<p>I'm currently doing my masters at cornell, and I'm at a dilemma in choosing potential research projects. I've told my advisor that I am planning on applying to PhD programs after my masters and he informed me about two available projects:</p>
<ol>
<li>Basic project with publication within 1 year</li>
<li>Novel research with very large value (low chance in publication in one year) -But will be published in either Nature or Science (largest impact factors)</li>
</ol>
<p>Its clear that the first project will result in a less significant publication, where I would not have much input in methodology, while the second one contributes more to science but does not have the chance of being publicated within a year.</p>
<p>What would look better for a PhD application? A publication or participation in a novel experimental technique?</p>
<p>Just speculation as I’m certainly no authority on the subject…</p>
<p>I would imagine that if the “compelling” project takes your advisor’s LOR from a pretty standard positive review to something mindblowing, that could make the trade-off worthwhile. Would the short description of this project in your CV and SoP be recognized as something immediately impressive? What about the project itself, are you interested in it?</p>
<p>Assuming the exciting project gets you a high impact factor pub (Nature, etc), but not in the first year - might it be worth applying a year later knowing that your CV is that much better? It could also allow you to work in the field as a technician for a short time, which won’t hurt your chances either. Depends on how much of a hurry you are in.</p>
<p>Take the one that you are most interested in. That’s what’s important. You do research not just because it looks good on your CV, but because it’s a project you’re passionate about and want to carry with you. The point is to make sure that it’s something you want to do as a career and that you don’t hate it.</p>
<p>Thanks for the help Guys. I’m studying biomedical engineering, so the projects relate to in vivo imaging techniques to monitor biological systems.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Building and characterizing a cheaper microscope - developed project, I would just make it and test it</p></li>
<li><p>In vivo imaging of cardiac infarcts - newly project with no data, I would work with mice, perform open heart surgery, and monitor their blood flow after creating a disease model for microinfarcts. High risk high reward: not 100% it will work.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m clearly more interested aand passionate about the second project. I will be able to head the project and directly interact with my mentor about what works and have a chance to make a difference in reaching success. But I also want this project to count towards my PhD applications.</p>
<p>Publication or Great Project?</p>
<p>Also, virion, I’m in no hurry to apply, I was going to take a year off after this year (Im in a one year masters) so that I would have an entire year to build my research project, get a better LOR after one year and increase my masters GPA since my undergraduate GPA was only 3.21.</p>
<p>Your advisor can’t guarantee it will be published in Science/Nature. The only people who can guarantee a Science/Nature publication are people who know the editors. Go with the safe option.</p>
<p>Either project will “count” on your graduate applications; research experience counts even if you have no publications. Honestly, publications are like a cherry on top of a sundae; they’re not essential. Most people don’t even have them when applying for graduate school. And if you are interested in doing things more related to the latter project, the skills and techniques learned will help you more. Publications are always great, but I wouldn’t sacrifice a chance to work on an awesome project just to get published faster - not at the undergrad level, anyway.</p>
<p>The guarantee didn’t come from my advisor, it came from the PI, who I’m assuming, has a pretty good idea on the impact factors of potential studies, while one is more of an optimized prototype, the latter project has the potential to create a new direction of science (in vivo studies on cardiac microinfarcts). </p>
<p>Hate to say this, but obviously the choice for me is pretty clear. I love the challenge, and potential implications which the second project holds, its just a shame that it will only be for a year. The appreciation and hunger for new information, the quest to answer unanswered questions and critically evaluate failure are the reasons I hope to pursue a PhD. </p>
<p>I just hope that come application time, it is that which the admission committees see, and not just a lack of a publication. I’m wondering whether I can convey this my application, since it is probably very important for potential PhD students.</p>
<p>It sounds like your letters of recommendation and even personal statement will be improved by your decision to go with the project that interests you. That could be more valuable than a publication. And if you do end up applying to grad schools later on, after this is published, everything works out even better.</p>