What It Takes. Austin, J. Science, 344(6190):1422, June, 2014. doi abstract bibtex [Excerpt] Not long ago, Science Careers posted a widget – you can find it at http://scim.ag/1pwIaAF – that lets early-career scientists calculate the probability that they'll someday become principal investigators (PIs), on the basis of a few standard publication metrics. [...] The Science Careers widget is less accurate than the full-bore model, but it has the virtue of focusing attention on a handful of the most important parameters. [...] 1. Be male. The widget's probability plot displays two lines: red for women and blue for men. The blue line is above the red line across the whole range of probabilities, no matter what variable you display on the ordinate. [...] 2. Be selfish. Do you value collaboration? Too bad: In my testing, an extra first-author publication increased the odds of becoming a PI by 17\,%; it would take eight middle-author publications to get a comparable boost. [...] 3. Be elite. According to our widget, the institution you train at doesn't matter much – unless you're at one of the top 10 universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. [...] 4. Publish in journals with high impact factors. If you've signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (http://am.ascb.org/dora/), or you just don't think a metric designed for a journal should be used to evaluate individual scientists, avert your eyes: Journal impact factor has a strong influence on a scientist's probability of attaining PI-ship. [...] You might say, then, that the impact factor of the journals you publish in matters more than your own personal impact factor. [...] If we want young scientists to remain idealistic, then we need to figure out how to do a better job rewarding the things that really matter: discovery (often as part of a team) and solutions to society's most compelling problems.
@article{austinWhatItTakes2014,
title = {What It Takes},
author = {Austin, Jim},
year = {2014},
month = jun,
volume = {344},
pages = {1422},
issn = {1095-9203},
doi = {10.1126/science.344.6190.1422},
abstract = {[Excerpt] Not long ago, Science Careers posted a widget -- you can find it at http://scim.ag/1pwIaAF -- that lets early-career scientists calculate the probability that they'll someday become principal investigators (PIs), on the basis of a few standard publication metrics. [...] The Science Careers widget is less accurate than the full-bore model, but it has the virtue of focusing attention on a handful of the most important parameters. [...]
1. Be male. The widget's probability plot displays two lines: red for women and blue for men. The blue line is above the red line across the whole range of probabilities, no matter what variable you display on the ordinate. [...]
2. Be selfish. Do you value collaboration? Too bad: In my testing, an extra first-author publication increased the odds of becoming a PI by 17\,\%; it would take eight middle-author publications to get a comparable boost. [...]
3. Be elite. According to our widget, the institution you train at doesn't matter much -- unless you're at one of the top 10 universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. [...]
4. Publish in journals with high impact factors. If you've signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (http://am.ascb.org/dora/), or you just don't think a metric designed for a journal should be used to evaluate individual scientists, avert your eyes: Journal impact factor has a strong influence on a scientist's probability of attaining PI-ship. [...] You might say, then, that the impact factor of the journals you publish in matters more than your own personal impact factor. [...]
If we want young scientists to remain idealistic, then we need to figure out how to do a better job rewarding the things that really matter: discovery (often as part of a team) and solutions to society's most compelling problems.},
journal = {Science},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13242797,authorship,gender-biases,impact-factor,inequality,research-funding,research-metrics,science-ethics,scientific-communication,technocracy},
lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13242797},
number = {6190}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"5ve6fgKQxBY5pn28v","bibbaseid":"austin-whatittakes-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-06-22T10:19:56.140Z","title":"What It Takes","author_short":["Austin, J."],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"What It Takes","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Austin"],"firstnames":["Jim"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2014","month":"June","volume":"344","pages":"1422","issn":"1095-9203","doi":"10.1126/science.344.6190.1422","abstract":"[Excerpt] Not long ago, Science Careers posted a widget – you can find it at http://scim.ag/1pwIaAF – that lets early-career scientists calculate the probability that they'll someday become principal investigators (PIs), on the basis of a few standard publication metrics. [...] The Science Careers widget is less accurate than the full-bore model, but it has the virtue of focusing attention on a handful of the most important parameters. [...] 1. Be male. The widget's probability plot displays two lines: red for women and blue for men. The blue line is above the red line across the whole range of probabilities, no matter what variable you display on the ordinate. [...] 2. Be selfish. Do you value collaboration? Too bad: In my testing, an extra first-author publication increased the odds of becoming a PI by 17\\,%; it would take eight middle-author publications to get a comparable boost. [...] 3. Be elite. According to our widget, the institution you train at doesn't matter much – unless you're at one of the top 10 universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. [...] 4. Publish in journals with high impact factors. If you've signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (http://am.ascb.org/dora/), or you just don't think a metric designed for a journal should be used to evaluate individual scientists, avert your eyes: Journal impact factor has a strong influence on a scientist's probability of attaining PI-ship. [...] You might say, then, that the impact factor of the journals you publish in matters more than your own personal impact factor. [...] If we want young scientists to remain idealistic, then we need to figure out how to do a better job rewarding the things that really matter: discovery (often as part of a team) and solutions to society's most compelling problems.","journal":"Science","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13242797,authorship,gender-biases,impact-factor,inequality,research-funding,research-metrics,science-ethics,scientific-communication,technocracy","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-13242797","number":"6190","bibtex":"@article{austinWhatItTakes2014,\n title = {What It Takes},\n author = {Austin, Jim},\n year = {2014},\n month = jun,\n volume = {344},\n pages = {1422},\n issn = {1095-9203},\n doi = {10.1126/science.344.6190.1422},\n abstract = {[Excerpt] Not long ago, Science Careers posted a widget -- you can find it at http://scim.ag/1pwIaAF -- that lets early-career scientists calculate the probability that they'll someday become principal investigators (PIs), on the basis of a few standard publication metrics. [...] The Science Careers widget is less accurate than the full-bore model, but it has the virtue of focusing attention on a handful of the most important parameters. [...] \n\n1. Be male. The widget's probability plot displays two lines: red for women and blue for men. The blue line is above the red line across the whole range of probabilities, no matter what variable you display on the ordinate. [...]\n\n2. Be selfish. Do you value collaboration? Too bad: In my testing, an extra first-author publication increased the odds of becoming a PI by 17\\,\\%; it would take eight middle-author publications to get a comparable boost. [...]\n\n3. Be elite. According to our widget, the institution you train at doesn't matter much -- unless you're at one of the top 10 universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. [...]\n\n4. Publish in journals with high impact factors. If you've signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (http://am.ascb.org/dora/), or you just don't think a metric designed for a journal should be used to evaluate individual scientists, avert your eyes: Journal impact factor has a strong influence on a scientist's probability of attaining PI-ship. [...] You might say, then, that the impact factor of the journals you publish in matters more than your own personal impact factor. [...]\n\nIf we want young scientists to remain idealistic, then we need to figure out how to do a better job rewarding the things that really matter: discovery (often as part of a team) and solutions to society's most compelling problems.},\n journal = {Science},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13242797,authorship,gender-biases,impact-factor,inequality,research-funding,research-metrics,science-ethics,scientific-communication,technocracy},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13242797},\n number = {6190}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Austin, J."],"key":"austinWhatItTakes2014","id":"austinWhatItTakes2014","bibbaseid":"austin-whatittakes-2014","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13242797","authorship","gender-biases","impact-factor","inequality","research-funding","research-metrics","science-ethics","scientific-communication","technocracy"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["takes","austin"],"keywords":["authorship","gender-biases","impact-factor","inequality","research-funding","research-metrics","science-ethics","scientific-communication","technocracy","*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13242797"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}