Does type of research matter?

[Taurus]

I'm on the fence between rads and ortho. I like rads because I like technology. I like ortho because I like to work with my hands and interact with patients. I'm thinking of doing rads research before entering 3rd year. If I later change my mind and go the ortho route and do a bunch of ortho electives, do I still have a chance to match in ortho?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sscooterguy]

I'm on the fence between rads and ortho. I like rads because I like technology. I like ortho because I like to work with my hands and interact with patients. I'm thinking of doing rads research before entering 3rd year. If I later change my mind and go the ortho route and do a bunch of ortho electives, do I still have a chance to match in ortho?

So almost everyone, including me, is going to tell you that if you want to do ortho, then research in ortho is ideal. By research, I mean actually publishing or at least poster presentation at a conference, not just being 4th author. Having said that, I did research in pathology, and I luckily got something published in a year. I decided to not do path, and every specialty that I have been interested in (med peds, gen surg, and now ortho) have told me they don't care what I did research in, they just care that it was research that I got published. The chairman of ortho at my school, who has also been residency director and other positions at 2 other academic programs actually told me not to waste my time doing ortho research since I already had a paper published. It showed that I have done research, understand it, and can do it again. If you really like rads, I would do research in rads, but don't worry too much if you switch later, it won't all be a waste. However, if there's a high likelihood of you doing ortho, I'd opt for ortho. So thats the long answer to your short question.

sscooterguy

 

[Taurus]

sscooterguy,

Thanks for the reply. That's the general feeling I'm getting about doing research. Having solid research under your belt is more important than the field it was done under. A current orthopod had similar sentiments.

So almost everyone, including me, is going to tell you that if you want to do ortho, then research in ortho is ideal. By research, I mean actually publishing or at least poster presentation at a conference, not just being 4th author. Having said that, I did research in pathology, and I luckily got something published in a year. I decided to not do path, and every specialty that I have been interested in (med peds, gen surg, and now ortho) have told me they don't care what I did research in, they just care that it was research that I got published. The chairman of ortho at my school, who has also been residency director and other positions at 2 other academic programs actually told me not to waste my time doing ortho research since I already had a paper published. It showed that I have done research, understand it, and can do it again. If you really like rads, I would do research in rads, but don't worry too much if you switch later, it won't all be a waste. However, if there's a high likelihood of you doing ortho, I'd opt for ortho. So thats the long answer to your short question.

sscooterguy

 

[Sureshot83]

I've got a question that is somewhat related. I'm an M1, and this summer I will be doing 2+ months of dedicated ortho research. The doctor I am working with said that he expected I would get 1-2 publications out of the work I will be doing.

How can I make sure that I get to be first author on these pubs, and not just be tacked on at the end of the list? Is it appropriate to tell the doctor that you want to take the responsibility of writing the article (with his help) and being primary author?

 

[sscooterguy]

I've got a question that is somewhat related. I'm an M1, and this summer I will be doing 2+ months of dedicated ortho research. The doctor I am working with said that he expected I would get 1-2 publications out of the work I will be doing.

How can I make sure that I get to be first author on these pubs, and not just be tacked on at the end of the list? Is it appropriate to tell the doctor that you want to take the responsibility of writing the article (with his help) and being primary author?

As an M1, its ambitious and difficult to take over a project as well as write the paper. As first author, you will be doing 97% of the work and writing. I'm not sure of your research experience or project you will be doing with this researcher, but that sounds hard to accomplish. The physical research itself may take 2 months but data analysis, conclusions, paper writing, editing, sending it to a publisher/ turning it in for abstract, more editing, etc, will take a heck of a lot longer.

However, if you are confident of your ability to synthesize info and work independently, I would be straight forward and ask your reseacher to define your place in the project and your exact responsibilities. If he/she says, "as much as you want", then thats your chance to say you wanna be first author. Your researcher may or may not care who first author is, but you should make it clear from the beginning. Otherwise, if you are going to be a second or third author, you could start off there and ask if you could have a project or case study of your own, upon which you could work throughout the year. This has worked for 4 of my friends who also did research during med 1/2, 2 wrote up quick case studies, 2 worked their butts off to write substantial papers (I personally took a year to do research).

One last piece of advice: As a young med student, I thought a particular attending new what he was talking about because he was a dean. I ended up wasting a month "taking over" a project which I eventually realized was horribly designed and poorly thought out. If I were going to salvage the project to the point where it would make sense, provide scientific information, and be accepted for publishing, I realized I would have to dedicate a good 6 months just to gather information. I eventually gave it up. Look out for attendings that may have done a lot of research in the past, but haven't published anything for a looooong time, it may be a red flag.

sscooterguy

 

[pottsy2]

Just so people don't get paranoid, you don't have to be first author (or second or third or fourth) on a paper. You don't even have to publish anything. The main thing is that if you do research, know it well and be able to discuss it confidently. Research is definately a good thing, but you can certainly match at a strong program without any research. I matched at a highly academic program with only a small non-published general surg. project.

 

[sscooterguy]

Just so people don't get paranoid, you don't have to be first author (or second or third or fourth) on a paper. You don't even have to publish anything. The main thing is that if you do research, know it well and be able to discuss it confidently. Research is definately a good thing, but you can certainly match at a strong program without any research. I matched at a highly academic program with only a small non-published general surg. project.

Thanks for the insite. From why my friends have told me, this is very true, of the eight people who matched this year at my program, I think only two or three of them did research. I hope I didn't make anyone feel that they needed to do research, although I have heard it does indeed help. I should have clarified, if you DO want to do research, then being first author would go the furthest. And yes, understanding and being able to discuss your project is more important than just doing it. That has been echoed by my chairman who says that he can see right through people who write up a paper because it was handed to them but can't really talk about it.

sscooterguy