Research experiences

[V-Snare]

The average number of research experiences seems to be trending upwards sharply. Are people listing posters/talks that they were 5th or 6th author on? If I include all the research experiences that I'm a co-author on then have ~25 research items. If it's only publications (including both primary and contributing authorships) and talks/posters I've been primary author on then I'm only around 10.

[Guest]

I wouldn't read too much into it. From personal experience i can think of multiple people this year who matched very well with way below those numbers (some with zero publications). In most cases quality > quantity. And you have to remember there's a massive positive skew with PhD's and others who have 40+ pubs.

I'd say most people have 2 or 3 solid publications, either first author or very heavily involved, and then multiple presentations/posters. If you're around there you're about average.

[Guest]

(03-20-2019, 01:17 PM)Guest Wrote: I wouldn't read too much into it. From personal experience i can think of multiple people this year who matched very well with way below those numbers (some with zero publications). In most cases quality > quantity. And you have to remember there's a massive positive skew with PhD's and others who have 40+ pubs.

I'd say most people have 2 or 3 solid publications, either first author or very heavily involved, and then multiple presentations/posters. If you're around there you're about average.

Not sure if most people have 2 or 3 "solid" publications. Most may have 2-3 pubs, but they are primarily chart reviews/case reports. Basic science publications are more impressive and not nearly as common among non-PhDs.

[Guest]

PhD's definitely don't contribute to the positive skew. Even one solid first author basic science publication is considered a success.

[Guest]

(03-20-2019, 01:26 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:17 PM)Guest Wrote: I wouldn't read too much into it. From personal experience i can think of multiple people this year who matched very well with way below those numbers (some with zero publications). In most cases quality > quantity. And you have to remember there's a massive positive skew with PhD's and others who have 40+ pubs.

I'd say most people have 2 or 3 solid publications, either first author or very heavily involved, and then multiple presentations/posters. If you're around there you're about average.

Not sure if most people have 2 or 3 "solid" publications. Most may have 2-3 pubs, but they are primarily chart reviews/case reports. Basic science publications are more impressive and not nearly as common among non-PhDs.

Solid as in first or second author retrospective chart review, almost never basic science. In my experience interviewing no one cared about my case reports.

[11262729NSG]

(03-20-2019, 01:55 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:26 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:17 PM)Guest Wrote: I wouldn't read too much into it. From personal experience i can think of multiple people this year who matched very well with way below those numbers (some with zero publications). In most cases quality > quantity. And you have to remember there's a massive positive skew with PhD's and others who have 40+ pubs.

I'd say most people have 2 or 3 solid publications, either first author or very heavily involved, and then multiple presentations/posters. If you're around there you're about average.

Not sure if most people have 2 or 3 "solid" publications. Most may have 2-3 pubs, but they are primarily chart reviews/case reports. Basic science publications are more impressive and not nearly as common among non-PhDs.

Solid as in first or second author retrospective chart review, almost never basic science. In my experience interviewing no one cared about my case reports.

How impactful are basic science publications obtained in between undergraduate and medical school?

[Guest]

(03-21-2019, 01:28 AM)11262729NSG Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:55 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:26 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:17 PM)Guest Wrote: I wouldn't read too much into it. From personal experience i can think of multiple people this year who matched very well with way below those numbers (some with zero publications). In most cases quality > quantity. And you have to remember there's a massive positive skew with PhD's and others who have 40+ pubs.

I'd say most people have 2 or 3 solid publications, either first author or very heavily involved, and then multiple presentations/posters. If you're around there you're about average.

Not sure if most people have 2 or 3 "solid" publications. Most may have 2-3 pubs, but they are primarily chart reviews/case reports. Basic science publications are more impressive and not nearly as common among non-PhDs.

Solid as in first or second author retrospective chart review, almost never basic science. In my experience interviewing no one cared about my case reports.

How impactful are basic science publications obtained in between undergraduate and medical school?

If you haven't continued that research in medical school they're almost inconsequential. It does show you have the ability to publish bench science, which is always nice, but if it's on a topic you haven't continued researching for the past 3-4 years it's not really relevant in projecting your next 7 years. 

Of course every program and even different staff within the same program will value it differently

[Guest]

(03-21-2019, 11:07 AM)Guest Wrote:

(03-21-2019, 01:28 AM)11262729NSG Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:55 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:26 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-20-2019, 01:17 PM)Guest Wrote: I wouldn't read too much into it. From personal experience i can think of multiple people this year who matched very well with way below those numbers (some with zero publications). In most cases quality > quantity. And you have to remember there's a massive positive skew with PhD's and others who have 40+ pubs.

I'd say most people have 2 or 3 solid publications, either first author or very heavily involved, and then multiple presentations/posters. If you're around there you're about average.

Not sure if most people have 2 or 3 "solid" publications. Most may have 2-3 pubs, but they are primarily chart reviews/case reports. Basic science publications are more impressive and not nearly as common among non-PhDs.

Solid as in first or second author retrospective chart review, almost never basic science. In my experience interviewing no one cared about my case reports.

How impactful are basic science publications obtained in between undergraduate and medical school?

If you haven't continued that research in medical school they're almost inconsequential. It does show you have the ability to publish bench science, which is always nice, but if it's on a topic you haven't continued researching for the past 3-4 years it's not really relevant in projecting your next 7 years. 

Of course every program and even different staff within the same program will value it differently

I disagree. If you have a high impact basic science paper between undergrad and med school or any period of time it is a huge boost. A friend of mine had a 2nd author Cell paper (from a year off between undergrad and med school) and it was brought up in every interview.

[Guest]

What if you have primarily a basic science research background but are not a PhD?