publication strategy, ECRs and REF

[Marasme]

I have two mentees - Bob and Sue - both international students who studied in STEM here at my uni. I know both their supervisors well socially, although we do not really collaborate much at all.

Both Sue and Bob are in the same predicament - and I am not sure how I feel about it all.

Bob finished his PhD 1+ year ago. He passed with minor but rather big revisions, and his work is ok - nothing about it is earth-shattering, based on the seminars I saw through the year. In particular, the research is very incremental, uses non gold-standard techniques, and the novelty it brings will hold impact for a very very small set of stakeholders who may not actually care at all.
Bob is desperate to find a job, and is struggling without publications on his CV, even with recommendations and my support. So far, his work has been submitted in three chunks (3 chapters = 3 papers) and all have been rejected from at least two outlets with quite strong reviewer (negative) comments, some expressing concern that such work "quality" is even coming out of the supervisors lab. Now the supervisor wants him to reconsider publishing at all, or clump the 3 chapters in one single or at max two papers for submission to a "minor league / open access" journal. The REF, I believe, is the main factor here, based on this supervisors' stance.

The other one, Sue, is in pretty much the same situation - except that I'd say her work is really really striking. She writes really well, and what she did was really interesting, with complex methodology. However, 3 years post PhD, she has not published anything from her thesis (but has, from her postdoc). Her supervisor has effectively put her thesis papers "on hold", to be combined with the subsequent work of others in his lab [these people are not finished yet]. Basically, Sue's research may (or may not) see the day of light, with limited chance for her to be a first author. Again, I believe the REF is a big factor here - this supervisor likes to go for BIG papers in big vanity journals, with his name last, at the expense of the many juniors whose contribution often are very much diluted in the mega papers (which can take years to come out).

So - my question: what is our duty to our students and the academic community? Do we publish everything?
Can either Bob or Sue really challenge their supervisors to go their way?

I find mentoring on these topic harder and harder - the uni's publication strategy is all for REF just now, and the unspoken word to the staff is that we want only big papers, not smaller research to get out.
It's not really fair to the ECR though - job hunting with no paper is hard.

So tough, I think for Bob, consolidating the work and getting a good publication is worth more than three very poor publications. Also might be worth him bringing on a co-author to help craft it a little more if that's done in the discipline.

Very difficult to tell with Sue. You'd have thought bigshot prof could link her into postdoc work while they published this amazing paper, but if they're not willing to do that, getting a REFable paper now may be what swings a job offer - as an ECR does she still just need one? I can't remember the rules.

The irony is that Sue's supervisor is not so much of a "big shot" - or at least not just yet - he is a very ambitious mid-career academic, with a very clear "no hostage" strategy. Over the years, Sue has progressively fallen out with him, on the ground that her precarious situation is a his doing to some extent...

As for Bob - boiling down 3 small mediocre papers into one is quite likely to still make a big mediocre one - which his supervisor, a more "seasoned" one, will still struggle to accept [and will need to justify to our lovely administration]

Shit times to be an ECR in STEMs, I say!

Well then I'd say if Sue is unlikely to get patronage from the sup then she needs to do what's good for her.

Any Chance bob can remove sup from publication and therefore negate the sup's embarrassment? Does bob want to be an academic?

It sounds to me that they could both benefit from networking to get their foot in the door somewhere, as well as open up conversations with people to help develop their writing/become co-authors. I'm a big fan of team writing I think it really helps you develop.

One good thing about the discipline I'm currently in is that PhD students are encouraged to publish on their own (as sole authors). I come from a discipline where it was more in teams, and although this can work really well if you get a diligent and enthusiastic academic to push things along, it can leave the student vulnerable to not getting the work out and/or having their thunder stolen.

So, I don't really recognize the situation you are talking about, as everyone I know is desperate to get out more papers and so would be pushing them out (even if they hadn't done hardly anything!) They probably wouldn't be waiting several years, and their 'big' papers tend to be their own work or at least not dependent on several others. I think your situation is very common in the sciences and medicine though, because of the big team working and the fact that everyone isn't always doing enough to publish on their own...

In this situation, I would encourage Sue to write directly to the first author, explaining her concern about not getting something out of the PhD and asking which portion of the PhD she could publish (surely some is her intellectual property?) first, even if the rest waited. If she felt very confident she could even involve their boss/head of department in her concerns, but without a permanent job that could be very difficult. I would also tell her just to keep going with her positive attitude and publishing everything she can lay her hands on. Another advantage we have is we could publish a theoretical piece if for any reason empirical work was taken hostage.

With Bob, it's harder, I wouldn't encourage him to have an academic career. The point of a PhD is that it is is publishable, so he probably shouldn't have even got one if it isn't...and the future doesn't look bright. Academia is badly paid and only a good option for the truly dedicated AND able. I would perhaps encourage him to think through all the options, including getting out and using his methods/research skills elsewhere while his PhD still has status and there's no significant period of unemployment.

I wouldn't take a post-doc on without one PhD publication (or one in press or for me to read) because, sounds mean, but I can choose from those who I know can publish and this is the number one skill needed for post-doc positions that is lacking, RFs who can drive forward and get out publishable work.

both have their sights on postdoc-ing in fairly lab-based environments.
Both would be good at it - they can both manage research

problem is: you do not get postdoc jobs at my uni without publications, and it's the same everywhere else I hear about in our field.

In term of involving the management: a no-goer, as the word on our streets is to not publish small student-led studies, but to instead consolidate for big "lab" papers. Intellectual property is a tough one - publishing without supervisors (at least in my field) is career suicide...

it's crap

This is exactly like my field. Work belongs to the supervisor, who is final author on papers, and all the intellectual property and data is theirs. I feel for Sue - she should still be first author unless her sup is hanging on for years, in which case he will be gazumped, surely

I'd agree with sue going to Hee supervisor pointing out the difficulties for her career and asking what she can aim to submit for publication from her phd.

For Bob, it is hard to give much advice because if the data isn't good enough, then it just isn't good enough. I'd recommend getting out of academia.

For Sue, I think there could be 2 reasons why the supervisor hasn't helped her publish. 1 is that s/he really wants to keep the data back or 2 is that s/he is too busy with other things. If 2, Sue could drive the publication process forward by writing the paper & telling supervisor it will be submitted in 3 weeks unless s/he says no. If 1, can Sue play up the risk of being scoped? Or do anything else to strengthen the case for publication?

I guess I'm not getting the logic of supervisors preventing publication for Bob.

Last briefing I heard about REF202? said there would be a minimum pubs per academic (probably 0.5-1 per FTE), AND a maximum no. of pubs (probably 2-3 for each FTE). So if the research is already long done (the doing takes the most time & resources), then writing up minor-impact studies & submitting them to IF

We've been told six papers for REF

No, it's a minimum of 1 per FTE and a max of 5. We just had the info from HEFCE via our Research office

I had heard 6 as a maximum, all the better if it was 5 and quite similar to the last REF. Presumably there's quite a bit of pressure though to produce 5 good REFable papers, or will quality (4*) win over quantity?

There's a multiplier related to FTE submitted which will give minima and maxima for individual UoAs.

I agree - shitty bastard supervisors. Loads of these around :/

[on another topic - I got 4 - yes FOUR - rejections this week!]