2nd year PhD here and I’m having my first publication in an international journal which is not in Q1 or Q2 journal. I did it just for the sake of publication, but this video definitely motivated me to aim higher
Which area ? I am Looking to collaborate. I myself need to get publications once it’s whitelist journals. Once I get 2, I am aiming for high impact but my university wants us to publish 2 papers per year and that is very challenging given other work demands
When I watch your videos like these about the tribulations required to secure a position in acedamia, I can't help but surmise this culling system is the absolute worst way to place the best and brightest researchers in research positions. I also wonder if this is the cause of what many feel is stagnation in fields like physics and others. It's clear that this process filters for a certain personality type, and it's not clear to me that this personality type is actually the best for research.
I don't disagree with you. But I want say universities are not looking for the best and brightest in the first instance. They want people who can get big research grants and manage the projects. The right personality is a must. Even when you reach the top scale of a typical academic professor, you will still find that there are hundreds of others in the university who are above you in rank, power and salary. The vice presidents, the executives, the senior managers, the deans, the directors, ... How do they get there? Answer: The right personality.
@@sunway1374 "universities are not looking for the best and brightest in the first instance. They want people who can get big research grants and manage the projects" Exactly. One of the mistakes young academics make when they start trying for faculty positions is assuming that they need to write an application that convinces people that their research is the best in the world. This is nonsense. When universities hire faculty, they are not looking to hire someone to do high-quality research. They are looking for someone to bring money and prestige to the university. Your faculty application should be a demonstration of your social status and your ability to obtain grants.
Overall good, but this should consider the field you are in. Journals are more important than Conferences for some fields, and it is the other way around for other fields. I'd also look at the top schools for your field, not top schools overall. I wonder how much the Internet changes school importance - I read thousands of journal articles that are not from my University, and usually communicate with other researchers by email, regardless if they are at the same University or the opposite side of the world. There is selection bias here as well - people from MIT are successful, but people who got into MIT may have been just as successful if they went somewhere else.
Here in the Netherlands, whether you'll get a lectureship is typically is decided within two years of Ph.D. defence. Universities have mostly outsourced this decision to a few particular grants, which have cutoffs of 2-3 years post Ph.D., and are an actual lottery. This heavily favours "Ph.D. technicians" who just worked as an extension of their PI in a large group and gathered lots of publications due to not having to actually manage their own research.
For me, these factors are correlated. Anyone doing a PhD at one of these universities (which I have) will automatically work with people who know which scientific questions to ask in order to publish in a top five, but at least Q1. So I have two Q1s and a Q2 as a first author and several other Q1s and a top five as a co-author. Then it goes on to the network. It's normal for all the heads of the institute to chair a session at the conference and to be on the most important committees. I only realised how important the university is during my PhD. I only studied at this university and later did my doctorate because I came from a modest financial background and was able to study there and live with my parents. However, I never intended to pursue a career in science and now work in the private sector, where I have a job close to science. I sometimes go to the same conferences and everyone wonders how a stranger knows all the top shots.
@@PetePaydirt No, all my publications were rejected once or twice. Once the rejection came after 15 minutes. It's quite demotivating when you proudly submit your first manuscript.
@@PetePaydirt What I mean by the right question is not a correct scientific scientific question, but which question is published there. No matter how good your question is, if nobody is interested, it will not be published there. These journals live from being cited. So they deliver exactly that, they publish in popular topics where they can expect a lot of citations. That's the science game.
The most important caveat here is that those 100 successful researchers from the study built their careers in what academia has been for decades and what those key factors represent. With the current shift to more diversity in science these factors will be very different for people who are now entering or will be entering academia in the next 10 years. What this summary demonstrates is elitism, nepotism and the horrendous reign of journals. As a 4 year PhD student I am telling you, all the dark sides are still present but there is noticeably more awareness and effort put into changing things.
Sorry Andy, I think you miss the most important thing: getting successful research grants. You might say without the 4 factors you describe, how could you get a research grant. That I would not disagree totally. But these 4 factors could be just necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. Whereas getting research grant is a sufficient condition. I have seen people who are not doing so well in the 4 factors getting a research grant and then just use that to generate more successful grants. Vice versa, I have seen people who do quite well in the 4 factors, even with Nature papers and books published by top publishers, but without much success or interest in pursuing big grants, being stucked in their career progression. Except in a small number of academic fields like pure maths, what I describe here is very common. You need to get grants, the bigger the better.
@@zola9535 You are right. But no point for you. 🙂Two reasons: Firstly, it's quite obvious. Secondly, you haven't made clear how your observation is relevant for the discussion (?). ps. From your message, I guess you are also not a social scientist. I don't know for sure.
They're saying that your response gives the impression that you're a corporate lickspittle. Now, personally, I don't think you are. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't.
This is already known and nothing new. Better explain how those other 50% of academics who don't publish go on with their academic careers. How they can succeed without anything serious published?
hey Andy, I have been watching your videos quite a while and it's really great. Do you perhaps from time to time open some consultation to people who wants to be PhD students? I've been struggling with a certain related problem lately and I don't know if I can make the right choice. Thanks!
Hello sir. Thank you for all of your content. So, I have just started my phd journey and the research area is completely new to me and it even requires some programming to do. Can you make a video that can provide some insight on how to understand new methodology and background that can act as a solid foundation to start my phd journey? Not just reading literature but in addition to that. Also, maybe a stepwise plan for few months to get around the level where one can at least work independently in most part of the research.
Hello sir, I have a query..I have completed my M. Phil in 2017 and after that I worked as lecturer.. now i want to again start my career as a researcher and want to apply for research positions in abroad.. is there any option for me or its too late now?
Nice video, Andy. However, the popular ranking websites (QS, ARWU, THE, etc.) rank different universities in different manners for every country. In some, the regional universities get some preference; in others, they may not. So, I do not think there is any one particular index that can aid in this whole ranking process. Also, in central and western European countries, there are some magnificent groups working in non-university research institutes ( Helmholtz, Leibniz, Max-Planck, and Fraunhofer, as examples) whose cumulative research output is never ranked on major websites; however, even the top 10 unis in the world on all possible metrics will bite the dust simply if they are included, provided those research clusters often employ PhD students affiliated to a local university, which may not be so popular themselves. So yes, agree with all the other points, but the first one.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but it depends on the specialty, such as AI/ML (Artifcial Intelligence/Machine Learning) 1) MIT has been coasting on its rep for a long time. It's good (decades ago an MS from MIT was treated like a PhD from anywhere else, not so much now), but not number 1 good for AI/ML 2) The Q1 listings for AI/ML are painfully wrong if you want to get noticed. In AI/ML, publishing in Nature was prestigious (but they are in an editorial death spiral currently, so that won't last), but you really want to get your paper on ArXiv and published in a good conference (NeurIPS, ICLR, or ICML). IEEE is prestigious as a journal, but you'll suffer in citations - if it's on ArXiv (the preprint server), it will get cited a lot if it's important. Nowadays, most researchers practically ignore the IEEE stable of journals because they know the citations will be low - IEEE is very stingy about allowing papers to appear anywhere else, such as ArXiv, where everyone serves up their AI/ML papers. As a result, IEEE has turned into a walled garden, with IEEE members citing each, and the top researchers caring less and less. PNAS, Entropy, etc., are all credible journals for lots of exposure that will be seen by other top researchers, and which understand the value of preprints.
I don't want to play the game. Thankfully I'm not burning to have a career in academia. I just want to do research and discover new things. Many ways to do that.
Thanks for the Video. Well, then I am doomed not to make it in academia. Surprise surprise ;-) Well right now I am anyway thinking of leaving academia. Unfortunately the system is just broken. I am not a fan of this, since research should be about collaborations and exchanging ideas. We should foster more openness and support young researchers. We actually do the opposite. Really a shame. As you have already mentioned in previous videos, there are other ways to fufill your life with research. Thanks for making such great videos! Keep going!
Horizon Europe (one of the biggest science funders in Europe) is expecting researchers to publish their results on their Open Research Platform. Hopefully others will follow soon. It is the content that should matter and not artificially constructed impact factors from billionaire publishing houses.
never define yourself by others standards or by some statistics. If you are passionate about what you are doing and if you are doing good work in your field (obviously that´s still important), you´ll find your way.
I would doubt the sanity of this bearded guy before you conclude it. According to the abstract he was showing, the article said “working” at the top 25 and he already switched the wording to “attending”. No offense but this guy himself isn't the biggest success in his field and I would only take advice from successful people. Some postdocs in the top “25” universities did their phd at the top unis but many of the postdocs in the same institute didnt do their phd at the top unis. I didn't watch the rest of the video after spotting that out. But 100 people in 8 different fields is around 12-13 people per field. Omg how accurate that's gonna be! Apparently, there are only a dozen meaningful people in each field and Andy isn't one of them, unfortunately. No offense tho In the end, becoming a top 10 researcher in your field is becoming a superstar. Are you are failure if you don't become a superstar like Ronaldo or messi?
These points show what exactly is wrong with academia. One would think that STEM is about doing good science research from even the not so famous institutes, collaborating with good but not so famous people and publishing good papers even in low impact factor journals. Basically an academic career in science has become everything other than doing good science. :(
Yes and no. You are more likely to be doing ‘good science’ if you work in the right place and publishing in a high impact journal is a big indicator that you are probably doing high quality research
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1 May be you should visit some of the notorious misconduct stories in science. Probably they will give some insight about why forgetting the scientific method and giving more importance to the institution name, journals in which one publishes, how many papers one publishes, grants and how big shot your collaborators are, are detrimental and problematic to science research in general. Science should ultimately be about knowledge and understanding the nature and not about name, fame or money.
So, is there a line between science as enjoyment and innovation and science as another institute of the neoliberal capitalistic hamster wheel? Do we do science for science, or do we do science for different indicators of success and income? I like your videos however, I see a big difference between social and critical studies and physical science. There are no questions about the problems of the academic system and how we can change it. Instead, your videos look more and more like marketing tools and capitalization Ph.Ds. It is sad, and it shows the crisis of science as the institute of producing knowledge in modern society. I am not going to be a mainstream scientist, and I have already paid the price for this. I am going to study what I like to study and how I like to study and not use these indicators to be more visible in the market. I want to help people and communities, and I know how I can do it without transforming myself into another element of this pathetic system.
Hello sir. Thank you for all of your content. So, I have just started my phd journey and the research area is completely new to me and it even requires some programming to do. Can you make a video that can provide some insight on how to understand new methodology and background that can act as a solid foundation to start my phd journey? Not just reading literature but in addition to that. Also, maybe a stepwise plan for few months to get around the level where one can at least work independently in most part of the research.
So basically everything that people keep telling themselves doesn't matter really matters.
2nd year PhD here and I’m having my first publication in an international journal which is not in Q1 or Q2 journal. I did it just for the sake of publication, but this video definitely motivated me to aim higher
Which area ? I am
Looking to collaborate. I myself need to get publications once it’s whitelist journals. Once I get 2, I am aiming for high impact but my university wants us to publish 2 papers per year and that is very challenging given other work demands
@@priscillabahaw5673what area are you interested in for collaboration? I'm into materials science.
@@priscillabahaw5673 It’s not in STEM btw if you are looking for that. Mine is in linguistics.
This is like the academia equivalent of:
“How to become rich in 5 simple steps?
1. Be born by a billionaire… “
lol ikr 🤣
Firstly, be born in the right country.
be white
Oh yeah.😂😂. Be born in US,UK.
ay!!! nothing beats that😢
Exactly, i would further include the city.
When I watch your videos like these about the tribulations required to secure a position in acedamia, I can't help but surmise this culling system is the absolute worst way to place the best and brightest researchers in research positions. I also wonder if this is the cause of what many feel is stagnation in fields like physics and others. It's clear that this process filters for a certain personality type, and it's not clear to me that this personality type is actually the best for research.
I don't disagree with you. But I want say universities are not looking for the best and brightest in the first instance. They want people who can get big research grants and manage the projects. The right personality is a must. Even when you reach the top scale of a typical academic professor, you will still find that there are hundreds of others in the university who are above you in rank, power and salary. The vice presidents, the executives, the senior managers, the deans, the directors, ... How do they get there? Answer: The right personality.
@@sunway1374
"universities are not looking for the best and brightest in the first instance. They want people who can get big research grants and manage the projects"
Exactly. One of the mistakes young academics make when they start trying for faculty positions is assuming that they need to write an application that convinces people that their research is the best in the world. This is nonsense. When universities hire faculty, they are not looking to hire someone to do high-quality research. They are looking for someone to bring money and prestige to the university. Your faculty application should be a demonstration of your social status and your ability to obtain grants.
Overall good, but this should consider the field you are in. Journals are more important than Conferences for some fields, and it is the other way around for other fields. I'd also look at the top schools for your field, not top schools overall. I wonder how much the Internet changes school importance - I read thousands of journal articles that are not from my University, and usually communicate with other researchers by email, regardless if they are at the same University or the opposite side of the world. There is selection bias here as well - people from MIT are successful, but people who got into MIT may have been just as successful if they went somewhere else.
Here in the Netherlands, whether you'll get a lectureship is typically is decided within two years of Ph.D. defence. Universities have mostly outsourced this decision to a few particular grants, which have cutoffs of 2-3 years post Ph.D., and are an actual lottery. This heavily favours "Ph.D. technicians" who just worked as an extension of their PI in a large group and gathered lots of publications due to not having to actually manage their own research.
That sucks
For me, these factors are correlated. Anyone doing a PhD at one of these universities (which I have) will automatically work with people who know which scientific questions to ask in order to publish in a top five, but at least Q1. So I have two Q1s and a Q2 as a first author and several other Q1s and a top five as a co-author. Then it goes on to the network. It's normal for all the heads of the institute to chair a session at the conference and to be on the most important committees.
I only realised how important the university is during my PhD. I only studied at this university and later did my doctorate because I came from a modest financial background and was able to study there and live with my parents. However, I never intended to pursue a career in science and now work in the private sector, where I have a job close to science. I sometimes go to the same conferences and everyone wonders how a stranger knows all the top shots.
Know what question to ask? You mean know which editor to handle their papers 😅
@@PetePaydirt No, all my publications were rejected once or twice.
Once the rejection came after 15 minutes. It's quite demotivating when you proudly submit your first manuscript.
@@PetePaydirt
What I mean by the right question is not a correct scientific
scientific question, but which question is published there.
No matter how good your question is, if
nobody is interested, it will not be published there. These journals
live from being cited. So they deliver exactly that, they publish
in popular topics where they can expect a lot of citations.
That's the science game.
The most important caveat here is that those 100 successful researchers from the study built their careers in what academia has been for decades and what those key factors represent.
With the current shift to more diversity in science these factors will be very different for people who are now entering or will be entering academia in the next 10 years.
What this summary demonstrates is elitism, nepotism and the horrendous reign of journals.
As a 4 year PhD student I am telling you, all the dark sides are still present but there is noticeably more awareness and effort put into changing things.
Great video. Your content works like inspiration for me along my PhD journey.
Sorry Andy, I think you miss the most important thing: getting successful research grants. You might say without the 4 factors you describe, how could you get a research grant. That I would not disagree totally. But these 4 factors could be just necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. Whereas getting research grant is a sufficient condition. I have seen people who are not doing so well in the 4 factors getting a research grant and then just use that to generate more successful grants. Vice versa, I have seen people who do quite well in the 4 factors, even with Nature papers and books published by top publishers, but without much success or interest in pursuing big grants, being stucked in their career progression. Except in a small number of academic fields like pure maths, what I describe here is very common. You need to get grants, the bigger the better.
From your message I can say you are not a social scientist for sure
@@zola9535 You are right. But no point for you. 🙂Two reasons: Firstly, it's quite obvious. Secondly, you haven't made clear how your observation is relevant for the discussion (?).
ps. From your message, I guess you are also not a social scientist. I don't know for sure.
They're saying that your response gives the impression that you're a corporate lickspittle. Now, personally, I don't think you are. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't.
This is already known and nothing new. Better explain how those other 50% of academics who don't publish go on with their academic careers. How they can succeed without anything serious published?
hey Andy, I have been watching your videos quite a while and it's really great. Do you perhaps from time to time open some consultation to people who wants to be PhD students? I've been struggling with a certain related problem lately and I don't know if I can make the right choice. Thanks!
Hello sir. Thank you for all of your content. So, I have just started my phd journey and the research area is completely new to me and it even requires some programming to do. Can you make a video that can provide some insight on how to understand new methodology and background that can act as a solid foundation to start my phd journey? Not just reading literature but in addition to that. Also, maybe a stepwise plan for few months to get around the level where one can at least work independently in most part of the research.
What's the difference between 'highly ranked journal' and 'Q1 journals' ?
Thank you Andy, what a relevant content....and this video is exceptional !!!
Hello sir, I have a query..I have completed my M. Phil in 2017 and after that I worked as lecturer.. now i want to again start my career as a researcher and want to apply for research positions in abroad.. is there any option for me or its too late now?
Nice video, Andy. However, the popular ranking websites (QS, ARWU, THE, etc.) rank different universities in different manners for every country. In some, the regional universities get some preference; in others, they may not. So, I do not think there is any one particular index that can aid in this whole ranking process. Also, in central and western European countries, there are some magnificent groups working in non-university research institutes ( Helmholtz, Leibniz, Max-Planck, and Fraunhofer, as examples) whose cumulative research output is never ranked on major websites; however, even the top 10 unis in the world on all possible metrics will bite the dust simply if they are included, provided those research clusters often employ PhD students affiliated to a local university, which may not be so popular themselves. So yes, agree with all the other points, but the first one.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but it depends on the specialty, such as AI/ML (Artifcial Intelligence/Machine Learning)
1) MIT has been coasting on its rep for a long time. It's good (decades ago an MS from MIT was treated like a PhD from anywhere else, not so much now), but not number 1 good for AI/ML
2) The Q1 listings for AI/ML are painfully wrong if you want to get noticed. In AI/ML, publishing in Nature was prestigious (but they are in an editorial death spiral currently, so that won't last), but you really want to get your paper on ArXiv and published in a good conference (NeurIPS, ICLR, or ICML). IEEE is prestigious as a journal, but you'll suffer in citations - if it's on ArXiv (the preprint server), it will get cited a lot if it's important. Nowadays, most researchers practically ignore the IEEE stable of journals because they know the citations will be low - IEEE is very stingy about allowing papers to appear anywhere else, such as ArXiv, where everyone serves up their AI/ML papers. As a result, IEEE has turned into a walled garden, with IEEE members citing each, and the top researchers caring less and less. PNAS, Entropy, etc., are all credible journals for lots of exposure that will be seen by other top researchers, and which understand the value of preprints.
Great analysis!
Interesting that there's a black/blue/red pill social dynamic within even academia: you either have what it takes for success, or you don't.
I don't want to play the game. Thankfully I'm not burning to have a career in academia. I just want to do research and discover new things. Many ways to do that.
0:52 paper 4:00 Jurnal Q1 5:30
But what about before your PhD? Does Masters matter as much?
Thanks for the Video. Well, then I am doomed not to make it in academia. Surprise surprise ;-) Well right now I am anyway thinking of leaving academia. Unfortunately the system is just broken. I am not a fan of this, since research should be about collaborations and exchanging ideas. We should foster more openness and support young researchers. We actually do the opposite. Really a shame. As you have already mentioned in previous videos, there are other ways to fufill your life with research. Thanks for making such great videos! Keep going!
My uni is in the top 25. I think that’s the only criteria I will meet (at this point) 😂😂
I did my PhD at NUS and it hasn’t helped me in my career.
Horizon Europe (one of the biggest science funders in Europe) is expecting researchers to publish their results on their Open Research Platform.
Hopefully others will follow soon.
It is the content that should matter and not artificially constructed impact factors from billionaire publishing houses.
The dark tetrad?
How are they defining success?
Publishing in a top journal.
So basically I should just give up. 😢
down with the old guard
Based on these parameters, my carreer gonna be a failure.
never define yourself by others standards or by some statistics. If you are passionate about what you are doing and if you are doing good work in your field (obviously that´s still important), you´ll find your way.
I would doubt the sanity of this bearded guy before you conclude it. According to the abstract he was showing, the article said “working” at the top 25 and he already switched the wording to “attending”. No offense but this guy himself isn't the biggest success in his field and I would only take advice from successful people. Some postdocs in the top “25” universities did their phd at the top unis but many of the postdocs in the same institute didnt do their phd at the top unis. I didn't watch the rest of the video after spotting that out. But 100 people in 8 different fields is around 12-13 people per field. Omg how accurate that's gonna be! Apparently, there are only a dozen meaningful people in each field and Andy isn't one of them, unfortunately. No offense tho
In the end, becoming a top 10 researcher in your field is becoming a superstar. Are you are failure if you don't become a superstar like Ronaldo or messi?
Academic career is failure. Work in industry and go to university part time if you want.
These points show what exactly is wrong with academia. One would think that STEM is about doing good science research from even the not so famous institutes, collaborating with good but not so famous people and publishing good papers even in low impact factor journals. Basically an academic career in science has become everything other than doing good science. :(
Yes and no. You are more likely to be doing ‘good science’ if you work in the right place and publishing in a high impact journal is a big indicator that you are probably doing high quality research
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1 May be you should visit some of the notorious misconduct stories in science. Probably they will give some insight about why forgetting the scientific method and giving more importance to the institution name, journals in which one publishes, how many papers one publishes, grants and how big shot your collaborators are, are detrimental and problematic to science research in general. Science should ultimately be about knowledge and understanding the nature and not about name, fame or money.
@@LeptonViews That is not what I am saying. Nothing more to say
Free science from academia, please. 😭
Tax payers should not be supporting this circus of impression making.
This video is pretty depressing
Can't really take this when it’s a chemist living on the edge of the world selling AI tools saying it
So, is there a line between science as enjoyment and innovation and science as another institute of the neoliberal capitalistic hamster wheel? Do we do science for science, or do we do science for different indicators of success and income? I like your videos however, I see a big difference between social and critical studies and physical science. There are no questions about the problems of the academic system and how we can change it. Instead, your videos look more and more like marketing tools and capitalization Ph.Ds. It is sad, and it shows the crisis of science as the institute of producing knowledge in modern society.
I am not going to be a mainstream scientist, and I have already paid the price for this. I am going to study what I like to study and how I like to study and not use these indicators to be more visible in the market. I want to help people and communities, and I know how I can do it without transforming myself into another element of this pathetic system.
Number one clearly indicates the problem third world countries face, my current university is number 304 😂
I hope that beard stays clean...looks like a miasma for pathogens of unknown etiology.....
HI
Hello sir. Thank you for all of your content. So, I have just started my phd journey and the research area is completely new to me and it even requires some programming to do. Can you make a video that can provide some insight on how to understand new methodology and background that can act as a solid foundation to start my phd journey? Not just reading literature but in addition to that. Also, maybe a stepwise plan for few months to get around the level where one can at least work independently in most part of the research.