↓ 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
342 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 366 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 342 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 26 8%
Germany 10 3%
United Kingdom 8 2%
Netherlands 4 1%
Japan 4 1%
France 3 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Other 20 6%
Unknown 258 75%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 118 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 95 28%
Student > Bachelor 22 6%
Other 18 5%
Student > Master 18 5%
Other 71 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 149 44%
Psychology 31 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 7%
Neuroscience 17 5%
Other 95 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 519. 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 13 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,072
of 8,546,883 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#92
of 7,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137
of 178,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#1
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,546,883 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 7,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.0. 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 178,678 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 133 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.