ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024
An updated and expanded characterization of the biological sciences academic job market.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing graduate research capacity in an IDeA state: 5-yr outcomes of the USD G-RISE program.Advances in physiology education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the biological sciences, many areas of uncertainty exist regarding the factors that contribute to success within the faculty job market. Earlier work from our group reported that beyond certain thresholds, academic and career metrics like the number of publications, fellowships or career transition awards, and years of experience did not separate applicants who received job offers from those who did not. Questions still exist regarding how academic and professional achievements influence job offers and if candidate demographics differentially influence outcomes. Methods: To continue addressing these gaps, we initiated surveys collecting data from faculty applicants in the biological sciences field for three hiring cycles in North America (Fall 2019 to the end of May 2022), a total of 449 respondents were included in our analysis. Results and discussion: These responses highlight the interplay between various scholarly metrics, extensive demographic information, and hiring outcomes, and for the first time, allowed us to look at persons historically excluded due to ethnicity or race (PEER) status in the context of the faculty job market. Between 2019 and 2022, we found that the number of applications submitted, position seniority, and identifying as a women or transgender were positively correlated with a faculty job offer. Applicant age, residence, first generation status, and number of postdocs, however, were negatively correlated with receiving a faculty job offer. Our data are consistent with other surveys that also highlight the influence of achievements and other factors in hiring processes. Providing baseline comparative data for job seekers can support their informed decision-making in the market and is a first step toward demystifying the faculty job market.
Indexed as
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.