ArticleCurrent biology : CB2014
Publication metrics and success on the academic job market.
Article in Current biology : CB, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
71 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why human connection is the true metric of research success.FEBS open bio · 2026Article
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of general surgery residents entering into vascular surgery.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- Article
- Radical Collaboration: Reimagining Cancer Team Science.Cancer discovery · 2024Article
- Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of Awardees.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Gender Differences in North American and International Otolaryngology Clinical Practice Guideline Authorship: A 17-Year Analysis.The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology · 2023Article
- Article
- The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.Communications psychology · 2023Review
- Gender differences in publication rates at Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery annual meetings: an 11-year analysis.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for a successful EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral (MSCA) fellowship application.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Research: A Scientometric Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Article
- Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- Myths and facts about getting an academic faculty position in neuroscience.Science advances · 2021Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24892909What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.