<p>Yes. A project done under your own supervision has more responsibility, and people understand this.</p>
<p>Starting Fall, I'm expecting to volunteer in a lab that does research on genomic organization of a developmentally complex organism. Would this be useful for med school, or should I find another lab that has more to do with animal science?</p>
<p>If you volunteer 10~15 hours per week, how many extra out-of-lab hours, if any, should you put in every week? Are you required to do out-of-lab work like reading papers by yourself or filling in data?</p>
<p>Well that depends on your research and how much free time that you have. Speaking from experience, it all depends on your mentor. At the beginning, you should b/c you are out to prove yourself, your knowledge, technique, and capability to your mentor. Only after you do that, then can you talk about helping your mentor w/ a project or doing a sector of the project for your mentor. No one said research is easy. However, you should contribute to it. The more you do on your spare time and the more knowledge you bring to the table, the more respect you get and the greater opportunity you have of getting your own project, which will lead to a publication. In terms of time, there really is no min or max # of hrs of out-of-lab work. It all depends on your knowledge of the subject and how much free time you have. School always comes first. It is recommended to do out-of-lab literature searches so you can get new ideas of figure out where you can take the project from here or there. My advice is to do what you can with your available time.</p>
<p>So far, I haven't told my lab prof and grad students how many hours I'm going to put in every week, but I'm guessing it could be anywhere from 10 to 15 hours.
To maximize my chance of being able to receive my own project and publish papers as an undergrad, what are some of the best things I can do besides
-working hard
-being careful and consistent
-asking questions about anything I'm unsure of</p>
<p>Be patient. All good things come with time. Do not rush or be impulsive.</p>
<p>I landed a paid research position this summer at a pretty distinguished university with very minimal research experience. It was easily one of the best summers in my life - I didn't have to wash beakers or do much scut work. I had never really been exposed to much lab technique so my summer was primarily spent learning how to do westerns, cell culture, PCR, all that fun stuff. I didn't get published but I did run a couple of experiments on my own (under the tutelage of my PI, of course), so all in all, it was a good experience and I hope to work there next summer.</p>
<p>I asked my lab prof 1) whether there will be an opportunity for me to contribute toward a publishable paper, 2) how much I will be responsible for, and 3) whether I will get my own publishable project to work on. He said that it's hard to know for sure; it depends on your aptitudes and abilities. He will be in a much better position to answer those questions after I've worked with his lab team for a few weeks. In general, they can often find a project that will lead to a publication, but there is no way of predicting how much time it might eventually take.</p>
<p>The lab prof is an old guy (60+ years old) who has 15+ years of experience in his field. He is the Canadian Research Chair in Genomics. The lab currently has exactly 6 grad students and 6 other staffs (?). It's planned that I'll be paired up with a staff (research assistant) and assist him. I was told that the lab previously had and currently has many volunteers who volunteered 2~4 hours per week. It surprised me that 2~4 hours seemed to be the norm in this lab for those volunteering.</p>
<p>Judging by the lab prof's answers to my questions and the lab's atmosphere, does this lab look like a good place where there's a high chance that, as an undergrad, you'll get the credit you deserve for all the hard work and time you sacrifice, receive your project and get published?</p>
<p>Er, I guess, so far so good.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that 2-4 hours gets you nowhere, especially if you have complicated clean up or set up. Some of the spectroscopes in my lab took 30 minutes to warm up. The most complicated spectroscope took 3+ hours to warm up and tune up, so making some measurements on that took a whole afternoon. I personally think you need a minimum of 15-16 hours a week, with 20-25 being best.</p>
<p>Good luck. :) Tell us all about it.</p>
<p>In my opinion, you're thinking too far ahead. If you're just a freshman with no previous research experience, just be glad you're going to be doing something other than washing beakers. I'd be highly put off as a professor if a frosh came along asking about publications when he should be concerned with learning techniques. It would be as if a rookie came along demanding a 7 year 100 million dollar contract when he has proven nothing.</p>
<p>I don't mean this as a slight towards you, ysk1. But, there is just too much concern with getting credit for stuff on this forum. Your biggest reward for doing research is the skills and maturity you will gain and the fact you are contributing to the scientific community, not a publication.</p>
<p>^ I completely agree.</p>
<p>As far as publications go, does it matter which institution your publication is affiliated with (meaning, the place where you did the research and the place that appears on the actual publication)? Also, besides the journal you publish in and where your name appears on the paper, what else is important in a publication?</p>
<p>I doubt institution matters that much. I guess if that institution if known for quality research in that field then it might look better. (e.g gtech, jhu for bme, harvard, vanderbilt for biochem, etc). What journal is a much better determinant (i.e science, nature). </p>
<p>Other important factors could be how many citations your article gets, but you shouldn't expect much from a newly published article.</p>
<p>Even journal and authorship would matter very little except in the context of MSTP admissions.</p>
<p>lol Science, Nature, citations? Come on. Very very few premeds even have publications. The most important thing is to be able to talk articulately about your research. You'd be surprised how many people work on a project for a year or two, get a pub, and still can't explain their project well. That would be the easiest way to discredit your publication.</p>
<p>NCG - I honestly don't see how someone can get stuck in a situation like that. I mean, I'd assume most people read their own publication (I mean, it's got their name on it... most people would at least TRY reading it). So, even if you had no clue what was going on while you were doing the research, you'd at least get the whole story just by reading the publication. It seems kind of ridiculous not to be able to talk articulately about what you did...</p>
<p>Actually I can only explain a very small portion of my paper. (The part I did.) It's now four years later, including one year of medical school, and the rest of it is still vastly too advanced for me to understand despite repeated readings.</p>
<p>"It seems kind of ridiculous not to be able to talk articulately about what you did..."</p>
<p>You'd be surprised.</p>
<p>I agree wit blue and norcal. Sometimes you do research in which you don't completely understand what they/you are doing. You can contributing to the research but as a whole the research is above your level. I got a publication last year and know working on another project but the terminology and concepts that they are using I have a hard time understanding it, let alone trying to explain it.</p>
<p>I think that, if you're a first author, then you'd be more likely to be able to explain your project well, because you would've done most of the work by yourself. If you're a third author, or anything beyond that, however, then you'd have much more difficulty explaining it well because your contribution is more minimal and therefore you wouldn't know much about everything in the project.</p>