Search bioRxivSearch

bioRxiv · 10.1101/523621

Postdoc X-ray in Europe 2017: work conditions, productivity, institutional support and career outlooks

Abstract

1.Executive SummaryThis survey and data analysis were conducted by the European Network of Postdoctoral Associations (ENPA) with the aim of assessing the current research and work conditions, aspirations and support received by postdoctoral researchers working in Europe. The Results section is structured into three main parts. The first one describes the study sample of European postdoctoral researchers, including participants demographics, funding sources and income, research outputs, and teaching opportunities. The second section focuses on their professional aspirations and institutional support provided. The third part describes the level of engagement of postdoctoral researchers and their institutions in working towards better research conditions and career development, and what initiatives are emerging within this community. Our Conclusions section pulls together this comprehensive analysis, highlighting some of the most concerning issues currently affecting postdoctoral researchers in Europe. We also make a number of recommendations that would significantly improve the career expectations and aspirations of postdoctoral researchers. These are listed below. Conclusions and recommendationsO_LILonger postdoctoral periods in Southern Europe despite higher publication metrics Recommendation Institutions in Southern Europe should develop clear criteria to support postdoctoral researchers career progression. C_LIO_LISouthern and Eastern Europe pay the lowest salaries and have the lowest number of foreign postdoctoral researchers Recommendation The salary differences across European countries should be addressed as this could be a barrier to mobility and knowledge exchange from higher to lower pay regions. C_LIO_LILack of access to funding is a significant concern of postdoctoral researchers Recommendation Discrepancies in access to funding should be minimized across the different European areas. C_LIO_LIPostdoctoral researchers in Europe work longer hours than required by contract Recommendation The culture of overwork in the research environment should be addressed in order to protect researchers against the risks associated with long hours at work. C_LIO_LIThe majority of full-time postdoctoral work contracts includes an exclusivity clause Recommendation Inclusion of exclusivity clauses in contracts for postdoctoral researchers should be optional in order to allow them to enhance their employability outside academia. C_LIO_LIPostdoctoral researchers career development is poorly supported by their institutions Recommendation Postdoctoral researchers career prospects and career management should be much more supported by institutions in coordination with postdoctoral associations. C_LIO_LILack of postdoctoral representation in governance is linked to unclear institutional duties and rights Recommendation Institutional governance bodies should include postdoctoral researcher representatives. This would ensure that the views of this vital staff group are heard, as well as making postdoctoral researchers feel more engaged with their own institutions. A flexible and proactive communication strategy at the institution and research group level should be developed, taking into account the sometimes transient nature of postdoctoral researchers posts. C_LIO_LIResearchers show higher engagement with their local postdoctoral associations than with workers unions Recommendation Postdoctoral associations are an essential way to advocate for postdoctoral researchers at the governance level. Institutions should engage with, promote and support the work of postdoctoral associations. C_LI

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ribeiro, M. J., Fonseca, A., Moura-Ramos, M., Costa, M., Kilteni, K., Andersen, L. M., Harber-Aschan, L., Moscoso, J. A., Bagchi, S., European Network of Postdoctoral Associations (ENPA),. 2019-01-23. Postdoc X-ray in Europe 2017: work conditions, productivity, institutional support and career outlooks. https://doi.org/10.1101/523621

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education

A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?

In the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe methods, trends, publishing patterns, and impact of a decade of research on research integrity.\n\nTo give a comprehensive overview of research on research integrity, we first systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published in English between 2005 and 2015. We then classified each relevant article according to its topic, several methodological characteristics, its general focus and findings, and its citation impact.\n\nWe included 986 articles in our analysis. We found that the body of literature on research integrity is growing in importance, and that the field is still largely dominated by non-empirical publications. Within the bulk of empirical records (N=342), researchers and students are most often studied, but other actors and the social context in which they interact, seem to be overlooked. The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system.\n\nOur review highlights the areas, methods, and actors favoured in research on research integrity, and reveals a few blindspots. Involving non-researchers and reconnecting what is known to the approaches investigated may be the first step to generate executable knowledge that will allow us to increase the success of future approaches.\n\nA word from the authorsWe find important to mention that this manuscript underwent peer review and was rejected from the following journals:\n\nO_LIPLOS ONE\nO_LISubmitted 19th December 2017\nC_LIO_LIPeer-review and rejection received 26th June 2018.\nC_LI\nC_LIO_LIJournal of Science and Engineering Ethics (JSEE)\nO_LISubmitted 18th August 2018\nC_LIO_LIPeer-review response with major revision request received 9th September 2019\nC_LIO_LIRevision submitted 24th October 218\nC_LIO_LIRejection received 27th December 2018\nC_LI\nC_LI\n\nWe regret not having submitted this preprint before our first submission. Nonetheless, now after over one year in submission processes, we thought that we should make this manuscript and its data available as a pre-print before undergoing further submissions.\n\nIn order to promote transparency however, we asked both journal whether anonymous reviews could be added alongside this pre-print to ensure that readers are informed of the issues that disqualified our manuscript.\n\nPLOS ONE agreed for us to share the anonymous reviews which are now available -- together with our itemized changes and responses -- in the Online Resource 5 - Peer Review Report. We thank the editors of the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics and the integrity team of Springer Nature for thoroughly discussing our request, but unfortunately, given the closed peer review policy at Springer Nature, we were unable to provide information about the peer review from the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics.\n\nWe advise our readers to look at the peer-review and be aware of the challenges and limitations attached with our work. Of course, we welcome comments and contributions to make our work better.\n\nSincerely,\n\nNoemie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten

scientific communication and education

Hypothesis, analysis and synthesis: it's all Greek to me!

The linguistic foundations of science and technology have relied on a range of terms many of which are borrowed from ancient languages, a known but little researched fact from a statistical perspective. Precise definitions and novel concepts are often crafted with those -- frequently used -- terms, yet their etymology from Greek or Latin might not always be fully appreciated. Herein, we demonstrate that frequently used terms span almost the entire PubMed(R) database, while a handful of terms of Greek origin retrieve 80% of all entries. We argue that the etymology of those critical terms needs to be fully grasped to ensure correct use, in conjunction with other concepts. We further propose a number of terms for genomics, using prepositions that can accurately define subtle sub-disciplines of this ever-expanding field. Finally, we invite commentary by both the science community and the humanities, for possible adoption of suggested terms, not least to avoid inaccurate usage or inappropriate notions that may compromise clarity of meaning.

scientific communication and education