There’s No Winter Break from ‘Publish or Perish’(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
There’s No Winter Break from ‘Publish or Perish’
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/science/scientists-holiday-work.html
45 comments
It sounds like you are saying that there aren't enough professorships for how many people want to do (and can do) research. Blaming the professors seems misplaced.
The biggest criticism in the comment is that... professors enjoy doing the work they are paid to do?
The biggest criticism in the comment is that... professors enjoy doing the work they are paid to do?
I would amend this to “not enough [stable] research jobs”
At the moment, a faculty job is pretty much the only stable job in academic research, so if you want one....that’s what you’re doing.
The problem is that training students (and post docs) is part of a faculty job, and some of those will also want faculty jobs, and so on. Increasing the number of professorships just kicks the exponential-growth can a bit down the road.
However, it doesn’t have to be like this. We could make more staff scientist positions that have a bit more responsibility for doing and managing research (and the job security to match), but aren’t expected to train students. I think this would be a win for everyone: it would reduce churn in the lab, enable harder research projects (since these people would have experience), and there’s even data suggesting trainees fare better in labs with more senior-but-not-PI staff. The NCI is now funding a few of these, as is the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, so hopefully it’ll catch on in other fields too.
At the moment, a faculty job is pretty much the only stable job in academic research, so if you want one....that’s what you’re doing.
The problem is that training students (and post docs) is part of a faculty job, and some of those will also want faculty jobs, and so on. Increasing the number of professorships just kicks the exponential-growth can a bit down the road.
However, it doesn’t have to be like this. We could make more staff scientist positions that have a bit more responsibility for doing and managing research (and the job security to match), but aren’t expected to train students. I think this would be a win for everyone: it would reduce churn in the lab, enable harder research projects (since these people would have experience), and there’s even data suggesting trainees fare better in labs with more senior-but-not-PI staff. The NCI is now funding a few of these, as is the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, so hopefully it’ll catch on in other fields too.
To date, I haven’t heard a good reason for why they keep working so hard.
The first thing that jumps out to me is that the publish-or-perish phase selects for workaholics. People who are just pretending to be a workaholic, the type who are just trying to survive until tenure, are much more likely to get burned out and drop out of the running. Thus, those who have an uncanny ability to work ridiculously hard over long periods of time are the ones who survive the selection process and get tenured.
Perhaps some of these people genuinely enjoy the work. It would make sense, then, that they are the ones who survive without getting burned out.
The first thing that jumps out to me is that the publish-or-perish phase selects for workaholics. People who are just pretending to be a workaholic, the type who are just trying to survive until tenure, are much more likely to get burned out and drop out of the running. Thus, those who have an uncanny ability to work ridiculously hard over long periods of time are the ones who survive the selection process and get tenured.
Perhaps some of these people genuinely enjoy the work. It would make sense, then, that they are the ones who survive without getting burned out.
It depends on the field. In the sciences (especially biosciences), professors typically have to get money from grants to pay for their labs, and sometimes part of their salary. Being able to get grants depends on their publishing record, and losing grants and having to shutter or at least downsize your lab is a very real possibility. So in these fields, although your position is secure, your lab and your salary are actually quite precarious.
Yes, the inmates are at least partly responsible for the rules of the asylum. There's an answer to a question about the loneliness in pursuing mathematics on mathoverflow.net that says, paraphrasing, that one should only do mathematics if they can't do anything else [1]. That is, if it is such a burning desire that you can't stop. As long as salaries allow one to live comfortably there will be a supply of people wanting academic jobs. The lifestyle is compelling for a lot of people.
I've been led to believe that even after tenure one still needs to be active and that means to publish. There is a lot of variation on salaries within a given department even at the full professor level. The more active/prestigious you are the more salary you make. Those who are active in research and with graduate students don't have to teach as many low level courses or be on as many committees. At least this is true of mathematics departments at large research institutions that I'm familiar with. I'm not a member of a large research institution but this is what I've been told by members of such institutions. My sample size is too small for me to generalize but it sufficiently large for me to hypothesize.
[1] https://mathoverflow.net/a/110063
I've been led to believe that even after tenure one still needs to be active and that means to publish. There is a lot of variation on salaries within a given department even at the full professor level. The more active/prestigious you are the more salary you make. Those who are active in research and with graduate students don't have to teach as many low level courses or be on as many committees. At least this is true of mathematics departments at large research institutions that I'm familiar with. I'm not a member of a large research institution but this is what I've been told by members of such institutions. My sample size is too small for me to generalize but it sufficiently large for me to hypothesize.
[1] https://mathoverflow.net/a/110063
Although personality traits might partially explain this, I think you're ignoring powerful systemic incentives too, especially in lab sciences.
First, tenured faculty in lab-science departments are often expected to cover most (~75%) of their own salary via grants. While tenure means you can't be outright fired for not doing this, there are still consequences. Some places will actually reduce your salary (so you have a job, but are now making $25k/year!); others won't do that, but your office can be moved to sub-basement 4 and your assigned classes will be held Monday 8-9am and Friday 4-6pm.
Tenure also only covers your own job. If you run a large lab, students, postdocs, and technicians depend on you for advice and funding. There is—or should be—a decent amount of pressure to be responsible for them, many of whom you've worked closely with for years. To do so, you need to write grants that fund their day-to-day work, revise their papers, and train them.
Finally, even if you don't care about your salary or your people, you probably do care about your own research program. These don't do well with lapses in funding. Preliminary data is essential for grant applications, but it's expensive and time-consuming to collect. Normally, some "falls out" of other, on-going projects: the project looking at how Xs become Ys sometimes detects Zs instead, so here you propose to look at the X->Z pathway. If your funding dries up, you won't have that data source. Without money, you can't get the preliminary data you need to...get money. Since the consequences of running out of money are dire and funding rates are terrible (~15% of grants get funded), the solution is to submit lots of things, which requires lots of work.
These factors explain a lot more, IMO, than personality/egoism. (And the age thing is about more than egoism. If you don't get a "real" job until 40, it's only natural to hang onto it for a while. And age is a terrible proxy for performance: some older profs do awesome work; some younger ones chase the trends du jour).
First, tenured faculty in lab-science departments are often expected to cover most (~75%) of their own salary via grants. While tenure means you can't be outright fired for not doing this, there are still consequences. Some places will actually reduce your salary (so you have a job, but are now making $25k/year!); others won't do that, but your office can be moved to sub-basement 4 and your assigned classes will be held Monday 8-9am and Friday 4-6pm.
Tenure also only covers your own job. If you run a large lab, students, postdocs, and technicians depend on you for advice and funding. There is—or should be—a decent amount of pressure to be responsible for them, many of whom you've worked closely with for years. To do so, you need to write grants that fund their day-to-day work, revise their papers, and train them.
Finally, even if you don't care about your salary or your people, you probably do care about your own research program. These don't do well with lapses in funding. Preliminary data is essential for grant applications, but it's expensive and time-consuming to collect. Normally, some "falls out" of other, on-going projects: the project looking at how Xs become Ys sometimes detects Zs instead, so here you propose to look at the X->Z pathway. If your funding dries up, you won't have that data source. Without money, you can't get the preliminary data you need to...get money. Since the consequences of running out of money are dire and funding rates are terrible (~15% of grants get funded), the solution is to submit lots of things, which requires lots of work.
These factors explain a lot more, IMO, than personality/egoism. (And the age thing is about more than egoism. If you don't get a "real" job until 40, it's only natural to hang onto it for a while. And age is a terrible proxy for performance: some older profs do awesome work; some younger ones chase the trends du jour).
I am an academic mathematician, on winter break. I did some research this morning. Why? No wishy-washy reasons here, the reason is as you said: I like it. I will do more today.
I do not believe that my work comes at someone else's expense. My position does -- there are only so many slots for tenured professors -- but not my actual work.
Research is not a zero-sum game. There will always be open problems to investigate.
I do not believe that my work comes at someone else's expense. My position does -- there are only so many slots for tenured professors -- but not my actual work.
Research is not a zero-sum game. There will always be open problems to investigate.
Exactly. I used to be a mathematician and while I am no longer one, I can completely empathize with wanting to work on math as much as possible. To me, it's exactly the same as why some people want to run marathons, because it's exciting and immensely rewarding, and makes me feel alive.
I graduated with a PhD in math, now working in software.
I went to two math conferences this year, and plan to work on an unfinished paper next year - and hopefully start something new. The only thing stopping me is the lack of time away from the day job (and attention span that it allots). Switching between a software job and mathematics turns out to be hard.
So on that note: why did you use to be a mathematician? What would it take to continue research for fun in any amount?
I went to two math conferences this year, and plan to work on an unfinished paper next year - and hopefully start something new. The only thing stopping me is the lack of time away from the day job (and attention span that it allots). Switching between a software job and mathematics turns out to be hard.
So on that note: why did you use to be a mathematician? What would it take to continue research for fun in any amount?
> They like it.
What else would incentive a person to search employment as an academic?
Yes, they like it. All of them.
What else would incentive a person to search employment as an academic?
Yes, they like it. All of them.
I'm definitely not suggesting this is the norm (especially for new investigators or those going up for tenure) but my time in academic research has been kind of the opposite. Almost everyone in my lab would take at minimum the week from christmas to new years off. There's a pretty big annual conference in my field every late October/early November, so really every year, not much gets done at all from November to mid-January unless you're a student close to defending your dissertation. In fact a lot of people I knew at the time outside my own lab cited non-strict hours as being one of the main perks of the job along with being relatively easy to take time off for holidays. Again, I get that it's not like that everywhere, but just thought I'd share the "24/7/365 crunch time" isn't completely universal either.
Interesting experience. I also wonder if the comparison is made from the perspective of someone working in non-academia who might get a few days at Christmas, or undergrad students who get plenty of time off?
I live in the shadow of a big university, so I know a lot of academics. The college breaks are a great time to get stuff done that requires "flow" because it's a little less busy and your time isn't chopped up by classes and other stuff. I don't know an academic who doesn't have a list of things they want to get done during the next break.
Holidays is when I take care of my side business.
Holidays is when I take care of my side business.
I've often gotten my best/most interesting software projects done in the lull from Dec 15 to Jan 5 (when almost nobody is working, meetings are cancelled, etc). It's an opportunity cost- by paying it, you'll have more opportunties to work on interesting things during the year, and it can be enjoyable to focus on one "simple" thing (for example, this break I'm making code that generates 3D surfaces that I then carve into wood using CNC; it requires a fair amount of fiddling, then waiting hours for the results, then some more tweaking, while keeping all the state in your head).
I’ve felt more balanced working in AAA games (just Q/A, but still) with several crunches and weekend night shift work, although the accounted work time was much longer.
The main difference was that it was not possible to take any work home as everything was under secrecy, i.e. there was a clear boundary between work time and free time. Thus after going home there was no option but enjoying something without feeling guilty.
Very liberal worktimes have their advantages though for night owls who sometimes only get their brain running with an afternoon walk.
Research: Everyday is like Saturday, but you work on Saturdays. (c PhD comics)
The main difference was that it was not possible to take any work home as everything was under secrecy, i.e. there was a clear boundary between work time and free time. Thus after going home there was no option but enjoying something without feeling guilty.
Very liberal worktimes have their advantages though for night owls who sometimes only get their brain running with an afternoon walk.
Research: Everyday is like Saturday, but you work on Saturdays. (c PhD comics)
Lots of academics are from different countries than where they work. I couldn't imagine not visiting my family over the holidays.
And what's with all the wisdom we can read often, like good ideas come when doing something else, having fun, being bored. Working all day every day is not necessarily the most efficient, even if we care about nothing other than academic output. A clear headed idea after a relaxing vacation may save more time than was lost with the vacation. After some point keeping "working hard" will devolve to busywork, procrastination.
Sure there are outliers who can work all the time, 12 hours every weekday, throughout the whole year, but those are very rare.
In practice, I think a lot of what such "hard working" people do is busywork or procrastination for a significant number of hours.
I've known successful PhD students who are very deliberate about their time. In the lab they only work, and put away time for regular exercise, social life and trips to interesting places to refresh the mind.
Sure there are outliers who can work all the time, 12 hours every weekday, throughout the whole year, but those are very rare.
In practice, I think a lot of what such "hard working" people do is busywork or procrastination for a significant number of hours.
I've known successful PhD students who are very deliberate about their time. In the lab they only work, and put away time for regular exercise, social life and trips to interesting places to refresh the mind.
I’m going to have to come in a lot during the holidays to run experiments. Can confirm. It’s good that this is gaining some attention.
Did you know that outside academia "winter break" doesn't exist at all?
Did you know that outside of academia, people get paid a lot more?
And many places do shut down-or at least slow down-between Christmas and New Year’s....
And many places do shut down-or at least slow down-between Christmas and New Year’s....
Sure, I don't have any formal "winter break" as part of my vacation for my full time job. However, as someone who recently finished grad school I still will find my coming two weeks of vacation far more relaxing than any month long winter break during school.
I only got a BS and MS and yet during my BS I was always stressed about school, even if not working, and during my MS, you bet I was working through "breaks". I'm overjoyed to be able to totally check out mentally.
I only got a BS and MS and yet during my BS I was always stressed about school, even if not working, and during my MS, you bet I was working through "breaks". I'm overjoyed to be able to totally check out mentally.
My office building has about a third of the normal occupancy right now, which is pretty damn close to winter break.
Most I know take off 2 weeks. Many companies even Full close down for a week or two.
I'm in Europe so YMMV but still I'm currently working for a US startup and will be gone for good starting now
I'm in Europe so YMMV but still I'm currently working for a US startup and will be gone for good starting now
Meh, at most salaried-type jobs people I know usually take at least one week of leave during the holidays. “Doesn’t exist at all” is pushing it.
I work in industry and I'm going to take next week off. Many people in our office will do the same.
Probably the biggest issue is pre tenure, as there isn't even a possible way to do anything else.
On the plus side, my work as PhD is self directed and I can most often come in whenever I like, and work whenever I like. Also, of course, my work is very rewarding most of the time.
The downside is: I feel pressure to work always, also on weekends. I will not be taking vacations, I will not visit family over holidays, I will be at university.
I earn the equivalent of minimum wage for someone working full-time. I work more.
On the plus side, my work as PhD is self directed and I can most often come in whenever I like, and work whenever I like. Also, of course, my work is very rewarding most of the time.
The downside is: I feel pressure to work always, also on weekends. I will not be taking vacations, I will not visit family over holidays, I will be at university.
I earn the equivalent of minimum wage for someone working full-time. I work more.
> I feel pressure to work always, also on weekends. I will not be taking vacations, I will not visit family over holidays, I will be at university.
But why ? Nothing prevents you from going on vacation, and it’s not like it’s going to influence your PhD results anyway.
But why ? Nothing prevents you from going on vacation, and it’s not like it’s going to influence your PhD results anyway.
When I was a junior in high school, I worked Christmas Eve and Christmas Day as a lab research assistant.
I got out early and made it home for dinner, but my mentor/supervisor spent the night at lab running experiments and monitoring a protein purification protocol. I don't regret leaving lab-bench science and academia.
I got out early and made it home for dinner, but my mentor/supervisor spent the night at lab running experiments and monitoring a protein purification protocol. I don't regret leaving lab-bench science and academia.
>More than a tenth of U.S.-based researchers who submitted manuscripts and peer review reports to journals did so during the holidays.
I got my degree and got out, so excuse my ignorance on academia as a profession, but I'm just wondering what the cause behind this spike is?
Is it as a result of researchers being off during the summer months and then making up for the time during the opening half of the academic year, pushing to get to a certain deadline (and getting there last minute, as many in education will)?
Or is there an incentive to submit at a time where reviewers are distracted with non-work activities, such as here during the holidays? i.e. is one more likely to be pass peer review and be published at these points in time?
I got my degree and got out, so excuse my ignorance on academia as a profession, but I'm just wondering what the cause behind this spike is?
Is it as a result of researchers being off during the summer months and then making up for the time during the opening half of the academic year, pushing to get to a certain deadline (and getting there last minute, as many in education will)?
Or is there an incentive to submit at a time where reviewers are distracted with non-work activities, such as here during the holidays? i.e. is one more likely to be pass peer review and be published at these points in time?
I'm not sure that is a "spike". At my institution, "holidays" are nearly 1/10th of the year already! Moreover, the quote doesn't say "more than a tenth of papers were submitted", it says that "more than a tenth of researchers who submitted, did so during the holidays". The latter statistic includes folks who pushed out several manuscripts in a year, including one which happens to be finished over the holidays.
Not that it's implausible that there is a spike -- just that I've never seen actual evidence of one.
(Disclaimer: haven't read article thanks to paywall.)
Not that it's implausible that there is a spike -- just that I've never seen actual evidence of one.
(Disclaimer: haven't read article thanks to paywall.)
Ah, very plausible. Thanks for weighing in.
>At my institution, "holidays" are nearly 1/10th of the year already!
That would indeed go quite some distance in explaining it in itself.
Although I'm sure the idea of hitting an already bogged-down reviewer at peak season in the name of getting something perhaps hastily put together to publish, in avoiding perish, has crossed the minds of a few. Indeed, if it can cross the mind of a decidedly average non-academic such as myself, I'm almost certain it has for my intellectual and academic betters.
>At my institution, "holidays" are nearly 1/10th of the year already!
That would indeed go quite some distance in explaining it in itself.
Although I'm sure the idea of hitting an already bogged-down reviewer at peak season in the name of getting something perhaps hastily put together to publish, in avoiding perish, has crossed the minds of a few. Indeed, if it can cross the mind of a decidedly average non-academic such as myself, I'm almost certain it has for my intellectual and academic betters.
Lots of reasons:
It can be hard to get stuff that requires extended concentration during the business-as-usual part of the year. An uninterrupted morning is vastly more useful than six scattered half-hour blocks between meetings and seminars and helping students. The summer is actually fairly productive for most people for the same reason; very few people are actually off (as in at the beach); they're just not teaching.
There's a brief period of calm between the end of the academic year (which is chaotic with exams, end-of-year stuff, and holiday parties too) and the beginning of the "personal holidays." If you've been mulling something over, now is a great time to finish it off.
Finally, it's nice to start the year with less stuff on your to-do list. I don't think anyone expects more favorable peer review over the holidays; in fact, our lab lore suggests reviewers are grumpier now. In any case, stuff submitted in mid December probably won't even go out for review until next year.
It can be hard to get stuff that requires extended concentration during the business-as-usual part of the year. An uninterrupted morning is vastly more useful than six scattered half-hour blocks between meetings and seminars and helping students. The summer is actually fairly productive for most people for the same reason; very few people are actually off (as in at the beach); they're just not teaching.
There's a brief period of calm between the end of the academic year (which is chaotic with exams, end-of-year stuff, and holiday parties too) and the beginning of the "personal holidays." If you've been mulling something over, now is a great time to finish it off.
Finally, it's nice to start the year with less stuff on your to-do list. I don't think anyone expects more favorable peer review over the holidays; in fact, our lab lore suggests reviewers are grumpier now. In any case, stuff submitted in mid December probably won't even go out for review until next year.
Yes, as a researcher, I will be working over the winter break. But that's what I want to do! I guess it is the people who love their job so much they do it on their time off that lowers the bar for everyone else
[deleted]
You can love your job and also love your family, and holidays are primarily about time with family. If one prioritizes one “love” for another you either fall behind professionally or live long enough to regret the decisions you made. The problem is people with families shouldn’t be forced into that choice as it is cruel to all involved.
I’m early stage academic and my mother in law is late stage. My MIL missed a lot of my wife’s childhood and if she could go back in time she’d prioritize differently which is why I’m taking next week off to spend with my kid.
I’m early stage academic and my mother in law is late stage. My MIL missed a lot of my wife’s childhood and if she could go back in time she’d prioritize differently which is why I’m taking next week off to spend with my kid.
> You can love your job and also love your family, and holidays are primarily about time with family.
The problem is that academics at many institutions have two jobs. During the school year, they are teaching, doing service work, and generally have so many distractions that it's hard to do research. During breaks, the job turns into a full-time research position. Of course you're going to want to work over break - especially if you're aiming for a promotion that depends on research. The current system requires you to do forty hours a week of routine stuff that won't get you promoted or get you an outside offer, and once you've done that you can work on your promotion and/or outside offer.
The problem is that academics at many institutions have two jobs. During the school year, they are teaching, doing service work, and generally have so many distractions that it's hard to do research. During breaks, the job turns into a full-time research position. Of course you're going to want to work over break - especially if you're aiming for a promotion that depends on research. The current system requires you to do forty hours a week of routine stuff that won't get you promoted or get you an outside offer, and once you've done that you can work on your promotion and/or outside offer.
Precisely my point, near-term overwork for a possibility of a “permanent” job later on, but many people who get there sacrifice family life, get divorced, and win something of a pyrrich victory in the end: a lifetime job with nobody to share it with.
Not true for everybody but I’ve spent my entire career at ultra-elite tier places and the divorce rates are far in excess of average. Pretty sure 50% of tenured faculty at my grad institution were still unmarried well past 40 or divorced. I’m not suggesting one must be married with kids to have a perfect life, but the current system is weeding out anybody who wants that.
Not true for everybody but I’ve spent my entire career at ultra-elite tier places and the divorce rates are far in excess of average. Pretty sure 50% of tenured faculty at my grad institution were still unmarried well past 40 or divorced. I’m not suggesting one must be married with kids to have a perfect life, but the current system is weeding out anybody who wants that.
'Every once in a while we are sure.' (Quoting someone on the internet)
@:'Reviewing is the center of the mission'
@:'Reviewing is the center of the mission'
January deadlines are the worst. I would like to see more conferences and journals switch to rolling deadlines, which in addition to providing more flexibility for authors could have additional benefits of spreading out the review workload and reducing some of the incentive to rush to publication before the work is ready.
Especially when your annual conference is immediately after the holidays which is the case for the American Meteorological Society (AMS) conference. This used to bother me, but I've gotten used to it over the years. I suppose I would rather put in extra hours during the winter months and have more free time during the warmer parts of the year.
Siggraph paper due date has always been in January. What are you going to do?
Tell me about it. I’ve got drafts due 20 Jan.
A typical tenure is far more secure than an industry position, yet many of my colleagues work just as hard, if not harder, than the assistant profs hoping to obtain tenure. To date, I haven’t heard a good reason for why they keep working so hard. It’s never mother dying or bills to pay. Rather they are always wishy-washy reasons that hide the real truth: They like it. They enjoy it. It gives them meaning and purpose. Not to mention sabbaticals: I see senior faculty frequently delaying sabbaticals too, for reasons as varied as the individuals themselves and none of them ring true. I often ask, “Do you really think committee A or initiative B would not survive without you?” They hem and haw, but have no concrete statements to back up their reasoning. And don’t get me started on academics who continue to practice into the 70s and 80s, well past their best before date. Most can’t even remember the names of their grad students. It’s pure hubris. The norm should be retiring to teaching-only roles, and hand the mantle of research over to the younger faculty or stepping away from the lab they created by selecting a successor. Rather, it’s the exception.
If all the senior faculty across academia collectively took a break in the same timeframe, say one or two months every year, it would create opportunities for the younger members to step in and shine in their own way across the stratum of activities. Publications receiving fewer (and invited!) papers from senior academics would accept more research from the juniors, there would be more openings on committees. There would be greater career growth at the early stages.
In short, the inmates are at least partly responsible for the rules of the asylum.