Academic job market question

[futureapppsy2]

When are academic (tenure track) job openings announced, and when are applications first due? I had thought that the earliest they were due was in October, but I recently heard that deadlines can be as early as August! I'm wondering because I have a couple of R&R's that I'll be re-submitting soon, and I was hoping that they may have a shot of appearing as "accepted" on my CV if I get them in now and the response is favorable. One of them is one of the best projects I've ever been involved in, so having that one in particular on my CV could be a boon if it works out, and I'd be a bit disappointed if it ended up in the "black hole" of tenure clock timelines and thus count neither towards my job application nor my possible tenure clock. (Of course, I'd be incredibly happy to get it published regardless, but if it could get published and help my job application, all the better. I also know that it could very well get rejected post-R&R as well, of course, so I'm not trying to count unhatched eggs. )

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

When are academic (tenure track) job openings announced, and when are applications first due? I had thought that the earliest they were due was in October, but I recently heard that deadlines can be as early as August! I'm wondering because I have a couple of R&R's that I'll be re-submitting soon, and I was hoping that they may have a shot of appearing as "accepted" on my CV if I get them in now and the response is favorable. One of them is one of the best projects I've ever been involved in, so having that one in particular on my CV could be a boon if it works out, and I'd be a bit disappointed if it ended up in the "black hole" of tenure clock timelines and thus count neither towards my job application nor my possible tenure clock. (Of course, I'd be incredibly happy to get it published regardless, but if it could get published and help my job application, all the better. I also know that it could very well get rejected post-R&R as well, of course, so I'm not trying to count unhatched eggs. )

Thanks!

When I applied a few really early ones started coming out about now, and the bulk came out July-Aug with deadlines in Oct. All my interviews were in Oct-Nov.

This might help
http://psychjobsearch.wikidot.com/
The archives include info about deadlines and such, sometimes.

 

[deleted343839]

Job announcements and application deadlines seem to be creeping up earlier and earlier. I'd start seriously looking in July and August and be ready to submit your packet by September (most deadlines will be October-December though). It would be great to have an important paper accepted by then, but if not you can still describe your work in your research statement.

 

[Member1928]

I wouldn't worry about the so called 'black hole' you mention. At my institution (R2), pubs that came out after I accepted the offer 'counted' toward my pubs for my annual review and for tenure. Also, the bar for tenure and promotion (RE: publications) at everyplace I interviewed was lower than my rate of productivity in graduate school/postdoc. The main thing I was told was that by year 3, the my 1st/senior author pubs need to come from data that was collected/analyzed during my time at the new institution. I'm sure there is a lot of varaibility, but I wouldn't get too worked up about pushing a few more pubs out before going on the market, especially if you already have what you need to be competitive. At this point, I would just sit back and get ready for the chaos of the application/interview cycle.

Also, as someone that had a lot of strong collaborations going into my TT job, I can tell you that when you are just starting up, it can be really good to have those colaborations but they become increasingly difficult to maintain during the first year or two because of all the demands of the new position. It may be important to really focus your energy on quality over quantity and get one-two strong first-author papers ready to submit as soon as you land the TT job.

Clairity comes once you get to the interview/negotiation stage of the process. Until then, don't stress the small stuff. Jobs start getting posted now- keep a close eye on the job postings through APA, chronicle HigherEd, APS, and the PsychJobsWiki. Notably, the job I ultimatly landed was only advertized through APS and didn't appear on the Wiki until after the deadline had past. Moral = don't rely solely on the Wiki.

Just some thoughts....

 

[futureapppsy2]

Thank you all so much for the super helpful advice! I checked a couple of academic job sites, and it turns out a couple of positions that I'm potentially interested in have already been posted, with no real deadline for applications--I guess this is getting started early than I expected!

@Member1928 --That's really good to know about post-offer publications! Can I ask what your productivity in grad school was like, and what the productivity expectations are from assistant professor jobs? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post publicly. Thanks!

 

[Justanothergrad]

As he said, thanks for the insights, including about job posting locations. I'd be very interested in hearing information about your productivity what you perceived the competitiveness of the market to be like as well.

 

[Member1928]

When I applied I probably had 12-15 pubs (in press and published) and a handful of smaller grants/awards. About half the pubs were first author and nothing high impact (nothing higher than 3.0). I did a research-focused postdoc. I also had another 5-8 pubs in the pipeline, some of those were in higher impact journals (4.0-7.0) when I applied.

Productivity as an assistant professor is 1-2 first/senior author papers per year (on average and in APA, APS or high impact journals) and a federal grant application submitted during the pre-tenure period. Almost every place I interviewed smaller R1s and R2s had similar productivity expectations. It was only the heavy hitters that required a federally funded grant in the pre tenure period. I noticed though that some of those departments were happy to give a pre-tenure person more time on the clock (7-8 years) in order to ensure that they have a federal grant funded. Hope this helps.

 

[futureapppsy2]

When I applied I probably had 12-15 pubs (in press and published) and a handful of smaller grants/awards. About half the pubs were first author and nothing high impact (nothing higher than 3.0). I did a research-focused postdoc. I also had another 5-8 pubs in the pipeline, some of those were in higher impact journals (4.0-7.0) when I applied.

Productivity as an assistant professor is 1-2 first/senior author papers per year (on average and in APA, APS or high impact journals) and a federal grant application submitted during the pre-tenure period. Almost every place I interviewed smaller R1s and R2s had similar productivity expectations. It was only the heavy hitters that required a federally funded grant in the pre tenure period. I noticed though that some of those departments were happy to give a pre-tenure person more time on the clock (7-8 years) in order to ensure that they have a federal grant funded. Hope this helps.

Very good to know, especially about grant submission v. funding--that takes a lot of pressure off. Were foundation grants given any consideration, or only federal?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It was only the heavy hitters that required a federally funded grant in the pre tenure period. I noticed though that some of those departments were happy to give a pre-tenure person more time on the clock (7-8 years) in order to ensure that they have a federal grant funded. Hope this helps.

This is in line with the two R1's I've worked at. One of them actually offered up to 10 years for their tenure clock….though that was bc of expectations, not to just be nice.

 

[Member1928]

Very good to know, especially about grant submission v. funding--that takes a lot of pressure off. Were foundation grants given any consideration, or only federal?

Foundation grants helpful with the interview/landing the job....they count less in relation to tenure but are still helpful. I'm sure if I landed a large foundation grant nobody would be complaining....

 

[Justanothergrad]

Thank you both for the insight. Those longer tenure periods seem like they could easily be as much of a blessing as they could be a bit scary.

When it comes to the publication, how much did you find that author order mattered? I am ~10 publications presently and am hoping to be very productive over the next year as I apply for internship, but the largest impediment to production is that I tend to be the primary author/investigator/go-getter on all the projects I'm involved in. So, I know that my number of publications places me in a good position, but I wonder beyond that, how much of a difference would 5 First authorss+5 Second authors be from 2 first authors+8 fourth or fifth authors, assuming all good journals (impact between 1.5 - 4.0). I ask this mainly because I'm curious about the hiring system from the inside. As a point of curiosity, did you get a perspective on the degree to which authorship is evaluated in conjunction with publication number or if there are any unwritten 'rules of thumb'?

Also, what is your take on how funded smaller foundation grants (5-15k) look during application? Typically when I think grants I'm thinking of those in the several hundred thousand range.

 

[Member1928]

At the point that you are competitive for tenure track jobs, your application starts to be viewed as a whole and things like "fit" and departmental needs really start to factor into the process. In my mind, the bar gets set at a certain level and once you pass that, other more nuanced factors come into play and so you just do your best to be productive and if you are lucky enough to land interviews you do your best to have a great interview while also trying to evaluate the department and whether it's a good fit for you. Remember fit is a two-way street...

 

[Ollie123]

For perspectives on authorship, I found out my new department (an extremely research-heavy medical school, not a psych department) expects 25 publications with at least 10 first-author for tenure. Haven't figured out yet what counts in that requirement...if its "total" "since hiring" "etc. Note that this is a minimum...slots are limited so I suspect the reality is someone barely meeting that is unlikely to get tenured.

Any money looks good starting out. From what I am seeing, psychology departments rarely have set requirements in terms of funding (even at the R1 level) though more is obviously better. In contrast, its very common for AMCs to require an R01 in order to receive tenure and extremely difficult to get hired at all without some history of funding (again - more is better). As for foundation grants - its important to distinguish what is actually meant by this. They can be incredibly prestigious (e.g. MacArthur) and for enormous sums of money (e.g. ACS can total almost a million with indirects). Even at AMCs, these are generally considered at least roughly equivalent to federal grants.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My experience mirrors Ollie's in regard to publication and grant req. for an R1 AMC. FWIW...it is from appointment to dept, not including prior pubs.

Our req. for Associate Prof (Clinical!!) are 8-12 pubs since appointment, in top half of journals in specialty area(s), and Co-PI on at least one Fed/similiar funded grant. Yay high standards?

 

[Ollie123]

My experience mirrors Ollie's in regard to publication and grant req. for an R1 AMC. FWIW...it is from appointment to dept, not including prior pubs.

Out of curiosity, is it appt to assistant professor or any appt though? Part of what I'm still figuring out is whether years at the institution in a post-doc or non-rank faculty position would count towards that requirement. The process is quite murky in AMCs relative to traditional A&S divisions. I also know of a few institutions that sound like they have very high tenure requirements (i.e. 40 publications) but prior pubs do count so its not too bad.

Also...how on earth is "top half of journals" operationalized? Specialties overlap enormously (am I clinical psychology? Neuroscience? Addiction? Pharmacology? Is it specialty of the individual or department?) so I'm not sure how the ISI journal rankings could even be applied.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Much thanks for the insight. I'm hoping that I get to the point of worrying about fit when I apply next year. Any suggestions from those of you on the other side of the court about how to best prepare myself for the process- anything that I can do now, or start working to do, in order to make both application and early employment easier?

Thats a good point Ollie. Use of impact factors isn't particularly useful and ISI rankings has been meaningless as you mention.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Out of curiosity, is it appt to assistant professor or any appt though? Part of what I'm still figuring out is whether years at the institution in a post-doc or non-rank faculty position would count towards that requirement. The process is quite murky in AMCs relative to traditional A&S divisions. I also know of a few institutions that sound like they have very high tenure requirements (i.e. 40 publications) but prior pubs do count so its not too bad.

The #'s I used were for appointment to Assistant Professor. As for post-doc & non-rank…good question. I was told the #'s apply once "the clock starts". However, I was also told that it is flexible and some people may want the clock to start later, while others may hit the ground running and would rather come up for consideration sooner.

Also...how on earth is "top half of journals" operationalized? Specialties overlap enormously (am I clinical psychology? Neuroscience? Addiction? Pharmacology? Is it specialty of the individual or department?) so I'm not sure how the ISI journal rankings could even be applied.

I asked the same questions. I believe they are using impact factor. There are also clarifications for first/second author mix, etc. Supposedly these are "recommended" standards and there is a bit of leeway left up to the promotion and tenure committee, which can be good or bad. I've been told I'm at a good pace for promotion to Associate, though I'd need to push harder if I was going specifically for tenure (particularly in regard to seeking/securing significant grants). The latter isn't my focus right now, but it's good to know that everything else is moving along for Associate.

 

[EmotRegulation]

I'll chime in here too. For hiring purposes, in my department the total number of publications matters the most, followed closely by the quality of the journal. Number of first author pubs matters too, but I've heard people talking about that less than journal quality and total number. When I applied, I had about 12 publications, only 2 first authors but a several others under review. Sitting on (clinical) search committees, though, I'm seeing applicants who get interviews with slightly higher numbers than those. Of course, that elusive "fit" matters, because there are often extenuating circumstances. I was hired in part to teach statistics and research methods, so although publications mattered (there is no way my colleagues would have hired someone without research potential), the teaching piece tipped the scales.

Any kind of grant submission/award looks good on a CV. An NSF or NRSA looks great, but even smaller awards or grants (e.g., SSCP, APA Dissertation Awards, Sigma Xi) can demonstrate that you're out there looking for funding.

In terms of productivity expectations as junior faculty in a psychology department ("light" R1), we are expected to submit (not obtain) for grant funding. Foundation grants definitely count toward tenure where I'm at, though I suspect that NSF/NIH funding is more respected. We're also expected to push students through (e.g., show progress with students completing masters degrees and ideally dissertations), and continue to publish. I've never been given an exact number of publications, but the last couple of people who got tenure had about 15-20 publications earned during the tenure period.

 

[cmuhooligan]

I had 40+ publications (30+ first authored), two federally-funded grants as PI when I went on the job market last year, and I landed a TT asst prof position (in clinical) at a R1 psychology department. I'll probably go up for tenure in 2 years, and was told what I did at my previous (AMC) job "counted" towards tenure.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Those numbers are impressive! What kind of pubs/yr are you averaging?

 

[cmuhooligan]

Those numbers are impressive! What kind of pubs/yr are you averaging?

I guess the average is about 8/year, but varied quite a bit...last year I had 14...and I'm anticipating a precipitous drop this year (and probably the next year too, trying to get the lab going).

 

[Pragma]

This will vary quite a bit depending on what kind of an institution you go to, but the numbers I've seen reported in this thread are consistent with ones I have seen at other academic medical center or R1 institutions. I think that you will find some places require less as you creep into R2/SLAC territory, and some places have a broader definition of "scholarship" when it is more of a teaching-oriented institution. But I still think anything less than 1 solid pub per year is starting to look fishy, but it depends on the place. Productivity can definitely come in waves too - e.g., going on a publishing spree right after wrapping up a grant.

 

[LM02]

Just a couple of additional thoughts. In a soft money, AMC environment, foundation grants will carry less weight because they typically have very low - if any - indirect costs. In some cases where I am, faculty have actually been told by the institution that they cannot apply for certain low overhead foundation awards unless they can otherwise fund the "loss" to the department due to the lack of indirects.

As for publications, where I am, the expectation is a certain number from the time of faculty appointment. So postdoc pubs would not typically count for promotion, but they would presumably still contribute to establishing your national reputation within your field. So even if not weighed in the total, they do nevertheless impact promotion decisions, if only indirectly. They would also be considered in your h-index, if your department uses such a metric.

Of course another consideration in some soft money environments is the lack of tenure altogether, as there may be no mechanism to support your salary if you lose funding. And if you do get promoted, it just means you will need to bring in more grant $$ to support your new, higher salary! So promotion can be tricky to navigate.

 

[beantownpsych]

AMC appointment to Assistant:
>10 peer reviewed empirical articles, 1/3 of which are FA + a grant as PI (R21, K-series, CDA 1 or 2, NARSAD or whatever its called now counts if pub number is high) or a large grant as Co-I (R01 etc). Note 10 is bare minimum, most have many more.

AMC appointment to Associate:

> 30 -35 peer reviewed empirical articles, 1/2 of which are FA,
R01 or R01 equivalent at PI or (but preferably and) several R34s, R61/33 etc as PI
Co-I grants are great but won't get you promoted; MPI is a grey area if the other PI is senior
Foundation grants typically don't count unless it's really prestigious, a lot of money and provides indirects

Chapters, Review or non empirical articles (even if peer reviewed), Encyclopedia Entries etc don't count for anything at either level. It's a "why did you waste your time"

 

[Justanothergrad]

A few other questions:

Is there any difference on how those applying directly out of internship are considered or how things are weighted in terms of their consideration?

Do you guys find these descriptions of requirements/expectations to be commiserate with counseling psych programs as well, given that they are often in different schools (education versus lib arts)?

How much salary wiggle room is there during initial hire for TT? Is it in the salary or other benefits (e.g., course waiver, GTA/GRA funding, etc and whatever else)

 

[futureapppsy2]

AMC appointment to Assistant:
>10 peer reviewed empirical articles, 1/3 of which are FA + a grant as PI (R21, K-series, CDA 1 or 2, NARSAD or whatever its called now counts if pub number is high) or a large grant as Co-I (R01 etc). Note 10 is bare minimum, most have many more.

AMC appointment to Associate:

> 30 -35 peer reviewed empirical articles, 1/2 of which are FA,
R01 or R01 equivalent at PI or (but preferably and) several R34s, R61/33 etc as PI
Co-I grants are great but won't get you promoted; MPI is a grey area if the other PI is senior
Foundation grants typically don't count unless it's really prestigious, a lot of money and provides indirects

Chapters, Review or non empirical articles (even if peer reviewed), Encyclopedia Entries etc don't count for anything at either level. It's a "why did you waste your time"

I'm surprised systematic reviews and meta-analyses don't count for anything, given how highly cited they tend to be--and how much time and effort they take to do well! A good systematic review or meta should take as much as, if not (sometimes considerably) more, effort than a lot of empirical studies.

 

[beantownpsych]

I'm surprised systematic reviews and meta-analyses don't count for anything, given how highly cited they tend to be--and how much time and effort they take to do well! A good systematic review or meta should take as much as, if not (sometimes considerably) more, effort than a lot of empirical studies.

Completely agree. unfortunately my department does not.

 

[EmotRegulation]

A few other questions:

Is there any difference on how those applying directly out of internship are considered or how things are weighted in terms of their consideration?

Do you guys find these descriptions of requirements/expectations to be commiserate with counseling psych programs as well, given that they are often in different schools (education versus lib arts)?

How much salary wiggle room is there during initial hire for TT? Is it in the salary or other benefits (e.g., course waiver, GTA/GRA funding, etc and whatever else)

No doubt there are differences across programs, and I can only speak to Psychology departments here (and really only for my own experience/program), but:

1. People applying from internship often get TT jobs. Someone in Canada calculated some statistics (for Canandian institutions) a few years ago and found that about half of TT psychology department jobs go to people straight out of internship (note: I have no citation for this, it was thrown up at a conference awhile back). I got several offers for TT jobs during my internship year. From what I saw on the market and what I've seen as a search committee member, no one even mentions internship status when reviewing applications.

2. No idea about counseling psych programs!

3. There is definitely wiggle room during initial hire. If you have multiple offers, you can use that as leverage to ask for higher salary. You also negotiate all kinds of other things, including furniture, lab space, funding for participants, RA funding, course releases, moving costs....you name it. Those things are part of the startup package and are different than salary, though I'm sure there are exceptions. Each university has a different structure. I went through negotiations at two places and the start up costs at one seemed MUCH higher but they had me budget for RAs, furniture, everything, whereas the other place had furniture already and RAs came out of a different pot of money, so I didn't have to ask for them. All that said, initial salary is important because raises are often given at a percentage of the initial salary, so it behooves you to try to get the best initial salary offer that you can get. There is a LOT of information about this on the Psych Jobs Wiki; look through the forum postings for more info.

 

[Pragma]

No doubt there are differences across programs, and I can only speak to Psychology departments here (and really only for my own experience/program), but:

1. People applying from internship often get TT jobs. Someone in Canada calculated some statistics (for Canandian institutions) a few years ago and found that about half of TT psychology department jobs go to people straight out of internship (note: I have no citation for this, it was thrown up at a conference awhile back). I got several offers for TT jobs during my internship year. From what I saw on the market and what I've seen as a search committee member, no one even mentions internship status when reviewing applications.

2. No idea about counseling psych programs!

3. There is definitely wiggle room during initial hire. If you have multiple offers, you can use that as leverage to ask for higher salary. You also negotiate all kinds of other things, including furniture, lab space, funding for participants, RA funding, course releases, moving costs....you name it. Those things are part of the startup package and are different than salary, though I'm sure there are exceptions. Each university has a different structure. I went through negotiations at two places and the start up costs at one seemed MUCH higher but they had me budget for RAs, furniture, everything, whereas the other place had furniture already and RAs came out of a different pot of money, so I didn't have to ask for them. All that said, initial salary is important because raises are often given at a percentage of the initial salary, so it behooves you to try to get the best initial salary offer that you can get. There is a LOT of information about this on the Psych Jobs Wiki; look through the forum postings for more info.

Agree with this post, and definitely check out the wiki because there are great forums there.

My suggestion for negotiating initial salary is to come armed with some data if you can. Some universities, especially public ones, have made information about faculty salaries public. That can be a starting point. There is also AAUP salary survey where you can get some regional numbers.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Thank you both. I just found the wiki a few weeks ago.

 

[MCParent]

Re publications: At some places, publications in which a student is first author, which you are also on, count the same as a first-author by you. That's super useful for building up your students for their jobs while helping yourself.

 

[Ollie123]

Re publications: At some places, publications in which a student is first author, which you are also on, count the same as a first-author by you. That's super useful for building up your students for their jobs while helping yourself.

Relatedly, most AMCs seem to have a "First OR last" authorship approach (with last usually being the PI/lab director with students/post-docs/collaborators as the leads. This seems less common in psychology departments, but seems to be growing more common (based solely on my extremely loose impressions/intuition).

Fully agree RE: reviews. It seems outrageously silly for those not to count for anything. The only rationale I can possibly come up with is that you generally won't get funding to write one and AMCs are usually pushing for anything that brings in the indirects. That said - I still intend to write some since I think its a good way to establish yourself as an expert to compete for funding and may still get counted at places that look at citation count as a separate metric.

RE: salary - it varies widely. I've seen starting salaries ranging from 70-110k at R1/AMC level appointments. 70 was a 9-month salary at a university department (so add a nice chunk if you pull in grants with salary support). 110 was a 100% research position in a cancer center. Its tough to compare across AMCs and psych departments though. Starting salaries seem to be roughly comparable if you have grants...but most folks won't have those upon initial hire in a psych department, whereas these days most AMCs won't hire you until you can cover most/all of your salary. That said - if you do have funding, I think AMC appointments are much easier to secure. They can be less stable...unless you are willing to pick up extra clinical work to cover any funding gaps (assuming they allow...which not all do). The upper end is unquestionably higher in AMCs...its very rare to see even full professors earning > 150k in psych departments, while its not at all uncommon to see folks earning that in AMCs (or WAY beyond that if you pursue administrative roles...). However, tenure requirements tend to be steeper (usually receiving at least R01 being required).

I could go on, but suffice it to say that its complicated. I'm still completely uncertain what road I want to go down. Right now, I'm happy to be entering the AMC world but I'm pursuing a fairly basic line of research that I think leave opens the option of jumping ship to a psych department if needed/desired (at least moreso than it would if I was just doing horse-race clinical trials all day)...

 

[futureapppsy2]

Re publications: At some places, publications in which a student is first author, which you are also on, count the same as a first-author by you. That's super useful for building up your students for their jobs while helping yourself.

This isn't always the case, though. I know someone who moved from a TT position at an institution that gave FA credit for student FA articles to a TT position at another institution that didn't and was explicitly told that they need more first authors of their own.

 

[Pragma]

I think you'll get more credit for student authorship at psych departments. I don't think it matters when it comes to AMCs and grants nearly as much.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Relatedly, most AMCs seem to have a "First OR last" authorship approach (with last usually being the PI/lab director with students/post-docs/collaborators as the leads. This seems less common in psychology departments, but seems to be growing more common (based solely on my extremely loose impressions/intuition).

In my experience, subfields with more of a medical tie-in (rehab, health, neuropsych, neuroscience) place equal-ish weight on first and last author. I come from a rehab background, but when I mention last author being a highly prized position to colleagues in other subfields, they usually look at me like I've grown 12 heads.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

My experience is in line w. futurapppsy2.

As for compensation, I think there are large differences between someone coming from a generalist and/or one year post-doc and someone coming from a speciality area (and/or 2yr post-doc fellowship). Based on what I've been told by former fellows and colleagues hiring, AMC offers of $75k-$110k/yr seem pretty typical for people coming out of div40 and div22 2yr fellowships. I'm not sure if NYC/LA/SF salaries are more, but that's the range I've seen in the Midwest and parts of the Northeast. They seem in line with GS-13 ranges for the VA. I'm not sure if the prison system is the same or possibly better. Counseling centers…I've seen some pretty low numbers, but those are often 9mon appointments and also allow for outside work.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I had 40+ publications (30+ first authored), two federally-funded grants as PI when I went on the job market last year, and I landed a TT asst prof position (in clinical) at a R1 psychology department. I'll probably go up for tenure in 2 years, and was told what I did at my previous (AMC) job "counted" towards tenure.

Congrats on the amazing pub and grant record! By "go up for tenure in two years," do you mean go for tenure at the start of your second year? Just wondering, because it seems a bit odd that an institution would have you submit a tenure file after being there only one year, rather than just letting you go up for tenure with your offer. As you said, the first year, from what I've heard, is often a bit of a wash, and it sounds like you would be competitive now.

 

[cmuhooligan]

Congrats on the amazing pub and grant record! By "go up for tenure in two years," do you mean go for tenure at the start of your second year? Just wondering, because it seems a bit odd that an institution would have you submit a tenure file after being there only one year, rather than just letting you go up for tenure with your offer. As you said, the first year, from what I've heard, is often a bit of a wash, and it sounds like you would be competitive now.

Sorry, I meant that I'll likely submit for tenure after the second year.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Quick follow-up to my original question: As I prepare to submit my first batch of job apps, I have a manuscript that has been "accepted with minor revisions" (in so many words) by a journal. Should I put that with my "accepted manuscripts" or with my "manuscripts under review and revision"? Either way, I'd note the current status.

Thanks!

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd say it's accepted. a revise and resubmit could still theoretically rejected, but if they accepted with minor revisions, it's good to go in my book.

 

[Jeina]

I am also on the job market (yikes!) and have a manuscript with that same status. I decided to leave it in the under review section, just to be on the safe side. I have the manuscript's status clearly labeled as "accepted pending minor revisions" though. Perhaps I'm being too cautious?

 

[clinpsyc87]

I am also on the job market (yikes!) and have a manuscript with that same status. I decided to leave it in the under review section, just to be on the safe side. I have the manuscript's status clearly labeled as "accepted pending minor revisions" though. Perhaps I'm being too cautious?

You'll fit in fine here. Do anything but that and Pragma and the other fascists will rail against you with the fury of a thousand suns

 

[Pragma]

Quick follow-up to my original question: As I prepare to submit my first batch of job apps, I have a manuscript that has been "accepted with minor revisions" (in so many words) by a journal. Should I put that with my "accepted manuscripts" or with my "manuscripts under review and revision"? Either way, I'd note the current status.

Thanks!

I'd say it's accepted. a revise and resubmit could still theoretically rejected, but if they accepted with minor revisions, it's good to go in my book.

I am also on the job market (yikes!) and have a manuscript with that same status. I decided to leave it in the under review section, just to be on the safe side. I have the manuscript's status clearly labeled as "accepted pending minor revisions" though. Perhaps I'm being too cautious?

"Accepted with minor revisions" is a different category than "revise and resubmit" - in fact, I just got done with a review earlier this week and those were 2 of 4 outcomes I could select.

If it were me I'd call it accepted. I wouldn't say that if it were just a R & R.

Also, I would just say "in press" but that's just what I've seen around. There is no problem being more specific I guess but I just have never seen an "accepted" section. I just say in press until the final version comes out. That's just what I see around.

 

[erg923]

You'll fit in fine here. Do anything but that and Pragma and the other fascists will rail against you with the fury of a thousand suns

Whats your damage, son?

 

[Jeina]

Whats your damage, son?

What are your thoughts on this topic, erg923? And clinpsyc87, I don't think you're being fair to contributors such as Pragma who have offered valuable insights on many topics that have come up on this board. Don't make everything an argument.