Grad School and no publications???

[pacemaker]

I have been thinking of doing grad school and was just wondering what happens if someone is not able to get any publications? I know that med schools really stress on publications etc to assess productivity but realistically, nothing is guaranteed in science and it usually takes a long time to go through the process of getting something published.

 

I am just a little worried about this since I currently work in a lab and some of the grad students there have no publications (a few recently finished their masters and still no publications)......I am not planning on staying in the same lab because it is not of my area of interest but just curious about the consequences of going into graduate school before trying for med and not being able to get publications?

 

I would love to hear from everyone on this forum but would greatly appreciate if those who are currently in or have already completed grad school could also comment on this.

[Erk]

It's not just med schools. Academia in general stresses on publications. Frankly if you don't get at least one pub out of a Master's, something went wrong... make sure you choose an experienced supervisor with realistic expectations for what you will complete in your degree, and when it will be published. Talk frankly with supervisory prospects over what they expect an MSc student to leave their lab with, in terms of publications. If you can, get stuff in writing so you don't wind up like a friend of mine with a PhD supervisor who won't let her publish in "minor" (ie. top of her field but not pan-topical) journals, nothing less than Nature.

 

That said, many (most?) MSc students don't get publications until after they complete the degree. My name will be on at least two and as many as four pubs depending on what of my daa gets integrated where, but none were in submission until after my defense. The simple fact of science is that in the first year or so you need to be pretty lucky and wind up with a project that ties into someone else's already nearly-completed work to get on a pub that early. I wouldn't really count on it.

[pacemaker]

Thanks Erk!

 

So I have an offer from a prof already....when I had a meeting with him, he mentioned that he encourages his students to be productive and publish some papers but nothing really concrete like "you must have completed at least X number of papers by the time you are done in my lab". Also, he just got this grant for a new project and no other student in his lab is currently working on that.....I am getting a little worried if that should would be fine.

 

Just like you said, most likely a grad student doesn't start the process of submitting manuscripts to journals etc until after they are done their defence and have completed any revisions, if necessary. So, in that case, what happens in terms of med school applications? I plan to apply to medical school in during my second year of masters and hopefully be able to start right after completing my masters (I did mention that to this prof and he was supportive of that). I guess my question is that how would med schools assess my application if I apply during my second year and by that time, I am still working on my project and have no publications by then?

[bloh]

It is perfectly reasonable to end up with no publications when doing a Masters.

 

It largely depends on your project and some projects lead nowhere. Or they lead you towards a negative result (hello to my world) which is substantially more difficult to publish because your controls have to be impeccable and you really must have tried to get at the problem from numerous fronts before you can definitively claim "Nope, it's not there/doesn't exist/doesn't work".

 

Additionally, some projects get scooped (hello again) and is particularly true of more competitive fields.

 

Finally, some projects are too ambitious from the outset. Some of these can be easy to spot (ex. transgenic mice work where you are in charge of making the knockout, starting new science with a new grant, etc) while others creep up on you a year after the start.

 

Some labs/students work around this issue by publishing meaningless data in low-profile journals.

[Erk]

So, in that case, what happens in terms of med school applications? I plan to apply to medical school in during my second year of masters and hopefully be able to start right after completing my masters (I did mention that to this prof and he was supportive of that). I guess my question is that how would med schools assess my application if I apply during my second year and by that time, I am still working on my project and have no publications by then?

 

I can't say for sure as I think it depends strongly on the institution. However, as long as you've been doing your job you should have one or two published abstracts from conferences at that point, which will count for a little. You can also list your research experience as an activity, and I think it counts for a lot there.

 

Bloh does raise another point: Choose a reasonably noncompetitive field of science to avoid the chance of being scooped. There is no weight given to whether or not your papers were on, say, inflammation (highly competitive field) or ion channels in smooth muscle (highly noncompetitive/collaborative field). This is another thing to talk to your prospective supervisor about.

[pacemaker]

Thanks!

 

Just wondering what are some other noncompetitive/collaborative fields then? (I was more interested in psych/neuro related stuff).

 

Also, if I think I would be able to publish my data at the end.......when I am submitting my med school application, could I say that on my essay and mention that at the interview (if granted one)? Would that count for anything (I mean it sounds right to me to say that "I am still working on my project and making great progress, there are X and Y number of things I still need to do and I do expect to be able to have my paper published"......any thoughts on that?).

[Slashsev01]

yea it all depends on the field..

 

some u can get 4-5 in 2 years

 

some none...

 

my field didnt even hold international conferneces (only every 4 years!!)...

 

i suggest clinical...is the way to go

[Erk]

Thanks!

 

Just wondering what are some other noncompetitive/collaborative fields then? (I was more interested in psych/neuro related stuff).

 

Also, if I think I would be able to publish my data at the end.......when I am submitting my med school application, could I say that on my essay and mention that at the interview (if granted one)? Would that count for anything (I mean it sounds right to me to say that "I am still working on my project and making great progress, there are X and Y number of things I still need to do and I do expect to be able to have my paper published"......any thoughts on that?).

"mentioning it at the interview" isn't how med school interviews work, at least not the MMIs. The interviewers don't know anything about your file and don't really care.

 

The applicant reviewers will be quite familiar with how an MSc works I think. You'll be able to put in the description of your degree that you are working on a publication if you like, but really it's unnecessary; there are no MSc students who don't want to get published. Just work on your project and try to go to conferences to get abstracts published, try to get a prize in a poster competition at some point, et cetera: things that show you are researching. Talk is cheap, especially when there are direct ways of creating concrete evidence of your progress.

[covarubious]

I can't say for sure as I think it depends strongly on the institution. However, as long as you've been doing your job you should have one or two published abstracts from conferences at that point, which will count for a little. You can also list your research experience as an activity, and I think it counts for a lot there.

 

Bloh does raise another point: Choose a reasonably noncompetitive field of science to avoid the chance of being scooped. There is no weight given to whether or not your papers were on, say, inflammation (highly competitive field) or ion channels in smooth muscle (highly noncompetitive/collaborative field). This is another thing to talk to your prospective supervisor about.

 

How much do abstracts count? I have been working on my research for the past year (will be going into masters in the fall, just got a lil head start) I have done 2 abstracts with posters for presentations and will have another done by next month for an October presentation. My prof and calaborator is also doing an abstract with my name as 2nd author as well. I will try for as many real publications as I can but that of course takes time...

[lostintime]

Just wondering, is it better to be first author of a crappy journal or third author or beyond of a good journal? Of course best is first author of good journal, but that doesn't happen all the time I guess?

 

And if you publish in low-profile journals with meaningless data, does that still count for SOMETHING or is it kind of pointless in the reserach world?

[thehumanmacbook]

Just wondering, is it better to be first author of a crappy journal or third author or beyond of a good journal? Of course best is first author of good journal, but that doesn't happen all the time I guess?

 

And if you publish in low-profile journals with meaningless data, does that still count for SOMETHING or is it kind of pointless in the reserach world?

 

It counts to a reasonable degree. It is very rare to be published in a high-impact journal when still UG, and the chances only increase slightly with a Masters. For med school applications, I have been told by researchers that it is already quite good to be presenting conference abstracts and better, but rare for publications. At the end of the day though, it really depends on your research productivity and the field you are working in.

[Erk]

Just wondering, is it better to be first author of a crappy journal or third author or beyond of a good journal? Of course best is first author of good journal, but that doesn't happen all the time I guess?

 

And if you publish in low-profile journals with meaningless data, does that still count for SOMETHING or is it kind of pointless in the reserach world?

 

In an MSc, first author is best, followed by high-profile journal lower author. In terms of getting grants, impact factor of the journal is not considered (to my knowledge) until much later in your career.

 

I don't know if medical school apps are the same or not but I would imagine so. The issue is that it's too much work for general science committees to try to know the impact/importance of a specific field journal, eg. med school app committees probably don't know if organometallics is high impact or not in the organic chem metallic catalyst field. Same goes for CIHR and things like that on a trainee scale.

 

It all changes when you get into postdocs and up, but that's down the road and knowing how to maximise your impact there is a skill I'm far from learning.

 

Covarubius: I have no idea how much abstracts count relative to papers, I'm just another applicant all I know is that they are counted.

[lostintime]

Isn't it pretty easy to look up a journal's impact factor online though? But yeah, I mean I see what you're saying. Why bother when there's so many applications.

 

I think it makes sense too that first author is weighed more since you really do a lot more of the writing, take more responsibility versus a third author or something.

 

And orals are usually better than posters right.

[osteon]

Also, you can't really compare impact factors across fields. The best journal available in one field might be 3.5, whereas the worst journal's impact factor in a different field might be 7.0. Impact factors are based on number of citations, and basic science and general medical journals obviously appeal to a wider audience so get cited more often, thus have higher impact factors. Basically, even looking up IFs won't really do much. Impact factor alone is not really a predictor of quality research.

[pacemaker]

What about schools like Western that doesn't give special consideration to Masters or PhD students.......do they care at all in any way about the publications/abstracts/presentations etc....and what point in the application process would that come up?

 

I am just a little worried since I am about to start my Masters in the fall and even though I did talk with my potential supervisors regarding publications, it feels like a gamble at this point as nothing is guaranteed in science......I mean, I look forward to working hard on my project but not sure what will come out of it.......really worried as I don't want it to jeopardize my chances of getting into med school (Anyone else been in a similar situation?)

[thehumanmacbook]

What about schools like Western that doesn't give special consideration to Masters or PhD students.......do they care at all in any way about the publications/abstracts/presentations etc....and what point in the application process would that come up?

 

I am just a little worried since I am about to start my Masters in the fall and even though I did talk with my potential supervisors regarding publications, it feels like a gamble at this point as nothing is guaranteed in science......I mean, I look forward to working hard on my project but not sure what will come out of it.......really worried as I don't want it to jeopardize my chances of getting into med school (Anyone else been in a similar situation?)

 

In regards to your first question, I believe that you can talk about it in your interview and they will give your ABS a review post-interview. Having this sort of experience will help.

[pacemaker]

Thanks thehumanmacbook! Your comments have been really helpful.

 

So here is what I am worried about......I worked in a lab this year and know 3 grad students who just defended their thesis....all 3 had been working on their masters for 2-3 years but none of them at this point have a publication and only one of them went to a conference with a poster once....other than that, they have just been working on their stuff. I talked to them and they are hoping to be able to get 1-2 publications out of their masters thesis.....but that will take time as they just got back revisions and need to fix up stuff in their paper and then hand in a final bound copy soon....etc etc.....I mean, by the time these 3 will have anything published with their name on it, it seems like it will be another year. It's not a problem for them because none of them are looking to apply to any kind of professional school.

 

Now, I am looking at doing grad school in the fall (at a different lab though) but I am really worried because my long term goals are medicine. I am not doing a masters just to boost my med application (I have other valid/good reasons for doing a masters) but I just don't want to put myself at any kind of disadvantage by going for a masters (it is not a requirement for med but is something I really want to do)........I don't know, is it typical of grad students finishing their degrees and having no publications etc (like the ones I described above)??

 

Anyone who has gone through grad school or is currently in grad school....maybe you could shed some light on this? (I am kind of excited and worried about grad school right now).

[osteon]

Plain and simple, it comes down to only a few factors:

 

1) research environment - if your lab group publishes a lot, you might be able to tag in as a co-author on one of your colleagues papers if they feel the help you provided was sufficient for an authorship. Or, sometimes your supervisor might have old data lying around they can give to you to write up and in return they'll throw your name on the paper.

 

2) your research project - if your Master's is a one-phase project (as many Master's projects are) you won't have it published before you defend. Think of it this way: you get your results, analyze them find something cool, and now it's time to write it up, but the question is how, I.e. Paper format or thesis format. For most the idea of finishing the degree is more important than sitting around for 6 months or more waiting to hear if your paper gets accepted. If you have a 2-phase project or more, you might be able to submit earlier phases before defending, but you may not know if it's accepted before defending. It will also depend on what your research project is, since Master's projects aren't always publishable, I.e. Bad data happens, low sample size, or the study was just a repeat of some other work. The chances of having a paper 100% published before defending are low for a masters. Getting something accepted is doable. A conference abstract is pretty much a must in my view.

 

3) you - publications aren't handed to you. If you want one early, be prepared to work your ass off.

 

Bottom line: don't expect to emerge from a MSc with a ton of publications. Publishing your work after your defense is often the case. One publication total is respectable - more than that isn't really expected. A PhD is really the time for accumulating publications.

[astrogirl]

I completely agree with what osteon said above. In my experience, point #2 in osteon's response really seems to be the main determining factor between getting publications along the way and not getting publications until the end. If your project is the kind of thing where you won't get results until the end, you might not have any before you get done.

 

I just finished my PhD, and my project was the sort of thing where I wouldn't really get a lot of results along the way. As of right now, I have two conference presentations from it and one very minor publication that basically described our methods and included some preliminary results. My project involved studying variations in certain properties in 49 of a particular type of star, and then studying relationships between the properties in the entire group. We were still getting data until late October 2010, and the cool stuff involving the whole group of stars wasn't finished until a couple of months ago. Now that we're done, we're going to write several papers, but there wasn't much we could publish before the end.

 

Now contrast that with what one of my friends is doing. She's developing a technique to do something, then using it on 4 different data sets. So she'll end up with 4 publications along the way. And some people do a series of related experiments rather than one big thing. So if you can set it up so that you're doing something like that instead of something where you don't get all of your results until the end, you'll be more likely to get publications along the way. But like osteon said, that's harder to do with a master's because you're only working on it for two years.

[OIC]

It really depends on your field. Generally, clinical research can be easier to publish than the classical sciences because there critical mass needed for publication is lower (since people are interested in every small development at the clinical level) and there are a slew of journals for it. I am in clinical research, have been an MSc student for 18mos. and have two papers published, two more on the way and participated in 5 conferences - though I lucked into a nice project.

 

Something that I looked into when picking a potential lab was that I searched the supervisors on PubMed to see how often they published and I looked at how often their student's were published. The number one concern should be that the lab interests you, but if you really want to publish there is nothing wrong with "lab productivity" being high on the list as well.

 

Publications are never are a guarantee, unfortunately. We live for the 1% success rate in science and you can only hope that you get to experience some of it. If you look at the med acceptance threads, a LOT of the grad students who get accepted have no publications - even to UofT! Just do the best you can, try to present your work often, and get a strong reference from your supervisor, thats all you can really control.

[MedDream]

I'm not sure if this is a totally stupid question... but what about for MPH programs or MSc in Epidemiology type-programs that are course based with a placement or major paper? Will it be fairly obvious on your app. that these were course-based masters and you don't have any publications because of this? Maybe I'm totally off-the-mark but my understanding was course based = no pubs.