this is impressive but I just don't understand... coming from a graduate background in basic science research, it would take me around 1 year to produce at best 1-2 "projects" actually worth anything significant enough to warrant a paper. is medical research just different in what research constitutes a paper? are you publishing work on original data and experimental studies or just writing up metastudies on already readily available data?
Basic science research is much different than clinical research. The latter is what I do primarily. This includes a variety of prospective and retrospective studies, systematic reviews, and case reports. Basic science research is primarily lab based and thus time dependent on the nature of the experiments you’re running.
We had a professors who was hired simply for research purposes with medical students. He had a template that would basically make it an automatic for publishing “research” in a matter of weeks. However, this wasn’t real research…some of the projects they would do is “the number of google searches for medical marijuana use in 2020” or something of that nature. It was a rinse and repeat where you literally learn nothing and add nothing of value and 99.9% of the time you’re publishing to a nobody journal. It’s all a numbers game and it’s sad that applicants have to do this to be “competitive.” If you’re publishing 5+ papers a year, you’re not doing real research.
Hello Jr, I hope you are doing well. Very informative video and thank you for the nuggets of wisdom on how to tackle doing research in medical school in order to make yourself stand out as a candidate for residency. I just have one question, how would you tackle doing research in medical school if you were not sure of the field you wanted to pursed in residency?
Hi. Great video! If your home program is not the strongest in orthopedics, how would you recommend searching for mentors that publish often? Is there a cold emailing process that is effective?
Do you think program directors might have a preference for quality over quantity? If you were only able to publish 4 or 5 papers, but it's clear that your contribution was signficant and that the project demanded a ton of work, might program directors view this applicant the same as the applicant that publishes a lot more but their projects don't require as much time?
This will definitely help in the interview phase where your application is more thoroughly scrutinized. The challenge is that most people reviewing applications just look at the number. 4-5 high quality papers is amazing though and depending on your specialty, is still at or above average!
Where do you think we should draw the line on using AI in research? For example, do you think about using ChatGPT/AI to draft your research papers and just rewriting them to turn them into our PIs unethical? Do we have to credit ChatGPT/AI for authorship even if we just use it for drafts or proofreading?
Hey been watching your content and appreciate your genuineness. I am working towards being a nurse and eventually CRNA so I figured your content still is applicable. I was considering using anatomy boot camp and wanted to see if you continued using that software throughout med school? Same for Kenhub? Or did you realistically only use ANKI? And also do you avoid reading textbooks at all and really just stick to lectures and notecards? Thanks
I just wanted to ask. I would like to go consider ortho as well, but idk how much research would be enough. Do you think it is a good idea to just get as many publications as possible (like 25+) and have maybe like 3-4 of it be ortho related? Or have 8 ortho related publications?
