Publishing as an Undergrad - How Common? How Helpful?

[Neuro_Guy]

Hi everyone

 

So the title basically sums up my question. How common is it for an undergraduate to have a peer-reviewed publication (let's say having something submitted in review counts as well)? What about a first-author publication? And to what extent can these things help you get into grad school? I've heard conflicting things about how common it is so I wanted to ask the hivemind.

 

PS. for what it's worth I'm neuroscience, applying now. good luck to everyone 

[scienceowl]

Well, I'm not in neuroscience, but I can give you my general opinion.

 

any kind of publication helps for grad school applications. It doesn't matter that much what position you are in the authorship line. That being said, you should be able to talk about the science that's been done, how you contributed, what the purpose of the research in the paper was and how the experiments done helped accomplish the goal of the research...etc. I wouldn't worry about whether the paper's actually been accepted that much - one of my papers was being reviewed at the time I was applying to grad school, and I put it down as under review in my CV (very few schools will ask you to provide a pmid or medline index number when you write down your publications).

 

as for first author publications, it's not that common for an undergrad to have one. Realistically speaking, and especially in medium to large-sized labs, undergraduate students will rarely be granted their own project. Most likely, they will work with another student/postdoc on their project (and their names will often be on posters/pubs afterwards, or it least that's how I've seen it in labs I've worked in). Occasionally, an undergrad will get a small scale project of their own, but those are usually good for posters, or contribute to another larger scale project in the lab later on. Ultimately, of course, it depends on how long you've been in that lab, how big the lab is, and what the mentor's MO is. It's more likely for someone who's worked in a tiny lab for 2 years to have a publication than someone who was in a big lab for 2 months during summer, and vice versa.

 

In either case, applicants are evaluated based on the stage of their education at the time of application. If you've done a masters or worked as a tech etc. it's sort of expected that you produce something during that time period. I think in those cases, a first author paper would set you apart from other applicants. but as an undergrad, any kind of publication is pretty impressive. to reiterate, being able to talk about the science is the most important thing. Being able to explain the reasoning behind what you did is good, saying you did a bunch of western blots because your PI told you to is not, you get the idea ^^

 

I hope I was helpful!

[mrmolecularbiology]

Having pubs as an undergrad is incredibly helpful. It certainly helped me stand out. 

[footballing123]

I had two pubs, one as a co-author in journal of Immunology and one as first author in cell and development bio. I dont know how helpful it was, all the private schools i applied too gave me an interview save princeton and non of the state schools so far. once you get to the top schools, from what i know, (my proff was on the admissions committee at Princeton) its a crap shoot. They accepted one guy who only had two LoR rather than the normal three. It really is a flip of a coin.  

[thegirldetective]

It's no gaurentee, but yeah, I think it helps. It communicates to the adcom that you were really contributing to your lab. First author pubs are pretty rare for undergrads, so while I have no data to back this up I imagine they help A LOT.