People say that three's a crowd, it takes two to tango, and one is the loneliest number.
But what's the magic number when it comes to publications?
How many pubs do you need to get tenure? When I ask around, the answer varies. At my PUI, I've heard anywhere from one up to five as the magic number that will ensure a worry-free pass on the research front.
My favorite response so far? "Enough. You need enough."
Maybe there isn't one magic number for publications. But it does make me wonder: is there a national standard for demonstrating publishing prowess?
8 comments:
At my department we have exact numbers for everything. We are in Humanities, so one peer-reviewed article per academic year is fine, you are scraping by. Two articles means you are doing very well. Three means everybody hates you because you must be some sort of a robot.
Six good articles mean you are good for tenure research-wise.
The best answer by far is "More."
More is probably right, actually. There are too many factors at play - quality of publications (I think I once heard that in my little corner, 1 CNS = 3 moderate-level papers), focus of department, how invited publications count or don't.
This is one of the many reasons tenure always terrified me. :)
It is very dependent upon both the discipline and the institution. Quality of journal and presence or absence of co-authors and/or where your name is among co-authors is key in my field. In my original institution no matter how many pubs I had (and I have a lot) I wasn't going to get tenure. In my current institution I had no problem and was told not to worry from the get go.
How many did the people who have tenure now have when they got tenure? How many do they have now? You want more than they had then but don't necessarily need as much they have now.
I have heard different numbers to be honest but I`d say that the common theme is that more is better. It seems that there isn`t a magic number of publications.
Okay, more is better. Noted!
Brigindo offers excellent advice because standards shift dramatically from a R1 to a selective LAC to a small LAC to a PUI such as a directional state university. (Is Clarissa at a PUI?) It also depends on whether you have a masters program and whether your university has phantom dreams of becoming an R1.
The latter can lead to situations where the standards for currently tenured faculty were lower than for recently hired faculty. That is where "more" comes in.
My most thoughtful advice was directed entirely at the requirements for R1 science programs. Your situation probably fall between there and what I wrote about CC jobs. I'd guess you don't have the issue of getting letters from international experts, but the starting point is to find out what has to be in your binder. You will see that echoed in the old blog and Chronicle and IHE articles I linked to.
Someone at your uni should be mentoring you on this. They are investing too much in you to allow you to fail by not telling you about some critical factor you need to start working on now.
More is probably right, actually. There are too many aspects at perform - excellent of guides (I think I once observed that in my little part, 1 CNS = 3 moderate-level papers), concentrate of office, how welcomed guides depend or don't.
This is one of the many factors period always afraid me. :)
Post a Comment