Have research experience but no publications, dealbreaker?

[rexzeppelin]

Hey hivemind, I've got a question.

 

Not looking for a pity fest here comforting me on application weaknesses, when I start getting that kind of mopey feeling I just go slick my hair back in the mirror and remind myself how awesome I look.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm applying to PhD programs in molecular biology to start fall 2014. My GPA/GRE's are where they should be, I went to a decent LAC (hence the insecurities vis a vis research), LOR's will be positive, 

 

I did two years of research with my advisor in molecular genetics, made some good progress, but we had issues (DNA from Mexico didn't arrive until I'd already graduated, advisor decided to go adopt a child in China for 6 months, etc.) and so nothing was published while I was there, and even after it seems the project's now in limbo. 

 

Question is: does a lack of publications make this experience meaningless, like I was twiddling my thumbs or whatnot? Will this preclude me from being a competitive candidate at tier 1 programs? 

[juilletmercredi]

It's actually unusual for applicants to have publications; you won't be at a disadvantage because you don't have them, and no, it does not make the experience meaningless.  Having one is more like the cherry on top, not a necessity.

[hikaru1221]

There have been (many, I believe) people going to top schools without undergrad publications. See, e.g. http://www.pgbovine.net/grad-school-app-tips.htm

 

Still I think it is more tolerable if one has done researches in many areas, before deciding on a specific one to work on in PhD. In the case that a research project has been pursued for a long duration, being without publishable results may leave a small question mark, I suppose. Just to be realistic, it might be safer to address that somewhere (e.g., LoR)

[pterosaur]

Last weekend I was talking to a couple of professors and grad students on admissions committees about this.  They said that a publication is the icing on the cake.  It generally won't make or break an application, in part because they don't see it as the best way to show research skills/potential.  They can't tell from a publication, for example, what YOU as the applicant did.  They said that the most important way for them to assess your skills/potential is from the letters of recommendation, especially if it's from someone well known and trustworthy in the field.  (They explicitly told me not to worry too much about publication at all, because with a strong letter from my current advisor, I will be in a really good position.  I was actually pretty surprised by that.)

[ToomuchLes]

If you can, try to attend a convention in the new year. I have a similar problem, in which I lack any publication; however I signed up for the PAT Biennial Convention in Jan 2-5, and I will present the same paper Im using for my sample (Ive been working on it since March X.X). As long as the convention/publication is within 6 months, you can put it on the CV. Thats what three grad school coordinators told me. Even if you dont publish, you can put 'pending' followed by the date. 

[Guest |||]

Youre in the norm, not the exception.

[rexzeppelin]

Phew!

 

Reading some posts on Quora of self-proclaimed "Definitive guide to PhD admissions," it seemed if I hadn't published, I might as well forget about getting into decent schools.

 

Thanks for the helpful replies, though I'm slightly skeptical being reassured of normality by Nic Cage.

 

Pterosaur - that's a great perspective, good to hear

 

LeventeL- good idea for the convention! As for me, getting back to campus and tracking down all the data in time for app deadlines is not worth it to me, haha though I feel I can definitely speak to the 'challenges of research' with conviction now. My advisor should vouch for them in my LOR.