| Title |
Publication metrics and success on the academic job market
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Biology, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David van Dijk, Ohad Manor, Lucas B. Carey |
| Abstract |
The number of applicants vastly outnumbers the available academic faculty positions. What makes a successful academic job market candidate is the subject of much current discussion [1-4]. Yet, so far there has been no quantitative analysis of who becomes a principal investigator (PI). We here use a machine-learning approach to predict who becomes a PI, based on data from over 25,000 scientists in PubMed. We show that success in academia is predictable. It depends on the number of publications, the impact factor (IF) of the journals in which those papers are published, and the number of papers that receive more citations than average for the journal in which they were published (citations/IF). However, both the scientist's gender and the rank of their university are also of importance, suggesting that non-publication features play a statistically significant role in the academic hiring process. Our model (www.pipredictor.com) allows anyone to calculate their likelihood of becoming a PI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 959 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 189 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 123 | 13% |
| Germany | 39 | 4% |
| Canada | 37 | 4% |
| Australia | 36 | 4% |
| France | 31 | 3% |
| Japan | 30 | 3% |
| Spain | 26 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 23 | 2% |
| Other | 115 | 12% |
| Unknown | 310 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 478 | 50% |
| Scientists | 428 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 30 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 22 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 599 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 22 | 4% |
| Germany | 8 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 4 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Japan | 3 | <1% |
| Sweden | 3 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 19 | 3% |
| Unknown | 526 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 179 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 130 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 37 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 6% |
| Other | 128 | 21% |
| Unknown | 54 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 192 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 63 | 11% |
| Psychology | 44 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 34 | 6% |
| Other | 145 | 24% |
| Unknown | 83 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 843. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2022.
All research outputs
#21,997
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#210
of 14,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114
of 241,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#2
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 62.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.