Undergraduates writing a non-clinical systematic review paper in the biomedical or biological sciences? What about a "mock" clinical review paper?

[HEK-293-DDR1b]

Hello forum community,

As a pre-med/pre-science student, I have found that reading literature, writing reflectively on the content in summary, and being able to synthesize data and findings to identify knowledge gaps and develop "research-able" questions are fundamental to the thinking required in medical school and beyond. In fact, I have written two successful grant applications in the materials sciences which apply the same rules.

My question here, anyhow, was directed to synthesizing a review paper for the biological or biomedical sciences (I feel less experienced/underqualified to write a clinical review paper that's meaningful). I understand what goes into a review paper--design the lit search, database diversity, exclusion criteria, quality test, etc... and register the protocol with PRISMA--though I was more concerned with how feasible this is for an undergraduate to design, register, write, and submit a systematic review into an undergraduate or professional academic journal.

A secondary question I had relates to writing "mock review papers." Like a prelaw student participating in "mock" trials, I was curious whether writing a mock clinical review paper would help make my experiences competitive for MD/PhD (MSTP) applications. Of course, other experiences are more critical than this alone, but would this be something worth mentioning to display interest and experience?

All in all, I have found that writing a systematic review paper leads you to learn A LOT about a particular field, whether the quality of the paper itself is publishable or not. It also allows you to practice designing research-able questions for your own future directions etc.

Please let me know what the forum community thanks! I am also open to collaborating with anyone writing review papers themselves

 

With Gratitude,

HEK-293-DDR1b

 

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, HEK-293-DDR1b said:

My question here, anyhow, was directed to synthesizing a review paper for the biological or biomedical sciences (I feel less experienced/underqualified to write a clinical review paper that's meaningful). I understand what goes into a review paper--design the lit search, database diversity, exclusion criteria, quality test, etc... and register the protocol with PRISMA--though I was more concerned with how feasible this is for an undergraduate to design, register, write, and submit a systematic review into an undergraduate or professional academic journal.

There are different types of reviews and they are not all written the same. A good review is typically written by someone who is engaged in the field and hence knows the relevant lit and can critically evaluate and synthesize the information in the field. Often when grad or undergrad student write a review, it starts off as a a list of facts and factoids out of the papers folks read (often having highly relevant and irrelevant info side by side) and needs to be heavily edited to provide real benefits to the reader. If no supervisor is involved, it is rather unlikely that an undergrad paper will be in a shape for submission to an academic journal in most areas. 

 

10 hours ago, HEK-293-DDR1b said:

A secondary question I had relates to writing "mock review papers." Like a prelaw student participating in "mock" trials, I was curious whether writing a mock clinical review paper would help make my experiences competitive for MD/PhD (MSTP) applications. Of course, other experiences are more critical than this alone, but would this be something worth mentioning to display interest and experience?

Yes it can. It serves more like a writing example and a potential supervisor can use it to judge your ability to read and write.

However, in order for it to be seen as a plus one should spend a fair bit of time on editing it. Obviously, just reading something does not mean that you understood it. A paper that is clearly just a crude summary, plagiarized from multiple papers or contains guesswork to gloss over parts that were clearly not understood  won't necessarily leave a positive impression. Conversely, a well written review that shows a certain level of understanding (or at least a serious effort to understand) even with gaps (that are ideally acknowledged) will provide potential supervisors with an idea of what capabilities a candidate might start off with.