Hey everyone, MS2 here looking for some insight. I know that the average pubs cited on NRMP is around 18 for matched neurosurgery but that includes pubs along with posters and abstracts. Wondering how many actual publications I should be aiming for to have a good chance to match at highly academic programs like Columbia, MGH, Stanford, UCSF, etc. I understand the more the better but with the various projects I am taking on now I’m projecting about 8-9 papers before matching, a mix of some basic science and some clinical. Should I be aiming higher and putting more effort into picking up more clinical projects? I attend a highly ranked med school if that’s relevant. Thanks
(12-21-2019, 11:07 PM)Guest Wrote: Hey everyone, MS2 here looking for some insight. I know that the average pubs cited on NRMP is around 18 for matched neurosurgery but that includes pubs along with posters and abstracts. Wondering how many actual publications I should be aiming for to have a good chance to match at highly academic programs like Columbia, MGH, Stanford, UCSF, etc. I understand the more the better but with the various projects I am taking on now I’m projecting about 8-9 papers before matching, a mix of some basic science and some clinical. Should I be aiming higher and putting more effort into picking up more clinical projects? I attend a highly ranked med school if that’s relevant. Thanks
Average isn't actually 18, most people have 5-6 papers, and few people have really sick basic science papers. If you hit double digits thats considered good, but many people on the trail have more than 20 papers, some people having high level pubs as their standard. Being first author is important. Getting into the programs you mentioned is #1 very dependent on the pedigree of your med school, connections of your faculty, rotating at those programs, doing a research year there, or having connections there. If you're looking for the minimum you need to do to get these programs you're setting yourself up for failure, many of the students have been busting their ass consistently every year and pick up any project they can.
(12-22-2019, 12:15 AM)Guest Wrote: (12-21-2019, 11:07 PM)Guest Wrote: Hey everyone, MS2 here looking for some insight. I know that the average pubs cited on NRMP is around 18 for matched neurosurgery but that includes pubs along with posters and abstracts. Wondering how many actual publications I should be aiming for to have a good chance to match at highly academic programs like Columbia, MGH, Stanford, UCSF, etc. I understand the more the better but with the various projects I am taking on now I’m projecting about 8-9 papers before matching, a mix of some basic science and some clinical. Should I be aiming higher and putting more effort into picking up more clinical projects? I attend a highly ranked med school if that’s relevant. Thanks
Average isn't actually 18, most people have 5-6 papers, and few people have really sick basic science papers. If you hit double digits thats considered good, but many people on the trail have more than 20 papers, some people having high level pubs as their standard. Being first author is important. Getting into the programs you mentioned is #1 very dependent on the pedigree of your med school, connections of your faculty, rotating at those programs, doing a research year there, or having connections there. If you're looking for the minimum you need to do to get these programs you're setting yourself up for failure, many of the students have been busting their ass consistently every year and pick up any project they can.
Is having a small number of basic science papers (2-3) equivalent to a larger number of clinical papers/chart reviews (8-10)? Or is it purely a numbers game?
It’s a bit of both. Also depends on authorship. It’s super easy to get on a bunch of basic science papers as a middle author. But if you have first, second and third author basic science papers that goes a longer way.
I would equate 1 first author (good impact factor) basic science paper to 10-15 first author clinical retrospective studies.
For some programa numbers matter more and a few basic science papers may not cut it.
The most competitive applicants have a good mix of basic science and clinical research. There’s no magic formula but a first author basic science paper in a strong journal will go a long way.
Also more and more applicants seem to be doing a research year with grant or fellowship funding. Consider doing this because having a productive research year can bolster your application significantly.
(12-22-2019, 05:04 PM)Guest Wrote: The most competitive applicants have a good mix of basic science and clinical research. There’s no magic formula but a first author basic science paper in a strong journal will go a long way.
Also more and more applicants seem to be doing a research year with grant or fellowship funding. Consider doing this because having a productive research year can bolster your application significantly.
But an unproductive year can make you look terrible
It's not all just a numbers game. Here's what we look at in deliberations at my institution:
What are you publishing?
Non-first author case reports don't mean anything to be. 2nd or 3rd author retrospective studies are nice, shows you've at least worked through the data collection process, maybe wrote a portion of the paper. 1st author retrospective studies, or basic science papers are what's most impressive obviously.
But it's also important to look at the context of what they're publishing. If you came from UCSF and you have 1 or 2 non-first author papers, that's not a good sign. Those guys publish a massive amount of research regularly there, what were you doing for 4 years? On the other hand, if you come from a school with no home program and you have 1 or 2 papers, i'm impressed. I know it probably took you a lot of work to get that done.
What I most want to see is that there's a project you were passionate about, a subject that you wanted to research and you had a significant role in taking that study from concept to acceptance. If you have 1 or 2 of those I could care less about the "numbers game".
(12-23-2019, 12:16 PM)Guest Wrote: It's not all just a numbers game. Here's what we look at in deliberations at my institution:
What are you publishing?
Non-first author case reports don't mean anything to be. 2nd or 3rd author retrospective studies are nice, shows you've at least worked through the data collection process, maybe wrote a portion of the paper. 1st author retrospective studies, or basic science papers are what's most impressive obviously.
But it's also important to look at the context of what they're publishing. If you came from UCSF and you have 1 or 2 non-first author papers, that's not a good sign. Those guys publish a massive amount of research regularly there, what were you doing for 4 years? On the other hand, if you come from a school with no home program and you have 1 or 2 papers, i'm impressed. I know it probably took you a lot of work to get that done.
What I most want to see is that there's a project you were passionate about, a subject that you wanted to research and you had a significant role in taking that study from concept to acceptance. If you have 1 or 2 of those I could care less about the "numbers game".
Really well said! We have a similar process as well. Coming from a top neurosurgery department with low productivity definitely hurts. Exceptions are to those students who switched to neurosurgery last minute and have conveyed that in their personal statement or is evident from their application. Sadly early differentiation does lead to a major advantage for those applicants.
(12-24-2019, 01:21 AM)Guest Wrote: (12-23-2019, 12:16 PM)Guest Wrote: It's not all just a numbers game. Here's what we look at in deliberations at my institution:
What are you publishing?
Non-first author case reports don't mean anything to be. 2nd or 3rd author retrospective studies are nice, shows you've at least worked through the data collection process, maybe wrote a portion of the paper. 1st author retrospective studies, or basic science papers are what's most impressive obviously.
But it's also important to look at the context of what they're publishing. If you came from UCSF and you have 1 or 2 non-first author papers, that's not a good sign. Those guys publish a massive amount of research regularly there, what were you doing for 4 years? On the other hand, if you come from a school with no home program and you have 1 or 2 papers, i'm impressed. I know it probably took you a lot of work to get that done.
What I most want to see is that there's a project you were passionate about, a subject that you wanted to research and you had a significant role in taking that study from concept to acceptance. If you have 1 or 2 of those I could care less about the "numbers game".
Really well said! We have a similar process as well. Coming from a top neurosurgery department with low productivity definitely hurts. Exceptions are to those students who switched to neurosurgery last minute and have conveyed that in their personal statement or is evident from their application. Sadly early differentiation does lead to a major advantage for those applicants.
Agreed! Choosing neurosurgery MS3 year is a perfectly good reason for only having 1 or 2 pubs. Specifying that in your personal statement and then communicating what you've gotten involved in since deciding neurosurgery is key.
(12-21-2019, 11:07 PM)Guest Wrote: Hey everyone, MS2 here looking for some insight. I know that the average pubs cited on NRMP is around 18 for matched neurosurgery but that includes pubs along with posters and abstracts. Wondering how many actual publications I should be aiming for to have a good chance to match at highly academic programs like Columbia, MGH, Stanford, UCSF, etc. I understand the more the better but with the various projects I am taking on now I’m projecting about 8-9 papers before matching, a mix of some basic science and some clinical. Should I be aiming higher and putting more effort into picking up more clinical projects? I attend a highly ranked med school if that’s relevant. Thanks
18, come on... No way. I wouldn't trust any source like that. A quality PhD is maybe 2-3 tops, quality publications. If you can hit 8-9 first author in neurosurgery journals, you'll be well above the curve!
|
