ArticleScience advances2021
Myths and facts about getting an academic faculty position in neuroscience.
Article in Science advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Becoming Biomedical Faculty: An Analysis of Credentials among Successful Academic Career Aspirants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00) Program.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Elements of successful NIH grant applications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of Awardees.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Commentary on Highly Successful Female Educational Psychologists: Equity and Intersectionality in Success Definitions.Educational psychology review · 2023Review
- The postdoctoral blueprint part one: creating a niche.Trends in cell biology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke routinely receive questions and statements from trainees and faculty that suggest widespread beliefs about the necessity of a National Institutes of Health K99/R00 award, other prior funding, and/or specific types of publications for obtaining one's first tenure-track position in neuroscience. To address these beliefs, we examined the funding and publication history of a cohort of investigators who began their first academic faculty position between 2009 and 2019, and we interviewed several senior academic leaders with extensive experience in hiring new faculty. Our data show that <11% of newly hired faculty had a K99/R00 award and that neither prior funding nor papers in prestigious journals were necessary to obtain a tenure-track faculty position. Interviews with academic leaders almost uniformly referred to critically important factors that were considered to be more important in the hiring process than funding or publishing in high-profile journals.
Identifiers
What 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.