Publications to be professor

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

McClinas

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
Have not posted on this website in a long-time, actually since I was applying for schools. I'm now finishing up my third year at a clinical psych PhD program. While I like doing clinical work, I am almost certain that I couldn't see clients full-time. I know that I need to conduct research to achieve a balance. Unfortunately, I have yet to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. How many publications should I have upon completing graduate school in order to get a professorship at a (not so prestigious) university? How many of those should I be first author?

Thanks!

Members don't see this ad.
 
I was told ten, but YMMV. Things like funding history and the journals your publications are in matter, too.
 
Have not posted on this website in a long-time, actually since I was applying for schools. I'm now finishing up my third year at a clinical psych PhD program. While I like doing clinical work, I am almost certain that I couldn't see clients full-time. I know that I need to conduct research to achieve a balance. Unfortunately, I have yet to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. How many publications should I have upon completing graduate school in order to get a professorship at a (not so prestigious) university? How many of those should I be first author?

Thanks!

It depends on what type of even "not so prestigious" university at which you'd like to work. I imagine zero to few at small liberal arts universities, a few at more well-known universities, perhaps between 4-7 at masters-granting institutions, and probably closer to 10 at more research-oriented universities. I'm definitely not sure, but I would imagine these are good estimates.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This is a really hard question to answer. My department (at an "R2"-type university) recently hired, and the three applicants interviewed had 7, 11, and 14 publications. I've been told informally that you also want a handful of first author pubs, and at least one first author publication in a really solid journal.

(Interestingly, we ended up hiring the candidate with 7 publications based on her job talk, which was excellent. So it's not ALL about the numbers).
 
Any reasonable institution is going to look at both quality and quantity. Lots of publications in lower-tier journals without first authorship might beef up your CV a little, but aren't as good as first author publications, or publications in higher-tier journals.

There is no set number. I have seen faculty hired with just a handful and some with lots (e.g., I had quite a few - over 15, when I went on the market).

At R1 institutions the quantity/quality standards may be highest, as it is becoming more common for there to be some postdoctoral research experience. The academic job market is very competitive, which just drives up the level of productivity necessary.

Even teaching at a SLAC these days is going to require some pubs, most likely, because a) undergraduate research experience is important and they want faculty who know how to do research, and b) some of the top candidates are starting to go for more teaching-oriented positions because they can't get jobs in the ultra competitive research places.

You might be able to get away with no publications at a CC, but I doubt even that at this point. I have a couple of colleagues teaching at CCs and they actually are fairly active in publishing things.

Good luck. The key really is fit and demonstrating SOME research experience. You might not get into a research-oriented place getting such a late start publishing, but you could find yourself at a SLAC if your views jive well with the institution and you can show you have enough research savvy to mentor students.

On a side note - some institutions are starting to quantify things more for promotion/tenure. I have heard numbers like 30 publications thrown around in order to get Full Professor at an R1/R2 type of place, and of course funding is critical.
 
What Pragma said.

Also google "psych job wiki", and search the relevant threads there about recent applicants/interviews/offers.
 
Yeah, depends what you want to do. 10 is a solid number, but can be tough to achieve depending on where you are coming from and what you have available. 6 Abnormal/JCCP papers is probably better than 20 crappy papers (and I'd argue MUCH more difficult to achieve), etc.. This is also somewhat dependent on research area. The numbers for someone doing laboratory-based studies or clinical trials of difficult-to-recruit populations generally won't be as high as someone doing online surveys of the general population - I think (hope?) most hiring committees know this. There are also different academic traditions - psychology research was traditionally more a quality > quantity type field but as we've slid more towards the AMC model and the job market is tightened there is increased pressure to "churn them out" so to speak - for better or worse.

If you are willing to look at SLACs, teaching experience is probably going to be equally or more important and even research-heavy positions will expect you to have taught your own classes before. I was told usually 2 independent preps as instructor of record is sufficient for R1-R2 type places, though more is obviously better.
 
Yeah, depends what you want to do. 10 is a solid number, but can be tough to achieve depending on where you are coming from and what you have available. 6 Abnormal/JCCP papers is probably better than 20 crappy papers (and I'd argue MUCH more difficult to achieve), etc.. This is also somewhat dependent on research area. The numbers for someone doing laboratory-based studies or clinical trials of difficult-to-recruit populations generally won't be as high as someone doing online surveys of the general population - I think (hope?) most hiring committees know this. There are also different academic traditions - psychology research was traditionally more a quality > quantity type field but as we've slid more towards the AMC model and the job market is tightened there is increased pressure to "churn them out" so to speak - for better or worse.

If you are willing to look at SLACs, teaching experience is probably going to be equally or more important and even research-heavy positions will expect you to have taught your own classes before. I was told usually 2 independent preps as instructor of record is sufficient for R1-R2 type places, though more is obviously better.

I have a tenure track position at a small college with 3 pubs (only one first author), 15 presentations/posters, and TAing 3 classes, and instructor of record of only one. I am seriously considering taking other more lucrative clinical admin type positions though....so be wary of SLAC pay!
 
SLAC pay can be good at some private institutions, but it also can be really crappy.

You also can look at more clinical professorships...depending where you go, the research expectations will vary, but sometimes the base pay is better. On the other hand, usually these are 12 month jobs and often are non tenure track.
 
Sorry to threadjack, but:

I have a tenure track position at a small college with 3 pubs (only one first author), 15 presentations/posters, and TAing 3 classes, and instructor of record of only one. I am seriously considering taking other more lucrative clinical admin type positions though....so be wary of SLAC pay!

What kind of information did you have to submit regarding teaching? Teaching statement, syllabi, evals, etc?
 
Sorry to threadjack, but:



What kind of information did you have to submit regarding teaching? Teaching statement, syllabi, evals, etc?

Pedagogical statement, syllabus, reference from someone who had observed my instruction
 
I have also heard 10 pubs, though the impact factor and authorship can make that number much more/less important. If you can show a history of securing external funding, places will be much more likely to consider you. There was a thread awhile back that talked about different types of funding you should go for at a given level (K, F, etc).

Given that you haven't published anything yet, you probably will have to pursue a "clinical track" if you want to be in academia; research tracks in academia are stupid competitive. I may have a slanted view being at a couple of top R1s, but even seeing some of the #'s posted on here in the internship threads over the years made me realize that a few publications and presentations aren't going to cut it for anything but a clinical position.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Any reasonable institution is going to look at both quality and quantity. Lots of publications in lower-tier journals without first authorship might beef up your CV a little, but aren't as good as first author publications, or publications in higher-tier journals.

There is no set number. I have seen faculty hired with just a handful and some with lots (e.g., I had quite a few - over 15, when I went on the market).

At R1 institutions the quantity/quality standards may be highest, as it is becoming more common for there to be some postdoctoral research experience. The academic job market is very competitive, which just drives up the level of productivity necessary.

Even teaching at a SLAC these days is going to require some pubs, most likely, because a) undergraduate research experience is important and they want faculty who know how to do research, and b) some of the top candidates are starting to go for more teaching-oriented positions because they can't get jobs in the ultra competitive research places.

You might be able to get away with no publications at a CC, but I doubt even that at this point. I have a couple of colleagues teaching at CCs and they actually are fairly active in publishing things.

Good luck. The key really is fit and demonstrating SOME research experience. You might not get into a research-oriented place getting such a late start publishing, but you could find yourself at a SLAC if your views jive well with the institution and you can show you have enough research savvy to mentor students.On a side note - some institutions are starting to quantify things more for promotion/tenure. I have heard numbers like 30 publications thrown around in order to get Full Professor at an R1/R2 type of place, and of course funding is critical.

It’s never too late to start publishing a putting yourself on the research track; however, you might have to complete more than one postdoc in order to acquire the research training, funding history and publication record to land a job at an R1, but it can be done.

I have also heard 10 pubs, though the impact factor and authorship can make that number much more/less important. If you can show a history of securing external funding, places will be much more likely to consider you. There was a thread awhile back that talked about different types of funding you should go for at a given level (K, F, etc).

Given that you haven't published anything yet, you probably will have to pursue a "clinical track" if you want to be in academia; research tracks in academia are stupid competitive. I may have a slanted view being at a couple of top R1s, but even seeing some of the #'s posted on here in the internship threads over the years made me realize that a few publications and presentations aren't going to cut it for anything but a clinical position.

I don't think that being in the 3rd year of graduate school and not having published anything makes one 'late' or behind, in terms of publishing. Just from my own experience, I didn't get a peer-reviewed publication until I was in my 4th year. My second peer-reviewed pub didn't come out until I was on internship. I landed a great internship and postdoc that are both research focused. I will say that building up manuscripts in the pipeline will be important so that once you start publishing you can keep it up and keep things moving along.

If research is what you're passionate about I suspect that you'll find your way.
 
I didn't get my first publication until third year and now I have four. I totally agree with people who say that the first acceptance is the hardest to get, then for some reason it seems easier after that.
 
Can you expand on this? What kinds of jobs would this entail?

I only know this from an AMC perspective, so it may be quite different (or not?) than an academic position within a Psychology/Counseling/Education Dept.

A clinical track position at an AMC would most likely involve an appointment to the faculty of one or more departments (e.g. Neurology, Psychiatry, PM&R, etc). You would spend most of your time seeing patients, though you may also have time (protected or unprotected, depending on funding and your dept) to conduct research. Along with seeing patients and doing research, you usually have to spend some time do administrative work (be on a committee or two) and/or part of a training program (e.g. internship, fellowship). The clinical work pays your salary and is what keeps you around, though you can build up value in other areas to buy out time towards those things. The position can be tenure track (faculty), non-tenure track permanent (faculty), staff (not faculty), or something else (not faculty). Rank would be adjunct/instructor, assistant prof, associate prof, professor, or professor emeritus.
 
I'm about to begin a PhD program and my goal is to end up at an R1 institution. With things becoming more competitive and selective by the day, how many/what kind of publications (in terms of tier/ranking) should I aim for if I'm entering the job market in about 6-7 years? Clearly, the more, the better and higher ranked journals are obviously desirable, but what does somebody applying to these positions these days need to make it and how is that predictive of the job market in 6-7 years?
 
Last edited:
What kind of information did you have to submit regarding teaching? Teaching statement, syllabi, evals, etc?

Depended on the place, though at the very least a "teaching statement." Some wanted evals, none I recall asked for a syllabus, and I think I might have submitted more of my teaching portfolio for at least one of the places.

I also made sure to embed some evals (both quantitative and qualitative) into my statement, and I also included a half page "mini-letter" from students. One was an undergrad who'd had me in a course and then worked with me in the lab, and the other was a younger grad student who TA'd for me.
 
There will be a lot of variability across programs. I applied for positions with # of publications being my weak point (1 first-author peer review article, 3 co-author peer review articles, and a few book chapters and non-peer review articles). I of course got a lot of no's but also got interviews at R1 schools. Never underestimate the power of program fit and evidence that you can secure funding for your projects. Especially if you're weak in terms of quantity of pubs, having a track record of securing grants can really help you out.

My partner is in a different subfield of psychology and got multiple R1 interviews despite also only having one first-author peer review article. The paper has been largely cited and gathered media attention, however. Combined with being responsible for securing two large-scale grants for different professors, some institutions overlooked the quantity of pubs in favor of general impact and long-term prospects.
 
My partner is in a different subfield of psychology and got multiple R1 interviews despite also only having one first-author peer review article. The paper has been largely cited and gathered media attention, however. Combined with being responsible for securing two large-scale grants for different professors, some institutions overlooked the quantity of pubs in favor of general impact and long-term prospects.

Being able to secure outside funding is a very important aspect of working in academia. Any $'s you bring in are $'s your dept. does not have to spend. Programs dish ouy 5-6 figures worth of start-up money to new faculty, so they are already invested in you before Day 1. Having a track record of securing funding when looking for your first job after school will give you a leg up because you can make a good case for being "Fundable".
 
I'm about to begin a PhD program and my goal is to end up at an R1 institution. With things becoming more competitive and selective by the day, how many/what kind of publications (in terms of tier/ranking) should I aim for if I'm entering the job market in about 6-7 years? Clearly, the more, the better and higher ranked journals are obviously desirable, but what does somebody applying to these positions these days need to make it and how is that predictive of the job market in 6-7 years?

I am interested in the answer to this as well (I am also just applying to PhD programs next cycle, so what kind of programs to aim towards would be helpful as well....clearly I have a lot of hoops to jumps through)
 
Last edited:
How is a "good" journal placement defined? I have 15 peer-reviewed publications at the moment. Most are in what I would consider, based on my conversations with mentors and people in the field, IF, etc., solid, generally well-regarded journals (lots of APA journals and other journals that are generally well-respected in their subject areas), including a couple in "lower high-tier" psych journals (if that makes sense), but a couple (3-4) are in somewhat lower tier journals, mostly because they are either niche topics, pilot studies, or practitioner-oriented pieces. No pay-for-publish stuff or anything sketchy like that.

Also, how do people build up funding records in grad school? That has me worried, tbh. I have some grant writing experience from undergrad (including a large grant I was named in), a small internal research grant to my name, and am a named board member on a large grant currently under review, but outside of getting an F31, I don't see how people are going to get notable external grants to their name in grad school.😕
 
Good journal placement is going to depend on your particular subfield. Within clinical psychology, JCCP and Journal of Abnormal Psychology were traditionally the "career-maker" journals where a first-author pub there really set you up well. I get the impression that has carried on somewhat but the field has diversified and there are many areas even within clinical psychology where those are not necessarily appropriate target journals.

Impact factor, while imperfect, plays some role. I think moreso at AMC type positions where hiring/promotion is often up to individuals who have NO idea what the best journals are in a given field. Within psychology, I think "APA" journals get a boost, even though these tend to have rather mediocre impact factors. Generally speaking, I think to be competitive at an R1 you want at least some publications that are not in specialty journals since at that level they are really looking for people who can have a broader impact on the field.

With regards to funding, there are tons of opportunities for grad students. No one expects people to pull in million dollar faculty-level grants, but I know people who transitioned from an NSF fellowship in their early years, to an industry/society fellowship their middle years to an F31 for their dissertation (or the other dissertation mechanism - I forget what it is offhand - that some institutes offer). Post-doc offers more opportunities to pull in grants and many people are transitioning to faculty positions with money in hand.
 
Depending on the timeline for this, the folks you spoke to were quite likely incorrect. This was true in the past. NSF initially issued a statement saying clinical students were not eligible, but this was successfully negotiated with the end decision that we are eligible for NSF fellowships.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...nical-psychological-science-nsf-says-yes.html

I believe there was some grey area where there were some exceptions and/or "gaming the system" where students managed to get them prior to this announcement, but I could be wrong there. Certainly they aren't going to fund a clinical trial, but if work is basic (or can be re-framed as basic in a way reviewers are likely to buy) its a possibility.
 
This was in Fall 2010, FWIW.

Plus, this change doesn't help anyone who is beyond their first or second year or already has a masters degree. It's great that they changed it, but it doesn't help people that entered grad school before August 2011.
 
Last edited:
True, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good change to make and we can't exactly expect them to retroactively grant us all opportunities to apply.

Besides, it was just one example - there are tons and tons of these opportunities out there besides just NIH/NSF. They aren't all going to cover a stipend/tuition for 2-3 years, but at this stage I think anything over $1,000 (i.e. not just a conference travel award) or from a fairly well-known organization/competition is going to help. A couple of those, a university fellowship and an F31 or similar caliber grant (DoD, organizations like ACS, ALA, AHA, etc.) and you have an impressive funding record for a graduate student! (Note: I know few who have achieved this and I'm not one of them so I'm not saying this is easy to do). I think I've got a decent record (one small project grant from a large organization, one mid-size training grant from a small society, and one large non-NIH fellowship) but some certainly have done far better. Opportunities for funding are definitely out there and I'm continuing to apply for awards since my existing ones don't fully cover the study expenses.

While obviously its ideal to get them, I also keep hearing from faculty that at grad school it looks impressive to apply even if you DON'T get them. Even many faculty are afraid/unwilling to put in the work to apply for large grants. They basically believe that being willing to throw your hat in the ring as a grad student speaks well to motivation and likely success in the future (given pretty much anyone applying for grants knows they don't all get funded).
 
Last edited:
I didn't apply for the F31 because NIH told me flat out that I wouldn't get it (I didn't have enough publications, and now that I do it's too late to apply). So I guess I could have applied because it looks good, but that was a pretty big deterrent for me.

I am planning on submitting an NIH R03 grant this summer, though.
 
They basically believe that being willing to throw your hat in the ring as a grad student speaks well to motivation and likely success in the future (given pretty much anyone applying for grants knows they don't all get funded).

To rephrase that, depending on the funding source, sometimes less than 5-10% get funded 😛

I second Ollie's comments, but will note that the people who have several sources of significant funding during graduate school are really the cream of the crop. I think if you can show some funding savvy (e.g., get a dissertation grant, etc) then that helps. Not everyone can get an F grant, but if you show that you were able to get some money from somewhere, it will help. I'd imagine the top R01 places will want something more significant, so if that is your aim, you should start looking at potential funding during graduate school right away.

I am a perfect example of someone who didn't get my own funding during graduate school (never applied) that ended up in an academic career. But I did do tons of successful (funded) grantwriting for my mentor and they discussed that in my LORs. But I also didn't try for any R1 institutions - I may have gotten shot down had I applied.
 
Thanks, Pragma, you made me feel a lot better. 🙂
 
For the record, I don't think its at all necessary to pull in funding as a grad student to have a successful academic career. I know plenty of folks on this path who did not pull in any funding. I'm saying it helps and its reasonable to pull in "some" funding if you know you are on an academic path from the start and are in a good environment. 20 publications in Science would help too - it doesn't mean you won't even find a community college willing to hire you as an adjunct if you only have 10!

R1s seem to expect you to have some funding record before being hired these days, but it doesn't have to come as a grad student. Didn't get an F31? Write an F32 on internship so you can stay there for post-doc (depending on where I match, this is my plan). Already on post-doc? Write a K to stay as faculty. Realistically, even with an F31 a position at an R1 is a difficult (though not impossible) leap to make without a post-doc these days.

Funding is wicked competitive but its (perhaps unfortunately) less about the science and more about just keeping your spirits up and continuing to plow ahead to make sure you get what you need. I've had my turmoils with the process. My initial F31 just missed the payline after near-perfect scores from two reviewers and terrible ones from a third, EVERYONE told me it was a "Sure thing" on resubmission and that one did worse. I pouted for a few days and then submitted 6 more applications over about 3-4 months. I've since gotten 3 I can accept concurrently (including one that is better for me financially than the F31 would have been), was rejected from 2, am waiting on one more and planning additional applications. In the midst of all this, NIDA funding council DID later decide to pick up my initial F31 submission despite the outcome of the resubmission and I got so far as a "Congratulations" from the program officer. It was then placed on hold and subsequently killed due to the sequester, but will go back for a final try in the May round. I don't really care if its picked up or not at this point as I doubt it will change much, but either way I imagine I'll be submitting applications pretty regularly between now and retirement.

I guess my point is that my above descriptions of funding were not in any way meant to be discouraging or intimidating. The funding is out there and grant writing is a highly valued skill. Persistence is the key.
 
Last edited:
Indeed: from my feedback (and my partner's) on the job market this past year, demonstrating the ability to secure funding did not necessarily mean you had to have international grants to your name. Institutions know that some large scale grants are simply unavailable to graduate students. This is where reference letters can really be a strength: if you were a big contributor to a grant under your advisor's name, make sure they point out how much work you did on the project. Get a dissertation grant under your name and contribute to other professor's grants: at the very least in writing/editing the grant, but it's even better if you have input in the actual project development.

Example: my partner's advisor got a NSF grant. The study was my partner's idea, the design was largely her doing (with the advisor having final say), and she wrote the grant proposal (with edits and ultimate approval from the advisor). As a doctoral student she was not eligible for the grant, but the advisor emphasized in her academic reference letters how my partner basically was the one who secured the grant.
 
Get a dissertation grant under your name and contribute to other professor's grants: at the very least in writing/editing the grant, but it's even better if you have input in the actual project development.

I guess I think of those two things as parallel processes, unless by "project development" you mean implementing the grant after funding is secured.

Example: my partner's advisor got a NSF grant. The study was my partner's idea, the design was largely her doing (with the advisor having final say), and she wrote the grant proposal (with edits and ultimate approval from the advisor). As a doctoral student she was not eligible for the grant, but the advisor emphasized in her academic reference letters how my partner basically was the one who secured the grant.

I had a similar experience. All of that work you do under grants is excellent experience, from writing to implementation to dissemination. Even the mundane (but necessary) parts of grants are important to engage with.
 
I guess I think of those two things as parallel processes, unless by "project development" you mean implementing the grant after funding is secured.

Depending on the lab, supervisors may have their long-term investigations in mind and ask graduate students to assist in the lit review and editing of a proposal the supervisors want to run for the next 3-4 years. Others may have graduate students actually involved in the study design before preparing to write the grant proposal. Others may seek a grant on the basis of a grad students' research idea.
 
Depending on the lab, supervisors may have their long-term investigations in mind and ask graduate students to assist in the lit review and editing of a proposal the supervisors want to run for the next 3-4 years. Others may have graduate students actually involved in the study design before preparing to write the grant proposal. Others may seek a grant on the basis of a grad students' research idea.

Yeah I know it varies from lab to lab. At least where I was trained, we had a team come up with the design together, but we were always writing and that is where a lot of the ideas came up. It was a long process. I suppose we had some RAs proofread or do reference checks, but when I see "edit" used with "grant" I consider that to be a more complicated activity.
 
Yeah I know it varies from lab to lab. At least where I was trained, we had a team come up with the design together, but we were always writing and that is where a lot of the ideas came up. It was a long process. I suppose we had some RAs proofread or do reference checks, but when I see "edit" used with "grant" I consider that to be a more complicated activity.

Ah, I hear you. Some of the labs in my program are more hands-on than others, while in others you are restricted to studies that fall within the long-term investigations of the supervisor in place. In those labs, you can do various analyses with the supervisor's database and are involved throughout the implementation of the study, but that's the extent of your project design; you were restricted within what was already being collected. Fortunately my lab fell in line more with your experiences.

I had a professor who was not my advisor ask me to edit a grant where I had no input on the topic or methodology. Instead, I was primarily supposed to review what he had for lit review and methods and assist in tailoring the grant to the interests of the funding agency: considering additional implications, restructuring and conceptualizing of the current literature, etc. He hired me as an external grant consultant for a few weeks of work.
 
Have not posted on this website in a long-time, actually since I was applying for schools. I'm now finishing up my third year at a clinical psych PhD program. While I like doing clinical work, I am almost certain that I couldn't see clients full-time. I know that I need to conduct research to achieve a balance. Unfortunately, I have yet to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. How many publications should I have upon completing graduate school in order to get a professorship at a (not so prestigious) university? How many of those should I be first author?

14 months ago, I posted concerns about my lack of research experience. At that time, I was a third year grad student without a single publication to my name. I was afraid that my slow start would prevent me from obtaining a professorship or research career. Although I appreciated most everyone's feedback, my fears were certainly exacerbated by comments that I would need to pursue a "clinical track" if I wanted to be in academia.

I will be entering my 5th year in the fall, and I am proud to report that I have published 6 articles in peer-reviewed journals (3 of which I'm first-author). I would like to first reassure other students out there that it is never too late to switch career paths. If you are dedicated to the work, whether its research, clinical work, teaching, you will find a way achieve your goals.

I expect to have between 10-15 publications (journal impact factors mostly in the 1-3 range) by the time I apply for internship (Fall of my 6th year). Where would I rank relative to internship applicants generally and academically-oriented applicants specifically? Based on this information alone, would I have a shot at receiving interviews/offers from the top-tier clinical science internship programs (Brown, University of Washington, etc.)?
 
. The first postdoc was a slightly more research oriented position at an APPCN site (the old neuropsych match system that seems to be dead).
\


Hearkening to Mark Twain, reports of APPCN's death have been greatly exaggerated. The APPCN match system is alive and well my friend, even expanding.
 
14 months ago, I posted concerns about my lack of research experience. At that time, I was a third year grad student without a single publication to my name. I was afraid that my slow start would prevent me from obtaining a professorship or research career. Although I appreciated most everyone's feedback, my fears were certainly exacerbated by comments that I would need to pursue a "clinical track" if I wanted to be in academia.

I will be entering my 5th year in the fall, and I am proud to report that I have published 6 articles in peer-reviewed journals (3 of which I'm first-author). I would like to first reassure other students out there that it is never too late to switch career paths. If you are dedicated to the work, whether its research, clinical work, teaching, you will find a way achieve your goals.

I expect to have between 10-15 publications (journal impact factors mostly in the 1-3 range) by the time I apply for internship (Fall of my 6th year). Where would I rank relative to internship applicants generally and academically-oriented applicants specifically? Based on this information alone, would I have a shot at receiving interviews/offers from the top-tier clinical science internship programs (Brown, University of Washington, etc.)?

Congrats on the publications. According to APPIC stats, having 5-9 publications would put you in the top 10% of applicants, and having 10-15 would likely put you in the top 5%. I got interviews at places that were at the very least research-friendly, and matched at a research-friendly VA, with 5 or 6 publications. I didn't get an interview at U of Washington or Brown, however.

It's really hard to predict internship interviews, honestly. For instance, all of the faculty in my department thought I'd be a shoe-in at one site, and I got rejected. Also, just because you interview there doesn't mean that you'll match there. Not to scare you, I just want to prepare you that the process truly seems random and arbitrary in many respects.
 
14 months ago, I posted concerns about my lack of research experience. At that time, I was a third year grad student without a single publication to my name. I was afraid that my slow start would prevent me from obtaining a professorship or research career. Although I appreciated most everyone's feedback, my fears were certainly exacerbated by comments that I would need to pursue a "clinical track" if I wanted to be in academia.

Fear can be motivating. 😀

We actually just voted on changes to our Promotion & Tenure (P&T) policies, so seeing this thread again seems serendipitous. It's important to build a solid foundation because the hill just keeps going up, whether you are in a clinical or research (tenure/non-tenure) track. Here are the recommended benchmarks for P&T at my current institution (R1, AMC):

Promotion to Associate Professor (Tenure Track)
Publications
25-50 journal publications w. avg IF of 3-6 or H-index of 22 or above.
25+ peer-reviewed publications since appointment to Assistant Prof.

Grants/Funding
PI or multiple PD/PI on 1 funded R01 (or equiv) w. renewal or R01 + 2nd R01 or national grant or patents that generate licensing income

Teaching
-Teaching awards
-Positive lecture evals (from national audience)
-K award

Service
-Universities committees
-Ad hoc review or reg. reviewer on editorial boards
-National presence in field

Promotion to Associate Professor (non-Tenure/Clinical Track)
Publications
10-25 journal publications w. avg IF of 3-6 or H-index of 22 or above.
15-20 peer-reviewed publications since appointment to Assistant Prof.

Grants
-PI on an R21, R03, or Co-I on an R01 + PI on a major national grant/pharma grant/published patent
-Clinicians with >50% clinical duties only require Co-I on at least 1 R01 or similar

Teaching
-Teaching awards
-Positive lecture evals (from national audience)
-K award

Service
-Universities committees
-Ad hoc review or reg. reviewer on editorial boards
-National presence in field
 
"Not to scare you, I just want to prepare you that the process truly seems random and arbitrary in many respects."

I agree. And, that's true of any job in this field including clinical ones. There's no magic bullet, dot the Is, cross the Ts approach that will work every where, every time. I am sure if I applied for internship again the next year, I might have had different results. On job interviews, academic ones where you give a talk or two (as I've had to do), do followup interviews (2 and sometimes three followups, multiple phone followups), all it takes is one person not to like something and if they express it in a way that is compelling to others, you are done. Or, if it is the wrong person, it doesn't even have to be compelling, you are just done. Your fate might even be sealed before you even applied and set foot at the site for interview. Let's say there's one neuropsych spot at a site you want to go to and a faculty member that is very well connected to the site in some way or famous or whatever, has a student that wants that spot, calls are made, then your interview is effectively a formality. There's nothing you can do short of walking in there with publications in Nature, independent funding and a mentor that trumps the other one in notoriety and, even then, it might not work. I've interviewed at one place for postdoc where the following was said to me, "You are a superstar. I'd offer you the position right now, but I'd like you to think about it for a week and talk to me" and at another two sites I was verbally offered the positions complete with at one "You are great. I can only pay you xxx (NIH postdoc levels). It should be illegal, but welcome aboard" only to have none of three sites extend a viable offer. Faculties can be large. And, priorities of one group may be different than another. Someone may think you are a nice research fit and someone that could develop an independent line of research and another faction may want a clinical workhorse and not want to deal with a postdoc who is trying to submit grants. In jobs, someone might want a child person whereas another wants an adult focused person. Someone may see you as competition or that your allegiances align too much with another group and would affect the political dynamic in a fashion adverse to them. Also, jobs may be advertised that aren't truly open (created with a specific candidate in mind). Thus, I'd be aiming for position types/responsibilities over specific locations. Flexibility is important in my opinion.

Agreed with pretty much all of this. In some ways, the internship process is actually good preparation for job applications. Sometimes, as JS indicated, there's either almost nothing you can do (e.g., if the position was opened with a specific candidate already in mind), or your application might get torpedoed for reasons completely unbeknownst to you. If nothing else, the whole internship deal really helps you to take these things less personally (although it's still tough). And hey, what's to stop you from becoming the person for whom a position is being created?
 
I also think it's important to note that you can attend a non-research-oriented internship and still land an academic job. I had 7 peer reviewed pubs and a couple of chapters and *no* grant funding (a few awards, but no NSF GRF or NRSA) when I applied for internship (only 1 first author) and got interviews at many of the research focused internships (U of Washington, Brown, MUSC, etc.). However, I *ranked* research-friendly VAs higher than those research focused internships because I really wanted to have a strong clinical year, knowing that it would be my only real chance to see what full time clinical work was like. That choice did not appear to negatively influence me on the job market, and I landed an R1 psychology department job straight out of internship with a few more publications than I had when applying to internship, but not many more.
 
Fear can be motivating. 😀

We actually just voted on changes to our Promotion & Tenure (P&T) policies, so seeing this thread again seems serendipitous. It's important to build a solid foundation because the hill just keeps going up, whether you are in a clinical or research (tenure/non-tenure) track. Here are the recommended benchmarks for P&T at my current institution (R1, AMC):

Promotion to Associate Professor (Tenure Track)
Publications
25-50 journal publications w. avg IF of 3-6 or H-index of 22 or above.
25+ peer-reviewed publications since appointment to Assistant Prof.

Grants/Funding
PI or multiple PD/PI on 1 funded R01 (or equiv) w. renewal or R01 + 2nd R01 or national grant or patents that generate licensing income

Teaching
-Teaching awards
-Positive lecture evals (from national audience)
-K award

Service
-Universities committees
-Ad hoc review or reg. reviewer on editorial boards
-National presence in field

Holy crap is that scary! If our tenure requirements (Psychology department) were that stringent, I'd NEVER get tenure! 25 peer-reviewed pubs since appointment?!?!??!
 
I'm kind of leaning towards a VA gig for this reason. I love research but I'm not sure I want to spend my life under so much pressure to publish and get grants.
 
I'm at 16 (2 years in), but the h index would do me in right now. I think psychology departments have teaching requirements that are difficult. To be honest, in T4changes list of rules, I'd be much more concerned about ever getting promotion as a clinician. The research reqs are quite high for that given that you spend so much time clinically.

Indeed. I've asked about this multiple times (to people on the P&T committee & my dept) and I've been told that these aren't hard cutoff numbers, but guidelines. Honestly, if I could get 2-3 publications a year in decent journals and be a Co-I on a couple of grant funded projects I think I'd be happy. I already have 2 accepted articles and hope to get 1-2 more before the end of the year. I'm aiming for 8-10 publications since my appointment, as much more than that just doesn't seem feasible for a clinical appointment. I have plenty of access to data, as I'm a Co-I on two large grant funded projects, I just don't have the time. I have a couple of book chapters on the back burner bc of a lack of time, though I'm hoping to get some additional funding so I can finish them and spend some more time with the mounds of data that are just staring back at me.
 
Last edited:
Holy crap is that scary! If our tenure requirements (Psychology department) were that stringent, I'd NEVER get tenure! 25 peer-reviewed pubs since appointment?!?!??!

Welcome to the pugilistic world of academic medicine. My former institution had higher numbers, though they also had more people dropping out of tenure track because the expectations were untenable for anyone who wasn't a rockstar researcher.
 
I'm kind of leaning towards a VA gig for this reason. I love research but I'm not sure I want to spend my life under so much pressure to publish and get grants.

For what it's worth, I don't feel THAT much pressure. I am expected to apply for a grant but am not expected to actually obtain one. At many smaller R1s or R2s, the tenure expectations for publishing are also pretty reasonable. I mean, I also love teaching and supervision along with research, so a psych department is a good fit for me as I get to do all of these things and they all count toward tenure.
 
14 months ago, I posted concerns about my lack of research experience. At that time, I was a third year grad student without a single publication to my name. I was afraid that my slow start would prevent me from obtaining a professorship or research career. Although I appreciated most everyone's feedback, my fears were certainly exacerbated by comments that I would need to pursue a "clinical track" if I wanted to be in academia.

I will be entering my 5th year in the fall, and I am proud to report that I have published 6 articles in peer-reviewed journals (3 of which I'm first-author). I would like to first reassure other students out there that it is never too late to switch career paths. If you are dedicated to the work, whether its research, clinical work, teaching, you will find a way achieve your goals.

I expect to have between 10-15 publications (journal impact factors mostly in the 1-3 range) by the time I apply for internship (Fall of my 6th year). Where would I rank relative to internship applicants generally and academically-oriented applicants specifically? Based on this information alone, would I have a shot at receiving interviews/offers from the top-tier clinical science internship programs (Brown, University of Washington, etc.)?

Congrats on the publications! With that being said, I'd strongly caution against assuming that you "will" have any number of publications by any given point--the publication process is nothing if not drawn out and capricious (e.g, I've had publications rejected by journals, only to be accepted at better journals, or rejected have 2-3 rounds of positive R&Rs) . I have publication goals, but I don't assume that I will meet them. In fact, I tend to assume that my publications will remain stagnant, even if I have a lot of things submitted/R&R'd. For example, I currently have around 20 articles, and my goal is to get about 5 more by the time I apply for faculty positions Fall 2015. It's a reasonable goal based on what I have in the pipeline, my previous record, etc., but I'm also acutely aware of the fact that I could very well be applying with 20-ish publications and not to assume that I will have X number of publications by any given time.

Fear can be motivating. 😀

We actually just voted on changes to our Promotion & Tenure (P&T) policies, so seeing this thread again seems serendipitous. It's important to build a solid foundation because the hill just keeps going up, whether you are in a clinical or research (tenure/non-tenure) track. Here are the recommended benchmarks for P&T at my current institution (R1, AMC):

Promotion to Associate Professor (Tenure Track)
Publications
25-50 journal publications w. avg IF of 3-6 or H-index of 22 or above.
25+ peer-reviewed publications since appointment to Assistant Prof.

Grants/Funding
PI or multiple PD/PI on 1 funded R01 (or equiv) w. renewal or R01 + 2nd R01 or national grant or patents that generate licensing income

Teaching
-Teaching awards
-Positive lecture evals (from national audience)
-K award

Service
-Universities committees
-Ad hoc review or reg. reviewer on editorial boards
-National presence in field

Promotion to Associate Professor (non-Tenure/Clinical Track)
Publications
10-25 journal publications w. avg IF of 3-6 or H-index of 22 or above.
15-20 peer-reviewed publications since appointment to Assistant Prof.

Grants
-PI on an R21, R03, or Co-I on an R01 + PI on a major national grant/pharma grant/published patent
-Clinicians with >50% clinical duties only require Co-I on at least 1 R01 or similar

Teaching
-Teaching awards
-Positive lecture evals (from national audience)
-K award

Service
-Universities committees
-Ad hoc review or reg. reviewer on editorial boards
-National presence in field

T4C, are these requirements for initial promotion to tenure, or for promotion post-tenure? Just wondering, because the "since appointment to assistant professor" language is throwing me.
 
Last edited:
Top