<p>...then how come authorship is always highly regarded by adcoms?</p>
<p>Many people work in a lab for 2 years or more and still get no publication. Others do a 2-month summer research and get a pub.
I know it'll be useless if you end up not being able to speak intelligibly about your pub during an interview, but still, having a pub can at least increase your competitiveness as an applicant.</p>
<p>It doesn't entirely depend on luck. There's a lot of other skills that are required, just not sufficient. If you think about the game theory of the situation, that's the only distinguishing measure (that and LORs, which are also important) to measure a student's ability in a research context.</p>
<p>I said it mostly, not "entirely", depends on luck. Many people with all the necessary skills who put in as much effort don't get published because of lack of luck. I think such people should be recognized in some way, too, because if they had the luck factor, then they would've been published as well.</p>
<p>How exactly should the admissions committee determine which people have the necessary skills? Ask them?</p>
<p>Getting published is a plus but I don't think you are necessarily at a severe disadvantage if you don't get published, simply because so few premeds get published. I don't think adcoms go nuts over pubs at all. It's one of those things that's good to have but tough to get if you're doing basic science research and expected if you're doing clinical research.</p>
<p>a pub is expected in clinical research? are the results easier/faster to get?</p>
<p>Seriously, i wouldnt expect the adcoms to care so much if you dont get your research published. It would be great, though. But i think having a great recommendation letter from your professor that you are great researcher and what you have contributed to the project would be good?
i dont know, just something my professor was telling me. however correct me if im wrong.</p>
<p>What are LOR's?</p>
<p>LOR= letter of recommendation</p>