Research Project Picking Help Request

Dear SDN,

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct research abroad in an underserved community, and I have been presented with a variety of interesting research projects to choose from. While I cannot disclose the specific topics to maintain anonymity, I am seeking advice on how to make the best decision for my academic and professional growth.

The projects can be broadly categorized into two groups: broad topics supervised by highly productive researchers with impressive h-index scores and numerous citations, and niche topics supervised by individuals with no prior research history or measurable impact (i.e., no h-index scores, no google scholar, etc; they are a PhD student, if that helps). Additionally, the broad topics align directly with my field of study, while the niche topics, although unique and engaging, are not as closely related to my major.

I am torn between the potential benefits of working with a well-established researcher on a broad topic that is directly relevant to my field, and the opportunity to explore a highly specialized and novel area under the guidance of a supervisor who may lack research experience. I would greatly appreciate any insights or advice from the SDN community on how to weigh these factors and make an informed decision that will best contribute to my academic and professional development.

Thank you in advance for your guidance and support.

Moko said:

There is no comparison between these two options. Go with the researchers who have a proven track record. They can teach and mentor you on how to become a better researcher so that in the future you can competently do your own niche research (if that's your jam).

Being supervised by someone without significant research experience (or any experience engaging in peer-reviewed research) is akin to the blind (them) leading the blind (you). Just my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response, Moko. What of the idea that Medical School Admission Committees will find it better (on one's publications list) to see something that is more unique (but may not be published in as good a journal) versus one that is more broad (but likely to be have been published in a good journal)?

I appreciate your guidance and any more you can please provide.