The honest answer is no, research isn't required -- but a real, fast-growing industry has formed around convincing families otherwise, and a 2023 joint investigation by ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education documented exactly how some of it works.
The honest answer: no, it's not required
Research is one possible vehicle for demonstrating genuine intellectual engagement -- the kind of sustained, real depth described in our piece on spikes vs. hooks in admissions -- not a required checkbox. Admissions offices consistently say growth and authentic engagement matter more than the specific activity or whether it produced a polished result, and most real research never ends in publication at all, which is completely fine. It also isn't STEM-exclusive: independent projects in the humanities, social sciences, or arts count the same way a lab-based project does.
The industry that's grown up around convincing families otherwise
The ProPublica/Chronicle of Higher Ed investigation identified more than 20 online research programs now serving over 12,000 students annually. One longtime Ivy League admissions officer described the phenomenon as a "fast-growing epidemic," noting the number of these services has "trebled or quadrupled in recent years." The costs are real and steep: Scholar Launch runs $3,500 to $8,800; Athena Education runs $12,200 a year; Polygence serves more than 2,000 students annually. This is pricing that puts the option out of reach for most families entirely, regardless of whether it actually helps.
The specific deceptions the investigation uncovered
This is the part worth knowing in detail before considering any paid program. Lumiere Education listed mentors as "PhDs" when they were actually doctoral candidates, and described itself as "founded by Oxford and Harvard PhDs" while its own founders were still pursuing their degrees -- language it changed only after ProPublica asked about it directly. A journal called the Journal of Student Research claims real peer-review rigor, but of eight reviewers ProPublica contacted, four said they'd never actually been asked to evaluate a manuscript. One program's associated journal had an editorial chair who also personally mentored students for a for-profit research company -- and then evaluated papers written by his own former students, a conflict of interest the investigation described as "a no-no" in real academic publishing. One number is worth sitting with directly: the Journal of Student Research accepted 65% of papers submitted by one company's (Lumiere's) clients specifically -- a placement rate that looks a lot more like a pipeline than genuine peer review.
What admissions officers themselves actually say about it
The candor here is unusual and worth taking seriously. A former Stanford admissions officer explained that first readers -- often staff with humanities backgrounds reviewing an application in under 10 minutes -- "can't tell if a paper in the sciences means anything." In other words, the sophistication of a purchased scientific paper often isn't even legible to the person who first reviews it. MIT's dean of admissions, Stuart Schmill, has directly acknowledged that these research opportunities are "not offered equitably" -- while MIT continues to accept research submissions as part of its application anyway. That's an honest admission that the school is aware of the inequity here, not a claim that it's been solved.
What actually works instead
Genuine engagement is the hardest thing to fake and the thing that actually seems to matter: caring enough about the work to talk about it intelligently, and being able to describe specifically how it changed how you think -- not just that you did it. A well-executed small, real project, even an unpublished one done entirely outside a formal program, reads as more credible than a purchased placement in a journal nobody in the actual field has heard of. Free or low-cost paths to genuine research access exist too -- see our piece on how high schoolers can actually find internship and research opportunities, which covers programs like the NIH Summer Internship Program that don't charge families for access the way the pay-to-play industry does. National History Day is another one worth naming directly: it's a free, school-run program built entirely around original primary-source research, with a published, transparent scoring rubric -- the structural opposite of a paid research program with an opaque "journal" attached.
What this means for you
- Don't assume research is a requirement. Admissions offices explicitly say growth and genuine engagement matter more than the specific activity, and most real research doesn't end in publication anyway.
- If you're considering a paid research program, research the program itself first. Check whether mentor credentials are independently verifiable, whether any associated "journal" has a real, checkable peer-review process, and whether the cost is proportionate to what you'd actually gain.
- Be skeptical of any program promising a guaranteed or near-guaranteed publication. Legitimate peer review doesn't work that way -- a suspiciously high acceptance rate for one company's clients specifically is a red flag, not a selling point.
- If cost is a barrier, don't assume you're locked out. Free, legitimate programs exist and don't require a family to pay thousands of dollars for access.