↓ Skip to main content

Publication metrics and success on the academic job market

Overview of attention for article published in Current Biology, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
322 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Publication metrics and success on the academic job market
Published in
Current Biology, February 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039
Pubmed ID
Authors

van Dijk D, Manor O, Carey LB, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 365 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 24 7%
Germany 10 3%
United Kingdom 7 2%
France 4 1%
Netherlands 4 1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Other 20 6%
Unknown 241 75%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 110 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 92 29%
Student > Bachelor 23 7%
Other 17 5%
Student > Master 16 5%
Other 64 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 154 48%
Psychology 30 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 9%
Neuroscience 17 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 5%
Other 75 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 493. 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 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,321
of 7,803,880 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#83
of 6,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136
of 175,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#1
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,803,880 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 6,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. 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 175,006 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 129 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 99% of its contemporaries.