Abstract
Many postdoctoral researchers apply for faculty positions knowing relatively little about the hiring process or what is needed to secure a job offer. To address this lack of knowledge about the hiring process we conducted a survey of applicants for faculty positions: the survey ran between May 2018 and May 2019, and received 317 responses. We analyzed the responses to explore the interplay between various scholarly metrics and hiring outcomes. We concluded that, above a certain threshold, the benchmarks traditionally used to measure research success - including funding, number of publications or journals published in - were unable to completely differentiate applicants with and without job offers. Respondents also reported that the hiring process was unnecessarily stressful, time-consuming, and lacking in feedback, irrespective of outcome. Our findings suggest that there is considerable scope to improve the transparency of the hiring process.
Highlights
The number of PhDs awarded in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has increased dramatically over the past three decades (Cyranoski et al, 2011; Ghaffarzadegan et al, 2015), but the number of faculty positions available has essentially remained constant (Schillebeeckx et al, 2013)
We designed a survey for early-career researchers aimed at bringing transparency to the academic job market
The survey was distributed via Twitter, the Future Principal Investigator (PI) Slack group, and email listservs of multiple postdoctoral associations, resulting in 322 responses from selfidentified early-career researchers who applied for academic positions in the 2018–2019 application cycle
Summary
The number of PhDs awarded in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has increased dramatically over the past three decades (Cyranoski et al, 2011; Ghaffarzadegan et al, 2015), but the number of faculty positions available has essentially remained constant (Schillebeeckx et al, 2013). Given the low numbers of faculty positions compared to the numbers of PhDs produced (Larson et al, 2014; Committee to Review the State of Postdoctoral Experience in Scientists and Engineers, 2014), trainees are limited in their job prospects. Many emerge from academic training feeling underprepared and under-mentored for any other type of job search (McDowell et al, 2015). Longer training periods have been reported repeatedly in many STEM fields, and are perceived as detrimental to both the greater scientific community and individuals in temporary postdoctoral positions (Committee to Review the State of Postdoctoral Experience in Scientists and Engineers, 2014; Ahmed, 2019; Rockey, 2012; Acton et al, 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
