Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40380200›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2025

Negotiating an academic start-up package and job offer as an incoming tenure-track professor in the life sciences.

Leslie A Caromile, Verónica A Segarra

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Leslie A Caromile *Center for Vascular Biology, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA.
Verónica A Segarra *American Society for Cell Biology, Rockville, MD, 20852, USA. veronica.segarra@goucher.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6914-8271

Funding

NIGMS NIH HHS 2R25GM116707
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Start-up packages were once predominantly associated with research-intensive institutions. However, they are now increasingly important for teaching-focused and primarily undergraduate institutions due to rising expectations for research involvement. Effective negotiation for tenure-track start-up packages is essential for aligning the candidates' and institutions' interests and goals. Candidates must understand the various components of an offer, such as start-up funds, teaching loads, research expectations, and tenure requirements, to negotiate terms that align with their needs and goals. However, navigating these negotiations can be daunting, particularly for individuals from historically underserved and excluded groups (HUE) in STEM fields who may lack access to supportive networks. In this article, we aim to provide a detailed guide on how to negotiate an effective tenure-track start-up package. We emphasize that this process can be beneficial for both the candidate and the institution, as it helps ensure that their values and goals are aligned, ultimately increasing the chances of success for both parties. This article builds upon our earlier publications and provides comprehensive guidance for negotiating strategies.

Indexed as

Academic job offer negotiationAcademic start-up packageFaculty job offerFaculty job offer negotiationNegotiationStart-up packageTenure-track job offer

Identifiers

PMID40380200
PMCPMC12082846

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.