From personal experience I support A. Naeem's opinion ‘thinking about higher training during senior house officer (SHO) years can reap rewards’ (Psychiatric Bulletin, November 2004, 28, 421-424). I appreciate the importance of valid research but during SHO training I focused on developing my clinical skills and the MRCPsych examinations. As a consequence, I had no publications and was not shortlisted for specialist registrar interview.

I am currently waiting for research projects to proceed through ethics committee approval, one of the aims being to improve my shortlisting chances. However, from colleagues’ experiences it seems possible that 1 h spent replying to this article may have the same desired effect.

Another concern surrounding the shortlisting process is the emphasis that seems to be placed on research and publications, while other important factors such as communication skills and clinical ability that cannot be quantified in a standardised manner on paper take a back seat. As a consequence, the system filters out too early valuable clinicians with these subjective skills but who possess less research prowess.

I do not think the quality of countertransference you experience on looking at someone's curriculum vitae can compare to that on interview. It is these feelings you invoke in the interviewer (positive or negative) that are likely to be replicated in interactions with patients throughout your career. Perhaps it is these subjective qualities that patients will appreciate just as much as extensive research. I acknowledge the shortlisting process needs to be standardised, however, perhaps selectors could increase the numbers they shortlist.

The answer to the question: who wants to be a specialist registrar? Well, I do and I think I have a good chance once someone meets me face to face.