Publication as first author in undergrad?

[kilomole]

Hi guys,

 

I am just wondering is it common these days for undergraduate students in biology/chemistry to publish work as first-authored papers in peer-reviewer journals (BMC, pLoS etc.)? Any of you here has done so yourself? Did you do your work in a research university or SLAC? How big of a role did your PI play in helping you publish?

 

Thanks!

kilomole

[eeee1923]

Nope - it is not common. Some students are fortunate enough to get a publication during undergrad (which positively impacts the grad application package) but it is by no means expected and/or needed to get into a graduate program.

[expandyourmind]

i think its a huge plus to have a publication, not as first author but to get your name somewhere on the paper. it definitely is a big plus to show that not only can you do research, but you're committed to a project until its completion. even a undergraduate honors thesis helps, too. 

[Crucial BBQ]

I agree with it being a huge plus to your applications, and, I also agree that it is not as common as may seem. 

[devneuro18]

I would say its pretty uncommon. In my class of 21, I think there's 1 or 2 at most with first author publications. That said, having a first author publication along with a solid letter can be really helpful if you have some kinda blemish on your app (GPA, etc).

[Infinito]

From what I hear, and from talking to some professors, it's actually quite uncommon for a student to be on a paper at all, let alone first author, as an undergraduate. It does depend a lot on the specific lab and the field, too. For instance, it might be easier to publish a short paper in a cell genetics lab than it is to do the same in a neuroscience lab that involves animal models. Most of the time, lab research for undergrads during the school year is not always conducive to the productivity required to complete a task that would warrant a name on a paper, but summer programs are a different study as you're working 40+ hours for weeks on end, and usually on a specific project that will be put into a manuscript. 

From my experience, my 2 years in my undergraduate lab were productive, but not fruitful, mostly because the data obtained through my diligence was either negative (so either not novel, or refuted the hypothesis) and therefore not paper worthy, or it was a side project to test feasibility for a future project. On the other hand, the two years I did research over summer in a different lab earned me enough credit to be an author on a paper. 

 

That being said, I think being published is a positive thing for anyone's application, but professors know that research results can be a crap-shoot, and therefore the total amount of research experience and time allotted to bench research might be weighed more heavily. It's the only way to try and equalize the fact that some people may simply be more lucky with their results to get onto a paper, so as to not disregard hard work other applicants may have done that have not earned them the same thing. That's not to say that there aren't bright individuals out there that honestly did all the work and deserve all the credit for their papers. However, it's also very common these days for people to be added to papers simply because they are lab members, or to be fortuitous enough for your PI to give you the task of, for instance, writing a review paper because the PI (on the journal's committee) was asked to do it but doesn't have time. 

[bsharpe269]

They are of course useful but I think that amazing LORs stating you are passionate about research and work independently are MUCH more important.

 

I had some papers and no one commented on them. My LORs were commented on at every school.

Edited March 9, 2015 by bsharpe269

[EdNeuroGrl]

I have gotten the impression from a number of Neuroscience programs that unless you have one or two pubs to your name you will not be a competitive applicant. Then again I have seen people get in without any pubs even to very good programs...

 

Personally, I will be banking pretty hard on having a number of them (first and second authorship) somewhere in the submissions process being good enough, but one never knows. I also have the added challenge of getting into a highly interdisciplinary area that  not too many people are working in just now, so finding that perfect fit is an uphill battle.

[gliaful]

I have gotten the impression from a number of Neuroscience programs that unless you have one or two pubs to your name you will not be a competitive applicant.

 

I just finished the admissions process and I must politely disagree. I do have a first author publication (just me and my PI), yeah, but this is gradcafe and our population is skewed competitive. Only a couple of my interviewers -- of the 38 I met this season -- actually asked me about my paper. It probably helped me, but it didn't really feel like it.

 

I didn't meet very many people at interview weekends that had a first author pubication -- of those who did, many had published after undergrad and had several years of research experience. It is definitely not expected and there are plenty of ways to be seen as an applicant with potential (which is all you need to be right now) -- like through good letters of rec, as bsharpe said -- without fighting to get your name on every paper that exits your lab. If you care about the work you are doing right now, it'll shine through in your letters and when you go in to interview. Quality, not quantity.

[Saila09]

An undergrad publishing a peer-reviewed pub is highly uncommon is ANY field. Even more rare as a first author. Let's not lose sight of reality here. You're not applying for tenure, you're apply for graduate school. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by Saila09

[EdNeuroGrl]

I am glad to hear that. I am only going by what I've been told by various people. It seemed rather impractical to me, but at the same time I've heard both sides from more than one prof in the field.

 

I've certainly felt like I was under a similar pressure as a tenure-track prof to get things out and moving, but I've also had difficulty getting straight answers out of people... 

[Saila09]

I am glad to hear that. I am only going by what I've been told by various people. It seemed rather impractical to me, but at the same time I've heard both sides from more than one prof in the field.

 

I've certainly felt like I was under a similar pressure as a tenure-track prof to get things out and moving, but I've also had difficulty getting straight answers out of people... 

 

The thing is that more is almost always more in terms of research output. Having a pub (regardless of authorship) would definitely make you stand out in a pile of applicants. However, by no stretch of the imagination is it a requirement. It's also not a guaranteed admission ticket. At the undergraduate level, poster presentations are most likely going to be your bread and butter in terms of research output. 

 

Also - "undergrads" with pubs often have taken time after they graduate to complete them. That way, they're not juggling coursework and a pub.

 

Good luck!

[motrax]

The thing is that more is almost always more in terms of research output. Having a pub (regardless of authorship) would definitely make you stand out in a pile of applicants. However, by no stretch of the imagination is it a requirement. It's also not a guaranteed admission ticket. 

 

 

This, have a paper yet couldn't land myself even in a MS program (I get data fast but I have little out-of-class research experience, only 3-6mo at the time, now I'm looking at about a year and hopefully in another year I'll be competitive and with another paper and a co-authorship).