<p>I was just wondering about this...Which is more impactful for grad school admissions? Couple of co-authorships in high impact journals (nature, cell etc) with well known people in the field (working in harvard, MIT, Stanford labs) vs first author in a low impact journal workin in a not a well known labs?</p>
<p>What do you mean by impactful?</p>
<p>Do you mean impressive? If so, this just seems like a stupid question.</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>Oh I guess you are asking about the difference between being a co-author and being an actual author. Still, you frame the question a little too dramatically.</p>
<p>"Which has a bigger impact" -- 'impactful' is not a word :)</p>
<p>The co-authorships in high-impact journals will most likely have a better impact than first author in a low-impact journal, especially if you are second or third author in "Nature" or "Science" and the first and second authors are well known people. That shows that you are getting good mentorship from well-known researchers and are publishing in respected journals. (I think a publication in "Nature" as 3rd author or above should be automatic acceptance, lol!)</p>
<p>Still being first author on a journal article is good, too.</p>
<p>Think about the odds of having each citation on your CV -- a C/N/S paper, no matter which author you were, is much rarer than a first-author publication in a low-tier journal. That's not to say that a first-author low-tier pub isn't tremendously useful for grad school admissions, it's just that co-authorship on a high-tier pub is even more tremendously useful.</p>
<p>co-author in a journal like Nature is definitely worth more. It will probably be cited more. Also, look at your average Nature paper. They usually have like 10 authors because everybody wants their names on that stuff.</p>
<p>For graduate school admissions, just concentrate on getting good letters of recommendation from good mentors. It is really simple. It's better to get a good letter from a well-known researcher and NO publications than to get a first author publication in an unknown journal and outstanding letters from unknown people. Also, it is not just an admissions game. Think about what you want to do for yourself- wouldn't you rather have the opportunity to get trained by really good people? People get into Harvard, Stanford, etc. all the time with NO publications and just really good letters.</p>
<p>It is important to find Professors who collaborate with the Professors in your interested
University. This will make the LORs more valuable. Also, being 2nd or 3rd author with known researchers doesn't reduce your chances. It justs shows the quality of your pedigree.</p>
<p>Impactful is one of those ridiculous management speak words like value-added, branding, drill-down and paradigm shift. Please don't use these terms, they make my brain hurt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Impactful is one of those ridiculous management speak words like value-added, branding, drill-down and paradigm shift. Please don't use these terms, they make my brain hurt.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't even know impactful was a word.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I didn't even know impactful was a word.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I thought it had to do with wisdom teeth. ;)</p>
<p>thanks guys for answering my question!
and for the people concerned abt use of the word "impactful", I dont know how it popped up in my mind at the time I was typing ;)</p>
<p>Re: impactful (sorry OP), I've seen it before occasionally in several different contexts, often but not always business-related. (Look it up at Corpus</a> of Contemporary American English (COCA), always a fun game: it shows up in some spoken news reports, some magazines, and a couple of academic journals.) It does sound awkward at times, but then, isn't it a shame that the word "impact" doesn't own a more elegant adjective form? "Impact" is such a great property for any particular noun to possess, after all.</p>
<p>I offer a different opinion than some of the other posters. As someone on an admission committee, I prefer to see a first author paper from a student. Rather than being taken on a ride as a minor co-author from a successful lab, I prefer to see that they have a leadership role in a study. Being first author as an undergraduate or even as a tech is fairly rare and indicates motivation and ability of that applicant. </p>
<p>That said, any authorship is a plus for an application</p>
<p>I guess it would vary based on your field and even the makeup of the admissions committee. Some professors, like ParAlum, may prefer to see a first authorship because of the reasons he gave. Others may prefer to see a second or third authorship from Nature. I don't think being like seventh or eighth author would matter much because it's pretty clear then that you're probably a lab tech who was thrown on there by a well-meaning professor trying to help you out.</p>
<p>"It's better to get a good letter from a well-known researcher and NO publications than to get a first author publication in an unknown journal and outstanding letters from unknown people."</p>
<p>I'm not sure that this is true...it also depends on the field and the particular make-up of the admissions committee. I think it's generally agreed upon that outstanding letters, even from minor players, who know you very well are a lot better than lukewarm or generic letters from big-names who obviously don't know you very well.</p>