Remote research experience can be as good as working in a lab for skills, confidence and mentorship, according to studies of remote summer programs, but it usually gives you less of the informal learning and lab community that in-person work builds. Whether a specific remote position counts depends less on the format than on the structure: a real mentor, a real question, regular meetings, and work you can show and explain.
Is remote research experience as good as working in a lab?
It depends on what you mean by "as good." There are at least four different questions hiding in that one: Will you learn as much? Will you feel part of a research community? Will your mentor know you well enough to write about you? And will the people reading your application treat it the same?
The research on this comes mostly from summer 2020, when the pandemic pushed many summer research programs (including NSF-funded REU sites) online. That gives us an unusual natural experiment. We read five sources: a descriptive study of remote life-science programs at 23 institutions in CBE—Life Sciences Education; an interview study of remote physics REUs by two Rochester Institute of Technology researchers; a report on a national virtual microbiology program by two University of Arizona authors; the University of Arizona undergraduate research office's page on online and remote research; and a UW–Madison biochemistry department article on undergraduates doing remote computational work.
They answer the first two questions fairly well. On the last two, they're mostly silent, and we'll say so.
What the studies agree on: remote can deliver the core of research
Mentorship and learning can survive the distance. The 23-institution study surveyed and held focus groups with 275 students. The strengths students named were the quality of mentorship, chances to learn and develop professionally, and a feeling of connection with a larger community. The authors conclude that remote programs can, "at least under certain circumstances," offer many of the same opportunities as in-person ones.
Students reported real gains. In the physics study, every mentee described the experience as highly beneficial, and the authors found many of the same benefits reported for in-person programs. The virtual microbiology program reported that 95 of 100 post-survey respondents somewhat or strongly agreed their confidence increased.
Remote opens doors. All three studies make an access argument. In the microbiology program, a third of surveyed students said they couldn't have traveled to an in-person program even without a pandemic, and another quarter weren't sure. Caregiving, health and travel costs were among the reasons.
Where remote falls short
The informal learning disappears. The physics study puts it well: in a lab, "the books, the chats, and the whiteboards" teach you things nobody schedules. Remotely, you only learn what's said in meetings. The authors note this hits students who lack background knowledge hardest, because they can feel like outsiders.
The cohort and the lab community are thin. The 23-institution study lists limited cohort building, insufficient structure and technology problems as the main weaknesses. In the physics study, two mentees who felt less belonging during the remote program said they felt more after they were back on campus talking to people.
Your mentor sees less of you. The physics study found mentors had trouble telling when a remote mentee was stuck, since they couldn't see them work. That matters later: a mentor who saw you struggle and recover in person has more to say in a letter than one who saw a weekly video call. None of the sources measured letters directly, so take this as our reasoning, not a finding.
Where they're silent. None of the five sources says how admissions committees or employers weigh remote research against in-person. The 23-institution authors are explicit that their study is descriptive, not a comparison of remote and in-person outcomes, and they list "do remote students go on to graduate school at the same rate" as an open question. Anyone who tells you remote research is definitely worth less (or exactly the same) on an application is going beyond the evidence.
What kind of research actually works remotely?
The sources line up here. The UW–Madison article describes computational work as "well-suited to being conducted remotely," with examples like building a Python interface for evaluating protein structures and mapping mutations onto structures. In the microbiology program, the central themes of projects were analyzing omics data sets, bioinformatics and analyzing existing data; some were literature reviews. The physics students ran simulations and modeling software from home.
What mostly doesn't work remotely: wet-lab experiments, fieldwork, anything that needs lab instruments, and some human-subjects work with restricted data. If your interest is in those areas, remote research can teach you analysis and reading, but it can't teach you bench skills.
The University of Arizona page shows how campuses handle it now: departments offer both in-person and remote positions, students can filter listings for remote work, and credit can go through an independent study course. The page also notes that not many researchers have yet marked themselves as available for online work, so remote openings at your own school may be scarce.
A checklist: is this remote position real research?
Most of these come from the problems and recommendations in the sources; the last two are our own.
- A named mentor who meets you regularly. The microbiology program required weekly virtual meetings between mentor and mentee. If no one has committed to a schedule, expect to drift.
- A specific question, not a topic. "Analyze this RNA-seq data set to test X" is research. "Learn about machine learning" is a course.
- Clear goals and deadlines broken into chunks. The physics study recommends exactly this, plus agreeing early on how often you'll get feedback and how you'll document progress.
- A way into the group. Can you attend lab meetings or seminars? The 23-institution study found cohort building was the weakest part of remote programs.
- Someone to ask technical questions. The physics students lost time on software installation and delayed computing access.
- An output you can show: code in a repository, an analysis, a poster, a written report. Something a reader can open.
- You can explain every step. If you can't walk an interviewer through your methods, the format won't be what hurts you.
- For paid programs, ask exactly who supervises you and how often. A polished remote "project" with a teaching assistant and a certificate is not the same thing as joining a researcher's actual work. Check the fees and the refund terms in writing before you pay.
How STARC handles this
Our research track only opens a spot when an active researcher genuinely has room, and it starts with a short trial task so both sides can see whether it works, then a milestone agreed up front. Those two steps are aimed at the problems the studies found: a vague start and unclear expectations. Publication is never promised. If you'd rather build something whose proof is a public link, the one-person company cohort is our main program, and the FAQ covers the rest.
The short version
Remote research can teach you real skills and give you a real mentor, especially for computational work. It gives you less of the hallway learning and community that a lab does, so you have to ask for structure on purpose. Judge a remote position by who supervises you, what question you're answering and what you'll be able to show, not by whether it happens on a screen.
Related questions
Do grad schools and employers value remote research less than in-person research?
We found no study or official statement that answers this. The studies we read measured what students gained, not how readers of applications judge it. What a reader can check is the same either way: what you did, who supervised it, and whether you can explain it.
What kind of research works best remotely?
Computational and data work. A UW–Madison biochemistry department article called computational work well-suited to remote research, and a national virtual microbiology program reported that its projects centered on analyzing data sets and existing data. Wet-lab work and anything needing lab equipment mostly can't be done from home.
How can I make a remote research position feel less isolating?
Ask for a fixed weekly meeting, join the group's lab meetings, and find at least one peer to talk to. A physics education study of remote summer programs recommends short regular check-ins, clear goals and deadlines, and agreeing early on how often you'll get feedback.
Is a remote research program worth it if I have no prior research experience?
It can be. In one virtual program's post-survey, about a third of respondents said they had no prior research experience. But beginners lose the most from missing informal lab learning, so structure and a responsive mentor matter even more.
Looking for real research experience?
Our research track opens rarely and never promises a paper, but it is real research.
Follow STARC on X. New posts, what we're building, and the questions students send us: @Starc_Institute
Follow on XLast updated: 2026-11-13. Written by the STARC team. Rules quoted here come from our how it works page; if they change, this post is updated.
More questions
How do I cold email a professor at another university for remote research?
A template and the common mistakes for cold emailing a professor at another university about remote research, from five faculty and campus guides.
How do I check if the journal in a paid research program is legitimate?
A paid research program says your paper will appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Here's how to check that journal or conference yourself, in about 30 minutes.
Is buying authorship on a paper academic misconduct? The risk for college and grad school applicants
Buying authorship breaks journal and university rules, even where it isn't called misconduct. Here's the real risk for applicants.