Grad Applicants To Uoft - First Author Publications Necessary?

[vvmm]

UofT med says the following on their website with regards to graduate applicants:

"In some cases, graduate applicants may undergo a separate graduate application review if you are able to demonstrate substantial productivity on your academic CV. Aside from presentations, posters and conferences, we are looking to see if you have completed at least one first author publication. When applying to the MD Program after completing a one or two year course-based Master’s program, you will likely be assessed as an undergraduate applicant."

 

I am wondering whether first author publications are necessary to receive an interview invite if your file undergoes graduate application review.

Among those grad applicants who have received an interview invite or know someone who has, did you/they all have first-author publications? If so, how many?

Also if someone didn't have a first author publication at the time of OMSAS submission but has one since, does this make a difference? (i.e. Does anybody know if reviewers do a Pubmed search to verify publication of 'submitted' papers?)

 

Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

[bobbyshmedder]

Sorry if I'm totally misreading the post, but I think you have it backward. I'm pretty sure that post by UofT is trying to say the sequence of events would be like:

1. You indicate you are a graduate student on OMSAS.
2. UofT assess your academic CV for "substantial productivity" aka. 1st author pubs.

3. a. With no 1st author pubs, you are entered back to the undergraduate pool.

    b. With 1st author pubs, they keep your file in the graduate pool and assess as a graduate applicant.

 

W/o 1st author pubs, you just won't undergo a graduate application review, not that it's necessary for you to have 1 to get an interview after undergoing graduate application review. I know quite a few people that applied after a MPH or a course based science Masters and got no interview offers and I guess that's why.

 

You should contact UofT's admissions office about that second question. But I don't think they will check Pubmed to see if you had more publications since your application, it's more like they'll check Pubmed to verify publications you indicated on your application.

[insomnias]

I really wonder about that policy sometimes tbh. I've got papers coming out from projects I started in first year. To get a paper in Science, Cell or Nature--especially first author--you generally need to spend at least 1-2 years doing experiments and revising (the assumption here being that a paper outside of the big 3 isn't worth anything, which isn't true, but it's not as though you can get a paper from bench research in under a year). The alternative is, of course, writing a review, but is that necessarily scientific productivity?

 

I guess I'm just led to wonder about the incentives here...

[victorias]

Just so I am understanding this right, if an applicant has a graduate degree with at least 1 first author publication, his/her application will go through the graduate application review.

 

Correct me if I am wrong.  

[adhominem]

I really wonder about that policy sometimes tbh. I've got papers coming out from projects I started in first year. To get a paper in Science, Cell or Nature--especially first author--you generally need to spend at least 1-2 years doing experiments and revising (the assumption here being that a paper outside of the big 3 isn't worth anything, which isn't true, but it's not as though you can get a paper from bench research in under a year). The alternative is, of course, writing a review, but is that necessarily scientific productivity?

 

I guess I'm just led to wonder about the incentives here...

Uhhh many professors go through their entire careers without publishing in those 3 journals. You would be in the upper echelon to get a paper in any of those journals, even as a professor let alone a graduate student. Not to mention that papers in those journals are generally massive (2+ years benchwork unless you have tons of co-authors), and that the reviewers generally ask for more experiments because you can't say no (sometimes delaying the publication 1 or more years). Hell, you could very easily spend an entire PhD completing experiments for 1st author on a Nature paper.

 

My guess is that they're looking for productivity in low-mid (IF=3-4), mid (IF~5-6), mid-high (IF~7-9), or high impact (IF~10-15) ranges. Nobody expects a paper from a prestigious journal during your graduate studies. I doubt they would care about a bunch of papers in the IF=1-2 range, but papers in the mid to upper mid tiers certainly carry weight.

[gangliocytoma]

Uhhh many professors go through their entire careers without publishing in those 3 journals. You would be in the upper echelon to get a paper in any of those journals, even as a professor let alone a graduate student. Not to mention that papers in those journals are generally massive (2+ years benchwork unless you have tons of co-authors), and that the reviewers generally ask for more experiments because you can't say no (sometimes delaying the publication 1 or more years). Hell, you could very easily spend an entire PhD completing experiments for 1st author on a Nature paper.

 

My guess is that they're looking for productivity in low-mid (IF=3-4), mid (IF~5-6), mid-high (IF~7-9), or high impact (IF~10-15) ranges. Nobody expects a paper from a prestigious journal during your graduate studies. I doubt they would care about a bunch of papers in the IF=1-2 range, but papers in the mid to upper mid tiers certainly carry weightHaving 

 

Journal impact isn't the be all and end all, especially for someone doing their masters. If you can get one 1st author publication, then your degree is probably considered productive.

 

There are plenty of low impact journals < 3 IF that publish very important basic sciences research. A lot of these journals also have rigorous review processes and publish high quality works. Take Muscle and Nerve for example, IF 2.7. This journal is for researchers publishing basic sciences work in muscular or nerve physiology and for clinicians in the neuromuscular field, they provide rigorous peer review and publish high quality papers. 

[adhominem]

Absolutely, I didn't mean to discount the high number of quality journals in the 2-3 range. Many highly specialized journals with exceptional work reside in that range, and I agree with you that IF isn't everything.

I suppose I moreso meant that junk and obscure journals (IF=0-1) won't necessarily earn you many points. i.e. Pediatric Neurosurgery (IF=0.245) publications aren't likely to be looked upon favorably when compared to other journals in the field.