This document analyzes the peer-reviewed publication rates of postdoctoral researchers in the U.S., revealing that 38% of surveyed postdocs had not published any first-author papers, with an average of 2.3 papers among those who did. Notably, gender and ethnicity impacted publication rates, with men and certain minority groups publishing more papers, while formal mentoring was linked to higher productivity. The study emphasizes disparities in publication success in the context of the postdoctoral training system and the recruitment of women and minorities in academia.

1. Publish or Perish: Peer-Reviewed Publication Rates of
Postdocs as a Metric for Productivity and Effective
Scientific Training
CONFIDENTIAL WORKING DRAFT ONLY
First draft (December 29, 2006) by Emil Thomas Chuck, Ph.D.
Health Professions Advising Office
Student Academic Affairs & Advising
George Mason University
4400 University Drive (Mail Stop 2C4)
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Co-chair, Diversity Committee
National Postdoctoral Association
Document revised 1/10/2008 9:12:11 AM
Submit for Sigma Xi or Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering

2. Abstract
The production of peer-reviewed first-author papers is a significant metric for an
individual postdoc’s future career success in academe. To assess the productivity of the
American postdoctoral training system, data from the 2004 Sigma Xi Postdoctoral Survey
were analyzed. 38% of the survey respondents had not published a first-author paper,
and the average number of first-author publications was 2.3 among those who had
published. Published postdocs on temporary visa generally claim more first-author
papers (2.5) compared to native-born postdocs (2.0). Among American-citizen published
postdocs, Asians and Hispanics report more first-author publications compared to
Caucasians and African-Americans. Looking at gender effects, published postdoctoral
women claim fewer first-author publications compared to men, and published men which
children claim much more first-author papers compared to men without children or all
women. Finally, our data suggest that formalized mentoring structures are positively
correlated with a higher number of first-author publications.

3. Introduction
Much attention has been made about the lack of women in scientific leadership positions,
whether it is in academia, government, or industry. While a lot of recent progress in
placing women scientists in prominent administrative positions has garnered some
attention, the lack of overall progress in recruitment, retention, and promotion throughout
the scientific workforce pipeline has been frustrating. Many studies show that
psychological metrics improve for women and minorities in scientific fields in
environments that value their demographic and personal identities, allow for flexibility in
work-life balance, and address issues related to implicit biases. However, there is very
little information that looks at how specific interventions could make women and
minority scientists more viable to hire as principal investigators.
Indeed, one of the key measures for measuring an individual scientist’s professional merit
is the number of peer-reviewed publications, and the ultimate standard of a productive
postdoctoral fellowship has generally been accepted as the first-author peer-reviewed
publication. Many studies have shown that women and minorities tend to publish fewer
papers as faculty members, which jeopardize their standing for promotion. The AAMC
disclosed that women may produce “better” papers with higher impact per publication.
However, no studies have looked at the productivity of postdoctoral scientists who could
be potential candidates for hire.
In 2004, the Sigma Xi Postdoctoral Survey became the first national/international survey
that looked into the state of postdoctoral training in the United States. An analysis of the
survey revealed significant differences in the postdoctoral experience of women and
underrepresented minorities compared to the overall cohort. Women claimed fewer sole-
author, first-author, and non-first author peer-reviewed articles than men, and women
accommodated more of their schedule to adjust for better work-life balance. Women and
minorities reported a lower quality of mentoring and guidance in their postdoctoral
training compared to the overall cohort. However, our previous reports did not look at
significant details in these findings based on research discipline, time in postdoctoral
training, or demographic.
The objective of this study is to see whether there were differences in publication rate of
first-author peer-reviewed publications among women and minority postdoc respondents
in the survey. In order to do this, a comprehensive analysis of overall postdoctoral
publication had to be undertaken, with many of the results disclosed here in this report.
The analysis is meant to serve as a snapshot of the overall workforce pipeline and their
ability for the population to produce first-author papers. This allows for this analysis to
control for the length of time taken for each postdoctoral respondent. To our knowledge,
this study is the first to take a look at the productivity of postdoctoral training as
evidenced by self-reported creation of peer-review articles. This paper serves to address
significant questions raised about the productivity of the American postdoctoral training
system and identify the major drivers of innovation in the system.

4. Selection of data
While many core questions are asked to all postdocs in the survey, many of the questions
focusing on publications, postdoctoral tenure, and type of institution were given
selectively to scientific samples of the entire postdoctoral cohort. Statistical outliers
included individual responses that claimed more than 10 publications within the first 2
postdoc years, and when appropriate, these outliers were removed for overall publication
rate analysis. Sole author papers are not included.
In our reporting, detailed prefer-no-answer and don’t know responses were excluded
from this report but may be included in some aggregate “totals.”
The methodology of data collecting for the 2004 Sigma Xi survey was previously
published. SPSS 10.0 and Excel 2004 were used to manage the data from the 2004
survey to produce the reports shown in the data tables and charts.

5. Results
How many papers are postdoctoral scholars producing?
According to the survey data, approximately 8500 first-author publications were
produced by 3715 postdocs (62%) in the respondent pool of 5960. While the calculated
productivity of postdocs is 1.4 first-author papers per postdoc in the entire respondent
pool, 2.3 first-author papers were actually produced per postdoc that published at least
one first-author paper (to be termed as “published postdoc”). 35% of the respondents had
two or more first-author publications.
Within the respondent population, we looked at differences in the publication rate among
published postdocs. Table 1 shows the results of this demographic analysis. When
broken down by citizenship status, 1024 of 2966 postdocs on temporary visa (35%)
claimed no first-author publications compared to 1021 of 2373 US native-born postdocs
(43%), 97 of 220 US naturalized postdocs (44%), or 89 of 375 permanent resident
postdocs (24%). 1210 men (35% of all male postdocs) and 1019 women (41% of all
female postdocs) claimed zero first-author publications.
Table 1. First-author publications per published postdoc by demographic and institution
type
First-author
Cohort Total Published Publication Ratio
Publications
All postdocs 5979 3728 8551 2.29
US native 2373 1352 2668 1.97
US naturalized 220 123 245 1.99
Permanent Resident 375 286 875 3.06
Temporary Visa 2966 1942 4792 2.47
Male 3429 2219 5899 2.66
… US citizen or resident 1332 787 1778 2.26
… other citizenship 2097 1432 4121 2.88
Female 2498 1479 3166 2.14
… US citizen or resident 1356 758 1444 1.91
… other citizenship 1142 721 1722 2.39
Hispanic 116 64 154 2.41
Caucasian 2281 1368 2763 2.02
African-American 102 43 89 2.07
Native American 24 18 55 3.06
Hawaii/Pacific Islander 12 7 35 5.00
Asian-American 421 268 753 2.81
Government research 535 371 858 2.31
Medical institute 379 236 515 2.18
Private academic 2427 1446 3194 2.21
Public academic 1698 1089 2707 2.49
Research institution 896 559 1321 2.36
With children 1953 1365 3568 2.61
… Male with children 1239 876 2514 2.87
… Female with children 697 476 1044 2.19
No children 3905 2274 4815 2.12
… Male no children 2115 1290 2898 2.25
… Female no children 1758 968 1917 1.98

6. Since most of the postdocs that responded to the survey came from biomedical
backgrounds, it interested us if there were differences in publication rate based on the
research area. The tables below shows selected disciplines and their publication rates. In
general biomedical science fields had a lower publication ratio compared to other science
and engineering fields.
Table 2. First author publication ratio by discipline
Table 2a. Academic disciplines
Discipline Postdocs Published postdocs First-author pubs Ratio
Agricultural and Resource Economics 4 2 7 3.50
American Studies 5 0 0 ---
Animal Sciences 50 38 77 2.03
Anthropology 19 7 14 2.00
Applied Mathematics 60 51 119 2.33
Astrophysics and Astronomy 62 53 185 3.49
Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology 934 567 1355 2.39
Cell Biology 1010 604 1247 2.06
Chemistry 417 255 672 2.64
Comparative Literature 1 0 0 ---
Computer Science 70 55 191 3.47
Developmental Biology 368 208 419 2.01
Earth Sciences 86 66 201 3.05
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 164 124 341 2.75
Economics 14 7 10 1.43
English Language and Literature 3 0 0 ---
Food Science and Engineering 8 6 23 3.83
Genetics, Genomics, and Bioinformatics 651 393 858 2.18
Geography and Regional Science 7 4 6 1.50
Global Cultural Studies 3 0 0 ---
History 10 2 2 1.00
History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology 6 2 2 1.00
Immunology and Infectious Diseases 511 315 644 2.04
Linguistics 3 2 2 1.00
Mathematics 20 14 42 3.00
Microbiology 344 207 487 2.35
Molecular Biology 1225 733 1610 2.20
Neuroscience and Neurobiology 588 384 835 2.17
Nutrition 42 30 63 2.10
Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology 34 28 76 2.71
Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Environmental Health 134 79 223 2.82
Philosophy 2 0 0 ---
Physics 251 173 663 3.83
Physiology 180 129 317 2.46
Plant Sciences 100 67 181 2.70
Political Science 6 1 1 1.00
Psychology 173 126 333 2.64
Sociology 22 11 25 2.27

7. Statistics and Probability 29 22 42 1.91
Table 2b. Clinical disciplines
Clinical Area Postdocs Published postdocs First-author pubs Ratio
Anesthesiology 14 8 18 2.25
Biostatistics and Clinical Trials 19 8 14 1.75
Cardiology 99 70 164 2.34
Colon and Rectal Surgery 3 2 2 1.00
Community and Environmental Medicine 3 1 1 1.00
Critical Care Medicine 13 8 10 1.25
Dental/Oral Surgery 3 2 4 2.00
Dentistry 8 3 25 8.33
Dermatology 15 9 26 2.89
Epidemiology 64 54 136 2.52
Family Medicine 1 0 0 ---
Gastroenterology 31 15 46 3.07
General Surgery 5 2 4 2.00
Geriatric Medicine 7 3 9 3.00
Hematology 96 68 159 2.34
Immunology and Infectious Diseases 77 44 90 2.05
Internal Medicine 29 13 19 1.46
Medical Genetics 28 18 51 2.83
Medicine, General 41 26 50 1.92
Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine 6 4 6 1.50
Neurological Surgery 9 1 8 8.00
Neurology 49 37 83 2.24
Neurosciences 169 118 277 2.35
Nuclear Medicine 26 19 116 6.11
Nuclear Radiology 14 9 65 7.22
Nursing 5 4 10 2.50
Obstretrics and Gynecology 18 15 20 1.33
Oncology 265 158 354 2.24
Ophthamology 34 20 42 2.10
Optometry 2 1 6 6.00
Orthopedics/Orthopedic Surgery 17 12 31 2.58
Otorhinolaryngology 17 12 26 2.17
Pediatrics 61 27 54 2.00
Pharmacology 64 37 105 2.84
Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine 10 6 12 2.00
Plastic Surgery 4 1 2 2.00
Preventative Medicine 13 6 20 3.33
Psychiatry 75 50 116 2.32
Public Health 45 33 80 2.42
Pulmonary Medicine 38 18 26 1.44
Radiation Biology/Radiobiology 29 17 86 5.06

8. Thoracic Surgery 6 3 15 5.00
Urology 22 15 26 1.73
To determine whether publication productivity could be correlated to the source of
funding for the postdoc, productivity of published postdocs was also analyzed with
respect to the self-disclosed source of research funding (Table 3). These data also show
that postdocs on biomedical science grants tend to claim fewer first-author publications
compared to postdocs on other science grants, again emphasizing the disciplinary
differences in the calculation of the overall publication rate. Overall, there is a higher
ratio of first-author papers per published postdoc when the postdoc is financially
supported by a supervising principal investigator compared to direct fellowship grant
support.
Table 3. First-author paper productivity based on research support.
Type of grant Total Published PD Papers Ratio
NIH Research grant 132 74 170 2.30
Prefer not to answer 12 7 38 5.43
NIH NRSA 280 180 407 2.26
NSF Research grant 17 13 49 3.77
NSF fellowship 22 17 71 4.18
DOE grant 3 2 28 14.00
Other US government grant 68 48 146 3.04
Non-US government grant 127 69 165 2.39
Foundation or non-profit source fellowship 487 289 591 2.04
Other 112 62 178 2.87
Postdoc source of funding Total Published PD Papers Ratio
Grant to PI 2834 1832 4440 2.42
Grant to consortium 777 458 979 2.14
Grant to postdoc 1305 793 1708 2.15
Funds from institution/employer 654 403 886 2.20
Personal resources 23 11 46 4.18
Don't Know 237 132 382 2.89
Other 119 78 209 2.68
Prefer no answer 22 15 55 3.67
Not applicable/No answer 12 8 41 5.13

9. OVERALL PRODUCTION TRENDS IN FIRST-AUTHOR PEER
REVIEW PUBLICATIONS
Considering the significant number of postdocs who have not produced a first-author
publication, we wondered how long it took for postdocs to produce their first and
subsequent first-author publications. For the rest of this paper, our analysis considered
the postdoctoral training time taken by the respondents at the time of the survey to
calculate a publication rate metric for producing a first-author publication. In this
section, we discover the self-reported number of postdocs without a first-author
publication per year of postdoc, the number with at least one first-author publication, and
the general publication rate among published postdocs per postdoc tenure year.
Chart 1 shows the population of the 5782 respondents broken down by postdoctoral
tenure. While the cohort contains postdocs with up to 10 years of experience, 83% of the
respondents are in their first four years of postdoctoral training, and half of all
respondents are in their first two years of postdoctoral training. Two populations are
highlighted: postdocs who did not disclose publishing a collaborative first-author peer-
reviewed article, and those postdocs that did. As the number of postdocs decreases with
increasing tenure, the proportion of postdocs with first author publications increases.
This trend is shown in Chart 2.
To determine how quickly first-author publication were produced by postdocs, the
number of first-author publications was asked of each of the published postdocs, and the
average number of publications for each postdoc year was calculated (Chart 3).
Published postdocs in their first or second year of tenure claimed an average of 1.9 first-
author publications, though it is not clear whether the publications were related to
delayed publication from doctoral studies or new publication related to their postdoctoral
studies. Linear regression on these data suggests that the average publication rate was
0.51 first-author publications per postdoc year (R2 = 0.8451). The publication rate
between postdoc years 2 and 5 was 0.26 first-author publications per published-postdoc
year (R2 = 0.9725), 0.39 if one includes all unpublished postdocs (R2 = 0.9755).

10. Chart 1: First-author publications Chart 2: Percentage of postdocs with
first-author publications
1600
1400 Unpublished 100%
1200 Published
80%
1000
Number of 60%
800 Number of
post docs
600 Published postdocs
40%
400 Unpublished
200 20%
0 0%
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
Y0
Y2
Y4
Y6
Y8
Y0
Y2
Y4
Y6
Y8
Postdoc tenure (years) Postdoc tenure (years)
Chart 3: First-author paper publication Chart 4: Non-first-author paper
rate publication rate
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
Po st d o c t enur e ( year s)
Po st d o c t enur e ( year s)
Chart 5: First-author publications: US
native vs. Temp Visa Chart 6: Percentage cohort
postdocs with first author
1400 publications
1
1200 US Native 0. 9
TV pub
Temp Visa 0. 8
1000 US pub
0. 7
TV unpub
800 US unpub 0. 6
Number of Percentage of
postdocs cohort
0. 5
600
0. 4
400 0. 3
0. 2
200
0. 1
0
0
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
Y0
Y2
Y4
Y6
Y8
Postdoc tenure (years) Postdoc t enure (years)

11. A similar analysis was done for non-first-author peer-reviewed publications. The
publication rate for published postdocs is shown in Chart 4. The proportion of postdocs
with a non-first-author publication (58%) was similar with the proportion of all postdocs
with first-author publications (62%). Overall, the publication rate was 0.51 non-first-
author publications per postdoc year (R2 = 0.8311). Between postdoc years 2 and 5, the
publication rate was 0.38 non-first-author publications per published-postdoc year (R2 =
0.9911), 0.50 if one includes all unpublished postdocs (R2 = 0.9874).
Respondent data were also used to determine the median time it took for postdocs to
produce first-author and non-first author peer-reviewed publications. Overall it took 16
months for a postdoc to produce his/her first first-author paper as a postdoc and 19
months for the first secondary-author paper. When trying to calculate the median time to
produce subsequent publications, it appeared that the next first-author paper was
produced when the postdoc had 42 months of training (26 months later), and a third paper
by 66 months (24 months after that). In contrast, the next secondary-author papers
appear to be produced at postdoctoral months 30 (11 months later) and 46 (16 months
later).
Publication Rates For US-born Native Postdocs and Postdocs
On Temporary Visa
We were interested in the differences in the publication rate of postdocs on temporary
visa compared to native-born American citizens. The self-reported data show that
overall, postdocs on temporary visa self-reported higher publication rates compared to
US native colleagues.
We focused on the first-author publication rate of postdocs with either a US Native
(n=2109) or temporary visa citizenship status (n=2678). Chart 5 shows the population of
published and published US native and temporary visa postdocs. While more postdocs
are publishing papers with increasing postdoctoral tenure, the proportion of postdocs on
temporary visa with first-author publications was larger than the proportion of US native
postdocs. Overall, twice as many temporary-visa postdocs have first-author publications
as there are US native postdocs. Chart 6 shows the calculated percentage of postdocs
with first-author publications. By the fourth postdoctoral year, roughly 80% of all
temporary visa postdocs had first-author publications while roughly 45% of similar-
tenured US-native postdocs had first-author publications.
The number of self-disclosed first-author publications was calculated per postdoctoral
year (Chart 7). Most of the growth in the number of publications per published postdoc
occurred among the more senior postdocs, with a dramatic increase among temporary-
visa postdocs. For the entire cohort, temporary-visa postdocs had a first-author
publication rate of 0.70 (R2 = 0.7615), which was twice that of US-native postdocs (0.34,
R2 = 0.7908). Between postdoc years 2 to 5, the rate of first-author publication for
temporary visa holder postdocs (0.31, R2 = 0.9552) was also greater than the rate of US-
native postdocs (0.18, R2 = 0.6484).

12. Chart 7: First-author paper
publication rate Chart 8: First-author publications:
Caucasian vs. Asian citizen postdocs
10
9 US pub
100.0%
8 TV pub
80.0%
7
60.0%
6 % cohort
Number of postdocs
40.0%
papers 5
produced 20.0%
4
3 0.0%
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
2
Y0
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Caucasian
1 Postdoc tenure (years)
Asian
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Postdoc tenure (years)
Chart 10: First-author publication
rates: Asian citizen postdocs
Chart 9: First-author publication Asian Asian native Asian natural Asian PR
rates: published Caucasian vs.
Asian citizen postdocs
5
5
per productive
Publications
4
Publicatio 4
postdoc
ns per 3 3
productiv 2 2
e postdoc 1 1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0-
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-1
-3
-5
-7
Y0
Y2
Y4
Y6
Postdoc tenure (years)
Postdoc tenure (years)

13. US Native Demographics
Caucasians and Asians
All US citizens (including native, naturalized, and permanent residents) were also
analyzed for any demographic differences in postdoc publication rates. Focusing on data
from majority groups (specifically Caucasian and Asian populations), we sought to
determine the publication rates of these populations. The survey revealed that 1250 of
2147 Caucasians (58.2%) and 217 of 361 Asians (60.1%) had self-reported first-author
publications. Chart 8 shows the
Table 5. First-Author Publication Rates by US-citizen Demographics
percentage of Caucasian and
Asian postdocs with a first-author 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 y 4-5 Sum
y y y y 0-5y
publication by postdoc tenure. African-Americans
Interestingly, proportionately Unpublished 26 16 9 2 3 56
Published 7 11 10 8 3 39
fewer Asian-citizen postdocs Publications 8 16 14 15 6 59
between years 1 and 3 publish Productive 1.14 1.45 1.40 1.875 2.00 1.51
Publication Rate
first-author papers compared to Hispanic/Latino Americans
Caucasian citizens, but Asian Unpublished 26 15 4 6 0 51
citizens outpublish Caucasians Published 9 19 10 7 6 51
Publications 12 36 24 19 14 105
beyond postdoc year 4. The first- Productive 1.33 1.89 2.40 2.71 2.33 2.06
author publication rate among Publication Rate
Native Americans
Caucasian American citizens was Unpublished 3 3 0 0 0 6
0.2248 papers per postdoc year Published 1 7 4 2 2 16
2 Publications 2 13 6 5 3 29
(R = 0.9045) in this sample. Productive 2.00 1.86 1.50 2.50 1.5 1.81
Publication Rate
Pacific Islander Americans
We also looked at 224 Asian Unpublished 2 10 1 0 4
citizens (those not with Published 2 11 2 0 6
permanent residency status) to see Publications 3 11 5 0 10
Productive 1.00
1.50 1.00 2.50 0 1.67
if there were a difference between Publication Rate
naturalized and native-born Asian Americans
Unpublished 50 47
27 9 7 140
citizen productivity. Removing Published 39 31
40 42 41 193
the permanent residents resulted Publications 75 99
104 96 136 510
Productive 3.19
1.92 2.60 2.29 3.32 2.64
in a much lower publication rate Publication Rate
than if they were included (Chart Caucasian Americans
10). Regression analysis did not Unpublished 264 379
130 75 33 881
Published 344 211
279 219 137 1190
produce a statistically reliable Publications 621 349
542 513 308 2333
overall publication rate for any of Productive 1.65
1.81 1.94 2.34 2.25 1.96
Publication Rate
these populations, but the
publication rate of US citizens (naturalized and native) in our sample was 0.0620 papers
per postdoc year between years 0 and 4 (R2 = 0.82).
Underrepresented Minorities
Underrepresented minority postdocs had a relatively smaller publication rate compared to
majority counterparts. Specifically, 18 of 24 Native American postdocs (75.0%), 6 of 10
Pacific Islander postdocs (60.0%), 63 of 115 Hispanic/Latino postdocs (54.8%), and 42

14. of 100 African-American postdocs (42.0%) claim to have authored at least one first-
author publication. Table 5 shows the breakdown by postdoc year.
The publication rate for published minority postdocs appears to be lower compared to
published majority postdocs. Only 41% of African-American postdocs surveyed had a
first-author publication compared to 50% of Latinos, 60% of Pacific Islanders, and 72.7%
of Native Americans. Published Hispanic/Latino Americans have a publication rate of
0.465 papers per postdoc year (between years 0 and 4, R2 = 0.9847), while published
African-American postdocs create 0.215 papers per published postdoc year (R2 =
0.9091).
Gender and Children
Among postdocs who have served for no more than 6 years, the overall percentage of
first-author published postdocs was not significantly different between women (1318 of
3627, 36.3%) and men (1969 of 5099, 38.6%). This trend has also been observed with
non-first-author publications (data not shown) from women (1144 of 3318, 34.5%) and
men (1727 of 4669, 37.0%). Caring for children did not seem to adversely affect the
overall publication ratio (2109 of 5805, 36.3% no children vs. 1664 of 4460, 37.3%
children).
Published women respondents had a generally lower ratio of publications and rate of
publication of first-author articles compared to their male counterparts. Regardless of
type of institution, the number of first-author papers published by women was
significantly lower among published women compared to published men. The disparity
becomes more dramatic when comparing male and female postdocs who claim to write
three or more first-author papers: over 40% of postdocs who author one or two first-
author papers are women, but the proportion is 36% women who author three first-author
papers and 32% who author four or more. Between years 1 and 5, the publication rate
was 0.35 papers per male published postdoctoral year (R2 = 0.9749) compared to 0.16
papers per female published postdoctoral year (R2 = 0.8936). For postdocs without
children between years 1 and 5, male postdocs published 0.30 papers per year (R2 =
0.8980) while women published at 0.17 papers per year (R2 = 0.8279). For postdocs with
children between years 1 and 5, male postdocs had a publication rate of 0.34 papers per
year (R2 = 0.9738) while women postdocs published at 0.11 papers per year (R2 =
0.5113). Table 6 shows the persistence of this ratio compared to postdoc tenure. These
data are consistent with a few studies showing that married men tend to be more
“productive” in academe than women or unmarried men

15. Table 6. First-Author Publication Rates by Gender and Children Status
Gender, children, first-author papers 0-1y 1-2y 2-3y 3-4y 4-5y 5-6y 0-6y
Male no children 562 580 405 267 141 60 2015
Published postdocs 224 329 280 212 110 52 1207
Percentage published postdocs 28.5% 36.2% 40.9% 44.3% 43.8% 46.4% 37.5%
Publications claimed 418 632 643 588 305 173 2759
Publications per published postdoc 1.87 1.92 2.30 2.77 2.77 3.33 2.29
Male with children 224 242 244 180 150 75 1115
Published postdocs 109 136 182 141 127 67 762
Percentage published postdocs 32.7% 36.0% 42.7% 43.9% 45.8% 47.2% 40.6%
Publications claimed 259 300 493 411 415 368 2246
Publications per published postdoc 2.38 2.21 2.71 2.91 3.27 5.49 2.95
All male 786 822 649 447 291 135 3130
Published postdocs 333 465 462 353 237 119 1969
Percentage published postdocs 29.8% 36.1% 41.6% 44.1% 44.9% 46.9% 38.6%
Publications claimed 677 932 1136 999 720 541 5005
Publications per published postdoc 2.03 2.00 2.46 2.83 3.04 4.55 2.54
Female no children 486 489 315 215 117 59 1681
Published postdocs 159 230 211 159 93 50 902
Percentage published postdocs 24.7% 32.0% 40.1% 42.5% 44.3% 45.9% 34.9%
Publications claimed 246 395 441 347 208 145 1782
Publications per published postdoc 1.55 1.72 2.09 2.18 2.24 2.90 1.98
Female with children 117 126 134 118 95 38 628
Published postdocs 40 74 94 94 84 30 416
Percentage published postdocs 25.5% 37.0% 41.2% 44.3% 46.9% 44.1% 39.8%
Publications claimed 82 147 197 185 200 81 892
Publications per published postdoc 2.05 1.99 2.10 1.97 2.38 2.70 2.14
All female 603 615 449 333 212 97 2309
Published postdocs 199 304 305 253 177 80 1318
Percentage published postdocs 24.8% 33.1% 40.5% 43.2% 45.5% 45.2% 36.3%
Publications claimed 328 542 638 532 408 226 2674
Publications per published postdoc 1.65 1.78 2.09 2.10 2.31 2.83 2.03

16. First-Author Publications by Institution Type
Does the institutional environment affect the publication rate of postdocs? To answer
this question, we divided our data to see what proportion of postdocs had first-author and
other peer-reviewed publications (Table 7). While 62% of our sample (3586 of 5806)
claimed at least one first-author publication, government postdocs had a higher
proportion (348 of 508, 69%) while private academic institution postdocs had the lowest
proportion (1397 of 2361, 59%). Roughly 35% of all postdocs (2028 of 5806) claimed at
least two first-author articles; public institutions in this case had proportionally more
postdocs with two first-author publications (652 of 1663, 39%), and medical institutions
had the smallest proportion (110 of 370, 30%). Consequently medical institutions and
private academic institutions have the lowest first-author publication rates (1.34 and 1.35
publications per overall postdoc population respectively), while government and public
academic institution postdocs had the highest rates (1.54 and 1.73 respectively). If one
looks at just the published postdocs (those with at least one first-author publications),
medical institution and government postdocs have the smallest number of publications
per published postdoc (2.19 and 2.25 respectively) while research institutions and public
academic institutions had the highest ratios (2.35 and 2.71 respectively).
Table 7. Publication rates of journal articles by institution type.
Pubs per Pubs per
Group Pub n 1+ 2+ %n (1+) %n (2+) Pubs
cohort postdoc 1+ postdoc
Total Sole 5015 538 237 10.7% 4.7% 1163 0.23 2.16
Govt Sole 441 49 17 11.1% 3.9% 79 0.18 1.61
Med Inst Sole 295 21 7 7.1% 2.4% 34 0.12 1.62
Priv Ac Sole 2044 185 78 9.1% 3.8% 366 0.18 1.98
Pub Ac Sole 1454 218 104 15.0% 7.2% 557 0.38 2.56
Res Inst Sole 741 63 31 8.5% 4.2% 125 0.17 1.98
Total First 5806 3586 2028 61.8% 34.9% 8630 1.49 2.41
Govt First 508 348 188 68.5% 37.0% 784 1.54 2.25
Med Inst First 370 227 110 61.4% 29.7% 496 1.34 2.19
Priv Ac First 2361 1397 762 59.2% 32.3% 3181 1.35 2.28
Pub Ac First 1663 1062 652 63.9% 39.2% 2882 1.73 2.71
Res Inst First 857 524 297 61.1% 34.7% 1234 1.44 2.35
Total NonFirst 5475 3157 1821 57.7% 33.3% 7693 1.41 2.44
Govt NonFirst 485 318 198 65.6% 40.8% 875 1.80 2.75
Med Inst NonFirst 338 181 104 53.6% 30.8% 444 1.31 2.45
Priv Ac NonFirst 2237 1241 705 55.5% 31.5% 2900 1.30 2.34
Pub Ac NonFirst 1558 929 518 59.6% 33.2% 2266 1.45 2.44
Res Inst NonFirst 812 460 282 56.7% 34.7% 1138 1.40 2.47
Total Not PR 5088 2314 1510 45.5% 29.7% 7706 1.51 3.33
Govt Not PR 438 204 133 46.6% 30.4% 698 1.59 3.42
Med Inst Not PR 297 116 66 39.1% 22.2% 350 1.18 3.02
Priv Ac Not PR 2084 897 592 43.0% 28.4% 2912 1.40 3.25
Pub Ac Not PR 1481 753 518 50.8% 35.0% 2748 1.86 3.65
Res Inst Not PR 745 319 187 42.8% 25.1% 932 1.25 2.92

17. Gender differences in publication rates within institution type were also analyzed, with
the data for years 0-6 of postdoctoral tenure shown in Table 8. While publication rate
data are not conclusive for government, research institutes, and medical institutes, the
data from academic institutions shows that women appear to have a lower rate of
publishing first-author papers (0.25 papers per published public academic postdoc year
[R2 = 0.9116], 0.18 papers per private academic postdoc year [R2 = 0.9269]) compared to
men (0.49 papers per published public academic postdoc year [R2 = 0.9954], 0.44 papers
per private academic postdoc year [R2 = 0.9696]).
Table 8. Proportion of postdocs with self-reported number of first-author publications, by
type of training institution and gender.
Institution Gender 0 first-author 1 first-author 2 first-author 3 first-author 4+ first author
Government Male 82 84 46 31 33
Female 79 83 47 18 27
(Percent of inst) (49%) (50%) (50%) (37%) (45%)
Private
Male 525 363 204 121 154
Academic
444 284 176 60 71
Female
(46%) (44%) (46%) (33%) (32%)
Public
Male 323 250 176 95 156
Academic
280 171 112 61 60
Female
(46%) (41%) (39%) (39%) (28%)
Medical Institute Male 70 70 29 16 23
70 47 26 9 13
Female
(50%) (40%) (47%) (36%) (36%)
Research
Male 194 127 104 50 61
Institute
143 101 52 31 27
Female
(42%) (44%) (33%) (38%) (33%)

18. Table 9 shows how the publication rates vary with postdoctoral tenure and research
institution type. The rates of postdocs in their first five years of training are remarkably
similar. It appears that government and private academic postdocs had a smaller first-
author publication rate between postdoctoral years 2 to 5 (government 0.256 first-author
publications per postdoc year, R2 = 0.6476; private academic 0.298 publications per
postdoc year, R2 = 0.9557). In contrast, medical institutes and public academic
institutions had the highest productivity rates (medical institute 0.500 first author
publications per postdoc year, R2 = 0.9314; 0.445 publications per postdoc year, R2 =
0.9791).
Table 9. Publication rates of male postdocs with first-author peer-reviewed papers, by
training institution and postdoctoral tenure (within the first six years).
Publications per
Published First-author published
Institution Male Postdocs postdocs Percentage publications postdoc
Public Academic Y0-1 239 99 41.4% 198 2.00
Public Academic Y1-2 266 163 61.3% 333 2.04
Public Academic Y2-3 197 150 76.1% 366 2.44
Public Academic Y3-4 125 108 86.4% 320 2.96
Public Academic Y4-5 70 62 88.6% 217 3.50
Public Academic Y5-6 41 38 92.7% 272 7.16
Public
Academic Y0-6 total 938 620 66.1% 1706 2.75
Private Academic Y0-1 366 151 41.3% 238 1.58
Private Academic Y1-2 320 185 57.8% 341 1.84
Private Academic Y2-3 262 177 67.6% 420 2.37
Private Academic Y3-4 172 132 76.7% 342 2.59
Private Academic Y4-5 124 99 79.8% 320 3.23
Private Academic Y5-6 46 39 84.8% 188 4.82
Private
Academic Y0-6 total 1290 783 60.7% 1849 2.36
Government Y0-1 43 23 53.5% 38 1.65
Government Y1-2 64 33 51.6% 70 2.12
Government Y2-3 50 38 76.0% 61 1.61
Government Y3-4 46 33 71.7% 81 2.45
Government Y4-5 34 29 85.3% 64 2.21
Government Y5-6 4 4 100.0% 12 3.00
Government Y0-6 total 241 160 66.4% 326 2.04
Medical Institute Y0-1 42 22 52.4% 50 2.27
Medical Institute Y1-2 47 24 51.1% 34 1.42
Medical Institute Y2-3 40 29 72.5% 52 1.79
Medical Institute Y3-4 31 24 77.4% 64 2.67
Medical Institute Y4-5 24 18 75.0% 36 2.00
Medical Institute Y5-6 10 7 70.0% 33 4.71
Medical Institute Y0-6 total 194 124 63.9% 269 2.17
Research
Institute Y0-1 99 39 39.4% 81 2.08
Research
Institute Y1-2 131 66 50.4% 133 2.02
Research
Institute Y2-3 103 68 66.0% 194 2.85
Research
Institute Y3-4 83 65 78.3% 167 2.57
Research
Institute Y4-5 42 33 78.6% 79 2.39
Research
Institute Y5-6 32 30 93.8% 107 3.57
Research
Institute Y0-6 total 490 301 61.4% 761 2.53

19. Table 10. Publication rates of female postdocs with first-author peer-reviewed papers, by
training institution and postdoctoral tenure (within the first six years).
Publications per
Published First-author published
Institution Female Postdocs postdocs Percentage publications postdoc
Public Academic Y0-1 163 57 35.0% 96 1.68
Public Academic Y1-2 192 98 51.0% 186 1.90
Public Academic Y2-3 149 105 70.5% 241 2.30
Public Academic Y3-4 77 61 79.2% 141 2.31
Public Academic Y4-5 46 35 76.1% 95 2.71
Public Academic Y5-6 23 22 95.7% 70 3.18
Public
Academic Y0-6 total 650 378 58.2% 829 2.19
Private Academic Y0-1 278 87 31.3% 142 1.63
Private Academic Y1-2 253 129 51.0% 222 1.72
Private Academic Y2-3 166 116 69.9% 218 1.88
Private Academic Y3-4 147 102 69.4% 201 1.97
Private Academic Y4-5 94 76 80.9% 176 2.32
Private Academic Y5-6 38 30 78.9% 72 2.40
Private
Academic Y0-6 total 976 540 55.3% 1031 1.91
Government Y0-1 36 16 44.4% 29 1.81
Government Y1-2 52 29 55.8% 47 1.62
Government Y2-3 56 40 71.4% 79 1.98
Government Y3-4 48 23 47.9% 82 3.57
Government Y4-5 28 25 89.3% 57 2.28
Government Y5-6 10 7 70.0% 23 3.29
Government Y0-6 total 230 140 60.9% 317 2.26
Medical Institute Y0-1 37 7 18.9% 9 1.29
Medical Institute Y1-2 35 16 45.7% 21 1.31
Medical Institute Y2-3 32 19 59.4% 39 2.05
Medical Institute Y3-4 21 16 76.2% 30 1.88
Medical Institute Y4-5 16 5 31.3% 16 3.20
Medical Institute Y5-6 9 8 88.9% 24 3.00
Medical Institute Y0-6 total 150 71 47.3% 139 1.96
Research
Institute Y0-1 92 35 38.0% 57 1.63
Research
Institute Y1-2 87 35 40.2% 67 1.91
Research
Institute Y2-3 54 33 61.1% 71 2.15
Research
Institute Y3-4 43 39 90.7% 80 2.05
Research
Institute Y4-5 31 28 90.3% 48 1.71
Research
Institute Y5-6 10 7 70.0% 21 3.00
Research
Institute Y0-6 total 317 177 55.8% 344 1.94

20. Disciplinary Differences in Publication Rate
Responses were also separated by self-reported discipline to see whether publication rates
for physical science postdocs differed from postdocs in biomedical science who
constitute the majority of responses in the survey. The results for many of these areas are
shown in Table 10. Calculations of publication rate show that physics and chemistry
postdocs produce around 1 paper per postdoc year for all cohort postdocs, just over 1
paper for each postdoc with a publication. Math postdocs have a publication rate of
around 0.7 papers per year, while earth science and computer science postdocs have a
rate of around 0.8 to 1.0 papers per year. This rate is much higher than the rate of
publication for molecular biology postdocs (0.4 to 0.5 papers per postdoc year).
Many scientific workforce studies are concerned about the lack of women who make it to
faculty positions in the physical (non-biomedical) sciences. Table 11 looks at the
respondents from the Sigma Xi survey that reported their first-author publications in the
areas of chemistry, physics, and ecology/evolutionary biology. The ratio of first-author
publications to published postdocs remains higher for men compared to women between
years 1-4 of training. Remarkably, the number of women respondents in physics and
chemistry drop off is dramatically smaller after two years of postdoctoral training,
suggesting that early postdoctoral mentoring for the purposes of research productivity
may be a critical area of intervention in order to retain women in the faculty pool.
Table 11. Publication rate of non-biomedical science postdocs, by gender and year of
training (up to 6 years)
Discipline Gender Year Postdocs Published Percentage First-author Pubs per
Postdocs Published publications published
Postdocs claimed postdoc
Chemistry Male 0-1 96 38 39.6% 88 2.32
1-2 96 56 58.3% 101 1.80
2-3 66 48 72.7% 118 2.46
3-4 30 24 80.0% 69 2.88
4-5 21 16 76.2% 76 4.75
5-6 9 9 100.0% 57 6.33
Total 0-6 318 191 60.1% 509 2.66
Chemistry Female 0-1 37 14 37.8% 22 1.57
1-2 36 20 55.6% 34 1.70
2-3 17 15 88.2% 30 2.00
3-4 7 5 71.4% 8 1.60
4-5 6 6 100.0% 32 5.33
5-6 1 1 100.0% 1 1.00
Total 0-6 104 61 58.7% 127 2.08
Physics Male 0-1 64 29 45.3% 39 1.34
1-2 56 36 64.3% 83 2.31
2-3 45 36 80.0% 120 3.33
3-4 22 19 86.4% 80 4.21
4-5 13 10 76.9% 63 6.30
5-6 4 4 100.0% 29 7.25
Total 0-6 204 134 65.7% 414 3.09
Physics Female 0-1 11 6 54.5% 10 1.67
1-2 21 14 66.7% 49 3.50
2-3 4 2 50.0% 7 3.50
3-4 2 2 100.0% 5 2.50
4-6 3 3 100.0% 18 6.00

21. Total 0-6 41 27 65.9% 89 3.30
Ecology and Male 0-1 37 27 73.0% 59 2.19
Evolutionary
Biology
1-2 26 18 69.2% 37 2.06
2-3 12 11 91.7% 39 3.55
3-4 17 14 82.4% 51 3.64
4-6 6 6 100.0% 23 3.83
Total 0-6 61 49 80.3% 150 3.06
Ecology and Female 0-1 18 12 66.7% 20 1.67
Evolutionary
Biology
1-2 22 15 68.2% 34 2.27
2-3 12 12 100.0% 29 2.42
3-4 6 5 83.3% 18 3.60
4-6 4 2 50.0% 5 2.50
Total 0-6 44 34 77.3% 86 2.53
Does mentoring affect published postdoc productivity?
Respondents were also asked about the mentoring and supervision style they had with
their postdoctoral training. We have previously reported that the existence of a formal
mentoring plan was a key component to more effective postdoctoral training. Table 12
shows the responses and their self-reported publications. The proportion of postdocs who
had a first author publication was not significantly different depending on whether the
postdoc had a training plan. However, postdocs with a formal written plan tended to
have more first-author publications per published postdoc. Postdocs who perceived that
their written plan was useful had a higher publication ratio.
Table 12. The effect of first-author publication ratio on formalized mentoring structure
First-author
Training Characteristic Total Published Publication Ratio
Publications
Formal evaluations?
…Yes 1219 804 2022 2.51
…No 3714 2269 5436 2.40
Written plan 669 421 1109 2.63
… was not useful 40 24 51 2.13
… was somewhat useful 292 183 460 2.51
… was very useful 314 204 545 2.67
Oral unwritten plan 3520 2179 5192 2.38
No plan 1646 1043 2554 2.45
Frequency of advisor-
trainee meetings
…Daily 391 279 798 2.86
…Weekly 1660 1056 2436 2.31
…Monthly 1045 629 1408 2.24
…Yearly 284 164 365 2.23
Were advisor
expectations included?
…Formal written, yes 363 236 615 2.61
…Formal written, no 190 111 254 2.29
...Oral unwritten, yes 1452 924 2231 2.41
…Oral unwritten, no 1233 727 1628 2.24

22. Discussion
This is the first detailed analysis of data looking at the publication rates of postdoctoral
scholars engaged in training as reported in the 2004 Sigma Xi Postdoctoral Survey.
Difficulties in data interpretation are apparent when looking at the disciplinary
representation of the respondents (majority biomedical sciences) and the lack of response
from underrepresented minorities. Regardless, some insights may be gained from the
responses we did gather on their productivity, as measured by their self-reported
publication of first-author peer-reviewed papers, which are considered to be a critical
measuring stick for preparation for a future career in academic sciences and engineering.
In addition, the production of first-author publications can be an indirect measure to the
innovative capacity of this highly educated population of scientists that will drive future
scientific discovery.
In general, the American postdoctoral training system produces approximately one first-
author and one collaborative non-first-author publication (data not shown) every two
years. Around 40% of postdocs report they have a first-author publication within their
first year of training, but it is not clear whether the publication is related to their graduate
thesis work or their “new” work as a postdoc. However, as postdocs continue to be
trained, it appears that it takes roughly 12 to 18 months to produce a first-author
publication and slightly longer for a second first-author publication. This timing suggests
that for most postdocs, postdoctoral training does not necessarily result in more efficient
production of innovative discoveries as evidenced by the publication of first-author
papers. It is possible the delay could be due to collecting more data for a higher-impact
first-author publication that would be more valued in an academic job search or
investigating different angles until collecting enough data for a quality publication.
Temporary visa postdocs report a higher publication rate of first-author peer-reviewed
papers compared to US native-born postdocs (roughly twice as productive). By the
fourth postdoctoral training year, there were twice as many temporary-visa postdocs with
first-author publications compared to the number of US native postdocs with first-author
papers. Though very small in number, more postdocs on temporary visa are engaged in
extended postdoctoral training (beyond 6 years).
Among US native postdocs, the calculated publication rate of majority populations
(Caucasian and Asians) was generally higher than the publication rates from
underrepresented minorities. While the number of respondents make it difficult to form
conclusions, we do observe that Hispanic-heritage postdocs apparently produce 0.47 first-
author papers a year, which is a higher rate than Caucasians. In contrast, African-
American postdocs produce 0.22 first-author papers a year. It is not known why this
disparity in publication rate exists.
There is also a gender gap in first-author publication productivity. While the proportion
of women with first-author publications is not much different than men in the
postdoctoral cohort, the rate of publication per training year is half the rate that men
produce first-author publications. Caring for children did not appear to affect the

23. proportion of postdocs with first-author papers, but there may be a subtle difference in
publication rate, particularly among postdoctoral women.
There seemed to be little major difference in production of first-author papers by type of
research institution. Government institutions had the highest proportion of postdoctoral
scientists with 1 or more first-author and secondary-author publications.
Disciplinary differences in publication rate reveal that our overall measurement of first
author publication productivity reflects the majority biomedical science population.
Indeed, postdocs in areas outside the biomedical sciences seem to produce more quickly
first-authored papers. This is likely due to the differences in the nature of research in
these areas. Many of these disciplines do not have a tradition of postdoctoral training
unless the scholars intend to pursue an academic professorial position. It is not clear
whether this higher rate of publication results in more satisfied postdocs who attain their
professional goals in academia, industry, or elsewhere, but it can be surmised that the
nature of their work and disciplinary environment may be supportive for these postdocs.
That said, the percentage of women in non-biomedical scientific postdoctoral positions is
still extremely low. Not only are the women in this cohort reporting relatively lower
rates of publication but their numbers decrease dramatically after the second year of
postdoctoral training. If the numbers in this report are representative of those disciplines,
it is not surprising that few women candidates exist that could meet the disciplinary
threshold of “quality” if it were measured solely by first-author publication productivity.
The limitation of this study is that individual respondents were not asked to disclose the
value of their first-author publications. While the number of first-author papers is
important, in any job interview, the quality, impact, and citation values of those and other
secondary-author publications is also deemed to be critical in determining the caliber of a
scientist-candidate for fellowships or job positions.
Implications for Training the Scientific Workforce
Much attention has been brought recently to the dearth of quality candidates for principal
investigator or scientist positions for academic or non-academic positions. Although
much attention has been brought upon the climate that dissuades women and minorities
from pursuing research careers, aside from counting individuals, little is really known
about the output of the American postdoctoral training system. Indeed, one of the most
frustrating statements in this debate is that we do not have enough scientists who are
ready for these types of jobs.
Standards that had guided many doctoral students are no longer the case with
postdoctoral training. While there are specific guidelines and milestones set by curricular
and thesis committees (such as the publication of at least one first-author paper),
postdoctoral training relies much more on fulfilling personal and professional
expectations of the trainee and the mentor. A lack of oversight or quality control puts the
postdoctoral researcher at greater professional vulnerability, and the lack of stated
professional landmarks to make a trainee a successful scientist often can result in a less-
than-optimal professional experience.

24. While first-author publications cannot by itself be the sufficient measure of a successful
postdoctoral fellowship, it is a critical metric for the review of any scientist’s productivity
or potential in a grant review or job application. While this study is not able to take
impact of publications into account (such as number of citations to each paper), the
number of publications including first-author publications is reliably a quantitative metric
that narrows an applicant pool. Where that minimum number is set may vary greatly
among disciplines, institutions, and departments, but the goal for most postdoctoral
trainees should still be to place themselves in a competitive position.
It is conceded that the institutions represented in this survey are responsible for training a
majority of postdoctoral scholars whose intentions are to pursue careers in academia at
research intensive and undergraduate teaching institutions. However, these same
institutions will most likely hire those postdoctoral scholars, and are somewhat
responsible for the quality of the hiring pool for themselves as well as industry positions,
just as they would be responsible for the pools of undergraduate candidates who will
apply for graduate programs in medicine, law, or “the workforce.” If the minimum
number of papers for a “quality” candidate is 5 first-author papers, these data suggest that
our postdoctoral training system is woefully inadequate to seed the pool with diverse
quality candidates that may be able to reach that goal. According to these data, higher
numbers favor postdocs who are not American citizens and who are Caucasian male
postdocs. For disciplines that tend to have higher publication rates, such as physics and
chemistry, the bar seems to be set at a point where women could likely be summarily
excluded because their publication rate could not keep up with their male counterparts.
As a result the women who remain in postdocs tend to be as well-published as the men,
but their proportion in the pool drastically decreases. Those women who publish fewer
first-author publications may have to create much higher-impact first-author papers
compared to men to maintain a viable candidacy. Thus, women could also be more likely
to opt-out of a career track towards investigatorship as personal work-life issues could
distract them from maintaining a competitive publication rate.
The publication rate may also explain the expansion of postdoctoral tenure for biomedical
scientists. The data suggest it takes almost a year to produce a first-author paper, so to
reach the critical “five paper” threshold, the average postdoc would have to serve five or
more years in biomedical sciences to be a viable candidate. Since the average age of a
postdoc (in their second year of training) is around 33, the age for a scientist who
completed postdoctoral training would be in the mid-to-late 30’s. However, competitive
applicants are clearly not the “average” candidates; hiring decisions favor extraordinary
scientists who can produce high-impact research and get funded quickly.
These data suggest that there is a great disconnect between the development of
postdoctoral scholars at the institutional and disciplinary level and the preparation for
viable faculty candidates “of quality”, especially in non-biomedical scientific areas. It is
thus important that institutions that serve postdoctoral scholars be prepared to collect
critical data to properly assess and improve the postdoctoral training system. It should be
in the best interests of academic institutions to have their postdocs become more

25. informed about the competitive nature of a career as a principal investigator and make
themselves more accountable to producing more productive candidates. Our data show
that modest changes in the structure of a postdoctoral supervision could correspond to
higher publication rates. Simple steps such as requiring and reviewing formal written
plans, explicitly stating the roles for the scholar and the supervisor, and scheduling more
interactions and meetings could result in a greater positive outcome in postdoctoral
publication rate. These interventions also may be critical to supporting the career paths
of women and underrepresented minority scientists at the postdoctoral stage.
It is also clear that an outcomes-oriented postdoctoral training system may be desirable
but does not address professional climate issues. There is increased concern about the
production of postdoctoral scientists who would not act responsibly in their conduct of
research in order to get that extra first-author credit. Having more postdoctoral scientists
who publish papers may be desirable if we were to measure scientific innovation, but
first-author papers do not address the lack of job preparation and the difficult transition
for these same postdoctoral scientists to non-PI-track positions. Finally, lifestyle choices
play a role in the decision to stay on the research path independent of the number of
publications an individual has produced.
In summary, this paper provides insight into the state of postdoctoral training in the
United States and a measurement of the output it generates in the form of first-author
publications. As the research infrastructure and funding for graduate and postgraduate
scientists improves, it is hoped that the publication rates of the postdoctoral population
can improve. However, interventions that will retain women and minorities in the
scientific workforce pipeline must keep the publication data in mind when developing
innovative policies and strategies to close the representation gap. Our data shed some
insight into the effects of more structured and formalized mentoring as a possible target
for future assessment of interventions for postdocs.
Acknowledgments
This paper would not have been possible without the leadership of the Alfred Sloan
Foundation and Sigma Xi to underwrite the 2004 Postdoctoral Survey, and I hope that
there will be a commitment to produce more frequent surveys and analysis teams to chart
progress in this and other areas. Specific credit goes to the survey project director Geoff
Davis and his program associate Jenny Zilaro, with whom I worked closely to administer
the survey at Duke University with Dean Jo Rae Wright, Associate Provost Jim Siedow,
and Provost Peter Lange. I thank Alyson Reed, Amber Budden, and my Diversity
Committee colleagues from the National Postdoctoral Association for allowing me to do
further analysis with this data. I also recognize the support of my colleagues at George
Mason University and Case Western Reserve University for preliminary feedback on
these data. This paper is written in memory of and honor to Deborah Swope (NIEHS)
who was among the earliest advocates in support for the survey.