Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37224127›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

What's another year? The lengthening training and career paths of scientists.

Stephanie D Cheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephanie D ChengDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7248-6500
Harvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lengthening doctorate and post-doctorate training allow science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Ph.Ds. to persist in high-intensity academic research environments at the cost of significant lifetime earnings. Using the largest longitudinal survey of U.S. Ph.D. recipients, I construct career paths for 135,599 STEM research doctorate holders over six job types and two employment statuses. Examining Ph.D. cohorts in four major STEM fields from 1950 to the present, I find evidence that the increasingly prevalent postdoctoral position allow STEM Ph.Ds. to remain in high-intensity academic research positions, albeit not necessarily on the tenure-track. However, these research opportunities come with an approximately $3,700 deduction in annual earnings per postdoctoral year. Taken together, STEM Ph.Ds. must weigh the non-pecuniary costs of remaining in academic research with this earnings loss to determine if postdoctoral positions are a worthwhile investment.

Indexed as

EngineeringPhysiciansHumansIncomeInvestmentsTechnology

Identifiers

PMID37224127
PMCPMC10208458
OpenAlexW4377970850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.