Post docs (in academia)

[PsychResearch]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi guys!

I am new on the forum. I am a PhD student in Developmental Psychology. The research I do is actually very much clinical, but the program I'm in is not Clinical Psychology. I am interested in research and would like to work in the academia. I know I have a long way to go, but what I need to know are the following:

1. How many publications one needs to have in order to be accepted for a post doc?
2. Is it recommended that a post doc be elsewhere then where I'm currently doing my PhD?
3. Do programs look at quantity or quality when it comes to research articles published?
4. How can I get a post doc?

I know the field is very competitive and getting a position straight into academia would be difficult, so I want to do what it takes to get a post doc.

 

[O Gurl]

1. How many publications one needs to have in order to be accepted for a post doc?
2. Is it recommended that a post doc be elsewhere then where I'm currently doing my PhD?
3. Do programs look at quantity or quality when it comes to research articles published?
4. How can I get a post doc?

1- There is no set number, but you certainly need to have demonstrated some research productivity. Thus, you really need to have published or in-press work. A bunch of "in preparation" or "under review" will not suffice.
2- This is a bit trickier. I am in a clinical program and on our side, "inbred training" can sometimes be a negative. Most people strive to do at least the internship or postdoc somewhere else. But if all you have to do is the postdoc and since it is research-oriented, it may be OK to stay put even if it is because you are already plugged into the research community there. I will have to defer to others on this one.
3- Both, but quality outranks quantity. Also, unbeknown to me before now, some people may also look at the timing of publications. Let's say you spent 6 years in grad school, it may not look as good if all of your pubs came out in the last 2 years vs. having at least one or two in the early years.
4- If you mean finding openings, there are plenty of area-specific (e.g. trauma, substance use, health psych, peds, etc) listserves and the APPIC listserve which announce positions.

 

[Ollie123]

Not there yet, so take this with a grain of salt, but my lab has recruited two post-docs since I started so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the process.

1) You definitely need pubs, but the exact number varies by what the position entails, where it is, what kind of pubs they are, etc. I'd be extremely uincomfortable if I didn't have at least 3-4 upon graduation, but it depends what type of research you do, etc.
2) In clinical it is definitely frowned upon to do both in the same location, but I think that is probably true in academia as a whole. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would want to for professional reasons (though I can definitely understand the desire to stay in one location). I think of the main benefits is branching out...I've been able to get pretty varied experiences via my lab, but there is definitely stuff we don't do. We don't have much in the way of statistical expertise, so while I don't want to work with a quantitative psychologist, I'd love to work in a lab where there is someone I can go to with stats questions and who uses more complex and modern approaches. I'd be interested in getting some experience with imaging and/or pupillometry because we don't do that here. I'd be interested in doing large-scale treatment studies because I don't get to do that either. I'd take the opportunity to branch out and develop another expertise.
3) What O gurl said. Some people churn out tons of garbage and being 14th author on 15 publications in the "Journal of Why Bother" isn't great, but at the same time having one good publication is probably not enough either.
4) In a word....networking.

I've brought it up numerous times here...and this may vary by field. However, I know for a fact in my area post-docs are NOT hard to get right now unless you are restricted to a particular location. I think we pay ~40-45k in a relatively low cost-of-living city (which is above-average for a post-doc) and it sounds like the issue for us is not "who to choose" but CAN we find SOMEONE. Then again, I'm in an area that has a lot more money pumped into it than many areas so that may play a role in post-doc availability. Suffice it to say, I am worried about finding my first faculty job, but I do not worry about finding a post-doc at the moment (unless the market changes).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I would like additional information on the "Journal of Why Bother", I think it may have something to offer.

I am not a hardcore researcher, though I work at an R1 with a cadre of post-docs and the above is pretty spot on. I'd recommend a mix of authorships and "tiers" of journals if possible. Don't expect to land a 1st authorship in NATURE, but also understand getting 3 1st authorships in a bottom rung journal won't do much for someone looking to work in academia. The more I observe, "Publish or Perish", the happier I am to be a 3rd or 4th author on something and not need it to count towards any dept. quotas!

 

[erg923]

😴
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/pdf/pmed.0020124.pdf

 

[erg923]

I guess the above reminds us that we probably all contribute to that journal regularly.

 

[Ollie123]

Interesting article, hadn't seen that one before and I may have to circulate it to some folks here. I've made many of the same points here and in the lab (and I don't claim those to be novel ideas...many of the issues discussed in that article have been around for decades) but that is the first time I have seen someone tackle the math to demonstrate it. Of course, if most research articles are wrong, perhaps this one is wrong and most research is right.....but then.....

This came up during a presidential symposium at a recent conference. The speaker brought up the issue that replication has been seen as "bad" since replications aren't unique studies, tend to get published in weaker journals, and aren't novel, and that changing this attitude would do a great deal to speed science along. I agree wholeheartedly, and shudder to think at the amount of wasted time and money spent building research off of a false finding, that then doesn't work out and thus isn't published, resulting in everyone else continuing to build off that same false finding for years until word gets out.

At least its fun🙂

 

[erg923]

There was also this interesting story in the New Yorker recently.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz1AkX7AviQ

Taken together, these bring up many important issues regarding the current way in which the scientific method is utilized and how "big league" academia likely contributes the problem. I agree that the current pressure to just produce something, likely contributes to a literature that is bloated, filled with "noise", and thus difficult to understand. Although I typically find www.thelastpsychiatrist.com ramblings to be rather off putting, he did have one a while back that made alot of sense to me. In essence, among other things, he pointed out that the literature on many topics may actually be too big. There is too much information. So much information/data that the actual truth gets buried by the tons of studies that fall on either side. I have observed this as well, in that, no matter what topic you are doing a lit review on, you can always find someone who disputes past findings/conclusions. In other words, there is always someone who says the exact opposite. The truth is, we don't know what the truth is about almost anything in this field. And I think the massive amount of data out there sometimes contributes to the ambiguity, rather than helping to solve it.

This is exactly why, although I generally favor the teaching and embrace of EST in our curriculums, I always have that jaded voice in the back of my head that reminds me that we may just be fooling ourselves. The old adage of "falling back on the literature" in order to find the truth about a treatment or phenomena seems increasingly flawed to me.

 

[PsychResearch]

I just wrote a follow-up message only to then see it did not go through.
I was describing the politics of the place where I study, but I don't have the energy to write it again.

I was saying that I am confussed on what dissertation topic to chose. I have 3 topics I could chose from.

Topic A -- data is already collected, i could go straight into analyzing it. this topic is not very cutting edge, although i was told by my advisor that it could be published. if i chose this topic, i could graduate in 1 year.

Topic B -- data collection is ongoing. topic really excits me, but it will take another 2-3 years until project is closed. this means that dissertation will not be published with me as the first author. chances are that i could still graduate within one year. i was told that perhaps we could publish some preliminary findings although based on past trends, i doubt it. when the project ends, i would end up as one of the authors on the paper, but that won't be until a few years later. chances are that some other student will come after me and analyze this same data. since i won't be around at that time and they'll be using the full data set, they'll take the lead at that point.

Topic C which is something i worked on since my first year. basically, i came up with this topic, trained people to implemnt the subject matter, worked with an expert to come up with a coding scheme and this semester i'll have to train people to use that coding scheme, which will generate data. this project is a lot like studying a disease and environmental factors that cause it. my interest is in the treatment of that disease. the pros to doing topic C are that i will be able to say that i worked on the project from beginning to end. it could also give me ideas for future projects that i could request funding for. the problem is that i'm stucked on the idea of treatment. topic a and topic b are related to treatment. topic a is my idea. topic b will be like analyzing data for my advisor so to speak.

I am fortunate to work on a clinical trial and have a stats consultant that works closely with the lab (though I am yet to work with him since I'm not senior enough to ask him for help, though it seems that i could if i needed).

i don't know which of the topics could benefit me most in the long run.
any thoughts/ideas/suggestions?

thanks everyone.

 

[O Gurl]

PsychResearch, I am not sure what stage of training your are in or whether you are in clinical/counseling program that requires internship, but if you are looking at applying for internship soon (next year or so), then I would go with Topic A for dissertation. It is a required project, not your life's work. I defended prior to internship and can't tell you how happy I am that I am not having to deal with it now or what a liability it can be to not have it completed when applying for postdoc. It doesn't sound like you'd lose out on your other options which you could still work on from internship, postdoc, and beyond. I say- FINISH! 😉

 

[PsychResearch]

Hi gurl! I'm in my 4th year in a Developmental Psych. program. I would like to get a post doc by the end of my 5th year. People have taken 7 years+ to graduate and I'm scared at the prospect of being here that long.

I feel as if project C could give me ideas for future research I could request funding for, but I anticiipate that it will take at least 2 semesters to code the data. Plus entering....

Will choice of dissetation weigh in how my advisor will recommend me at the end of the day? On the one hand, being able to say I completed this project from A to Z would be good. But then again, I'm told that the dissertation is just practice, so I really don't know.

I can already forsee bumps in the road even going with topic A (which i have the data for), so the good thing about picking this topic is that i can actually give myself time to figure out the stats. whereas if i have to first collect the data, then enter, then analyze, then bumps in the road...it may take me way too long.

i will not have an internship. it's a post doc that i'm aiming for,

 

[O Gurl]

I see... one of my dearest friends was in our university's developmental program. It is much different than clinical, I admit, but in my talks with her I got the impression that the dissertation was still seen as a learning experience. The A-Z aspect (your idea, your design, your collection, your analysis... etc) is not necessarily expected. However, only you know the climate at your institution. If you have a good working relationship with your lab and mentor, I would still suggest topic A to get the requirement done in a timely fashion and let someone pay you to do your life's work. You can always collaborate (either there or from your next position) to finish the rest and sustain your network.

 

[bunderj]

Hi gurl! I'm in my 4th year in a Developmental Psych. program. I would like to get a post doc by the end of my 5th year. People have taken 7 years+ to graduate and I'm scared at the prospect of being here that long.

I feel as if project C could give me ideas for future research I could request funding for, but I anticiipate that it will take at least 2 semesters to code the data. Plus entering....

Will choice of dissetation weigh in how my advisor will recommend me at the end of the day? On the one hand, being able to say I completed this project from A to Z would be good. But then again, I'm told that the dissertation is just practice, so I really don't know.

I can already forsee bumps in the road even going with topic A (which i have the data for), so the good thing about picking this topic is that i can actually give myself time to figure out the stats. whereas if i have to first collect the data, then enter, then analyze, then bumps in the road...it may take me way too long.

i will not have an internship. it's a post doc that i'm aiming for,

Hi there,

I am only applying this year, so I have little advice to give. I just have a question for you🙂 Will you have enough pubs, etc...to be competitive for a research post doc (or are you doing a clinical post doc?) without having your dissertation published? I feel like getting it published before you apply, if at all possible, would strengthen your cv and your chances, but I may be way off base here. I just thought that for research post docs they want to see evidence of productivity. If so, going with topic A and getting that sucker at least in press before you apply would be great. Not sure if that's possible given when you'd have to apply, just a thought. Good luck!

 

[PsychResearch]

Topic B above is a randomized clinical trial I could analyze the data for. Data collection is ongoing. The reason I hesitate is b/c usually clinical trials are usually published once the full number of participants complete the study. Since data collection is ongoing and I will most likely graduate before the project is over, chances are I will not be around for when the trial is published.

Does anyone know if there are any advantages to analyzing the data for a clinical trial? Would that be a factor that would benefit me in the future versus if I do a different project?

Are there exceptions to publishing results at the end of the trial? Meaning, are preliminary findings sometimes published? My advisor said I could publish some preliminary findings but I did not discuss this in detail.