3 ms·

> For young researchers--say, within 5 years of your PhD--you haven't had time for citations to accumulate, and journal name really is the important thing. May

> For young researchers--say, within 5 years of your PhD--you haven't had time for citations to accumulate, and journal name really is the important thing. Maybe for people who don't know better. For example: 5 years out is when a "real" tenure review takes place. (Tenure occurs at 7 years: Thumbs up or down usually occurs at 6 years, you get most of the readout at 5.) Mere publication may suffice at non-research institutions, which are primarily centers-for-profiting-off-education, but at any place where research is worth a damn, they have already measured impact. One of those measures is citations. The same was essentially true at places like Bell Labs, but the process was not as formal. Edit: I see from your profile that you are at TJ Watson? Last I knew, they definitely paid attention to citations for 5 year reviews, much like Bell. I find it hard to believe that they've watered down.

jessriedel 14y ago
Maybe we're talking about different fields, or maybe you misunderstood when I said "say, within 5 years of your PhD"? By this I mean that 5 years is the rough time when citations become useful. Before that, when you're on your first or second post-doc, there just hasn't been enough time for a meaningful number to accumulate. Would you agree with my statement if I had said 3 or 4 years? EDIT: Let me put it this way: suppose you're 4.5 years out of your PhD and you're applying for a tenure-track assistant professor position after two post-docs. Your competitor has 30% more citations than you, but in average journals, and last year you published in Nature; that article hasn't had time to rack up cites (which it will). Without knowing anything else about situation, who do you think is more likely to get the position?
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  > or maybe you misunderstood when I said "say, within 5 years of your PhD"? It sounds more like I misunderstood when you wrote "you haven't had time for citations to accumulate, and journal name really is the important thing." Your example above combines journal citations with place-of-publication, which makes more sense than one important item. And lets face it, there have been some real whoppers in Nature. Jan Hendrik Schön comes to mind. So to your example: I can think of only a single situation in which a last-year-item of any quality affected a decision. The likely answer to your question is that neither of the candidates would be hired, at least at the best institutions.
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    I agree that my statement was muddied. Thanks for your thoughts.

jessriedel 14y ago

Maybe we're talking about different fields, or maybe you misunderstood when I said "say, within 5 years of your PhD"? By this I mean that 5 years is the rough time when citations become useful. Before that, when you're on your first or second post-doc, there just hasn't been enough time for a meaningful number to accumulate. Would you agree with my statement if I had said 3 or 4 years? EDIT: Let me put it this way: suppose you're 4.5 years out of your PhD and you're applying for a tenure-track assistant professor position after two post-docs. Your competitor has 30% more citations than you, but in average journals, and last year you published in Nature; that article hasn't had time to rack up cites (which it will). Without knowing anything else about situation, who do you think is more likely to get the position?

jpdoctor 14y ago
> or maybe you misunderstood when I said "say, within 5 years of your PhD"? It sounds more like I misunderstood when you wrote "you haven't had time for citations to accumulate, and journal name really is the important thing." Your example above combines journal citations with place-of-publication, which makes more sense than one important item. And lets face it, there have been some real whoppers in Nature. Jan Hendrik Schön comes to mind. So to your example: I can think of only a single situation in which a last-year-item of any quality affected a decision. The likely answer to your question is that neither of the candidates would be hired, at least at the best institutions.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  I agree that my statement was muddied. Thanks for your thoughts.