Let's Talk Numbers

[pubs]

So, I hate to be the one starting this thread because I'm sure it can be somewhat anxiety inducing and contentious, but I'm wondering if any veterans or members of search committees could give some insight on an impressive CV?

I realize quality is very, very important, but what about numbers? What number (with a mix of higher and lower tier journals) would make you sit up in your seat and take notice? Assume a R1 or research-heavy R2 position--also, what are the different expectations for an ABD candidate and a PhD-in-hand candidate 1-2 years out?

I'm just trying to get a feel for expectations and hoping that this thread will be motivating to work hard and submit (vs. making anyone despondent).

[4 does not impress]

I will be the first to admit that I am not a superstar candidate. My application list demonstrates this.

With that in mind, I can say with some confidence that 4 co-authored pubs in decent peer-review journals from an R1 program ranked between 30 and 50 is not very impressive. I have been rejected from or not called (based on the rumor mill) for every job that I have heard back from thus far.

[styles]

You asked, so here it is….

As a member of a search committee this year, I can say there is a wide-range in the number of pubs among candidates. I’ve seen ABDs with 0-1 pub, ABDs with 3-9 pubs, postdocs with 1-3 pubs, postdocs with 5-16 pubs…..yes, 1 year out postdoc with 16 pubs, most first-authored in top journals…unbelievable!

In my personal opinion, it’s not a good idea to try to meet (or compete with) a certain number because there are numerous factors that come into play when search committees and the larger faculty make decisions about who to bring in. Fit is almost always a critical factor, though this can be a moving target once faculty get together and decide on what is a good fit. Needs (or perceived needs) can even change during the review/hiring process.

Given the highly competitive nature of the market I would guess (at least this is true for my dept.) that “promising” candidates are not as highly valued [as in the past] because there are so many ABDs and postdocs that are already “proven” (or proving themselves). Clearly the risk is much lower with someone who has several first-authored and/or sole-authored pubs, generally speaking. Again keeping in mind the current market context, you want first-authored and/or sole-authored pubs. Naturally it is better that they are all in top-tier journals but that is unrealistic for most. So, you want several pubs in mid-low tier journals or 1-2 in top journals. As you might have guessed, the first-authored and/or sole-authored pubs get weighed more….actually the candidates we are seeing are so good that we haven’t even counted articles where the person was not the first author on.

[anon]

area also matters...

[drbearjew]

OP - you won't get a consistent answer for this question, primarily because search committees are as varied as the people who constitute them. Check out the hires from last year - yes, some of them had a number of pubs. However, quite a few of them had none, or one.

Pubs matter. But whether you have 4 or 14, there are so many other variables which factor into a hiring decision that you are better to not get caught up in something you have little way of correcting at this point in the game, and instead work on the things you can do right now to make yourself a stronger candidate (teaching statements, research statements, crafting a solid proposal for your next project, etc).

[pedigree]

Based on what I've seen over the last couple of years, after a one or two pubs, pedigree--meaning elite programs--generally matters more than raw counts. It is incredibly stupid but it seems like a lot of departments can't resist. Particularly for status-obsessed places.

[why]

The problem with the thread is not because it is "anxiety inducing." It is because people are trying to quantify things that aren't quantifiable. You can look at actual research on stuff like this and see that number of publications is a poor predictor of where someone will get a job (or whether someone will get a job at all).

But even if you don't want to get into the whole research into this sort of thing, anyone who's been around a search committee or even on the market more than once knows that getting a job has very little to do with the number of publications you have.

If number and placement of publications mattered as much as people think it does, search committees wouldn't have the long meetings they have, the process wouldn't take so long, etc.

I can tell you of at least a couple of cases where people with 0 pubs interviewed at top institutions in the past 2 years. I can tell you of people with 1st authored pubs in the top 3 journals going without a job or an interview even at r2s.

Of course, this isn't meant as a discouragement to publishing. Publications is the only thing at this point that you can control (at this point, you can't control field, prestige of your advisor or institution, etc). But if you are trying to get an answer as to what is the magic number to be competitive at any particular institution, there isn't any.

[ewwww]

Oct 23, 2011 19:36:19 GMT -5 @pedigree said:

Based on what I've seen over the last couple of years, after a one or two pubs, pedigree--meaning elite programs--generally matters more than raw counts. It is incredibly stupid but it seems like a lot of departments can't resist. Particularly for status-obsessed places.

Depending on pedigree (program and advisor), people can get by even with less.

Of course, fit still trumps all in my experience.

[charmed life]

As an assistant professor who has dipped toes in the market the last few years to see what action is there, I can say that pedigree was most important in the ~20 positions to which I applied. I have sole-authored pubs in Tier 1 journals and substantial federal grant money and got nothing, while graduate students from Ivies got all the attention - and the jobs.

God bless sociologists.

That said, I'm always curious as to what people are currently defining as "top tier" versus "mid-tier" journals.

[Straight talk express]

There are only two top tier journals: asr and Ajs. End of story. Second tier social forces, theory and society, maybe there is a case for the best subfield journals as second tier.

[drbearjew]

That's a load of bullshit. Sorry. Yes, those are the most widely circulated, and cited. But, context matters. A search committee hiring for a position on race, for instance, is as impressed if not more so with a scholar who has a solo piece in Ethnic and Racial Studies than in AJS or ASR.

[Straight talk]

I am not really that familiar with that journal, so I am not sure if you are serious or not.

[notBS]

^^, as a member of committee for a race search this year, I can assure you that ASR/AJR is weighted WAY more heavily than a pub in Ethnic and Racial Studies.

While "context" does matter, candidates with first-authored publications in ASR/AJS receive extra consideration because we don't only want our hire to advance scholarship in their specific field but to bring that research to the broader soc community.

For what it's worth, my general breakdown of the journal tiers is along these lines:

1st tier:
ASJ, ASR

1.5 tier:
Soc Forces, Soc Problems, JHSB, Demography

2nd tier:
SSR and specialty journals with high circulation (e.g., Soc of Ed, JMF, Gender and Society, etc..)

3rd tier:
regional journals and specialty journals with little readership (e.g., Ethnic and Racial Studies)

[drbearjew]

As someone who has sat in on meetings with search committees and reviewed files at an R1, I can tell you that an ERS pub for a race position is weighted similarly to AJS/ASR, and sometimes more so depending on the contribution to the field.

I can also tell you that a publication in Gender and Society is weighted heavier than AJS/ASR for an SC looking for someone who does research on gender.

This is why the "Publish in AJS/ASR or else" mentality of quite a few of the top 20s really only makes sense for reproducing the nepotism that runs deep within those departments.

But, we could just go to the faculty bios, and find out how many of them upon hiring over the last few years actually had hires with publications in those outlets. You'll find that very few of them did indeed.

And, to top it off, quite a few faculty at a variety of departments (R1, R2, SLAC) are upset at the fact that AJS sends a number of their submissions out to graduate students for review. That was discussed at two separate regional conference the last two years.

[rrr]

You know, this advice sounds really fishy. How could it be the case that someone who had a sole-authored ASR on their gender studies work would be viewed less favorably than someone who had put a similar type of paper into a subfield journal? Now if you're comparing coauthored top journal vs. single authored subfield journal, yes, I can see that decision going the other way, but if you're seeing candidates with two sole authored papers?

Is your school a place where you pick "second tier stars" because you're worried that people who can get articles in top journals will soon leave?