<p>Sorry to rehash this thread, but I have a few questions. I know that when one has a lab position as an undergrad, their ultimate goal is to learn about the lab and the stuff that they do there. However, some undergrads receive publications. My roommates and I recently got into this whoel argument. They said to me that an udnergrad cannot get a publication, unless he is a senior in undergrad, on his way to grad school because an undergrad has no authority on the work sicne he doesn't even have a college degree. However, I have heard that some ppl receive publications. When ppl say that they receive a publication, does that mean that their name is actually soemwhere in the list of authors on page 1 of the scientific paper or are they in the acknowledgements section? Is it even possible for an undergrad's name to appear in the listo f author's on pg 1? Please elaborate on this b/c it is ambiguous to me. I am just curious. Thanks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My roommates and I recently got into this whoel argument. They said to me that an udnergrad cannot get a publication, unless he is a senior in undergrad, on his way to grad school because an undergrad has no authority on the work sicne he doesn't even have a college degree.
[/quote]
Your roommates are wrong. They said what they did probably because they never heard of or saw any publishing undergrads before. Many people in the world seem to have the same beliefs as your roommates. Even some grad students and staffs in a lab I currently volunteer at seem to think that way, too. It's frustrating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I have heard that some ppl receive publications. When ppl say that they receive a publication, does that mean that their name is actually soemwhere in the list of authors on page 1 of the scientific paper or are they in the acknowledgements section? Is it even possible for an undergrad's name to appear in the listo f author's on pg 1?
[/quote]
It's possible for undergrads to publish a paper; it's just that it's extremely rare. I heard that the percentage of undergrads getting published in anything meaningful as a 1st, 2nd, 3rd,... author with their names on pg 1's author list is only about 5%.</p>
<p>Your roommates are wrong. Open any journal and you'll find a handful of articles written by undergrads.</p>
<p>Thanks. That's what I thought. So there is a chance for me to get my name somewhere on a publication, but one just has to have a kind mentor and prove that they are worthy to have their name written somewhere and help out a lot, right?</p>
<p>Neither piece alone is enough, of course. Your PI must be generous -- many of them are hesitant for understandable reasons -- and you must contribute meaningfully to the project. You need both pieces.</p>
<p>what does the 1st, 2nd, 3rd author with names on page 1 mean?</p>
<p>im in high school and my name will be 4th on the list of authors of the paper..is that not good or something? (there r 6 authors total on it)</p>
<p>Well the closer that your name is to the #1 author represents how much work you did on a certain project. It establishes greater credibility and more ppl will take you seriously. </p>
<p>btw LuckMC11, is this an intel project?</p>
<p>What?!? Tons of undergrads get publications (by "publication" I'm assuming you mean not necessarily first author... just their name on the paper on pg.1). The research world is chock-full of competition and PIs are pretty eager to get papers out; you've just got to find the right PI who'll give you some good work. And, granted your publication is legitimate and you actually did meaningful work, it shouldn't really matter what author you are listed as. Of course, 1st author > 4th author, but for undergrad, just getting your name on the paper is good enough. </p>
<p>Also, ysk1 -- where did you get that statistic that only 5% of undergrads publish?</p>
<p>
[quote]
what does the 1st, 2nd, 3rd author with names on page 1 mean?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The 1st author is the most prestigious. You did most of the work (research and writing).</p>
<p>The authors is the middle usually help perform experiments and do some research. Some might write a page or section in the paper. </p>
<p>Usually the last author is the PI of the research group. Sometimes two PI's will work together and the PI of the 1st author is usually last and other PI will be right before that PI. Its also customary to put a PI on a paper even if they didnt really contribute anything (research wise) to the project.</p>
<p>...and I have read papers where there are 15+ authors. Everyone wants credits.</p>
<p>It is possible for undergrads to be on publications if they do meaningful work. I had a summer undergrad student who worked in my lab and was a co-author on two manuscripts. He worked hard, and was also lucky to get meaningful data in a short period of time. Most of the time, unless one is doing a research thesis and perhaps spending the summer beforehand on the project, it is difficult for undergrads to do enough substantive work to merit authorship on a manuscript. </p>
<p>Students working at LACs may have greater opportunities to become first authors as Profs rely on students to do the hands-on work and students will write a thesis. On the other hand, it is possible that a student at an university may take part of a larger project, contribute meaningfully, and thus be a co-author in a larger paper. </p>
<p>Regarding research experience, I would focus on learning as much as one can and not worrying about trying to get published. Many graduate students need to work several years before they have enough data to publish.</p>
<p>oo ic..k thx for the info</p>
<p>how much weight does having your name on an official abstract count four medical schools?</p>
<p>COLLEGE!, I believe ysk1 may have gotten that information from this thread, post #13:</p>
<p>I believe Mollie B spent almost her whole undergraduate career doing research, so she is pretty knowledgeable about the subject.</p>
<p>TB: You're almost certainly correct that that's where he got it.</p>
<p>But it seems to me that the two claims are extremely different. Notice what molly says:
[quote]
At a workshop my junior year, one of the professors on the MIT biology admissions committee said that only about 5% of applicants were published; as sky says, many of them aren't published in anything meaningful.
[/quote]
It sounds like she's discussing the pool of candidates to MIT's biology PhD program, or perhaps even MIT's undergraduate school.</p>
<hr>
<p>Compare to how ysk translates this claim:
[quote]
I heard that the percentage of undergrads getting published in anything meaningful as a 1st, 2nd, 3rd,... author with their names on pg 1's author list is only about 5%.
[/quote]
His claim is much less specific, but in a strict English sense, he means that 5% of all undergraduates have a publication.</p>
<p>It's a very different claim.</p>
<hr>
<p>Notice, too, that Molly mentions that of the 5%, very few publications are meaningful. ysk seems to think that the 5% already excludes non-meaningful publications. All in all, this thread has a pretty severe misreading of what molly told him.</p>
<p>My bad.. Sorry for presenting such a misinterpretation. I thought Mollie meant only 5% of ALL undergrads had a publication. As of now, is there no way of knowing the percent of all the publishing undergrads?</p>
<p>Well, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that for med school applicants it's not that much greater than 5%, if at all? I mean think about it, MIT's biology program is probably one of the top in the country, and more importantly it's a graduate program: people who apply there are most definitely interested in a research-related career. Many people who go to med school go into academics and do research, and there are probably some med school applicants who have had more exposure to research and have published more than some bio grad school applicants. However, it seems that if anything, grad school applicants would have more meaningful research experience than med school applicants, overall, given the purpose of a grad school vs. med school education.</p>
<p>Factors which might mean premeds have less than 5%:</p>
<p>The two you mentioned:
1.) MIT is a very prestigious program
2.) PhD programs have a much stronger research emphasis</p>
<hr>
<p>Factors which might mean premeds have more than 5%:</p>
<p>1.) Premeds may have published in many different arenas: economics, sociology, poetry, etc. The raw biology research associated with a PhD program is quite possible the single hardest field to publish in. The MAJOR field to notice will be clinical research, which is very fast and relatively easy to publish. Premeds might well do a lot of research here; raw science pre-PhD's will almost certainly not.</p>
<p>Hm, good point.</p>
<p>Sure, publishing in Nature is not easy, but there are tons of lesser-known (although equally as cutting edge) journals that are not insanely difficult to get a publication out of. You may not be first or even second author but at the undergraduate level, a publication is a publication.</p>
<p>I would think that in regards to Med school admissions, having been involved in research for at least a year or two, and having written/and presented at least an abstract & a poster at Scientific Conferences would matter far more than a full length publication.</p>
<p>I say this primarily because being able to publish in any scientific journal depends on so many factors that are beyond an MD applicant's control; such as the area of research (basic science vs clinical vs epidemiological), the type of PI one has, and the kinds of "publishable" results one can procure in a limited amount of time during undergrad years, and the number of iterations of review/correction cycles for a publication from its conception through acceptance.</p>
<p>Of course if one is able to get a full length paper before they apply to med schools, that's gravy. Nevertheless,t I really think that Med schools would just as well accept the following meat and potatoes - 1) the duration of an applicant's involvement in research 2)abstract/ poster presentation at a reputable conference and 3) membership/involvement in research academies, presenting at their local chapters and attending their short scientific meetings etc. </p>
<p>Abstracts are far easier to produce and to present in posters.</p>