Grad publishing expectations for academic jobs

[Dazen]

Hi all! I’m currently a second year in a clinical PhD program and am interested in academic jobs longer term (both university and AMC). I’m aware this might change as I continue my training, but want to make sure I have the research productivity to keep this door open. What would y’all say are the expectations for publications, and specifically first author pubs? Is there anything else (teaching, grants) that looks especially good?

I’m having these conversations with my mentor as well, and would love a wider set of opinions. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[singasongofjoy]

If you are asking for expectations once you have graduated, in the AMC/university settings I have been in, it depends on which primary “track” you are on for promotion (research, clinical, or teaching, though of course most people will have some combination). Current AMC I’m working in an outpatient specialty clinic, not on a research track. I’ve been told + precedent in my program indicates I should prob have 3-5 first or second author pubs depending on when I go up for promotion (5-7 yrs usually). Idk if it matters but I’m also not on tenure track (so I’m on a fixed-term contract and the number of years before it’s renewed gets longer each time I think; I honestly can’t recall what it currently is and have no worries about ever not getting renewed given my clinical work, so I am glad I opted out of tenure track — but take that into account as idk if that matters as almost all of my colleagues have done the same). I think there is probably even wider variance if you’re asking for expectations while you’re still a student / trainee.

 

[Mama Bear]

If you’re looking at tenure track, also consider the focus of the university. Teaching-focused institutions may be less focused on that, and the publishing expectations may increase along with the degree of research focus of the institution. I am at a teaching-focused state university, and they focused more on my teaching and clinical experience.

 

[beantownpsych]

Totally depends on the track w/in the institution. Though do note that for some AMCs the only way to get on faculty is to have a grant and it's highly advantageous to do post-doc at the institution you want to be faculty at. For the research-based tracks at the AMCs I've been at --- A time of appointment assistant profs typically have 15+ publications (> 1/3 FA) + a NIH equivalent grant (PI K series grant or Co-I on others grants). Promotion to associate for these research-based tracks (both tenure and non-tenure), are ~ at least 1 R01s as PI (or equivalent) + a few smaller research grants (R21, R34 etc) as PI and/or several Co-I R01s. 2 R01's if you want to be completely safe for promotion. It's grants that matter and publications are largely secondary (though you of course have to have published, > 30, 1/2 FA though many have many many more). Clinical tracks have different requirements, some have high research expectations others may have no research expectations provided you are able to establish national/international recognition in other ways.

Based on my friends publications #s are higher at university-based R1s and grant expectations may be lower (albeit definitely encouraged). My friends at R1s were initially appointed with publication numbers in the low 40's (though this can be much less if their research high impact and/or is more basic/neuroscience-focused or limited to clinical trials-- basically things that take a lot of time and resources to do) and as associate profs are hitting 100+. It's easier to publish a lot if you have motivated students doing a lot of the work. 4-5 students each aiming for 1-3 papers a year ..... and it's a great way to teach and get work out there.

In terms of what looks good a pre-doc NRSA (F31) is definitely a plus, though the majority of faculty I have worked with at AMCs actually did not have one in grad school. IMHO it's more important to develop expertise in a particular area and innovate because then people will want to collaborate w/ you.

 

[calimich]

Expectations vary widely by type of academic institution. Generally, search committees want to see demonstrated skills in the whole research process. How well can you identify a gap in the literature, ask a meaningful question, utilize proper methodology, gather and interpret data, draw conclusions based on prior evidence, share your conclusions with others? And then depending on institution, how well can you manage that process while also teaching/mentoring/doing service.
I was interested in R2 type environments and was a competitive applicant with 4 publications, 3 as 1st author, and ~8-10 posters/round table discussions/symposium talks. Some of my other experiences were assisting with data collection and renewal of an NIH grant, co teaching ~3years of undergrad courses and was instructor of record for an intro to psych class at a cc the semester before internship.

 

[Dazen]

Thanks so much for the responses! Time got away from me a bit as the semester went on, but this has been very helpful in considering my goals over the next few years. For clarity, I’m wondering mostly about number of publications/grants to be competitive for being hired into initial positions coming from post doc and less about expected productivity once in a tenure track position. I’m currently interested in research-focused positions at an R1 or AMC, but know that could substantially change as I progress through grad school.

Sounds like shooting for 20+ pubs, with around 1/3 first author, is a decent place to start. I feel like I’m on track for pubs overall, but need to focus more on getting first author pubs now that I’ve started getting my own data collected. I was fortunate to get on four papers as second or third author in my first year and change, since I do a lot of statistical analyses for profs who aren’t well versed in R, and did submit a first author poster for a national conference. I’m also on track to defend my thesis this spring, which will hopefully end in a pub, and have a few other of my own projects I’ve started on. I want to make sure I’m balancing this methodological interest with having my own research program and content specialty going forward.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

If you can demonstrated an ability to secure FUNDING, that can go a long way too. There are different expectations as you go from grad school, to internship/fellowship, to early career. This isn't my area of expertise, so I'll defer to others. I have limited experiencing applying for funding on my own, but I've been a part of large multi-million dollar studies across multiple institutions. It's a very different animal, but still a valuable experience to understand how different institutions dice up the $ and how PI and CO-I get their cuts. It's easier to get on large projects at R1 centers, and it can also be helpful to work across departments, though ultimately the vast majority of TT reviews care about FUNDING and PUBS (w. high impact factors).

 

[futureapppsy2]

Totally depends on the track w/in the institution. Though do note that for some AMCs the only way to get on faculty is to have a grant and it's highly advantageous to do post-doc at the institution you want to be faculty at. For the research-based tracks at the AMCs I've been at --- A time of appointment assistant profs typically have 15+ publications (> 1/3 FA) + a NIH equivalent grant (PI K series grant or Co-I on others grants). Promotion to associate for these research-based tracks (both tenure and non-tenure), are ~ at least 1 R01s as PI (or equivalent) + a few smaller research grants (R21, R34 etc) as PI and/or several Co-I R01s. 2 R01's if you want to be completely safe for promotion. It's grants that matter and publications are largely secondary (though you of course have to have published, > 30, 1/2 FA though many have many many more). Clinical tracks have different requirements, some have high research expectations others may have no research expectations provided you are able to establish national/international recognition in other ways.

Based on my friends publications #s are higher at university-based R1s and grant expectations may be lower (albeit definitely encouraged). My friends at R1s were initially appointed with publication numbers in the low 40's (though this can be much less if their research high impact and/or is more basic/neuroscience-focused or limited to clinical trials-- basically things that take a lot of time and resources to do) and as associate profs are hitting 100+. It's easier to publish a lot if you have motivated students doing a lot of the work. 4-5 students each aiming for 1-3 papers a year ..... and it's a great way to teach and get work out there.

In terms of what looks good a pre-doc NRSA (F31) is definitely a plus, though the majority of faculty I have worked with at AMCs actually did not have one in grad school. IMHO it's more important to develop expertise in a particular area and innovate because then people will want to collaborate w/ you.

100+ pubs at tenure or after tenure?

 

[beantownpsych]

100+ pubs at tenure or after tenure?

Some pre, some post but there are many other factors (grants, type of research etc). NB: I say all of this with the major caveat as I have spent my entire career at AMCs and my knowledge about tenure at R1s is really based off of a small number of very productive faculty at very highly regarded institutions. I imagine the range on papers is actually much greater, though higher on average than at AMCs where grants are king.

 

[PsyDr]

Do sdn posts count? They’re peer reviewed.

 

[WisNeuro]

Do sdn posts count? They’re peer reviewed.

We need to come up with a list of SDN tenured faculty. Then we'll get to meet yearly to decide who makes the cut.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Some pre, some post but there are many other factors (grants, type of research etc). NB: I say all of this with the major caveat as I have spent my entire career at AMCs and my knowledge about tenure at R1s is really based off of a small number of very productive faculty at very highly regarded institutions. I imagine the range on papers is actually much greater, though higher on average than at AMCs where grants are king.

Was wondering because I’m going up for tenure with 100+ publications and I get the impression that that’s very uncommon—I was wondering if that’s not actually the case, and it is, in fact, common.