Did you know the best way to be successful in scientific research is to publish papers?

In particular, publishing papers in high-ranking journals.

Being male from a high-ranking University is also helpful.

Sometimes, the quality of the journal/University can be more important than the quality of the actual work/paper.

These observations suggest that in reality, success in the science industry requires a certain amount of marketing, networking and political strategising, not just scientific skills and knowledge.

Do you want more information?

Background

The scientific research industry is shaped like a triangle/pyramid: lots of undergraduate/post-graduate students, fewer post-doctoral positions, even fewer principal investigator (PI)/faculty positions (person who runs their own lab), and even fewer professor positions.

What are the most important factors for promotion and success in this pyramid?

Is it possible to predict who will become a PI or professor?

Materials and Methods

This study surveyed 25,604 scientists and their publications listed in PubMed, an important search engine for all papers and journals associated with life sciences (National Institutes of Health, USA).

Results

People who become PI’s are more likely to (in order of importance):

1) Publish in journals with high impact factors (e.g. Nature, Science).

2) Have a high number of publications, particularly first author.

(Authorship order is important: person who did the experiments goes

first and the PI goes last. Other contributors are added in between).

3) Are male.

4) Are highly cited by their peers. (Other scientists cite their work in their papers).

5) Worked at a high-ranking University.

Website ‘www.pipredictor.com’ predicts the probability of becoming a PI.

Discussion

The most important factor in science is publishing papers.

In particular, publishing many papers in journals with high impact factors.

Males from high-ranking Universities are more likely to become PIs.

Sometimes, the quality of the journal/University can be more important than the quality of the actual work/paper.

This suggests that “journal impact factor and academic pedigree are rewarded over the quality of publications, which may dis-incentivize rapid communication of findings”. (i.e. might delay scientific progress).

Scientists who don’t publish in high impact journals can still become PIs, but they need to publish more papers and wait longer to become a PI.

Success in science may require a certain amount of marketing, networking and political strategising, like many other careers/industries.

Article

Publication metrics and success on the academic job market

Van Dijk et al., 2014 Current Biology 24:R516-7

Keywords

Science, scientist, research, researcher, career, job, principal, investigator, university, faculty, gender, publish, publication, paper, journal

Did you know that equal numbers of men and women graduate with PhD’s in biology, but fewer women go on to become professors?

This is especially pronounced at elite institutes and Universities. Why?

This study analysed the gender bias in 39 elite biology departments in the USA, including 11,109 staff.

In general, male professors employ 11% fewer female PhD students and 22% fewer female post-doctoral researchers than males.

In contrast, female professors display no gender bias.

The bias from males is probably not deliberate and multi-factorial, but requires urgent correction.

Otherwise, scientific progress is missing out on vast amount of talent by reducing opportunities for women.

Do you want more information?

Background

The number of women awarded PhDs in biology is the same as men (52% in 2009). This has improved since 1969 (only 15%).

However, they are still outnumbered by men in faculty positions (i.e. 36% of assistant professors and 18% of full professors are women).

This percentage is even worse at prestigious institutes and Universities.

Why aren’t as many women as men progressing in biology research?

Materials and Methods

This study analysed staff data from 39 biology departments at 24 elite institutions/Universities in the USA. This included 2,062 faculty staff (e.g. assistant/full professors), 4,143 PhD students and 4,904 post-doctoral researchers. Elite professors were classified as those with major awards (including 24 Nobel Prize winners), prestigious fellowships and members of the National Academy of Science.

Results

21% of full professors and 29% of assistant professors were women.

Even fewer women were classified as elite (e.g. award winners).

However, the number of women in junior ranks was higher: 49% of PhD students and 39% of post-doctoral researchers.

Male professors hire 11% fewer female PhD students and 22% fewer female post-docs than female colleagues, who display no gender bias.

Elite professors are more commonly male (80%) and employ fewer females (24-38%) than males in their labs. Staff from these elite labs are more likely to progress to their own faculty positions, further increasing the proportion of males in biology research.

Discussion

Despite equal numbers of PhD graduates, the number of women in biology research gradually decreases in post-doctoral positions, assistant/full professor and elite positions at institutes/Universities.

The bias against women is more pronounced in elite/prestigious labs.

There is no evidence of difference in quality between females and males.

The authors do not suggest the bias is conscious or deliberate. Rather, possible explanations include:

• Women may apply less frequently to elite/prestigious labs.
• Women may underrate their own career paths or skill sets.
• Women may be reluctant to apply for positions in elite labs.
• Sexual harassment.
• Marital/parenting duties.
• Deferring career priorities to their partners.

Perhaps a more formalised/standardised application process might improve equal opportunities in labs that routinely fail to hire women.

Article

Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women

Sheltzer and Smith, 2014 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111:10107-12

Further Reading

A separate study showed that when applying for lab manager positions with identical resumes with only the name and gender changed, the male applicant was more likely to be offered the job at a higher salary.

(Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109:16474).

Another study showed that professors were more likely to respond to emails from prospective male PhD students than females.

(Milkman et al., 2012 Psychol. Sci. 23:710-7).

Keywords

Science, research, institute, university, employment, career, gender, male, female, women, men, anthropology, biology, professor, Nobel

Did you know that science awards can be glamorous too?

The inaugural Breakthrough Science Prizes were held on Nov.9, 2014.

It was a glitzy ceremony, held in a retired NASA airship hangar in California and attended by billionaires and celebrities, including Mark Zuckerberg, Cameron Diaz, Kate Beckinsale and Benedict Cumberbatch.

A total of $36 million was awarded, including $3 million for each winner (or group); more than any other science prize in the World.

Winners of the physics prize were a team that included Australian Brian Schmidt, for their discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up (not slowing down as previously thought).

Do you want more information?

Background

The inaugural Breakthrough Science Prizes were held on Sunday Nov.9, 2014 in the retired NASA airship station Hangar One, in California.

A total of $36 million was awarded, including $3 million for each winner (or group).

These are largest cash prizes for science in the world (even higher than the Nobel prizes) and are funded by leading technology entrepreneurs Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sergey Brin (Google) and others.

The three categories were mathematics, life sciences and physics.

Materials and Methods

The ceremony was glamourised by the attendance of a number of billionaires and celebrities, including Cameron Diaz, Seth MacFarlane, Kate Beckinsale, Benedict Cumberbatch, Elon Musk (SpaceX), Jack Ma and Yuri Milner (Chinese and Russian billionaires, respectively).

Results

Winners of the physics prize were Saul Permutter, Adam Reiss and Australian Brian Schmidt, who all previously shared the Nobel Prize for Physics (2011) for their discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up (not slowing down as previously thought).

Saul Permutter said he is glad the prize is “shared among the entire research group that was able to work on this project, and that’s very unusual for a prize.”

There were 51 people in their team.

He also said, “Science nowadays isn’t the lone scientist in the white coat going off into a lab by himself, it’s really a very social activity.”

Article

Breakthrough Science Prize: Big names add glitz to ceremony

BBC News Science and Technology Website Nov.10, 2014

Keywords

Science, prize, ceremony, celebrity, award, Facebook, Google, Nobel, Schmidt, universe, expanding, physics, life, mathematics, billionaires

Subject

Science, physics, mathematics, biology, ST2-9ES, ACSSU048, ST3-8ES, ACSSU078, SC4-12ES, ACSSU115, SC4-15LW, ACSHE119, ACSHE134, SC5-12ES, ACSSU188