Since it seems it's "You need an SNC paper to get a job" season again, there are a couple of things about the faculty hiring system that seem often to get glossed over, and I'm curious what people think about them.
I want to start by stipulating that, in the US there is no hard rule about what you "need" to get published, but there is, for sure, a strong correlation between publication record and faculty search success. What I'm interested in is why this correlation exists.
When discussing this fact, nearly everyone seems to jump from correlation to causation - assuming that people hired to faculty positions with SNC paper got their jobs *because* of those SNC papers. But what's the evidence that this is true?
Sure, there are lots of people who were told they didn't get an interview/job because they didn't have an SNC paper, but one thing I've learned in grant/paper reviewing is that the reasons people give for rejections are almost always post-hoc rationalizations, not real reasons.
I'd like to moot a different hypothesis: that a large part of the correlation between journal titles and academic success arises from the fact that high prestige journals & high prestige academic departments share a common set of criteria for "exciting" and "important" science.
There is, after all, already a pretty extensive overlap between members of these departments and authors in these journals, and these journals in turn consult routinely with these scientists to determine which papers belong in their pages.
Let's imagine we could do an experiment with we somehow got the "top" academic departments in the US to evaluate and select for hiring faculty candidates based entirely on preprints and talks, and, in parallel submitted all those preprints to Science, Nature and Cell.
Don't you think there would be a high correlation between who was selected for those jobs and whether or not their paper got in to SNC? Of course there would be. So why do we immediately assume the SNC paper is causal for getting the job?
I'm not saying there isn't *any* marginal benefit to ones job prospects for getting a paper into SNC. There could be and probably is. But it's almost certainly a lot weaker than is implied by the enrichment of SNC papers in CVs of successful job applicants.
So this leads to the next question. Why does everyone keep repeating that mantra that SNC papers are so important?
We all know that there are many things that influence career success above and beyond some abstract notion of the quality of a young scientists work and ideas. Where and with whom they did their postdoc, what they work on, how much money they were given to spend, ...
... where they went to grad school. What research opportunities they had as an undergrad. All of which are deeply entwined with class, gender, race and other aspects of an individual's identity and history.
It's been shown repeatedly, for example, that "top" institutions hiring almost exclusively postdocs from other "top" institutions. So why don't people offer pronouncements that "To get a job you have to postdoc at Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Stanford, UCSF or Berkeley"?
Or that "You need to postdoc with a well-known PI?", or "You need to work on something to do with human stem cells?" - all of which are also strongly enriched among the most successful job applicants.
I think at least part of the answer has to do with timing of the decisions. When you are approaching the stage of your career when you apply for faculty jobs, all these other things are already baked in.
You went to undergrad and grad school where you did. Your research and life experiences are set in stone. You work where and with who you work, on what it is you work on. And most importantly your results are what they are. But where they get published is still in play.
So, while getting a paper into SNC might be have a small impact on your career success in the grand scheme of things, whatever marginal advantage it can give you is 100% of the remaining marginal advantage available to you.
This, I think, leads to a natural tendency to overestimate the importance of what in reality is a fairly small piece of the total puzzle - all the more so because if feels somehow as if it's in you control - maybe this one last piece of data will get it across the line.
Along with the psychic torture that goes along with the perception is that there is a huge functional difference between just barely getting into SNC compared to just barely missing out, and it ends up that people mentally imbue journals with far more power than they really have.
So, tl/dr - our brains play tricks on us to make journal titles seem much more meaningful than they really are.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Eisen

Michael Eisen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mbeisen

16 Jan
There are good political/social reasons for wanting SARS-CoV-2 to have entered humans directly from animals, and many pushing the WIV lab accident hypothesis have nefarious intent. I am nonetheless surprised at the degree of confidence people express in a natural origin.
I've looked at a lot of the evidence, and, while the direct transfer from bats remains the strongest hypothesis, the case is far from airtight. And it might never be, because even if it were true, we'd be lucky to find evidence in wild bat populations that would erase all doubt.
And there is an at least plausible case for lab accident too, in that the virus first appeared in the rough vicinity of a lab that is studying precisely this kind of virus and doing the kind of experiments that, if something went wrong, would lead to disaster.
Read 15 tweets
22 Dec 20
Editor: I am your editor.
Author: Well, I didn't ask you to edit my paper.
E: You don’t choose your editor.
A: Well how'd you become editor, then?
E: @LadyOfTheLake, whose profile says their science shimmers like the purest samite, held aloft your preprint from the bosom of bioRxiv, signifying by divine providence that I was to oversee its review. That is why I am your Editor.
A: Listen. Strange scientists in labs distributing preprints is no basis for a system of publication. Supreme editorial power derives from a mandate from the authors, not from some farcical acceptance ceremony.
Read 5 tweets
21 Dec 20
why do people treat current peer review system as if it was optimized to help authors and advance science when its primary features - pre-publication review by 2-3 people, binary decisions, exclusive publication rights - are products of limitations of the technology of the day?
the system has its uses - and we have so completely integrated it into the structures of scientific careers that it is difficult to change it - but can we not at least try to imagine a better system, one that is designed to function in the 2020s instead of the 1870s?
imagine you were charged with designing a system of science community and peer review in the alternative universe where the internet was invented before the printing press - what would such a system look like?
Read 6 tweets
21 Dec 20
I understand the concern - in a world where scientists are judged on the basis of journal citations, anything that might interfere with getting one is scary. But these concerns should be addressed at journals, not at @biorxivpreprint or overlay journals being created around it.
We made a decision @eLife not to do unsolicited reviews because we view what we do as in large part a collaboration with the authors to improve their work. And we let authors control when their reviews get posted so they don't worry they'll interfere w/publishing their paper.
But at same time, we see the presence of reviews published by others as augmenting, not interfering w/ this process. We'll give authors a chance to respond & have great confidence that our editors can integrate this information into the review process fairly and conscientiously.
Read 10 tweets
1 Dec 20
While we talk about the future of science publishing, we need to also have a conversation about how to fund it. The problems with the subscription model is obvious and needs no elaboration. But it's clear that the APC/author pays model doesn't really work either.
Back at the dawn of the #openaccess era, when @BioMedCentral and @PLOS adopted APCs, we knew it was imperfect, but it was the only viable way to cover costs that didn't require locking papers behind paywalls.
It was our expectation that this was a transitional state - that the funders who ultimately provide the money for science publishing would realize that it doesn't make sense to fund research infrastructure like publishing with transaction fees of any kind.
Read 10 tweets
1 Dec 20
I am excited to announce today that @eLife is transitioning to a new model based on author-driven publishing (preprints) and public post-publication peer review and curation elifesciences.org/articles/64910…
Our moves are designed to catalyze the desperately needed transition of science from the slow, exclusive, and expensive "review then publish" model born with the printing press to a "publish then review" model optimized for the Internet.
We have been inspired by the embrace of preprinting by our community. A recent internet audit showed that the authors of 70% of papers under review @eLife had already published their work on @biorxivpreprint @medrxivpreprint or arXiv.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!