Obviously, having a PhD that led to a strong set of publications strengthens an application enough to grant a candidate excellent chances for getting spot in a “great” neurosurgery residency....

...but what about applicants who spent 4 years doing a PhD only to get mediocre publications?!?!  Such a student could have easily worked just as hard, if not harder, than his/her peer who landed a Nature paper but was just unlucky (which is very common). 

So, what do program directors think of an MD/PhD candidate with middle of the road or lesser publications?  In the eyes of the program director, did such an applicant demonstrate a commitment for academic NS or did the applicant shoot him or herself in the foot by showing that he or she failed to produce solid publications with 4 years of protected time.

Thanks.

I don’t think it can hurt you.  As long as you can talk about your research intelligently during your interview, it never looks bad to have a PhD.

Your statement is so true, most PhD do not produce stellar publications, but we do learn a lot how to be a successful academician and work up the system.

So don’t worry if a program is looking for future academicians, MD/PhD candidates will always be a good choice.

The chances of spending four years of med school doing research on the side and during the summer and “lucking” into a first author Nature/Science/PNAS paper are exceedingly small. Consider how many MD/PhDs have those kinds of pubs and then realize that they spent orders of magnitude more time/effort are are therefore much more likely to write high-end publications. Pure med students don’t have the time to warrant a first author pub, let alone the writing skill. These kinds of projects do not grow on trees. There is a reason that they carry a substantial amount of weight. You can go into the whole - But I’m sixth author on this great article in this journal with an IF > 7, that means it’s better than your first author/IF < 1 right?, but it’s a waste of time.

Again, the value of the PhD is not necessarily in the publications. Most PDs/academic surgeons know this. A quality PhD teaches you about how to actually write good papers, how to “ask good questions” (which is an unbelievable simplification), and run a lab. You may think that you are very good at this stuff already - but you probably aren’t. Many med students (and grad students) are good technicians, not good academicians.

If you’re doing the PhD to get into a better residency you’ll hate yourself during your time off. Don’t worry about pubs, if you don’t get a PhD you can rack up a few by the end of med school.

LOL at PNAS being in the same ballpark as science/nature, but agree with your main point that science/nature/cell (if you need to throw in a 3rd) publications are incredibly rare among PhD students and I would be shocked if any 4 year med student ever 1st authored a paper in one of those journals based on their time in medical school.

Any person getting cold feet over doing a PhD but wants to do an impressive amount of research should do a DD or HHMI fellowship. Very prestigious, you’ll learn most of what you would during a PhD (but without the finesse), and there is a definite end date.

The scariest thing about the PhD - there is no structured exit strategy. Everyone in grad school will tell you that the transition from MD track to PhD track is scary because of that very thing.

I do not think that is completely accurate.

I don’t chime in much around here, but there is a plethora of misconceptions being thrown around here in true medical student style.

1.  Part of you PhD training is publishing.  If you don’t have at least one first author publication (journal is irrevelant) then I question your PhD.  It doesn’t have to be a nature paper, but you have to be able to show that you can think, write and publish a paper to have a PhD in the sciences....PERIOD.  This especially applies to people who say that they finished their PhD in 2 years and have no papers to show for it.  It took me 4 years of grad school to finish and by that time I had enough data for multiple pubs.

2.  Now on the subject of “high impact” papers (nature, science, HMG, etc.).....if you’r not one of the 1st 2-3 authors or one of the last 2-3 authors then I know you didn’t write the paper.  Personally, a low tier 1st author paper is more impressive to me than being in the middle of 15 authors on a nature paper because you ran some gels.

3.  A one year HHMI or DD fellowship in no way is even partially equivalent to a PhD in terms of your application or what you think you may have learned.....unless you got you “PhD” in 2 years and have no papers.  Whoever said this should really get over themself and for the love of God don’t say that in an interview.

4.  I personally don’t care what subject your research is in.....it doesn’t have be neuroscience related.  Just be able to speak about it intelligently.  I can be interested in many areas of science if someone knows what they are talking about.

That sounds more accurate.

In regards to number 2, so if one ends up as say 8th author on a 15 author paper (regardless of impact) do you even bother adding such a reference to your NS residency application?  I think I would actually be inclined to do so if I were in that situation…

Andrew Bernard - 16 September 2010 06:35 PM

That sounds more accurate.

In regards to number 2, so if one ends up as say 8th author on a 15 author paper (regardless of impact) do you even bother adding such a reference to your NS residency application?  I think I would actually be inclined to do so if I were in that situation…

You should most definitely list all of you publications, regardless of where you fall on authorship.  What I was trying to convey is that I am more impressed with 1st author papers because that tells me that you wrote all (if not most) of the paper.  Don’t get me wrong.....being listed on a high-impact paper is always a good thing.  I just find it rather hilarious when someone brags about a nature paper and I find out they are 8th on a list of 15.