Why aren't more psych grad students publishing before internship?

[futureapppsy2]

APPIC survey data (oh, how I wish they would release that data set for use!) shows that about 57%-ish percent of respondents in a given year have no peer-reviewed journal publications on their CVs when submitting their internship apps. In previous years, when APPIC asked about publications in general--without breaking out peer-reviewed journal articles specifically, and thus including book chapters and non-peer-reviewed publications like invited commentaries, book reviews, and, I guess, technical reports(?)--about 46% reported having no publications when submitting their internship apps. Similarly surprising is that 20% apply without a single presentation (including posters, presumably) to their name, although I think that can probably be better accounted for by a minority of programs/students who just were never interested in conducting research, period.

Given that research is considered so important in grad school. especially in the admissions process, why the breakdown to where almost half have never published period and more than half have never published a journal article near the end of their grad school tenure? You can't just say it's PsyD programs or professional school grads who aren't publishing--I've known plenty of PhD students who did not have publications before internship (or ever) and some PsyD grads who have published, although APPIC doesn't break down publication info by PhD/PsyD.

So, why don't more grad students publish, at least pre-internship? Granted, the publication process is long, tedious, and a bit (or more) capricious, but I'm still sort of surprised that over half of psych grad students are applying without a single journal article, given that so much of the admissions process centers around selecting people with passion and skills for research...

What do you think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[roubs]

I think a good proportion of Ph.D. students have no interest in research or an academic career and just say what they need to say in order to get into school. Once in, what is left to motivate them to produce? Many see what junior faculty are going through and think "no thanks". Plus the chances of even breaking into the junior faculty level aren't that great and most other job settings pay better.

So yeah, I know I just said a bunch of things we already knew, but I think they are all contributing factors 😛

 

[Shatani]

i'll be honest...i had neither the time, the sanity, nor the inclination to do anything not directly related to graduating.

 

[erg923]

APPIC survey data (oh, how I wish they would release that data set for use!) shows that about 57%-ish percent of respondents in a given year have no peer-reviewed journal publications on their CVs when submitting their internship apps. In previous years, when APPIC asked about publications in general--without breaking out peer-reviewed journal articles specifically, and thus including book chapters and non-peer-reviewed publications like invited commentaries, book reviews, and, I guess, technical reports(?)--about 46% reported having no publications when submitting their internship apps. Similarly surprising is that 20% apply without a single presentation (including posters, presumably) to their name, although I think that can probably be better accounted for by a minority of programs/students who just were never interested in conducting research, period.

Given that research is considered so important in grad school. especially in the admissions process, why the breakdown to where almost half have never published period and more than half have never published a journal article near the end of their grad school tenure? You can't just say it's PsyD programs or professional school grads who aren't publishing--I've known plenty of PhD students who did not have publications before internship (or ever) and some PsyD grads who have published, although APPIC doesn't break down publication info by PhD/PsyD.

So, why don't more grad students publish, at least pre-internship? Granted, the publication process is long, tedious, and a bit (or more) capricious, but I'm still sort of surprised that over half of psych grad students are applying without a single journal article, given that so much of the admissions process centers around selecting people with passion and skills for research...

What do you think?

I think productivity of the lab, the time intensity of building your own study (if your lab is indeed not being productive or not sharing/collaborating well), the lag time between submission and publication, and the time involved in rewrites/edits has alot to do with it. Everyone in my lab was indeed interested in research and was indeed motivated adequately for it during grad school. However, very few of us have wanted to stick with it or make a career out of it. In my mind, it's a necessary skills set (not necessarily the stats, but the mindset) to obtain if one wants to be a true scientifically oriented practitioner.

Unfortunately, I found writing manuscripts to be a wholly unrewarding experience, and I was continually jaded by what I saw as poorly done or just "unnecessary" research. It found high level academic research to be a "machine" where truth gets easily lost ( under piles and piles and piles of more studies) and conclusions/findings are never ever equivocal. There are about a dozen ways to run stats on the same question/hypothesis and no one ever seemed to agree about the best way. In other words, I found alot of subjective stuff (cough...peer review...cough) in a field that touts is objectivity. It just wasnt for me.

 

[cara susanna]

Publishing is friggin' difficult, in my opinion. I'm trying, but no success yet! The process is so arbitrary and, IMO, sometimes ridiculous.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Off the top of my head:
1. I think some people get scared away from the process and time needed to get something from idea to publication, or they lose momentum as they go through, and/or they become jaded.

2. A growing % of "I don't want to do research, I just want to be a clinician", which is the more moderate cousin of, "Eww, research!" Obviously there is a lot of area between academia and the PP clinician who has ZERO interest in anything related to research.

3. Some mentors/labs/programs are better than others at pushing their students to publish. I know labs that regularly have 3-4 people on each other's papers, but for the right reasons (they each contributed to the development, even if it was mostly on the backend). While other places don't have many active research projects, and/or the research isn't easily published in mainstream journals (psychodynamic case studies for example).

4. Time. There seems to be less and less of it as students try and cram more and more "other things" into their training. I am not wild about the more recent push to specialize, specialize, specialize!! This seems to slant towards more clinical work, which is fine I guess, but it should be more balanced.

I am somewhat surprised that there hasn't been an increase in the %'s because of the competitiveness of internship sites. I'd recommend everyone get at least 2-3 publications, 4-5 poster presentations, etc. It really isn't that much if you have decent collaboration.

 

[serendipity2]

,

 

[PsychPhDone]

What percentage of applicants come from non-university PsyD programs?

 

[wigflip]

Am curious: who do you think would be more competitive for a given internship slot: an unpublished PhD student from a funded program, or a PsyD student with journal articles and other pubs outside of clin psych (general social science)?

Also, do you leave stuff like encyclopedia entries and book reviews on your CV, or do they just end up looking like padding?

 

[PsyDLICSW]

APPIC survey data (oh, how I wish they would release that data set for use!) shows that about 57%-ish percent of respondents in a given year have no peer-reviewed journal publications on their CVs when submitting their internship apps. In previous years, when APPIC asked about publications in general--without breaking out peer-reviewed journal articles specifically, and thus including book chapters and non-peer-reviewed publications like invited commentaries, book reviews, and, I guess, technical reports(?)--about 46% reported having no publications when submitting their internship apps. Similarly surprising is that 20% apply without a single presentation (including posters, presumably) to their name, although I think that can probably be better accounted for by a minority of programs/students who just were never interested in conducting research, period.

Given that research is considered so important in grad school. especially in the admissions process, why the breakdown to where almost half have never published period and more than half have never published a journal article near the end of their grad school tenure? You can't just say it's PsyD programs or professional school grads who aren't publishing--I've known plenty of PhD students who did not have publications before internship (or ever) and some PsyD grads who have published, although APPIC doesn't break down publication info by PhD/PsyD.

So, why don't more grad students publish, at least pre-internship? Granted, the publication process is long, tedious, and a bit (or more) capricious, but I'm still sort of surprised that over half of psych grad students are applying without a single journal article, given that so much of the admissions process centers around selecting people with passion and skills for research...

What do you think?

Even those in PsyD programs (University based) try to publish. I have tried and failed. I'm hoping to publish this year, but it may not be accepted. I am in a lab that is busy and preparing studies (we currently have one through the heas start program). We are presenting posters and symposiums at conferences, but we have not been successful for publishing yet.

 

[wigflip]

Also, do you leave stuff like encyclopedia entries and book reviews on your CV, or do they just end up looking like padding?

My question above was specific to internship (essentially whether having non-peer reviewed pubs made the applicant look like a writer, not a scholar-clinician).

That said, I know that psych folks do encyclopedia entries (I think it's more common in other academic disciplines). If you like writing, they're easy and fun. See link to CFP below for Encyclopedia of Divorce. I searched through the headword list and it looks like a number of masters and doctoral level psych folks have signed on to various entries (not surprising since editor is a psychologist).

http://www.isa-sociology.org/publication_opportunity.php?t=369

 

[FadedC]

Even when I spent time in the field of animal behavior, which is an area with very limited opportunities outside of research, I met people who had absolutely no interest in going through the hassle of publishing their findings. Sometimes it was kind of unfortunate because people would have really interesting findings but no desire to share them with the world.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Am curious: who do you think would be more competitive for a given internship slot: an unpublished PhD student from a funded program, or a PsyD student with journal articles and other pubs outside of clin psych (general social science)?

Based on what I've seen in neuropsych...the Psy.D. would probably get chosen 8/10 times because some display of productivity and involvement in research is better than none. The funding aspect is probably more to do with university-based compared to not, some sites will care...most probably won't if everything else on paper is good.

 

[wigflip]

Based on what I've seen in neuropsych...the Psy.D. would probably get chosen 8/10 times because some display of productivity and involvement in research is better than none. The funding aspect is probably more to do with university-based compared to not, some sites will care...most probably won't if everything else on paper is good.

Thanks T4C--good to know. I asked because if I do manage to switch over (from social science doc program), I doubt (especially in light of what folks say above regarding the difficulty of getting published in psych) that I'll have much opportunity to publish once I'm in my target PsyD program. From what I've gleaned, grad students there aren't publishing, at least not prior to internship. If I do make it to that stage, I'll probably have my hands full with caregiving responsibilities anyway and have to rely on the pubs I already have. Thanks again.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I should add, the biggest pushback I've seen for the Psy.D. in general is in the Midwest, particularly in/around counseling psychology university programs. I think in those cases, it isn't worthwhile to apply to those places, most of whom will make it known they only consider Ph.D. candidates.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My opinions/thoughts are similar to those listed above--the low publication rates are probably due to some mixture of increased clinical responsibilities and interests, significant lag times throughout the process, being at the mercy of lab procedures/politics and research opportunities, and jadedness resulting from rejections. Much of our publishable required work (i.e., thesis and dissertation) ends up getting pushed aside during the shuffle to prepare for general exams, internships, and post-docs (in addition to general disdain about the subject matter once the project is actually completed), so that doesn't help matters much.

I was able to churn out something in my second year, and then went on a two-year research "sabbatical" of sorts during which I only authored or contributed to posters. Things probably would've stayed that way if I didn't have a supervisor at my last externship placement before internship who'd wanted to start delving into a clinical database of his while I was stil around. I could definitely see how without prodding, much of this work wouldn't have happened, as it's generally easier to sign up for additional clinical work than it is to setup a research project.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, it's even more difficult when you have few opportunities. You have to stake things out yourself, which usually means heading the project yourself, and that takes so much time and energy.

 

[Ollie123]

I've always been amazed by those numbers too. I'm of the belief that everyone should be on at least one. Believe me, I can understand other things taking up time and am increasingly resentful of the amount of clinical work I feel like I need to do in order to get an internship, but I think publishing is an important experience to have. Personally, I don't view a clinical psychologist who hasn't seen a study through from inception to publication (or at least submission of one) any differently than I'd view one who had never seen a client through from intake to termination. Hopefully some of those numbers are just due to pub lag and it changes down the line, but I'm not certain how significant that difference is. To me, publishing is a pretty core experience that they are missing out on and I think we need to give people a full breadth of exposure. Some labs are more productive than others but if a student is doing a master's thesis there is no excuse for not at least trying to write that up. Even if data collection is not feasible a small meta-analysis is an option. How anyone can not have a poster is beyond my understanding. Dust off your mentor's dissertation and you could likely get something out of that...or use a public dataset.

I've certainly not been as productive as I'd like (though things seem to be picking up now!), but I'll still likely come out with somewhere in the 5-10 range - albeit it is taking me a bajillion years to graduate. As Jon indicates, some of this will depend on the lab. We tend to do things on a pretty epic scale and our faculty are very anti-piecemeal publications to the point that even million-dollar grants are often only one publication. I've actually had a long-standing dream of traveling to the most productive labs to just observe their process of doing research and how it is handled. I think some labs push it too far and just churn out junk that is likely fraught with errors on things like data entry, coding, etc. but there is also a lot of middle ground and I'm hoping to find a post-doc in a lab that is perhaps in the same field, but has a very different approach/style than my current one. Quantity vs. Quality is a very careful line to walk - I tend to be a bit too rigid/perfectionist with research and is certainly hurting my career in some ways, but I need to find that balance. Most recently my mentors have been trying to talk me into a less methodologically rigorous dissertation for the sake of feasibility, which I imagine is the opposite of many people's experiences🙂

wigflip: I have 2 encyclopedia entries right now, and will likely hold off on doing any more for awhile. I don't think a few will be held against me, and one is more like a chapter - 20 pages, very theoretical. it has a big-name editor, lots of big-name contributions, etc. That said its certainly not worth much and unfortunately there are lots of encyclopedias popping up left and right that are a little sketchy, invite people to write chapters they have minimal experiences with, etc. I think the perception is that they are "okay" to do on occasion as long as you are also publishing in more legitimate outlets.

 

[erg923]

You should ALWAYS be collecting data. 3 active projects at all times, people. Hypothesis driven research.

Yea...SOOOOO not my personality. Perhaps one of the reasons I struggled with this some in grad school. I am NEVER in a hurry to do ANYTHING. I wasn't lazy or anything, I just liked to take my time and didn't like juggling multiple projects (grad school already had me juggling multiple roles and responsibilities, so I didn't want anymore of that) and feeling like my mind was in 5 places at once.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yea...SOOOOO not my personality. Perhaps one of the reasons I struggled with this some in grad school. I am NEVER in a hurry to do ANYTHING. I wasn't lazy or anything, I just liked to take my time and didn't like juggling multiple projects (grad school already had me juggling multiple roles and responsibilities, so I didn't want anymore of that) and feeling like my mind was in 5 places at once.

It isn't that hard to do in a clinical setting, you just need a bit of support. I am going through this right now, as I have 1 data set I can use, but other ones have been stalling because of other duties (almost all clinical). Eh, I just want 1 publication and a poster, and I'd consider it a decent year. Future intern applicants should focus on getting something done, and it doesn't have to be SCIENCE.

For those on practica, you should inquire about collection some clinical data as part of your normal duties. IRBs for de-identified clinical data should be a breeze, as they typically just want to make sure the data is truly de-identified. I got snookered on my internship due to an institutional overall on the IRB process, but a simple pre/post project using clinical data you are collecting anyway...that is doable.

 

[PsychPhDone]

To me, this is about lab dynamics. In my lab, I have undergrads that have been on 3-5 publications before finishing undergrad; I have at least two that have 1st authored pubs; I have medical students that have gotten pubs from running a summer project. But, there are also students that take forever to publish or write anything. It's like pulling teeth. Just write something! Our lab probably puts out 20-30 pubs a year (several researchers contribute to this). I think it's a mindset issue. Little projects, flexibility, using resources well. . . Write protocols (an abstract and methods), farm them out to undergrads, meet, head up recruiting, farm out data coding, get your dataset completed, run some analyses, give away a few posters, and write!! You should ALWAYS be collecting data. 3 active projects at all times, people. Hypothesis driven research.

👍 👍

 

[PsychResearch]

In my lab, it takes 2 years on average to get an article done. Not only this, but we had to wait to start working on papers and posters until we were done with the thesis. Then, the qualifying exam followed..after that dissertation proposal...By the time, I was allowed to start working on a paper, I was already tired and overworked with seeing lots of clients.

Now, my professor finally realized (but won't admit it( that this approach to doing things and having people wait (plus high expectations when it comes to stats) is not too good, so things have started to change. I am at the end of my program, students who just started their first year, started working on papers (even if a review) from the first couple of weeks.

 

[Psych2011]

Reading these posts, I really want to know what schools some of you are attending (but I know people want to maintain anonymous here, as do I). I hope to be able to publish a lot in graduate school, and it makes me anxious to see that it appears as if a good amount of schools are not making that feasible or are not very helpful when it comes to publishing. I really hope I'm not applying to schools like that.

I attended a very research heavy school as an undergraduate and all (or at least most) of the graduate students I was in contact with published quite a lot…

 

[PsychPhDone]

Reading these posts, I really want to know what schools some of you are attending (but I know people want to maintain anonymous here, as do I). I hope to be able to publish a lot in graduate school, and it makes me anxious to see that it appears as if a good amount of schools are not making that feasible or are not very helpful when it comes to publishing. I really hope I'm not applying to schools like that.

I attended a very research heavy school as an undergraduate and all (or at least most) of the graduate students I was in contact with published quite a lot…

Contact graduate students in the labs where you are applying (or google them) and you can get some insight into this.

 

[Psych2011]

Contact graduate students in the labs where you are applying (or google them) and you can get some insight into this.

That's a great idea. Thanks! 🙂

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Reading these posts, I really want to know what schools some of you are attending (but I know people want to maintain anonymous here, as do I). I hope to be able to publish a lot in graduate school, and it makes me anxious to see that it appears as if a good amount of schools are not making that feasible or are not very helpful when it comes to publishing. I really hope I'm not applying to schools like that.

I attended a very research heavy school as an undergraduate and all (or at least most) of the graduate students I was in contact with published quite a lot…

It's very feasible, but a lot of it will fall on your (the student's) shoulders unless the specific lab you work in is setup for frequent publication. However, don't take what's being said here to mean that a professor would actually dissuade you from trying to publish; it just means you may need to do the extra legwork largely on your own. But if that's what you're interested in doing, the possibilities are definitely there, especially if you lighten your clinical load (while still meeting your program's requirements, of course).

 

[wigflip]

don't take what's being said here to mean that a professor would actually dissuade you from trying to publish

This can happen though. I talked to an ex-student of my POI at Grad U and s/he suggested that POI was an obstructionist--used the fact that s/he hadn't published as a grad student as rationale for slowing down his/her own RAs' publication aspirations. Talking to this ex-student dissuaded me from pursuing that particular school, since that prof was really the only person there for me to work with.

It might be worth tracking your POIs at various institutions to see a) how early in their grad careers they published and b) then note if a similar pattern appears for their current students.

 

[wigflip]

wigflip: I have 2 encyclopedia entries right now, and will likely hold off on doing any more for awhile. I don't think a few will be held against me, and one is more like a chapter - 20 pages, very theoretical. it has a big-name editor, lots of big-name contributions, etc. That said its certainly not worth much and unfortunately there are lots of encyclopedias popping up left and right that are a little sketchy, invite people to write chapters they have minimal experiences with, etc. I think the perception is that they are "okay" to do on occasion as long as you are also publishing in more legitimate outlets.

thanks, ollie. that was my hunch as well.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Publishing is friggin' difficult, in my opinion. I'm trying, but no success yet! The process is so arbitrary and, IMO, sometimes ridiculous.

Sorry to hear this 🙁 but keep trying soon you will have a domino effect towards the end of school, the pubs will roll-tide! (lol)

I have been extremely fortunate, its the reason I chose NYC and not necessarily the program, I just started year two and have one first author in press, one submitted, one second author about to be submitted and other data sets to analyze etc all in high impact factor journals. I have been extremely lucky because I am surrounded by medical centers with too much data and not enough time. I also only really want to do research and see courses, as Nash so eloquently put it, "dull your mind, destroy the potential for authentic creativity"

I for one am really glad that so few people do it! And I actually see faculty positions open up all the time! At some point those older facult MUST retire right?

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Sorry to hear this 🙁 but keep trying soon you will have a domino effect towards the end of school, the pubs will roll-tide! (lol)

I have been extremely fortunate, its the reason I chose NYC and not necessarily the program, I just started year two and have one first author in press, one submitted, one second author about to be submitted and other data sets to analyze etc all in high impact factor journals. I have been extremely lucky because I am surrounded by medical centers with too much data and not enough time. I also only really want to do research and see courses, as Nash so eloquently put it, "dull your mind, destroy the potential for authentic creativity"

I for one am really glad that so few people do it! And I actually see faculty positions open up all the time! At some point those older facult MUST retire right?

Sorry I lost my point through this dribble what I also wanted to add was the availability of high impact data, one of my studies comes from a 9 year longitudinal NP data set in MCI patients who do and do not convert to Dementia. This is a high, high impact data set. You really do have to branch out, if I stayed ONLY within my Uni then I would not publish anything, but fortunately I have met faculty and branched out and am now affiliated with Columbia PI and Mt Sinai.

Also I would add, this is the age of the computer and online storage. Let's say you are interested in Alzheimer's, well there are OPEN ACCESS data sets for that (three of them in fact). There are open data sets for a lot of major disorders and diseases just wanting to be analyzed and written up, so in my humble opinion, there is no excuse to not publish, its a choice of how you want to spend your time.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I've started trying to make connections at other places in addition to working with different professors in my department on various projects. I have no problem getting research done, it just seems to be that darn publication process. Haha.

And thanks for your sympathy!

That's a good point, btw. I guess I'm freaked out because I imagine all of these R1 top lab graduates who will be looking at the same time as me, like there are hordes of them just waiting or something. Maybe my vision isn't congruent with reality, which is what these stats suggest.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

Yeah, I've started trying to make connections at other places in addition to working with different professors in my department on various projects. I have no problem getting research done, it just seems to be that darn publication process. Haha.

And thanks for your sympathy!

That's a good point, btw. I guess I'm freaked out because I imagine all of these R1 top lab graduates who will be looking at the same time as me, like there are hordes of them just waiting or something. Maybe my vision isn't congruent with reality, which is what these stats suggest.

Best advice I got from a director of a research-focused internship (which I will not mention here): If you publish first author in a high impact journal or are first author on a pub with a group from a top notch medical center, it wont matter what university you come from.

Yeah the publication process is an interesting one, you hear the stats of how hard it is to publish, and that first one is the WORST. Im on one paper in nature med that took almost 4 years to publish. Granted highly controversial/seminal but still, 4 years, are you kidding me?

 

[thepug]

Best advice I got from a director of a research-focused internship (which I will not mention here): If you publish first author in a high impact journal or are first author on a pub with a group from a top notch medical center, it wont matter what university you come from.

Yeah the publication process is an interesting one, you hear the stats of how hard it is to publish, and that first one is the WORST. Im on one paper in nature med that took almost 4 years to publish. Granted highly controversial/seminal but still, 4 years, are you kidding me?

.

 

[thepug]

Sorry I lost my point through this dribble what I also wanted to add was the availability of high impact data, one of my studies comes from a 9 year longitudinal NP data set in MCI patients who do and do not convert to Dementia. This is a high, high impact data set. You really do have to branch out, if I stayed ONLY within my Uni then I would not publish anything, but fortunately I have met faculty and branched out and am now affiliated with Columbia PI and Mt Sinai.

Also I would add, this is the age of the computer and online storage. Let's say you are interested in Alzheimer's, well there are OPEN ACCESS data sets for that (three of them in fact). There are open data sets for a lot of major disorders and diseases just wanting to be analyzed and written up, so in my humble opinion, there is no excuse to not publish, its a choice of how you want to spend your time.

👍 I agree Justin it's good to hear from a winner. Publishing is easy, but not as easy as being a slug. Yes, your pubs can get rejected, but that's why you work on three different teams at once.

I think it is also important to say that publishing in a no-name journal or "fake" journal (such as a grad. student journal), can actually do more harm than good, it can make you look like a flake if you are applying to academic jobs where the professors can be extra snobby about journals.

I don't know about publishing in Archives, but it always seemed to me like admitting it belongs in a file drawer.

 

[wigflip]

Congrats on your pubs.

And I actually see faculty positions open up all the time!

This is encouraging, but...

At some point those older facult MUST retire right?

They may have to retire eventually, but that doesn't mean that their jobs will be retained by their departments. In the new economy, universities are massively shifting towards part time faculty (adjunct, VAP), as well as eliminating positions. The conventional wisdom about the boomers' retirements from academia hasn't panned out.

 

[wigflip]

That's a good point, btw. I guess I'm freaked out because I imagine all of these R1 top lab graduates who will be looking at the same time as me, like there are hordes of them just waiting or something. Maybe my vision isn't congruent with reality, which is what these stats suggest.

Hi Cara,

Good luck with publishing. Don't buy into the subtext of some of the posts on this thread (i.e. publishing grad students are winners, those who don't publish are lazy losers). I have publications, but I don't have any illusions that I'm harder working or better than anyone else. There are numerous reasons why someone might not publish in grad school, or might not publish much. I know you want to go the academic route, but don't drink the academic Koolaid. It might taste great at first, but in the end, it's a killer.

Regarding the academic job market:
What you describe above (hordes battling it out for a few jobs) is true of my field, which is why I'm considering leaving. My department recently sent out stats on grads and it's not looking too good. 50% unemployment, only 1/6 got T-T jobs and they were in the boonies. That doesn't mean that this is true of clin psych--you'll likely benefit from the many folks who channel themselves towards clinical positions. But this is actually knowable now. I don't recall what year of your program you are in, but you might consider tracking the academic job market in your field NOW, then there won't be any surprises. Check the Chronicle of Higher Ed, other job banks (presumably APA has one), then track who gets the jobs that are offered, and what their institutional pedigree and publication record is. This is also a great way to see how many jobs get filled (some listings are for job searches which eventually get cancelled, or worse yet, listings for jobs which are actually pre-designated for a particular candidate). Needless to say, if you are a "psych-first, everything else a distant second" kind of person you'll have an easier time of it than if, like postacademic JC (social science, not humanities), you have other considerations (have a partner to consider, don't want to live in ****stick USA).
http://leavingacademia.blogspot.com/2011/10/this-years-market-is-not-for-me.html

 

[cara susanna]

How do you track who gets the jobs, exactly? Just pay attention to openings then look for the hired person's vita? That's a great idea, but it's also pretty time-consuming.

 

[wigflip]

How do you track who gets the jobs, exactly? Just pay attention to openings then look for the hired person's vita? That's a great idea, but it's also pretty time-consuming.

Yup. See who the new hire(s) are, or if the search was closed or the dept left the spot unfilled.

Time consuming, but nowhere near as costly and time consuming as going on the academic job market (or having a T-T job). If you start systematically tracking the market in your particular area/sub-discipline, then you'll get an idea of how many jobs there are that realistically could be a good fit. You can also go to departmental websites that list "grad students on the market" and see what the competition is like for any given year. Look at your dream universities and see where the new faculty went to school, number and impact factor of pubs at time of hiring, number of competitive grants at time of hiring.

Good luck!

 

[futureapppsy2]

I honestly think luck is a big part of publishing, tbh... not as much as quality, but it is a factor... getting in with the right projects and people at the right time is huge. I've said it before, the best thing you can do in regards to authorship is making yourself known as a strong writer, IMO. People really like to work on publications with strong writers, as massive re-writing is an incredible pain, and they will seek out and reward good writers.

I also think that it's not a winner/loser thing, and it's not black and white. For example, I have what would be considered a pretty strong publication record (7 peer reviewed pubs as a straight from undergrad second year, four of them in ~2+ impact factor journals) yet only one is first author. So, compared to someone with 5 first author pubs in 3+ IF journals, I may be seen as a relative "loser"--it's not as simple as winner/loser, and in the end, I could be worse off than someone who ran all their own studies (possible but not incredibly common at my R1), even if they had a longer publication delay, as they'll have a ton of first author publications from it.

And cara's right--the process can be absolutely brutal and forces you to develop a very thick skin.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

I honestly think luck is a big part of publishing, tbh... not as much as quality, but it is a factor... getting in with the right projects and people at the right time is huge. I've said it before, the best thing you can do in regards to authorship is making yourself known as a strong writer, IMO. People really like to work on publications with strong writers, as massive re-writing is an incredible pain, and they will seek out and reward good writers.

I also think that it's not a winner/loser thing, and it's not black and white. For example, I have what would be considered a pretty strong publication record (7 peer reviewed pubs as a straight from undergrad second year, four of them in ~2+ impact factor journals) yet only one is first author. So, compared to someone with 5 first author pubs in 3+ IF journals, I may be seen as a relative "loser"--it's not as simple as winner/loser, and in the end, I could be worse off than someone who ran all their own studies (possible but not incredibly common at my R1), even if they had a longer publication delay, as they'll have a ton of first author publications from it.

And cara's right--the process can be absolutely brutal and forces you to develop a very thick skin.

I dont think anyone here is disillusioned about factors involved nor do I think anyone is thinking its black and white. I of all people would agree that I am in the right place at the right time... but then again I PUT myself in the right places, did the right things, made the right connections etc.

Interesting point about the good writers thing. I dont think thats the correct term per say, but maybe I am just being semantic. I say this because I'm not a particularly great writer relative to someone that writes philosophy for instance, but I understand the dogmas of empiricism and scientific research and writing, and I make it work Tim Gunn style.

Anyhoo we may have all come to an impasse about this, I think really all we can do is our own thing, and try to make ourselves such good prospective faculty or postdocs on every level that they have to take us.

 

[deadmau5]

Best advice I got from a director of a research-focused internship (which I will not mention here): If you publish first author in a high impact journal or are first author on a pub with a group from a top notch medical center, it wont matter what university you come from.

Yeah the publication process is an interesting one, you hear the stats of how hard it is to publish, and that first one is the WORST. Im on one paper in nature med that took almost 4 years to publish. Granted highly controversial/seminal but still, 4 years, are you kidding me?

one of mine took 2 years... rejected twice and it took the backburner status for a while because my previous supervisor was, at the time, pumping out other publications. it's finally accepted, but the journal doesn't have e-pub... so can't even throw it around until it's actually printed.

i agree that you need to have projects ongoing at all times. i keep coming across ideas these days, so the hardest part is actually turning those into an actual experiment with my current time-restraints. in my current lab we have 4 projects going on - a large study, my thesis, and two undergrad theses. someone also just completed their outside project in the lab. someone else in the lab is working on a meta-analysis. i am also working on a review. and I just came up with another idea for a review paper but it will be a while for that one to come about.

 

[PsychResearch]

How realistic is it to work on papers with the advisor only? That is me and the advisor. I submitte a paper recently and the second author sort of did not make it all the way through even though she helped me with the stats way back at the beginning (1 year + ago) and I sent her the drafts a few times to look over. I now have the skills I need (including good stats background) to complete papers and I feel it would take me less time to actually do it myself than to spread it to new people who are just starting out. My advisor prefers 2 students max per paper. I tried involving a new student last year into my project, but it felt as if she was super competitive and was not happy with how things were going.

I have one paper I'm writing now, which is sort of easy that I can get done myself.
My dissertation -- I'm writing the lit review and doing the stats at the same time.
My thesis -- which I will write for publication in Spring (the advisor's grant publication need to get out first, so there is a hold on my thesis as it can go out only afterward).
New project -- I was involve in it from day 1, starting with the design of the task etc. and now we finally have data for it. I'm thinking to involve this new student in it. I'll be transferring the task to her next semester. I'm thinking that as I help her take over my duties (I'll be graduating by the summer), she can also get involved in the paper. But I'm hesitant b/c I did not have a good experience the first time around and I feel as if there was a lot of gossiping spread by the first person and now I don't know if it's a good idea to start over with someone new. Any thoughts?

 

[cara susanna]

I do it, but that's also part of the reason I don't have any publications yet (just the slow rate of getting them done). Heh.

 

[edieb]

A lot of it also has to do with whom your major professor is. Mine was a very, very famouus psychologist who basically forced us to publish to perpetuate his name. We were required to drive three hours north of our graduate program and work in a inpatient psychiatric hospital where our data set was and work 25 hours/week. We would then have to go back to school on Monday and do our clinical work (testing, etc) and classwork. It was HORRIBLE Because of the commute, we would say for 2 days and work 12 hours daily. At night, we would all have to stay in this little shack in the middle of the woods only to wake up at 5 am the next day and go back to this little lab in the hospital where we would run stats, write articles, etc. We really didn't collect much data, my prof let the master's level clinicians who were employed by the hospital do this.

Because his name was on all the publications, books and book chapters we submitted, we were automatically published -- usually with no or few revisions. Part of this high acceptance rate was the fact that my professor's previous students were on faculty where the manuscripts were sent (Brown, Johns Hopkins, UCLA) and were editors of journals. I was lucky and came out of graduate school with 40+ research publications in top journals and a few book chapters, but all of this came @ the expense of clinical work, which is unfortunate.

 

[erg923]

It was HORRIBLE Because of the commute, we would say for 2 days and work 12 hours daily. At night, we would all have to stay in this little shack in the middle of the woods only to wake up at 5 am the next day and go back to this little lab in the hospital where we would run stats, write articles, etc.

Um, what?!

 

[Ollie123]

Good lord....I've met many a successful young researcher, some at the very schools you mentioned, and many who had extraordinarily productive, "slave-driver" mentors, but none with anything even approaching on that. It seems...unnecessary, and in no way worth it.

It also really begs the question of why??? Its not that hard to de-identify data to a point where it can be removed from the site. This is incredibly common for international sites. If you are just doing the analysis/writing, why not just take turns going with a flash drive?

Though I must admit that this semester...the idea of being able to stop working after 12 hours sounds glorious😉

 

[cara susanna]

That does sound terrible, but I'm jealous of the publication rate. Haha.

 

[erg923]

That does sound terrible, but I'm jealous of the publication rate. Haha.

Cara, edieb is a fantastic psychologist I'm sure, but I would not be jealous of that pub rate. That number suggests a "paper mill" and I'm sure academics know this. What it looks like on paper and what it actually indicates/means in probably very different.

My reaction was obvioulsy about the weirdness of that schedule (is one not allowed to be married or have children in that lab?), but the legal liabilities of all that stuff. Commutes, overnight stays, unsafe environments (a "shack in the woods"). Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen to me. Who paid for all this (travel) anyway? Did the university know about all this? Did you have to sign any waivers or anything?

PS: And 5am? Why? lol

 

[edieb]

Cara, edieb is a fantastic psychologist I'm sure, but I would not be jealous of that pub rate. That number suggests a "paper mill" and I'm sure academics know this. What it looks like on paper and what it actually indicates/means in probably very different.

My reaction was obvioulsy about the weirdness of that schedule (is one not allowed to be married or have children in that lab?), but the legal liabilities of all that stuff. Commutes, overnight stays, unsafe environments (a "shack in the woods"). Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen to me. Who paid for all this (travel) anyway? Did the university know about all this? Did you have to sign any waivers or anything?

PS: And 5am? Why? lol

No offense but it wasn't a publication mill. My publications are in JO Psychological Assessment, General Hospital Psychiatry, etc.

As most of my colleagues did their internships and now work at Brown School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, Yale Child Studies Center, etc., most schools don't view us as one either.

The shack in the woods was built on the grounds of a state hospital so it is safe. There is another student on here from my alumni so they can vouch for all this.

5 AM sucked but you had to wake up early to get your 12 hours in..you don't want to driving in rural areas when it gets dark : )

 

[futureapppsy2]

No offense but it wasn't a publication mill. My publications are in JO Psychological Assessment, General Hospital Psychiatry, etc.

As most of my colleagues did their internships and now work at Brown School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, Yale Child Studies Center, etc., most schools don't view us as one either.

The shack in the woods was built on the grounds of a state hospital so it is safe. There is another student on here from my alumni so they can vouch for all this.

5 AM sucked but you had to wake up early to get your 12 hours in..you don't want to driving in rural areas when it gets dark : )

Wow! With 40 big name publications like that, you must have a truly amazing CV... Would you mind posting a link to your cv or the general aera of research? You can pm me, if you'd prefer. 🙂 It'd just be great to see what that accomplished a cv looks like, even if the work it took to get it was killer.