The student asking this question has done something most people never do: they've stepped off the default path and put real work into research from a tier-3 college. That alone deserves respect. But respect doesn't answer the question. The question is whether that work translates into jobs, admissions, or long-term leverage. The honest answer is: it depends, and here's how to think about it.
For Indian industry, research papers help with shortlisting, but they don't replace DSA. Companies filter resumes by college first, and a tier-3 tag means you'll face that filter regardless of your publications. However, once you clear that barrier, your TMLR submission and NeurIPS attempt signal something that most candidates can't fake: you can formulate a problem, run experiments, and write up results. That matters for ML roles, especially at product companies where interviewers care about depth. But it won't save you in a coding round. If you're targeting SDE roles, DSA is non-negotiable. If you're targeting ML roles, your research gives you an edge in the interview itself, where you can speak to your work with authority. So the real question isn't whether research helps, but whether you're applying to roles where it's actually valued.
For higher studies abroad, the calculus is clearer. Papers at TMLR or NeurIPS are not "nice to have," they're the currency of admission. Advisors want evidence you can do research, and a strong publication record is the only reliable signal they have. But the venue matters. NeurIPS and TMLR carry weight because reviewers are rigorous. IEEE Access, by contrast, is often seen as a lower bar, and admissions committees know the difference. That doesn't mean your IEEE Access paper is worthless, but it won't move the needle the way a top-tier venue will. If you're aiming for a funded MS or PhD, one strong paper is worth more than three weak ones. So prioritize quality over volume, and be honest with yourself about which venue actually reflects your ability.
As for research scientist roles, treat that as a long-term goal, not an immediate one. Those positions almost always require a PhD, and that's not a reflection of your talent, it's just how the field is structured. But a research engineer role is within reach, especially if you can pair your publications with solid engineering skills. The key is to stop treating research and DSA as opposing forces. They're not. You need both. The next few months should be spent shoring up your fundamentals, building a portfolio of reproducible work, and applying to roles where your research is an asset, not a footnote. You've already proven you can do the hard part. Now prove you can do the rest.