected PI at a institution/school that's highly regarded with all the other things Andy mentioned, you're golden!!!

I'd also like to mention that it seems to me that if you're not listed as first or second author it doesn't carry much weight.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I agree 100% with Andy. But I just wanted to emphasize based purely on my own expereinces with a top-5 school that, these 3 highly subjective factors play as large a role or larger than test scores/GPA's. And if you can throw in a publication from a well polictically connected PI at a institution/school that's highly regarded with all the other things Andy mentioned, you're golden!!!

I'd also like to mention that it seems to me that if you're not listed as first or second author it doesn't carry much weight.

And even on top of that, if your PI has connections with people on the MSTP selection committee, phone calls being made on your behalf is also a possibility.

 

[noy]

Agreed heavily. My personal experience was feeling out of place at having lots of research experience but no pubs - I thought it would be a black mark of sorts. However, I applied to top schools anyway , and the good schools (the ones that accepted me) saw this right away and interviewed me. Your scores/GPA will show that you are smart enough, what you must convice them is of your potential to understand the scope and purpose of projects and your role in them. This allows them to asses your ability as a future research scientist (more like coordinator once you run a lab).

Obviously, if as an undergrad you are working for 2+ years in a high-volume lab that puts out a paper every other month, you will be much more likely to get your name on something than if you try a different research spin every summer and work in industry labs (which publish more infrequently) - but dont let it stop you, do whats interesting. Undergrad is almost the only time you get to do a completely different project than whan you expect your main career work to be.

Anyway, I ended up at a top school, they could care less what I had on paper from my undergrad years as long as I did good work and could prove it in the application and interview.

Of all the things one can correct and control on the way to being an MSTP applicant, publications are one of the last. You can take more courses, study for another MCAT, work on the essays, but if no one in your old lab is in a rush, and you wont be writing up the pub yourself, there is nothing you can do. If the work was good, but worthy of an undergrad's limited time and not a year of graduate time, then it might not be publishable, and thats ok too.

You will have PLENTY of time in the grad years to worry about that! 🙂

 

[mudphudwannabe]

If the work was good, but worthy of an undergrad's limited time and not a year of graduate time, then it might not be publishable, and thats ok too.

Good points! I have finally started to understand why I've been a little frustrated lately -- If something I'm working on in "my" project ends up to be interesting, publishable, and important to the lab's work overall...it gets passed to the postdoc I'm working with. It's not my fault, or my professor's fault..it's just the way things have to go if you want things to move. I can't wait until I'm a grad student. 😀

 

[brotherbu]

I think part of the "influence" people have, particularly on this board, about the importance to publish comes from a few people who come on and ask their competitiveness to MSTP programs. I think this is a great opportunity to get feedback, but the only description they provide about their research experience is the # of publications they have. According to everyone on this post, that # is not as important as the quality of the research, yet many of us still respond to those posts as if they were.

I don't know if this is inaccurate or not....i'm just saying it.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I think part of the "influence" people have, particularly on this board, about the importance to publish comes from a few people who come on and ask their competitiveness to MSTP programs. I think this is a great opportunity to get feedback, but the only description they provide about their research experience is the # of publications they have. According to everyone on this post, that # is not as important as the quality of the research, yet many of us still respond to those posts as if they were.

I don't know if this is inaccurate or not....i'm just saying it.

but if we describe our research experience, our anonymity becomes that more compromised

 

[tr]

but if we describe our research experience, our anonymity becomes that more compromised

Whatever. Anonymity is no longer possible in this day and age. I don't think there's much point in trying to preserve it. I doubt you do either, since you've stated your school, year, research topic, and ethnicity on this forum.

Regarding the OP's point, I agree that undergrad papers are more about being in the right place at the right time than anything else. On the other hand, since there are so many very competitive applicants out there, publication records become one more way to cull people from the pool. Given two intelligent, motivated applicants with lots of research experience and equivalent GPA/MCAT, how to choose between them? Well, if one has a first-author pub, that's one way to do it.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Whatever. Anonymity is no longer possible in this day and age. I don't think there's much point in trying to preserve it. I doubt you do either, since you've stated your school, year, research topic, and ethnicity on this forum.

Regarding the OP's point, I agree that undergrad papers are more about being in the right place at the right time than anything else. On the other hand, since there are so many very competitive applicants out there, publication records become one more way to cull people from the pool. Given two intelligent, motivated applicants with lots of research experience and equivalent GPA/MCAT, how to choose between them? Well, if one has a first-author pub, that's one way to do it.

I think Andy addressed this point precisely when he noted that some applicants with equivalent GPA/MCAT and no papers got into top schools that he did not get into, even with three publications.

It seems it really is a matter of being very articulate in describing your research.

Also, it may depend from school to school. Some schools want research experience to the point of conducting research for several years after college and having some publications (and these aren't necessarily all top tier schools), whereas other schools, even top schools, may have somewhat different criteria, stricter in other respects.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Whatever. Anonymity is no longer possible in this day and age. I don't think there's much point in trying to preserve it. I doubt you do either, since you've stated your school, year, research topic, and ethnicity on this forum.

I was being sarcastic...hence laughing emoticon. Perhaps I should've used this emoticon 🙄 .

Anyways tr, you know too much...an intervention is in order....muhahahahahaha

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Regarding the OP's point, I agree that undergrad papers are more about being in the right place at the right time than anything else. On the other hand, since there are so many very competitive applicants out there, publication records become one more way to cull people from the pool. Given two intelligent, motivated applicants with lots of research experience and equivalent GPA/MCAT, how to choose between them? Well, if one has a first-author pub, that's one way to do it.

I agree with this. Again, publications can only help your cause and the lack thereof doesn't necessarily make you a worse off applicant. There are so many variables...so many I can't control...commence panic mode...

 

[tr]

Anyways tr, you know too much...

Well, I have been cruising this site (intermittently) since 1999. Before the days of HotSteamingTurd, even. Ugh.

an intervention is in order....muhahahahahaha

Hey, I'm the brain scientist here. A little thiopental for the old memory, perhaps? And I echo: Muahahahahaa!

 

[tr]

I think Andy addressed this point precisely when he noted that some applicants with equivalent GPA/MCAT and no papers got into top schools that he did not get into, even with three publications.

Well, yeah. I have to say I thought the whole admissions process was a total crapshoot. It seemed like each school just excluded the obvious no'es (not enough research, grades too low, whatever), shook all the other apps up in a Yahtzee cup, and picked their admits blindly. I really couldn't see any real pattern to the admissions; not then as an applicant, and not now as an upper-level student and student interviewer for applicants.

The up side of this is that I think most of the qualified applicants end up getting in somewhere good. So maybe you wanted to go to Duke (or whatever) but you didn't get in; but maybe you'll get into WashU or Penn (or whatever) instead.

Also, it may depend from school to school. Some schools want research experience to the point of conducting research for several years after college and having some publications (and these aren't necessarily all top tier schools), whereas other schools, even top schools, may have somewhat different criteria, stricter in other respects.

Sure. No doubt this explains a lot of what I perceive as randomness; but that doesn't really help an applicant determine which schools are likely to admit him, as these sorts of intangibles are not generally public information.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Well, I have been cruising this site (intermittently) since 1999. Before the days of HotSteamingTurd, even. Ugh.

I'm very impressed. I miss that account

 

[PostalWookie]

Seriously, you don't need publications. I only had one, as the middle author out of like 8, in a relatively crappy journal (even though i had done all the work, but that's just how things go). So far I've gotten into 2 really good programs. I think the recs you get out of the labs are much more important than any publications.

As for whether you even get published, that's such a crapshoot. I've been in my current lab for 3 years, and we're just sending out a paper now, because my PI refuses to submit to any jorunal that does not have a snappy one-word title. And I may not even be first author. But whatever, there'll be time for that down the line.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Seriously, you don't need publications. I only had one, as the middle author out of like 8, in a relatively crappy journal (even though i had done all the work, but that's just how things go). So far I've gotten into 2 really good programs. I think the recs you get out of the labs are much more important than any publications.

As for whether you even get published, that's such a crapshoot. I've been in my current lab for 3 years, and we're just sending out a paper now, because my PI refuses to submit to any jorunal that does not have a snappy one-word title. And I may not even be first author. But whatever, there'll be time for that down the line.

Absolutely! Worry about first authorships when you get to the grad phase of your MD/PhD training. That's where it starts to matter.