I do not understand the latter one, however. I certainly agree that systematic reviews provide some benefit if done right, and they have their place in academia, but recently I started seeing people who just do that. Nothing else. One systematic review after the other about everything neurosurgery has to offer. With these, I feel like a monkey can do that. There's no thought behind it to elucidate a topic you're working on, and not even the attempt to hide that all you want to do is get your numbers up. The sad part is that they get cited well, because everyone just puts a systematic review in their intro or discussion if it's on a topic with few publications, so you have people with tons of publications and tons of citations that literally have not done any further thinking beyond 'what entity out there has no systematic review?'
... I'm getting more and more frustrated with where our specialty is going with regards to how we incentivize applicants in this rat race
I'm past that, just commenting as a resident looking at applications as well as the evaluation of those by my coresidents and faculty.
You are right in a way, but the risks are so much higher. With the current environment, you're basically guaranteed volume if you put in the work, no matter what quality. Invest time on bench work and you risk not getting the type of publication you aimed for or a heavy delay due to year-long review cycles. This, however, is what most good research goes through, it's just not what future neurosurgeons are incentivized to do. You could say a lot of good science is in clinical papers too, and I agree, but why invest time in solid clinical papers if you can churn out the most straightforward or irrelevant works in WNS instead, since the number counts and there's no distinction anymore like there is with basic science research.
I think we should change the mindset of how we evaluate the research component of applicants. Very much open for a debate, but in my mind, we should ask if they have written a paper that truly influenced clinical decision making or understanding, or alternatively led to a deeper understanding in the basic science realm. This would ultimately lead to advisors telling medstudents not to waste their time on some bibliometric BS or another systematic review, but make them sit down and think about a publication worthwhile doing.
I'm just frustrated how little everyone else seems to be bothered by where neurosurgical research is heading. All these medical student mills and paper gifting, where authorships mean jack shit and half the publications coming out are completely worthless. Just talk to a normal person outside of medicine and explain to them the academic practices nowadays and they'll think that we're either crooks or plain stupid. There's no concern about using your time productively, and making sure your data collection is done as best as possible. It doesn't stop with residency applications, because everyone is circle-jerking about their number of publications in front of patients and admins, when we know that at least a third can be thrown out and nobody would notice.
I would appreciate a different take because I feel like academia is making me miserable recently, especially after being involved in this year's review of applicants and seeing the responses by faculty on the rising number of publications. It's like nobody thinks about the real reason behind publishing anymore
Even attendings at top places church out shit publications. Was looking at an attending at a top place and it was all just aneurysm this, aneurysm that. "Case study and a review of literature of unusual aneurysm." Appalling.
Perhaps h-index or some other citation metric should be reported with number of publications. I think the RO1 funded guys and gals are less impressed with sheer number and are looking at journal and authorship.
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2022
Reputation:
0
Thanks for all your responses. I would sit with the PD of my school and re-evaluate per their recommendations. So far, I have received mixed responses; get 2 papers and a 250+ on Step II and you would be solid (one attending), take a gap year because with step 1 scores going P/F and no step 2 score currently I am in a bad place (another attending). The overall vibe from this thread so far is GAP YEAR.
Overall, I am gearing to take a gap year. Any recommendations on finding spots? I have started talking to preceptors at my home institution, but I am also open to collaborating out of my home program.
Regarding pedigree of programs, lol i don't really care at this point. I am more concerned about not matching rather than going to Harvard or UCSF, etc. I believe any program would provide me with the required training for NSG if I don't fail out
On another note, suppose I take a gap year, will my step 1 score not matter since it would be P/F for most applicants? (That would hurt since I worked hard for it lmao)
Good point, if you have a stellar step score I might consider applying sooner than later. Your step score will, at least for the next few years, definitely be visible. It is said that everyone with a score will have their score displayed, while others will just have the p/f in that box. Honestly, if you have a 27x, and are in good standing, then email people all over the States and explain to them that you came to the decision late and want to work on research while you still have time. I’ve seen people from mid tier schools match at great operative programs with little research.
It seems that, if you’re not shooting for the top 20, you might not be interested in academia that much, and then a year off might also make you miserable
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2022
Reputation:
0
Anyone heard of the university of Chicago Illinois research opportunity for students?
