What kind of publications help with the admissions process?

[hp18]

What kind of publications are considred towards admission process?

[Kirsteen]

Hi,

 

Traditionally, publications are either full manuscripts or abstracts (which are generally presented at a conference) which have been published in a scientific journal. That's using the strictest sense of the word, i.e., involving the peer-review process. However, there can be other types of publications that may be considered during the medical school admissions process, i.e., invited publications or publications in non-peer-reviewed journals.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[hp18]

What do you mean by non peer review journals.......Is it necessary to have publications.....Need to maintain high GPA, do volunteering, have extra curriculars, have high score in MCAT, Present well in interview.......and also have publications on the top of it.....is it not too much for asking.....I do not understand how all these are related to being a physician.

[Smurfette]

What do you mean by non peer review journals.......Is it necessary to have publications.....Need to maintain high GPA, do volunteering, have extra curriculars, have high score in MCAT, Present well in interview.......and also have publications on the top of it.....is it not too much for asking.....I do not understand how all these are related to being a physician.

 

You don't "need" publications to get into medical school. You also don't "need" to volunteer at the hospital. For some schools, you don't even need to write the MCAT. However, publications (and various extra curricular or volunteer committments) can help your application.

 

Medical schools are looking for individuals that will make competent, caring physicians. The idea is that schoolwork, volunteering, EC's, MCAT scores, and research (possibly leading to publications) can help predict which people will make good physicians.

[peachy]

For the med school admissions process, I don't think it matters at all what kind of "publications" you have, if any. I bet that an article in the Toronto Star would be just as good (or even better!) than a peer-reviewed journal publication because it would differeniate you better from the thousands of undergrad applicants who did summer research. They're looking to judge your invovement with the community, your ability to multi-task, and so on. You do not need to have research publications to be admitted to medical school.

[ploughboy]

Ya, don't think that there's some sort of premed checklist, that if you get 15 out of the 17 points on, you win...

 

In applying to med school, there are "must haves" and "nice to haves". A good GPA and MCAT scores are the must-haves, because they're what get your foot in the door (at schools which consider the MCAT, of course)

 

Publications and some of the other stuff are "nice to haves". Publications definitely don't have to deal with medicine, however. A good chunk of my Western interview was spent talking about some papers I published a long time ago now on compound semiconductor crystal growth. I'm sure that my interview panel didn't give two hoots about carbon-doped gallium arsenide, but talking about that a) set me apart from the crowd and let me demonstrate that I can explain highly technical stuff to an audience not well versed in that area.

 

Of course for the rest of my interiew I just babbled, but they let me in anyway...

 

Regarding the physician's role as a researcher...when you get into med school, you will be beaten over the head with the concept of "evidence-based medicine". Although not everything in medicine can, or should be, reduced to RCTs and meta-analyses, it is important for a physician -- even if (s)he intends to have strictly a clinical career -- to be familiar with research concepts and methods. Conducting and publishing original research is quite naturally a good way to gain this familiarity.

 

Best of luck!

 

pb

[scarface]

If you want to go to U of T for medicine, either because you grew up in the area and all your family and friends are there, or you need to boost your ego and think that attending a prestigious med school like UT will do the trick (bad idea, btw, you're better off attending a school like UWO where you actually do stuff on your clerkship, j/k UT guys, no hard feelings intended), then research publications are very nice to have, and borderline "must haves".

 

Yes, I know someone who's in UT meds will come on here and say "don't listen to this dufus, I got into UT meds without doing any research and I know so many other people who have", but keep in mind that these people have done something else extraordinary in lieu of research, i.e. extensive clinical experience, etc.

 

And I am certainly not the "be all end all authority" regarding UT admissions, but keep in mind that UT has a reputation for being a "research school", so it's common sense that research publications will be an asset when applying to this school.

[peachy]

research publications are very nice to have, and borderline "must haves".

Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to any of the things you've said above. You have given a good, concise summary of the misconceptions about U of T medical school as typically perceived by premed students. Thanks!

 

U of T admissions looks for people who are outstanding in whatever areas they have chosen -- for some that might be research, for many (and probably most!) that is not. There is no preference for research achievements over other kinds of achievements. Most U of T med students have no publications prior to medicine (like most medical students in general) and it's absolutely not necessary. There are statements to this effect all over their admissions literature and FAQs, if you had bothered to read them.

 

When I applied to the MD/PhD program I thought I had no chance at all because I had no publications, and I was totally freaked out because of comments like yours that publications are "borderline required". And there was no need to be freaked out, because publications at an undergraduate level are not required.

 

And I am certainly not the "be all end all authority" regarding UT admissions, but keep in mind that UT has a reputation for being a "research school", so it's common sense that research publications will be an asset when applying to this school.

You are confusing "common sense" with "gossip" and "rumours".

[Destiny Gundam]

Agree. Not every WANTS to get a publication CAN get one. Heck, I worked in 3 Co-op research labs, 1 animal behavioral lab, and 1 school-related lab. Even got a NSERC one summer. No publication. If you wanna bash me on that feel free to do so; I guess I am research-incompetent, but I enjoy interviewing patients more anyway, so I am ok with that weakness~

[scarface]

Fair enough, if I have no idea what I am talking about, I will not post misinformation. Problem with that, is that I never know when I have no idea what I am talking about. I can post whatever message I want on this board (it's a free country) within reasonable limits. I have no intentions of intentionally misleading others. If you want to label it as misinformation, that's fine with me, I could care less, but I will post on this board whenever I feel like it regardless of whether it's so called "misinformation" or the truth (after all, I will never know which it is unless people like yourself enlighten me).

 

I don't know who you are peachy, but I'm assuming you're in UT medicine. As I thought, someone in UT meds would take offense to the message and attack me even though I said I was just kidding. Don't take things so seriously, there are people in this world who have a penchant for annoying others. Everyone is different. Some people are nice and pleasant. Others are downright ***holes.

 

But you do raise a good point. Maybe publications aren't necessary, but research experience is nice to have regardless of whether or not you publish (that I dare say would be "common sense"). And Destiny, since you have given me permission to, I will bash you on your research incompetence, "since you haven't published any research, you are beyond a reasonable doubt inept at research and your ability as a physician is questionable". (do I really believe the preceding statement to be true? no, but even if I did, I know you could care less and wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it)

[Kirsteen]

Hey all,

 

Let's try to keep it civil. Electronic correspondence is open to various interpretations (not all positive) due to the communication characteristics it lacks.

 

Getting back to one of the original questions: peer-reviewed literature is that which has been assessed by folks who are deemed experts (to some degree) in that field. They read the manuscript and make a decision as to whether or not it warrants publication in a journal in light of the manuscript quality (methodology, statistics, writing, etc.) and with respect to the current corpus of literature in the field addressed by your paper.

 

Articles that are not peer-reviewed, per se, include those in newspapers, newsletters, etc.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[scarface]

Peachy, by editing your original message after I posted mine, you have admitted fault. That's commendable. I kind of wish I had used the "quote" function, so that you weren't able to cover up what you said. When I first saw your message, I noticed that it was edited. I would have loved to see what the original, uncut version was.

 

Thanks Kirsteen for mediating. I will no longer add any posts to this thread.

[Kirsteen]

Hi,

 

Sorry, this is a moot post. I had thought my original post was erased and began re-typing it, to find it was on the second page.

 

Nice to see some civility.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[hp18]

I think discussing is very useful....we need not agree with each other and discussions eventually leads to useful info.... As I understand, publications really mean nothing....it only helps to carry on discussion during interviews......I spoke to someone who was on interview committee and understand they do not like fabrication just for the sake of admission......Publication means nothing unless those are really outstanding and genuine.......

[Kirsteen]

Hi again,

 

I'd disagree that publications mean nothing in the medical school admissions process, but also, that publications mean everything. In terms of medical school admissions there is going to be a spectrum of importance inre: publications or research productivity. Different schools and different selection committee members within a certain school will value publication records differently. Although publications are noted as not being a necessity for most medical school selection processes (except for the special pools of graduate applicants considered by UofT and O. of Ottawa) one thing that can be assured is that, if you have a good publication history, it should not hurt your chances of admission to any given medical school.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[peachy]

I'd disagree that publications mean nothing in the medical school admissions process, but also, that publications mean everything.

I agree. I think that the best way to see it is to consider publications to be another extracurricular or award. Every one is good, some are better than others, and almost none of them will, individually, make the difference between acceptance and rejection.

 

I do think that they are very much overrated by premeds (applying as undergrads). Admissions committees, I believe, recognize that publications as an undergraduate often depend more on your lab than they do on you. They also often depend on whether a student has chosen to spend several summers in one lab or tried out different labs and different research areas. Personally, I think that a very strong letter from a research supervisor can be more indicative of the research someone has done in undergrad than a name on a publication

 

(Those are ALL my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect any admissions policies of which I am aware!!).

[hp18]

I was suggesting there is no point in spending too much time and effort on publications as your GPA & MCAT scores are far more important and you can not afford publications at the expense of those........Unless you are a genius and can manage both...

[Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

I was suggesting there is no point in spending too much time and effort on publications as your GPA & MCAT scores are far more important and you can not afford publications at the expense of those.

 

Absolutely agreed. Whether or not you have a publication will not exempt you from further consideration during a given school's selection process, but not meeting their GPA or MCAT requirements will. In terms of cost/benefit, the cost (in time) of getting a study to the published stage is quite a bit. In terms of the benefit for applying to medical school relative to the benefit of other factors, I'd say it's not worth it, in general. Now, if you're a graduate student applying during your graduate degree through UofT or UofO's graduate applicant pool, I would say that this does not apply. Especially if your GPA is low, then your graduate productivity should be as stellar as you can make it be.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen