How many papers should I publish during PhD to get a decent postdoc position?

[Andy Resnick]

You didn't understand what I'm getting at. There are a lot of papers out there that are essentially duplicates of each other in that they use the same methods and determine the same quantities, but just on different systems. That's more engineering work than science. In my opinion, it's the quality not the quantity of the paper that's important. I rather publish 1 paper that's been referenced 50+ times than 5 papers that have only been referenced once or twice.

modey3

I understand exactly what you are getting at- to be honest, I have the same opinion as you do. Nonetheless, when it comes to getting a job/promotion/grants/tenure, quantity often matters more than quality- after all, how can a non-expert judge the quality of your work?

 

[cosmogirl]

It seems that the numbers I wrote were rather provoking.
I have to admit the number 9 was incorrect, the correct upper limit is 8. Sorry for the mistake.
Here's a (non)-repersentative sample of our recent graduates (not all papers as first author):
The person who I thought had published 9 papers actually has only 8 published.
Another two have 5 published
There're also numbers like 6, 4 and even 2.

Not all of these papers are ground-breaking, but they're all published in respectable journals in the field. I should add that it's considered normal in my department to publish 1 paper after masters, and 3 during PhD, as first author, although there're certainly people who publish less than that. Also, although PhD should be finished in 4 years, it often takes even longer than that.

I think the typical paper-rate depends on the field, so the original question was in fact too vague.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there is sometimes a tendency to plan the PhD research is such a way, as to produce at least some papers. I'll agree this is certainly not the optimal way to do research. Research should tackle the hardest questions, the answers to which might as well be beyond our reach.
On the other hand, I think advisors should think about the future of their students. If a student spends 3-4 years of his life pursuing a dead-end project, what will he be left with? The knowledge that he proved that partucular approach was wrong? He might still get a postdoc position if his advisor is a big name with very strong connections, but what if he's not?

 

[Modey3]

It seems that the numbers I wrote were rather provoking.
I have to admit the number 9 was incorrect, the correct upper limit is 8. Sorry for the mistake.
Here's a (non)-repersentative sample of our recent graduates (not all papers as first author):
The person who I thought had published 9 papers actually has only 8 published.
Another two have 5 published
There're also numbers like 6, 4 and even 2.

Not all of these papers are ground-breaking, but they're all published in respectable journals in the field. I should add that it's considered normal in my department to publish 1 paper after masters, and 3 during PhD, as first author, although there're certainly people who publish less than that. Also, although PhD should be finished in 4 years, it often takes even longer than that.

I think the typical paper-rate depends on the field, so the original question was in fact too vague.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there is sometimes a tendency to plan the PhD research is such a way, as to produce at least some papers. I'll agree this is certainly not the optimal way to do research. Research should tackle the hardest questions, the answers to which might as well be beyond our reach.
On the other hand, I think advisors should think about the future of their students. If a student spends 3-4 years of his life pursuing a dead-end project, what will he be left with? The knowledge that he proved that partucular approach was wrong? He might still get a postdoc position if his advisor is a big name with very strong connections, but what if he's not?

There is such a thing as a negative thesis in which you explain why your approach is wrong. There maybe even a publication in it. In fact, I wish there were more negative publications because they would help me with my research. In my opinion, science needs to be equally open to negative results as it is to positive results. This will also reduce the amount of fraud that is occurring nowadays.

modey3

 

[ZapperZ]

There is such a thing as a negative thesis in which you explain why your approach is wrong. There maybe even a publication in it. In fact, I wish there were more negative publications because they would help me with my research. In my opinion, science needs to be equally open to negative results as it is to positive results. This will also reduce the amount of fraud that is occurring nowadays.

modey3

Er.. but there are! Just look at the current back-and-forth papers with regards to the claim of possible detection of dark matter in the lab! That's just one example of so many others! Or what about the claim of dark matter signature from various high-flying detectors? Each claim of something produces another claim that, no, we didn't see that!

You don't see it that often because, and this could be a revelation, most of these things that actually made it into publications are actually VALID! The Teleyarkhan's bubble fusion notwithstanding, the scrutiny given to many such publications are always the first line of "defense" against something that's obviously wrong. So to want to expect more of that is kinda puzzling, because the system in place is to make sure that doesn't happen that often.

Zz.

 

[twofish-quant]

Er.. but there are! Just look at the current back-and-forth papers with regards to the claim of possible detection of dark matter in the lab! That's just one example of so many others! Or what about the claim of dark matter signature from various high-flying detectors? Each claim of something produces another claim that, no, we didn't see that!

I think things can be very field dependent. Also there is an entire set of field of statistics involving understanding publication bias, which is important for things like drug tests. One thing that this means is that writing a "meta-publication" in some fields is non-trivial.

You don't see it that often because, and this could be a revelation, most of these things that actually made it into publications are actually VALID! The Teleyarkhan's bubble fusion notwithstanding, the scrutiny given to many such publications are always the first line of "defense" against something that's obviously wrong.

But even here, there are some interesting publication issues. For example, if you see a paper that sees a certain result from numerical calculations, and you don't get "me too" replication from other groups, then it's likely that there was a bug in the original result. When I was doing my Ph.D. I figured out that one of the papers in the field was likely due to buggy code since I was able to replicate the result by setting my input parameters to certain (obviously wrong) parameters. I think that everyone else in the field figured this out too, but there was no point in writing a paper on it. Also, this is the type of things that conferences are good for, since "buggy results" is something that people talk about over beers.

 

[manphdsowhat]

Regarding the PhD system in UK: They pay you 3 years but your time to do a PhD can take up to 5 years: 3 years paid + one allowed unpaid year leave + one extra unpaid year. Hence, save money “just in case”.

There are people that get a PhD without publishing a paper in engineering, it depends.
In reality, for your sake, try to publish JOURNALS. Forget conferences, presentations and so on. JOURNALS are what it is counted, no more. Why? Conferences include some already published idea that you are testing in another environment. Journals usually demand new ideas, (yours!) so they are more original. Unfortunately, many advisors push PhD students to go to too many conferences. Although this can be good at the beginning of your PhD, it takes time from your concentration. Please, have this in mind.

How many JOURNALS (rather than the more generic term of paper)? Well, 2 accepted journals in well-established journals is good enough, provided you are the first or only two authors or even better: you are the sole author.

How 2 or more? One is a lucky shoot, two is a consistent work.

You should have in mind that the publications have to be submitted under the time you have as a PhD student. The previous papers, prior your enrollment as a PhD student, do not count in UK.

About the quality: Make sure that your journals are based on YOUR new ideas, something that people have missed but you have shown that it is possible. That will show to the persons, which are supposed to choose among many other applicants, that you can generate new things, have a mind worth to invest, etc.

Back to the real world: Despite all those things above, there exist two main variables to be taken into consideration:

Backstabbed: If you work in a group, probably, by the time you leave the group, your work will be taken by new PhD students there. That is, your former group will compete against you, based on your ideas you inserted during your time there. Hence, by the time you start a postdoc elsewhere, you are “out of shape”. In fact, you will be probably blocked by your former PhD advisor once you leave his group, i.e. he/she will try to reject your papers. Hence, never show all your cards, while doing a PhD.

Ethnicity. Why? Usually, professor from country X working in country Y will be favorable to PhD students from countries X and Y. The other PhD students are likely to get tougher subjects, i.e. the advisor cannot help you much there. If you are successful, your results will be passed to PhD students from X and Y and you will be backstabbed faster.

Ah, remember that your new postdoc advisor will do the same as your PhD advisor. These people have turner-track positions not just because they are brilliant scientists, in fact, many are mediocre. They have those positions because they have been capable to parasite other people minds, work, reject papers they think their work are questioned, etc. In one word: crooks.

 

[mathwonk]

i am in math, not physics, but i guess similar principles apply. i.e. what matters is how good your work is and whether people with job opportunities are aware of that. I had not published any papers at all since my 1977 PhD, when i got one of ten NSF post doctoral fellowships given in the USA in 1980, which I used at Harvard. Obviously perhaps, what I had done was some work of interest to people at Harvard, and I made sure they knew about it.