research paper submitted to the faculty of the department of

Engineering and Public Policy

College of engineering, how uber and lyft affect u.s. cities.

A new policy brief series examines how TNCs have redefined mobility, car ownership, congestion, the economy and more.

The College of Engineering

Jaramillo on transportation, IPCC report for policymakers

Paulina Jaramillo served as coordinating lead author of the transportation section of the newly released IPCC report for policymakers

Effective Science Communication Begins With Collaboration

Carnegie Mellon University’s Baruch Fischhoff says the key to communicating scientific research is simple: Collaborate.

Carnegie Mellon University

Fuchs appointed to president’s advisory committee

President Biden has appointed Professor Erica Fuchs to the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations

Humanity’s greatest contemporary challenges transcend disciplinary boundaries. Crafting effective policy in domains as diverse as climate change, misinformation, national security, artificial intelligence, natural disaster response, privacy, and critical infrastructures increasingly requires expertise that spans and integrates technical and social science fields.

The Department of Engineering and Public Policy (EPP) at Carnegie Mellon University is a unique department that works to solve problems at the interface of science, technology, and society. 

We offer  multiple double-major options  for undergraduate students (in partnership with each of the five Engineering departments and the School of Computer Science), Master's degree programs in Engineering & Public Policy and in Engineering & Technology Innovation and Management , and a  research-oriented Ph.D. program . Our students build skills in policy analysis, risk assessment, data science, and decision-making needed to solve today’s complex problems in business, government, and non-profits across the globe.

Open Faculty Position

• Tenure-Track Faculty: Artificial Intelligence & Public Policy
• Director for Policy Engagement

Research Areas

• Climate and Environment
• Energy Systems
• Risk Analysis
• Technology Innovation Policy
• Information & Communication Technology

Lorrie Cranor: Women in Software and Cybersecurity

Destenie nock: equitable energy planning in sub-saharan africa, faculty insights with paulina jaramillo and nick muller, herbert l. toor award  for outstanding research paper submitted to the part a qualifier.

Sabrina Curtis “Swimming Against the Current? Management of Pacific Salmon in Alaska”

Akua McLeod “Disaggregating Power Outages from Disconnections: A Commonwealth Edison Case Study”

Robert W. Dunlap Award for best Part B qualifier solution

Jillian Miles

A systematic review of faculty research repositories at higher education institutions

Digital Library Perspectives

ISSN : 2059-5816

Article publication date: 30 August 2021

Issue publication date: 18 April 2022

This study aims to evaluate faculty research repositories used in higher education institutions, their different levels and functions with regard to research information management. This is revealed through the selected studies reviewed.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic literature search of journal article studies on research repositories in higher education institutions was carried out on several databases, namely, Ebscohost, Emerald Insight, Science Direct, Sage, Google Scholar, SA e-Publications and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. The time frame for the analysis was 2015 to 2021.

The findings are presented on the motives for developing faculty research repositories the services provided and benefits derived from faculty research repositories and what is the utilization of faculty research repositories.

Originality/value

The results show that the development of research repositories at the faculty level enhances sharing, analysis, evaluation and preservation of scholarly research produced.

• Repositories
• Research data management
• Research data
• Cloud-based
• Research platforms

Zibani, P. , Rajkoomar, M. and Naicker, N. (2022), "A systematic review of faculty research repositories at higher education institutions", Digital Library Perspectives , Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-04-2021-0035

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Patiswa Zibani, Mogiveny Rajkoomar and Nalindren Naicker.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

The notion of establishing faculty repositories is slowly gaining traction as there are several benefits associated to such initiatives. This type of repository often contains non-ephemeral faculty-produced instructional materials, making it a useful resource for classroom teaching ( Johnson, 2002 ). Concept graphics, visualizations, models, courses and videos are some of the assets that can be found on course websites. While these resources are available elsewhere, the benefit for the repository is to have the resources curated in a central platform, thereby extending the appeal across a broader audience of research and teaching within the faculty. As observed by Tekian and Stapleton (2012) , searching the Web for needed information or resources takes lots of time, so giving a faculty member a repository with relevant information could be a viable solution. A faculty repository is more than just teaching and learning digital platform, as it also stores scholarly research activity content. Through literature, we are observing the correlation between research activities and research performance measurement which can be linked to the existence of repositories and their functionalities to enable such assessments.

The measurement of research performance has become a rigorous activity in research-based higher education institutions ( Kanngieser et al. , 2014 , pp. 302–318). This, in turn, has raised awareness to scholars and researchers into looking at enhancing the value and impact of every research paper they publish. Modern research repositories have incorporated current research information systems components and propose cutting edge, vast and interfaces that are user-friendly to researchers. Hence, they are key platforms for the management of research and online exposure of information about research outputs, current projects, research data, funding, research collaborations, research devices used, time on the research spent or the outcomes of the research. These platforms can also be used in the process of research data management. In addition, capturing information on the sources of data used in the research is an asset linked to publications ( Jettena et al. , 2019 ). As alluded by Wilkinson et al. (2016) , the current research landscape requires data to be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) in the long-term, as it has become the expectation within the academic community (universities, funding agencies, publishers). The implementation of FAIR principles will entrench robust management and administration of valuable digital resources that will be of benefit to higher education institutions. To enable full benefits of all the research and learning activities, that are vital to the ideal repository infrastructure used by institutions/units is a proper well-coordinated data management service that spans from the inception of the research through to collecting data, analyzing data, documentation, publishing, curing, preservation and management (Borgman et al. , 2015).

Research repository platforms are broadly defined as the online “cloud”-based software modules that operate as portals for research efforts. The management of these software platforms are widely classified as nesting applications that add up content often provided by the “users.” Research repository platforms also involve necessary connections with offline realms. In general, repositories provide network values that otherwise lead to deliberate short-termism with strategic rationality. Digital repositories have features to ensure collaboration and communication among users. Higher Education Institutions must invest in technology resources and train staff to use the repository as an electronic repository to store ongoing faculty or departmental data related to research and learning activities ( Kanngieser et al. , 2014 ).

A systematic review of the extant literature of research repositories used at higher education institutions was attempted in this research paper. It also highlights the rationale behind the establishment of such repositories ranging from faculty learning activities, practice sharing program exercises, providing open, discoverable content, ensuring greater exposure to scholarly output, research data for sharing and re-use by students and staff in the faculty. As attributed by Sweeper and Ramsden (2020 ) a research repository is a critical component of establishing a new research plan and providing the incentive for fostering a research culture at a university. As universities work toward becoming leaders in research, showcasing research outputs, introducing it to a global audience becomes a priority.

Non-commercial and commercial subject-based repositories (single and associated) are typically established by a society and adopted by a community. The content is of inherent importance to scholars and this type of repository is characterized by spontaneous self-archiving. The ability to communicate research findings and views early in the form of working manuscripts and preprints provides authors with benefits such as the ability to claim primacy, evaluating the importance of a thought or finding prior to submission, refining a journal paper before submission, gaining recognition, attracting global attention, and so on ( Armbruster and Romary, 2010 ). Faculty and departmental research repositories can be found within this range.

Repositories for research are typically informed by funding for research mandates and often allow access and availability of research data to promote trustworthiness and transparency in the research process, thereby improving citations, and validate research conclusions through re-analyzing data to answer different research questions, as well as facilitate new discoveries ( Elsevier, 2019 ; Ülikool, 2020 ). Faculty and departmental research repositories can be found within this range.

National repository systems resemble federated systems, intended to capture research output by scholars to record scholarship, to support academic development in higher education.

Institutional repositories comprise the various outputs of the institution as well as teaching and learning materials. Some institutional repositories have elements of current research information system that is useful for scholar profiles, funding, and publishing activities ( Ülikool, 2020 ).

Methodology

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria were followed when conducting the systematic review ( Moher et al. , 2009 ). Sam, Naicker and Rajkoomar (2020) describe PRISMA as an evidence-based list of grouped items for preparing a report in meta-analyses and systematic reviews. PRISMA is a term used to refer to the combination of systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review is an audit of a planned questions that utilizes precise and unequivocal strategies to evaluate and examine data from the research studies that comprise the review ( Sam et al. , 2020 ).

Inclusion criteria

What are the motives for developing faculty research repositories?

What are the services provided and benefits derived from faculty research repositories?

What is the utilization of faculty research repositories?

Search approach

This review paper adopted a systematic search approach to find relevant articles published in databases from January 2015 up to March 2021. Nine academic databases (Ebscohost, Emerald Insight, Science Direct, Sage, Google Scholar, SA e-Publications, SpringerLink Scopus and Web of Science) were searched. The systematic information retrieval applied the use of a combination of key search terms about the key ideas of the study as indicated in Table 1 . The included studies satisfied the following criteria: a faculty repository was defined as a central location for research, data and learning resources stored and managed within a higher education institution setting. It was also defined as a departmental research data repository platform that purely focuses on research data generated by the department or the faculty within a higher education institution setting. It was also defined as a research repository that deals with research and scholarly works representing a faculty within an institution of higher education. The steps taken included developing research questions, performing literature searches that were used to identify, screen and select relevant articles. Synthesis, analysis of articles and reporting of results was conducted.

The selected databases used in this review are commonly used in systematic literature reviews across disciplines. The search conducted yielded a retrieval of a total of 2,000 records. A total number of 1,925 duplicate records and articles were removed and the remaining total of 75 full-text article records were screened further for relevance based on the inclusion criteria. Records that were found to be not relevant (40) were excluded and full-text articles (35) were assessed for eligibility. Further to that, full-text articles (24) that did not cover the complete review scope were removed and a qualitative synthesis was conducted on the 11 relevant articles ( Figure 1 ).

The literature reviewed for this study is traced back from 2015 to 2021 and 11 articles were identified to be used. The articles were defined according to two categories conceptual and experimental. The conceptual category referred to articles that discussed the development or establishment of the faculty research repository, while experimental referred to project or prototype set up repositories geared for experimentation. Articles in the conceptual category discussed faculty repository adoption in different formats for different purposes and articles under the experimental category discussed experimental projects repositories.

Analysis process

The coding and analysis of articles were based on research questions. This was achieved using Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics in the form of tables, pie charts and graphs were used to present the review analysis. As indicated in Table 2 below, the spreadsheet recorded valuable and appropriate information about each article, such as the title, the author, the country where the article was published and the year of publication.

It is evident from the literature that there has not been much uptake in the development of faculty repositories from the social sciences disciplines. Most of the articles reviewed are science, technology, engineering and mathematics-based disciplines. The article written by Kem´enya et al. (2016 , pp. 53‐58) presented the development of the smart factory research repository platform as a relevant technical platform that reiterates the characteristics of a cyber-physical system and a non-traditional learning factory that promotes independent, immersive learning as part of a technical higher education programme. Another article written by Xu (2016 ) discussed an investigation to understand the faculty behavior in the use of a learning object (LO). This research was important for Wisc-Online, a repository of learning resources established by the Wisconsin Technical College System, to better understand the needs and usage patterns of the LOs. An article by Leng et al. (2016 ) discussed how Wawasan Open University Library initiated a research project for faculties using open access (OA) repositories to host open educational resources. For this project, a Japanese open-source model called WEKO was used for faculties in collaboration with support services from the library. The review reveals that three-quarters of the articles selected (77%) are categorized as conceptual and the development of the repository is used as project inception or model. This can be alluded to the fact repositories are platforms developed to create, store, publish and use for learning and research by libraries, as opposed to faculties and departments ( Allison-Cassin and Scott, 2018 ).

It is evident from literature that there has not been much uptake on the development of faculty repositories from the social sciences disciplines. It is between 2018 and 2021 where literature reveals a full take in the six publications that extensively discussed research repositories with relevance to faculties/departments in higher education institutions. The geographical distribution of the articles of an article reviewed reveals countries such as the USA (37%), India (18%), Australia (9%), Hungary, Malaysia, South Africa and Swaziland (9%) ( Figure 2 ).

This section covers the results of the systematic review based on the research questions that were created.

RQ1: What are the motives for developing faculty research repositories in the current literature?

Higher education institutions have adopted institutional repositories that are mostly administered by their libraries. When current library systems are functioning successfully, library directors may be interested in learning about the reasons for the development of research repositories by universities or departments. Therefore, the objective for the first research question was to establish the motive behind the development of faculty research repositories. The table below lists the motivations and ranks them according to the coding of 11 articles examined for this study ( Table 3 ).

The review revealed the dominating factors ranking highest behind the motive for developing faculty research repositories to be sharing, access and discoverability of unique collections, projects and LOs that faculties tend to have that are informed by their programs. As noted by Henderson (2008) , Matkin (2002) and University System of Georgia (2015) a repository allows information to be reused and shared, lowering the cost and duplication of work in the creation of instructional materials.

The internet, digital research repositories and knowledge management systems – also known as controlled thesauri/subject headings and name identifiers.

Scanning the environment for authority control in repositories.

Disambiguation and identification of names.

Using author information, subject and keywords to create engaging user interfaces (UIs).

Text analysis, controlled vocabularies and Web-based metadata.

OA and proprietary.

Authority control; identity management and discovery.

RQ2: What are the services provided and benefits derived from faculty research repositories?

The advent of OA has given rise to new inexpensive ways of managing research activities, scholarly publishing and communication. That has resulted in universities investing in the development repository networks to speed up the availability of information ( Shearer et al. , 2015 ). Faculty are experimenting and extending research repositories to faculty or departmental levels to achieve numerous benefits such as enriching and exhibiting their collections, as evidenced by the sample of articles included in this review. Similarly, the ability of a research repository to provide open material provides researchers with a database to record and store data at various stages of a project, then maintain it for the long term and give interconnections between projects documented ( Mi et al. , 2021 ). What began as a proposal from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing in 2015 to archive doctoral nursing projects (DNP) in a digital repository soon found additional benefits beyond compliance, according to an article by Heselden et al. (2019). The DNP graduates were given the opportunity to display their work in a public forum, providing the faculty with a platform to highlight the breadth of nursing research performed by students and further promoting nursing scholarship. As mentioned by Brouwer and du Plessis (2016) in the article reviewed, one of the benefits that can be attained is the ability to provide background information to the discussions about a specific discipline or research agenda. This could be information about current research topics that are being addressed and the focus research groups.

RQ3: What is the utilization of faculty research repositories?

This topic was posed to learn more about how research repositories are used in faculty operations. Table 4 shows the many, yet related, tendencies that emerged from the articles.

The identified trends from the review range from building an attractive Web presence that is easily accessible and promotes the faculties’ repository. As most faculty members learn about their repositories’ services through channels including internet searching, peer recommendation, university and college training and promotion events, advertising the repositories becomes an effective approach to recruit faculty users. Another contributing factor to utilization is the ease to access and use of the platform. As alluded by Jernigan et al. (2016) , faculty repositories are organized and structured, therefore, eliminate the responsibility of reinventing and creating standards. The articles sampled also revealed that utilization was also pushed by the fact that repositories provide consistency in their applications. In the article by Jernigan et al. (2016) a participant was noted saying, “Course coordinators in the nursing school agreed they had faced challenges in the past where they had planned multicampus clinical simulation exercises for students only to find the resources were not equally accessible across all campuses, and this created barriers to their sub-sequent use.” Other articles reported utilization to adopt research data management strategies within specific disciplines for emulation purposes and collaboration opportunities.

A systematic evaluation of faculty research repositories at higher education institutions was conducted to obtain insight into the development, motives, benefits and uptake within faculties/departments in this paper. Faculty are embracing the concept of faculty research repositories for a variety of reasons, including the creation of open and reusable knowledgebase of structured data collections, consistency, ease of use, easy management and storage of research data, learning projects, scholarly outputs and collaboration platforms with peers in the same discipline, according to the study. The overall impression from the review was that the notion of a faculty repository was well-received, with early adopters indicating that it was fully used as it was seen to fit the needs of the faculty with simple content that addressed a variety of levels of interest and competence. Furthermore, the repository ability to enhance the global visibility of its collection with ease in access, discoverability and sharing are dominating motivations revealed in this review paper. While repositories benefit to faculties include showcasing unique, rare and marginalized collections, making repository operations and workflows is a challenge and calls commitment and investment to ensure that repositories remain useful and relevant to faculty members and specific disciplines served. The future sustainability of faculty repositories will be contingent upon faculty research administrators’ willingness to taking full ownership of these platforms as custodians of the content found. Ownership involves a desire to accept and invest in the repository as a resource platform rather than as a means of operation.

A flowchart illustrating the process of selecting studies for the PRISMA-guided systematic review

Selected articles by publication year and country

Databases, search strategies and number of results

List of the articles that were included in the systematic review of faculty research repositories in higher education institutions

Motivations and ranking according to articles reviewed

Utilization patterns for faculty repositories

Allison-Cassin , S. and Scott , D. ( 2018 ), “ Wikidata: a platform for your library’s linked open data ”, Code4Lib Journal , No. 40 , available at: https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/13424.V ( accessed on 15 April 2021 ).

Armbruster , C. and Romary , L. ( 2010 ), “ Comparing repository types: challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication ”, International Journal of Digital Library Systems , Vol. 1 No. 4 , pp. 62 - 63 .

Brouwer , D. and Du Plessis , J.L. ( 2016 ), “ Occupational hygiene-related research in South Africa: development of a research repository ”, Occupational Health Southern Africa , Vol. 22 No. 4 .

Deng , S. ( 2018 ), “ Expanding the metadata librarian horizon: reflections on the metadata practices in the web and digital repositories ”, presented at the 2018 ALA Midwinter Meeting .

Elsevier ( 2019 ), “ Sharing research data ”, available at: www.elsevier.com/authors/author-services/research-data

Fienberg , S.E. , Martin , M.E. and Straf , M.L. ( 1985 ), Sharing Research Data , Washington, DC , National Academy Press .

Glaeser , P.S. ( 1990 ), Scientific and Technical Data in a New Era , New York, NY , Hemisphere Publishing Corporation .

Henderson , S. ( 2008 ), “ The OnCoRe blueprint: the art and science of repository creation ”, Proceedings of 8th Annual MERLOT International Conference , Minneapolis , p. 15 .

Jernigan , T.L. , Brown , T.T. , Hagler Jr , D.J. , Akshoomoff , N. , Bartsch , H. , Newman , E. , Thompson , W.K. , Bloss , C.S. , Murray , S.S. , Schork , N. and Kennedy , D.N. ( 2016 ), “ The pediatric imaging, neurocognition, and genetics (PING) data repository ”, Neuroimage , Vol. 124 , pp. 1149 - 1154 .

Jettena , M. , Simons , E. and Rijnders , J. ( 2019 ), “ The role of CRIS’s in the research life cycle. A case study on implementing a FAIR RDM policy at radboud university, Netherlands ”, Procedia Computer Science , Vol. 146 No. 2019 , pp. 156 - 165 .

Johnson , R.K. ( 2002 ), “ Institutional repositories: partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication ”, D-Lib Magazine , Vol. 8 No. 11 .

Kahn , M. , Higgs , R. , Davidson , J. and Jones , S. ( 2014 ), “ Research data management in South Africa: how we shape up ”, Australian Academic and Research Libraries , Vol. 45 No. 4 , pp. 296 - 308 .

Kanngieser , A. , Neilson , B. and Rossiter , N. ( 2014 ), “ What is a research platform? Mapping methods, mobilities and subjectivities ”, Media, Culture and Society , Vol. 36 No. 3 , pp. 302 - 318 .

Kem´Enya , Z. , Richard , Beregia , J.R. , Erdos , G. and Nacsa , J. ( 2016 ), “ The MTA SZTAKI smart factory: platform for research and project-oriented skill development in higher education ”, Procedia CIRP , Vol. 54 , pp. 53 - 58 .

Kim , J. , Warga , E. and Moen , W. ( 2013 ), “ Competencies required for digital curation: an analysis of job advertisements ”, International Journal of Digital Curation , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 66 - 83 .

Leng , C.B. , Ali , K.M. and Hoo , C.E. ( 2016 ), “ Open access repositories on open educational resources: feasibility of adopting the Japanese model for academic libraries ”, Asian Association of Open Universities Journal , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 35 - 49 .

Matkin , G.W. ( 2002 ), “ Learning object repositories: problems and promise ”, available at: www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/LearningObjectRepositories

Mi , X. , Bernardy , R. and Schmidt , L. ( 2021 ), “ Building an archaeological data repository: a digital library and digital humanities collaboration at the university of South Florida ”, International Journal on Digital Libraries , Vol. 22 No. 1 , pp. 135 - 145 .

Moher , D. , Liberati , A. , Tetzlaff , J. , Altman , D.G. and Group , P. ( 2009 ), “ Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement ”, Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 151 No. 4 , pp. 264 - 269 .

Sam, Naicker and Rajkoomar ( 2020 ), “ Meta-Analysis of artificial intelligence works in ubiquitous learning environments and technologies ”, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications , Vol. 11 No. 9 .

Schumacher , J. and Vande Creek , D. ( 2015 ), “ Intellectual capital at risk: data management practices and data loss by faculty members at five American universities ”, International Journal of Digital Curation , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 96 - 109 , doi: 10.2218/ijdc.v10i2.32 .

Shearer , K. , Haigh , S. and Whitehead , M. ( 2015 ), “ Supporting Canadian innovation through shared expertise and stewardship of research data ”, Paper Presented on the 81st IFLA General Conference and Assembly , Cape Town , South Africa , pp. 15 - 21 .

Sweeper , D. and Ramsden , K. ( 2020 ), “ Establishing and promoting an institutional repository and research information management system ”, Library Hi Tech News , Vol. 37 No. 7 , pp. 9 - 12 .

Tartu Ülikool ( 2020 ), “ Data repositories ”, available at: https://sisu.ut.ee/rdm_course1/data-repositories ( accessed on 11 April 2021 ).

Tekian , A. and Stapleton , G. ( 2012 ), “ Online resources for healthcare SIMULATION ”, The Clinical Teacher , Vol. 9 No. 6 , pp. 417 - 419 .

University System of Georgia ( 2015 ), “ Learning object repository ”, available at: https://wiki.ucop.edu/download/attachments/3737/lor05_17_06

Walters , T. and Skinner , K. ( 2011 ), “ New roles for new times: digital curation for preservation ”, Washington, DC , Association of Research Libraries , available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527702.pdf

Wilkinson , M.D , et al. ( 2016 ),. “ The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data ”, Article number: 160018 (2016) , available at: www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618

Xu , H. ( 2016 ), “ Faculty use of a learning object repository in higher education ”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems , Vol. 46 No. 4 , pp. 469 - 478 .

Yoon , A. ( 2015 ), “ Data reuse and users' trust judgments: toward trusted data curation ”, Doctoral dissertation , The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill): USA .

Further reading

Manu , T.R. , Viral , A. , Madesh , G. , Shashikumara , A.A. , Panna , C. and Prasanna , K. ( 2018 ), “ Analysis of research data repositories in India ”, Knowledge Organisation in Academic Libraries .

O'Neill , B. , et al. , ( 2020 ), “ Supporting nursing faculty with a digital repository of simulation resources ”, Teaching and Learning in Nursing , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 175 - 180 .

Tsabedze , V. ( 2019 ), “ A framework for the management of E-records in higher education institutions: a case study of the institute of development management ”, Mousaion: South African Journal of Information Studies ”, Vol. 37 No. 3 .

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Durban University of Technology for providing resources and funding for this research study.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

Shannon Flanary wins first place at the ASME Student Paper Competition

Shannon Flanary, a CEMS Ph.D. candidate advised by Dr. Victor Barocas won first place in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Summer Biomechanics, Bioengineering, and Biotransport Conference (SB3C) Ph.D. Student Paper Competition. Flanary's paper was selected  as the winner from over 165 competing submissions. Shannon Flanary attended the 2024 SB3C Meeting in Lake Geneva, WI, and presented her oral presentation. A team of anonymous judges selected Flanary’s presentation titled, “Mechanistic model of biochemical-biomechanical crosstalk in vascular endothelial cell alignment” as the winner of the Biotransport, Human Motion, Reproductive, and Other Emerging Topics section. Congratulations, Shannon Flanary! For more information about the award and SB3C, visit their website .  Summary of Shannon Flanary’s research: Blood vessels experience dynamic and complex loads from several directions, and these mechanical stimuli are vital for proper cellular and extracellular matrix organization and function. Endothelial cells (ECs) are the predominant cell type within the inner layer of blood vessels. As has been demonstrated in decades of in vitro work, ECs alter their geometric phenotype due to the applied loading conditions; ECs align parallel with shear stress and perpendicular to cyclic, uniaxial stretch. An aligned and elongated geometric phenotype also confers changes in the biochemical performance of the cells, especially in processes important for blood pressure regulation and the repression of atherosclerotic plaque formation. Interestingly, in high glucose environments, ECs have a blunted alignment response to shear stress in vitro, and hyperglycemic blood vessels have widespread endothelial dysfunction in vivo. To investigate the mechanisms behind biochemical and biomechanical crosstalk in EC alignment, a computational model was constructed that integrated biochemical signaling, stress fiber contraction, and cell-substrate mechanical feedback. The model recapitulates both the healthy and hyperglycemic EC response to shear stress, and the model has the capacity to also evaluate EC responses to cyclic or static stretch as well as variations in substrate stiffness. In addition to recapitulating previous findings, the model can also tease out potential mechanisms by decoupling biochemical and biomechanical components in experimentally unfeasible combinations. This work demonstrates the importance of integrating biochemical and biomechanical stimuli for understanding EC function.  

• Future undergraduate students
• Future transfer students
• Future graduate students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Learn abroad
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Undergraduate majors
• Graduate programs
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Additional degree-granting programs
• Online learning
• Academic Advising overview
• Academic Advising FAQ
• Academic Advising Blog
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Academic support
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Honors advising
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Graduate school
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Distinguished Leadership
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• Update your info
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• CSE Dean's Club
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• Matching gifts
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Administrative offices overview
• Office of the Dean
• Academic affairs
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Academic policies
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Graduate education policies
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• National academies
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development
• Sponsor an event

• Study resources
• Calendar - Graduate
• Calendar - Undergraduate
• Class schedules
• Class cancellations
• Course registration
• Important academic dates
• More academic resources
• Campus services
• IT services
• Job opportunities
• Mental health support
• Student Service Centre (Birks)
• Calendar of events
• Latest news
• Media Relations
• Faculties, Schools & Colleges
• Arts and Science
• Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
• John Molson School of Business
• School of Graduate Studies
• All Schools, Colleges & Departments
• Directories

• My Library Account (Sofia) View checkouts, fees, place requests and more
• Interlibrary Loans Request books from external libraries
• Zotero Manage your citations and create bibliographies
• E-journals via BrowZine Browse & read journals through a friendly interface
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
• Course Reserves Online course readings
• Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
• WebPrint Upload documents to print with DPrint
• Sofia Discovery tool
• Databases by subject
• Course Reserves
• E-journals via BrowZine
• E-journals via Sofia
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
• Intercampus Delivery of Bound Periodicals/Microforms
• Interlibrary Loans
• Spectrum Research Repository
• Special Collections & Archives
• Additional resources & services
• Loans & Returns (Circulation)
• Subject & course guides
• Learn with the Library
• Instructional Services
• Open Educational Resources Guide
• General guides for users
• Ask a librarian
• Bibliometrics & research impact guide
• Concordia University Press
• Copyright Guide
• Digital Scholarship
• Digital Preservation
• Open Access
• ORCID at Concordia
• Research data management guide
• Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
• Systematic Reviews
• Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
• Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
• Desktop computers, software & availability maps
• Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
• Printers, copiers & scanners
• Technology Sandbox
• Visualization Studio
• Webster Library
• Vanier Library
• Grey Nuns Reading Room
• Book a group study room/scanner
• Study spaces
• Floor plans
• Room booking for academic events
• Exhibitions
• Librarians & staff
• University Librarian
• Memberships & collaborations
• Indigenous Student Librarian program
• Wikipedian in residence
• Researcher-in-Residence
• Feedback & improvement
• Annual reports & fast facts
• Annual Plan
• Library Services Fund
• Giving to the Library
• Webster Transformation blog
• Policies & Code of Conduct

The Campaign for Concordia

Library Research Skills Tutorial

Log into...

• My Library account (Sofia)
• Interlibrary loans
• Article/chapter scan
• Course reserves

Quick links

Theses, dissertations, and research papers

Concordia university theses.

The Concordia Library has a copy of almost every thesis and dissertation submitted to the University as a condition for the award of a graduate degree, as well as copies of many research papers and graduate projects. Please note that non-print materials (film, slides, etc.) for theses submitted in 1967–2010 are not available online in Spectrum, Concordia University's institutional repository 1 .

Browse Concordia theses in Spectrum

Spectrum , Concordia's open access repository, includes theses from 1967–present. You can browse by year, department, author, or document type. Spectrum will enable you to download the full text, data, videos, or other files associated with the work.

Search for Concordia theses in the Sofia Discovery tool

Concordia theses held by the Library can be located using the Sofia Discovery tool .

Using the Advanced Search , combine any search with a Title Search of the phrase Concordia Theses, Research Papers

If you are uncertain about your search strategy, use our Ask a Librarian service .

Theses from other universities

Databases and other electronic sources.

• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 1861 onward Provides citations to over two million doctoral dissertations and masters theses published in North America and Europe, covering many more doctoral dissertations than masters theses. More than 600,000 titles are available full text (mostly from 1997 onward). Please note: From 2005 onwards, Canadian theses cannot be searched by the name of a thesis advisor.
• NDLTD Global ETD Search The Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD)'s search service allows researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) based on keyword, date, institution, language and subject. The index is based on a growing collection of approximately 4 million ETDs from more than 200 universities on all continents. Records with links to documents from originating institutions are collected daily.
• Theses Canada 1965 onward (coverage varies) Includes references to masters theses and doctoral dissertations accepted by Canadian universities.
• Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD) OATD indexes over 1.5 million electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) from over 600 colleges, universities, and research institutions around the world. Links to full text available.
• OpenDOAR: Directory of Open Access Repositories Some universities require that students deposit their theses in an institutional repository, such as DSpace@MIT . Use this directory to locate the university, if available, and then search for the author or title of the thesis.
• WorldCat Use the Advanced Search feature and under SUBTYPE limits, change the drop-down menu from Any Content to Thesis/dissertation .
• EThOS - Electronic Theses Online Service Digitized, Open Access (freely accessible) theses from all UK higher education institutions.
• SUDOC (Union catalogue of university libraries in France) Indexes, theses, and dissertations from universities in France. Choose "Recherche avancée," then under "type de publication," select "Thèses."
• DART-Europe E-theses Portal Portal for European Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Also browsable by institution .
• Trove Theses produced by the graduate research students at Australian universities, some of which are freely accessible.
• University library catalogues To find information on a thesis submitted at a specific university, search their library catalogue.
• Subject databases In addition to listing journal articles, some subject databases will include theses that fall within their subject coverage.

If the thesis you are looking for is not in the Sofia Discovery tool or is not freely available in ProQuest Dissertations & Theses or in Theses Canada, you can request an interlibrary loan (ILL) whereby we will attempt to obtain a copy from another library. You may also purchase a copy of a thesis online through ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

To obtain more information or to place an interlibrary loan request, consult the Interlibrary Loans page.

1. A master copy of the thesis or dissertation is kept in Special Collections at the Vanier Library along with any available non-print components (film, slides, etc.). For most theses submitted prior to 2011, a circulating copy is available in either the Webster or Vanier Library, while an archival copy along with any accompanying non-print material (film, slides, etc.) is kept in Special Collections. These copies can be located using the Sofia Discovery tool. Additionally, most theses and some research papers are also available in digital format and can either be viewed online or downloaded using Spectrum .

Recently Published Papers

To find out what research topics our department is working on currently, you can browse this list of recently published papers by our Department of Statistics and Data Science (DS2) faculty and graduate students. Some titles may be truncated in the header field - please click on the header for the drop-down description of the paper for the complete title, all authors, revision date and abstract. 

Linear Non-Gaussian Component Analysis via Maximum Likelihood (2018); Risk, B., Matteson, D., Ruppert, D. JASA, to appear.

A Unified Theory of Testing and Confidence Regions for High Dimensional Estimating Equations (2018); Neykov M, Ning Y, Liu S. J, and Liu H; Statistical Science

High-Dimensional Inference for Cluster-Based Graphical Models (2018+); C. Eisenach, F. Bunea, Y. Ning and C. Dinicu

Bootstrap Bias Corrections for Ensemble Methods (2018); Giles Hooker and Lucas Mentch; Statistic and Computing, 28(1):77086.

Facilitating high-dimensional transparent classification via empirical Bayes variable selection (2018); Bar, H., Booth, J.G., Liu, K. and Wells, M.T. (2018). Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry. 

Experimental Design for Partially Observed Markov Decision Processes  (2018); Leifur Thorbergsson and Giles Hooker; Journal of Uncertainty Quantification, 6(2):549-567.

Machine Learning and the Future of Realism (2018); Giles Hooker and Clifford A. Hooker; Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, in press. 

Weak interspecific interactions in a sagebrush steppe: evidence from observations, models, and experiments (2018); Adler, Peter B., Andrew Kleinhesselink, Giles Hooker, Brittany Teller and Stephen P. Ellner; Ecology, 99(7):1621-1632.

PCA-based estimation for functional linear regression with functional responses (2018); Masaaki Imaizumi and Kengo Kato;  Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Vol. 163, 2018, pages 15-36.

A Class of Weighted Estimating Equations for Semi-parametric Transformation Models With Missing Covariates (2018); Ning Y, Yi Y. G and Reid N; Scandinavian Journal of Statistics.

A simple method to construct confidence bands in functional linear regression (2018); Masaaki Imaizumi and Kengo Kato; Statistica Sinica, 2018, to appear.

Valid post-selection inference in high-dimensional approximately sparse quantile regression models (2018); Alexandre Belloni, Victor Chernozhukov, and Kengo Kato; Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2018, to appear.

Testing many moment inequalities (2018); Victor Chernozhuov, Denis Chetverikov, and Kengo Kato; Review of Economic Studies, 2018, to appear. 

An Expanded Modern Coexistence Theory for Empirical Applications (2018); Ellner, Stephen P., Snyder, Robin E., Adler, Peter B. and Giles Hooker, Ecology Letters, in press.

Uniform confidence bands in deconvolution with unknown error distribution (2018); Kengo Kato and Yuya Sasaki; Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 207, 2018, pages 129-161. 

A fast algorithm with minimax optimal guarantees for topic models with an unknown number of topics (2018+); Xin Bing, Florentina Bunea and Marten Wegkamp

Model assisted variable clustering: minimax-optimal recovery and algorithms (2018+); Florentina Bunea, Christophe Giraud, Xi Luo, Martin Royer and Nicolas Verzelen. (Under the revision with the Annals of Statistics)

Adaptive Estimation in Structured Factor Models with Applications to Overlapping Clustering (2017, 2018+); Xin Bing, Florentina Bunea, Yang Ning and Marten Wegkamp. 

Penalized versus constrained generalized eigenvalue problems  (2017); Gaynanova I, Booth GJ and Wells TM; Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 379-387.

Adaptive estimation of the rank of the coefficient matrix in high dimensional multivariate response regression models (2017); Xin Bing and Marten Wegkamp. (Under the revision with the Annals of Statistics)

On the pseudolike-lihood inference for semiparametric models with boundary problems (2017); Chen Y, Ning J, Ning Y, Liang K-Y, and Bandeen-Roche K; Biometrika.

High-dimensional quantile regression (2017); Alexandre Belloni, Victor Chernozhukov, and Kengo Kato; Handbook of Quantile Regression (eds. Roger Koenker, Victor Chernozhukov, Xuming He, Limin Peng), 2017, Chapman & Hall/CRC. 

Quantile regression methods for longitudinal data (2017); Antonio Galvao and Kengo Kato; Handbook of Quantile Regression (eds. Roger Koenker, Victor Chernozhukov, Xuming He, Limin Peng), 2017, Chapman & Hall/CRC. 

Testing and Confidence Intervals for High Dimensional Proportional Hazards Model (2017); Fang E. X, Ning Y, and Liu H; Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B.

Central limit theorems and bootstrap in high dimensions (2017); Victor Chernozhkov, Denis Chetverikov, and Kengo Kato; Annals of Probability, Vol. 45, 2017, pages 2309-2352.

A General Theory of Hypothesis Tests and Confidence Regions for Sparse High Dimensional Models (2017). Ning Y, and Liu H; Annals of Statistics.

A Likelihood Ratio Framework for High Dimensional Semiparametric Inference (2017); Ning Y, Zhao T. Q and Liu H; Annals of Statistics.

High Dimensional Semiparametric Latent Graphical Model for Mixed Data (2017); Fan J, Liu H, Ning Y, and Zou H; Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B.

Latent model-based clustering for biological discovery (2018+); Xin Bing, Florentina Bunea, Martin Royer and Jishnu Das. (Under the revision with the Cell Press: iScience)

Weak convergence of stationary empirical processes  (2017); Dragan Radulovic and Marten Wegkamp. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 2017. 

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

The Professor Is In

Guidance for all things PhD: Graduate School, Job Market and Careers

Dr. Karen’s Rules of the Research Statement

By Karen Kelsky | September 16, 2016

We’ve looked at the Cover Letter and the CV  and the Teaching Statement .  Today we look at the Research Statement.

An expanded and updated version of this post can now be found in chapter  27 of my book, the professor is in: the essential guide to turning your ph.d. into a job ..

Today, at long last, and in response to popular demand, a post on the Research Statement.

I have, perhaps, procrastinated on blogging about the Research Statement because at some level I felt that the rules might be more variable on this document, particularly with regard to length.

But in truth, they really aren’t.

The RS should be be two pages long for any junior candidate in the humanities or soft social sciences.  Two pages allows for an elaboration of the research well beyond the summary in the cover letter that gives the search committee substantial information to work with. Those junior candidates in the hard sciences and fields like Psychology can have 3-4 page research statements.

I strongly urge all job-seekers to investigate the norms of their individual fields carefully, and follow the advice they receive on this matter from experts in their own fields.  Just never simply ASSUME that longer is better in an RS or in any job document.

By the way, the RS to which I refer here is the document sometimes requested as part of a basic job application.  This is NOT the “research proposal” required by specific fellowship or postdoc applications!   Those will specify a length, and should be written to follow the outline I describe in Dr. Karen’s Foolproof Grant Template .) They are a totally different genre of document; don’t confuse the two!

Anyway, back to the RS: there are undoubtedly a number of excellent reasons that people could give for writing a longer RS, based on thoroughness or detail or concerns for accuracy. And I would acknowledge those principles as valid ones.

But they would all come second to the single most important principle of all job market writing, in my view, which is the principle of search committee exhaustion.

Search committee members are exhausted, and they are overwhelmed and distracted. There simply is no bandwidth in their brains or their psyches to handle the amount of material they are required to read, when searches routinely garner between 300 and 1000 applications.

Anything that feels “long” is going to be resented just by virtue of its length. And resentment is categorically what you don’t want a search committee member feeling about your job application materials.

So, in short, the Research Statement, just like the Teaching Statement , needs to be one to two pages in length, single spaced.  And like the TS, it needs to be in 11 or 12 point font, and have decent one-inch margins.

What are the other rules? Here they are:

• Print the RS on regular printer paper. Do not use letterhead for this or the TS, and do not use any special high grade paper.
• Put your name and the words “Research Statement” centered at the top.
• If unsure how to structure, use a 5-paragraph model as follows:

[… edited… ] 

Here are some additional principles:

• A RS (like a TS) is not tailored to a school overtly. While you may subtly adjust your project descriptions to speak to a specific type of job, you do not refer to any job or department or application in the statement itself.
• Do not refer to any other job documents in the RS (ie, “As you can see from my CV, I have published extensively….”)
• As in all job documents, remain strictly at the level of the evidentiary. State what you did, what you concluded, what you published, and why it matters for your discipline, period. Do not editorialize or make grandiose claims (“this research is of critical importance to…”).
• Do not waste precious document real estate on what other scholars have NOT done. Never go negative. Stay entirely in the realm of what you did, not what others didn’t.
• Do not position yourself as “extending” or “adding to” or “building off of” or … [what follows is edited…]
• Do not refer to other faculty or scholars in the document. The work is your own. If you co-authored a piece…
• Do not refer to yourself as studying “under” anybody…
• Do not forget to articulate the core argument of your research. I am astounded at how often (probably in about 80% of client documents) I have to remind clients to …
• Give a sense of a publishing trajectory, moving from past to present…
• Make sure you are not coming across as a one-trick pony. The second major project must be clearly distinct …
• Use the active voice as much as possible, but beware a continual reliance on “I-Statements”, as I describe in this post, The Golden Rule of the Research Statement.

I will stop here. Readers, please feel free to add more in the comments.  I will add to this post as further refinements come to mind.

Similar Posts:

• This Christmas, Don’t Be Cheap
• The Dreaded Teaching Statement: Eight Pitfalls
• What is Evidence of Teaching Excellence?
• The Golden Rule of the Research Statement
• How Do I Address Search Committee Members?

Reader Interactions

August 30, 2012 at 12:38 pm

I am interested in applying for Ph.D programs in the UK and they ask for a Research Proposal…is this the same thing as a Research Statement?

August 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm

No, they are looking for what you might think of as a research protocol, so literally your background, literature review, hypotheses and methods. You would need to convey how this is a unique area of research that is novel and adds to the existing literature; they are assessing the novelty of your research and how you would conduct the study. PhD programs in the UK are heavily researched based; you would need to show that you could literally hit the ground running to do your PhD. A major difference is that UK PhD’s usually take 3-4 years full-time and this is stringently enforced. I have a PhD from the UK and there are obviously pros and cons compared to the US system but you need to be a confident researcher if you’re planning to take that route.

August 30, 2012 at 1:28 pm

No: a Research Proposal is intended as a pitch for a specific project, or the research programme you will undertake within a specific timeframe (such as a PhD or a post-doc). A Research Statement is used for applications for jobs and occasionally fellowships, and outlines the research you have *already* completed, and what you plan to pursue next. So your Research Statement will describe your doctoral thesis as a finished (or very nearly finished) product, and list the publications generated by your doctoral work and any subsequent projects.

August 30, 2012 at 2:12 pm

No, a research proposal is a description of what you would like to do for you PhD research. Essentially an outline of your expected PhD thesis (which can of course change later once you’ve been accepted and started working on your research) with a short lit review, an identification of a research gap that you plan to address and a brief outline of proposed methods.

August 30, 2012 at 12:46 pm

What about in the case where you are asked to provide a “Teaching and Research Statement” in addition to a statement of your teaching philosophy? I have gone for a one page statement which focuses on my research but links that to my teaching so as not to repeat too much from my philosophy or my cover letter. Any thoughts from others?

August 30, 2012 at 5:02 pm

I’m preparing a “Teaching and Research Statement” and have kept it at 2 pages (1 page for teaching and 1 for research). Do others think that’s OK? If it’s 1 page total, for both teaching and research, then how much could I really say? That’s so short, less room than a 2-page cover letter.

September 1, 2012 at 9:05 am

Yes, on occasions where jobs ask for that combined statement, I always work with clients to do a two page document, with one page devoted to each part.

September 20, 2017 at 10:09 am

Found the blog this week… I wish I found sooner!! Gongrats! One add-on question: in the case of a combined document, would you start with the RS and then TS, or it doesn’t make much difference?

September 21, 2017 at 9:56 am

I’d start with RS in general, but it would depend on the job – teaching-centric jobs would be the reverse.

September 16, 2021 at 7:13 pm

Hello, so glad I found your blog! The application I am putting together requests a statement of research philosophy, a teaching philosophy, and a combined research and teaching interests statement. In this case, would one page combined be sufficient with a much briefer review of interests in each area (given that so much more detail is available in the philosophy statements)?

August 30, 2012 at 1:21 pm

In my field in R1 jobs it is pretty rare that one is asked to prepare a research statement. This stuff does in the cover letter. Any insight into when one is asked for this?

August 30, 2012 at 1:27 pm

Field dependent, but as KK points out, you should have a research paragraph (or two) in your cover letter anyway…

August 30, 2012 at 1:26 pm

The above echoes my experience. One obvious caveat would be postdocs and such that either stipulate a longer statement length (the ol’ two page Fulbright IIE style), or suggest a wider range of material should be included.

August 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Thanks for the tips – a very useful post! How do these apply to postdoc applications?

– If the required length of the research statement is not stipulated, would one page also be sufficient for a postdoc application?

– Also, what is the convention for naming (with title) your advisor in the cover letter – should this also be avoided?

August 30, 2012 at 1:30 pm

In terms of the 5-paragraph model, where would you include subsequent projects, i.e if you are on your second or third post-doc. Do you give equal time/space to each project you have completed, or just the basic run-down and focus more on current or upcoming work?

August 30, 2012 at 3:46 pm

This is a good question. If you’re well beyond the diss, then you will use the “diss” para to describe your most important recent research, then at the end of that para or in the next one, indicate with a sentence or two the research that preceded it (demonstrating an organic connection between them if possible), with a major publication or two. And then from that, move to the next major project. So it’s a bit more of a zig zag, with the past sandwiched between (and subordinate to) the present and the future.

August 30, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Let me respond in a different way. if you are a senior scholar applying for an associate or full position, then your RS may certainly be longer than one page (although I’d cap it at two, myself). The one page rule applies most to those who are seeking their first or second assistant professor position.

August 30, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Where is the appropriate place to highlight (solo or lead-author) publications developed outside of your dissertation work? For example, a secondary area of inquiry that runs tangential to your core area of research.

September 1, 2012 at 9:08 am

That can get another paragraph. Now, this is tricky. If you have an *extensive* secondary body of work for whatever reason then in that case, you may be one of the people who can go onto two pages. This is rare—most job seekers just have their diss, its pubs, and a planned second project, and that can all go on one page. If you have a small body of secondary research, that can also still fit on one page. So the judgment call comes in knowing how much is “too much” to legitimately fit on one page. Questions like that are what people hire me for!

August 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm

I’m wondering about repeating myself. The 5-paragraph format for the research statement is very similar to the format for the cover letter. So should we more briefly discuss points we’ve fleshed out in the cover letter, to save the space for points that are not in the cover letter? Or is repeating the info in the research statement and cover letter OK/expected? (If you’re repeating yourself, then there’s the issue of figuring out X different ways to say the same thing.)

I answer this in another response, but basically you have the space here to go into far more detail about the scholarship itself—the methods, the theoretical orientation, a very brief and edited literature context, and a strong statement of contribution to the discipline. You can give chapter summaries of about one sentence each, and you can also describe the publications in a sentence or two (not possible in the job letter). And the biggest thing in the RS is the description of the second project. The cover letter devotes a very short paragraph to that, of approximately 2-3 sentences, but in the RS, it can get a full-sized paragraph.

January 21, 2020 at 1:11 pm

This is a very delayed response, but I’m hoping you still get the notification! I want to make sure that it’s appropriate to cite specific authors in describing the lit context. Thank you much!

August 30, 2012 at 7:30 pm

I struggle with para. 4 because I have 3 major post-diss projects in mind. 2 are off-shoots of the diss. material in the sense that they contribute to the same field as my diss. but look at very different aspects than my diss. covered. The 3rd project is a completely different trajectory with little-no connection to my diss. I fear it sounds “out of left field” as they say, but it’s my dream-project. So I’m not sure how to communicate all of these interests. Thoughts?

September 1, 2012 at 9:12 am

This is a huge question, and one that I’m going to edit the post to include. It is critical that no job seeker propose more than one next project. This may seem counter-intuitive. Surely, the more ideas I have, the more intellectually dynamic I look, right? Wrong. Anything above one major post-diss project makes you look scattered and at risk in your eventual tenure case. A tenure case requires a clear and linear trajectory from the diss, its pubs, to a second project, and its pubs.

Now, I hasten to add that this rule applies most firmly in the humanities and humanistically inclined social sciences. In the hard sciences, and experimental or lab-based social sciences, the rhythm of research and publishing is different and different rules might possibly apply, with a larger number of smaller-scale projects possible. But in book fields, you need to do one book…and then a second book…for tenure.

September 4, 2012 at 9:49 am

thanks Karen, I will keep this in mind

October 22, 2016 at 9:01 am

Do you know of a source for more information about this problem from the hard sciences and engineering perspective?

August 30, 2012 at 10:02 pm

In a research proposal (i.e., for a specific postdoc), what is the appropriate length of time for revising a dissertation for publication? My instinct is, for a 3-year program, to devote 2 years to revision/publication, and one year to the new research project. Is this too slow, too fast, too hot, too cold, or just right?

September 1, 2012 at 9:00 am

To my mind that is exactly right. However, I know of a major Ivy League 3-year fellowship that expects 3 years to be spent on the first book. I find that baffling. As a postdoc you have few teaching obligations and almost no committee/service work….why would it require three years to transform your diss to a book in that environment? This particular app does allow you to *optionally* propose a second project for the third year, and I recommend that all applicants do that.

August 30, 2012 at 10:07 pm

Karen, thanks for this and all of your other helpful posts. I’m a sociology phd student at a top department, and served on the hiring committee last year. Not a single applicant made it onto our short list (or even the “semifinalist” list of 30 candidates) with less than a 2 page research statement (and most were 2.5-3 pages). Maybe my institution is unique, or maybe they were poorly written and not as detailed as they could have been in one page. But I just wanted to share my experience for any sociologists reading this blog.

September 1, 2012 at 9:01 am

That’s interesting. That would seem to be fetishizing length qua length…. the work can be described in one page when the one page is well written.

September 4, 2012 at 7:45 am

I’m in a top psychology program, and I echo this– I have read many research statements for short-listed candidates in my department, and I have never seen a research statement shorter than two pages, and typically they are three or four.

September 5, 2012 at 10:27 am

I crowd sourced the question on FB and most responses said they favor a one page version. I suppose this could be a field specific thing. The humanities are def. one page. It strikes me that social sciences and psych in particular might be tending toward longer. I really wouldn’t recommend more than two though.

September 17, 2013 at 8:58 am

I am writing my own R.S. and have asked for copies from colleagues in both psychology and the life sciences. In all cases, the R.S. has been at least 4 pages. So, it doesn’t seem specific to just the social sciences. Maybe it’s a difference in the prestige of the universities, with R-1 preferring lengthier research statements, while liberal arts universities prefer a smaller research statement. Most candidates at R-1s also have lengthier C.V.s which would imply a longer R.S. no?

September 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm

October 15, 2013 at 8:17 pm

I’d seen a lot of recommendations online for RSs to have a hard limit of either one or two pages. When I asked my own (Education) professors about it, they said that two pages sounded short and that they’d seen everything from one page to ten pages but recommended keeping it no longer than 3-4. Right now mine is 2.5 pages.

August 30, 2012 at 10:24 pm

Thanks for this really helpful post! A few quick quick follow up questions that I’m sure may benefit others who have similar concerns. 1. As we situate our dissertation research within our fields (paragraph 2/3) does this mean we have license to use field-specific vocabulary or theoretical language? (as opposed to the cover letter, where we’re writing in a much more accessible voice?) 2. Also, many of the items in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs you suggest would seem to overlap quite extensively with the cover letter, making it hard to properly differentiate what goes where. For schools that require this statement, should we just strip down our cover letter and include some of these details in our research statement? Or, is there something I’m missing? And finally, 3. A bit of a mega-question, but what is the *point* of a research statement? Why do some schools have them? Understanding the reasons some departments request it would be helpful, especially in differentiating from the cover letter. Sincerely, Grad-student-on-the-market

September 1, 2012 at 8:58 am

Never strip down the cover letter. That is the document that opens the door for the reading of the other docs such as TS and RS. The distinction of the RS is that it can be more field-specific and far more detailed than what you can provide in the single para devoted to the research in the job letter. You can also situate the research vis-a-vis scholarship in the field (carefully and within limits, remembering the rules that the work described is YOUR OWN, and never to devote precious real estate to what OTHER PEOPLE have or have not done).

You can also briefly sketch the chapters of the dissertation as long as you give no more than about one sentence per chapter. One of the most tedious pitfalls of the RS is the exhaustive chapter-by-chapter description of the diss.

And re #3: that’s a great question. What IS the point? Basically, if the cover letter and CV open the door to your candidacy for the very first cut in a search comm member’s mind (say, from 500 to 100), then the RS gives more detailed indication that are a hard-hitting scholar with a sophisticated research program and a body of dense scholarship that will yield the publications you need for tenure, and also answer the question more clearly as to your fit for the job and for the department.

August 31, 2012 at 9:32 am

Is the Research statement the same as the diss abstract? My field seems to consistently ask for diss abstract and all the examples I have seen are two pages, with page one being a discussion of the project, it’s contributions, etc. and the second being ch descriptions.

August 31, 2012 at 12:05 pm

No, the diss abs. is an abstract of the diss! Common in English.

November 2, 2012 at 11:26 am

thanks for making this distinction. is there a length limit on the diss abstract?

September 1, 2012 at 12:08 pm

I’m in a STEM field and would disagree with limiting the RS to 1 page. Most research statements that I have seen (for searches at R1 schools) have been 2-3 pages. One aspect of this which may be different in STEM fields compared to social sciences/humanities is that in STEM you really should include between 1 and 3 figures in the research statement. We like data and we want to see yours. My research statements always included at least two figures – one from published work and one from a cool new result that wasn’t yet published (but was either in review or accepted but not in press, making it hard to scoop). Depending on the school I also sometimes included a picture of a cool method (it’s a pretty pic too) – that was typically done for SLAC apps where I was also making the point that I would be able to involve their students in that research. With figures that are actually readable, there is no way to get away with less than 2-3 pages for a research statement. Again I think this may be STEM specific but given how scientists read journals – most folks go straight to the figures and then later look at the text – this is probably a good tactic in those fields.

September 4, 2012 at 12:21 pm

I love the idea that a research statement could include figures. I’ve never seen one like this (I’m in biological anthropology) and have never thought this would be something that could be included.

September 5, 2012 at 10:25 am

In the hard sciences this is not uncommon.

September 1, 2012 at 4:33 pm

Forgive me for bringing up/asking the perhaps obvious. So no master’s thesis mention?

Also, you mention not providing two second projects. Would that still apply if one is far-away foreign, and the other local?

September 4, 2012 at 9:43 am

Another question on the MA – mine was empirical research published in a general science journal (Proc B) so I definitely need to mention it. But my question is whether I should explicitly say that this was my MA project?

I’m entering the job market ABD.

September 5, 2012 at 10:26 am

avoid framing yourself as a student, particularly MA.

September 4, 2012 at 9:32 am

I’d say, especially for humanities fields, the “baseline” of 1 page single-spaced that Karen mentions is correct. As she says in the post, there are obvious exceptions (STEM might want more, specific jobs might want more), but assuming 1 page without any other specific information is a good standard rule. In fact, from my own experience, 1 page generally works for any document that isn’t your vitae or your job letter.

The reason I say this is because you basically want to make a good impression pretty quickly. Job committees have limited time, and they are probably going to scan your document before deciding whether it is worth reading it in full. I’d also suggest reading up on document design, and making your documents easy to scan by putting in effective headers that give a powerful overall impression of your candidacy. You should also design those headers to lure your readers to look at your work more closely.

September 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm

I’m going through the process right now as an ABD, following advice from many quarters including TPII and a number of junior and senior faculty in top departments in my field. I have collected sample statements from 5 successful candidates and they are all in the 3-5 page range, closer to what the sociologist above describes. I have not seen a single statement at one page.

September 4, 2012 at 6:23 pm

When proposing future research, do you still recommend we avoid stating what others have NOT done? Can these types of statements, “yet others have not yet address xxx and yyy”, be helpful in justifying the need for our proposed topic?

It is always good to indicate, rather briskly, “in contrast to other work that has emphasized xxx…” or “no studies to date have examined xxxx.” What I am cautioning against is the very common temptation among young candidates to harp on and on about other scholars’ shortcomings, or how their diss topic is “badly understudied” (a phrase I’d give my right hand never to have to read again). Can the self-righteousness and just describe your work and its contribution.

September 7, 2012 at 12:54 pm

thanks for the post!

I had a question about not giving the sense that one is “extending” past work. As you say in this post: “Avoid the temptation to describe how you will “continue” or “extend” your previous research topics or approaches.”

In my case, my book will be comprised of about half new material and half dissertation research. “Extending” feels like an accurate word to describe the relationship between the diss and the book. Like, ‘Extending my diss research on xxx, the book offers new ways of thinking about issues yyy and zzz. …’

So is this the wrong way to describe the relationship between book and diss (even if it seems accurate?) What are *good* ways to talk about the relationship between the two when the book really does “build on” groundwork laid in the diss?

September 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm

This question actually requires a blog post on its own. There is a weird fixation among job seekers on the word ‘extend.” I don’t get it, and find it mystifying and irritating. Of course books or second projects will typically have some organic connection to the diss. But the insistence on saying that they “extend” the diss makes the DISS primary, and the new work secondary. But on the job market and in your career, the diss must NOT be primary. The diss is something a grad student writes. You are not applying to be a grad student. You are applying to be professor. So it’s the new material that should have primacy. Yet young job seekers are so myopically fixated on their diss that all they ever do is harp on and on about how every single damned thing they’re going to do next is basically a reworking of the diss material. Yuck! Who wants that?

As you can see, I am a bit reactive at this point…

September 7, 2012 at 2:53 pm

ok! I hear you saying that it is more about not giving the sense, throughout the letter, that the book is a mere “extension” of the dissertation, and that typically this word is overused by applicants and thus gives that impression. That makes sense. Personally, the sentence I noted above about is my only reference to the diss–the rest is all about the book and future project since I’m a postdoc and the diss is really in the past. 🙂 thanks!

September 15, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Thanks for the helpful guidelines, Karen!

How would you recommend shifting the focus of the paragraphs for those of us going on the market as postdocs? For me, I’ll have completed 2 years of a postdoc in Education, and so I have many new projects more relevant to my future research than my dissertation was. However, except for a few conference proceedings, I have no publications on my postdoc research yet. In fact, some of my proposed “new” research will be to continue what I began in my postdoctoc. Do hiring committees look down upon this?

Thanks for your advice!

September 22, 2012 at 5:58 am

Does anyone here know if this is an effective format for British Oxbridge postdocs as well? I’m finishing a UK PhD and pretty keen to stay in the country, and obviously these are madly competitive. I know my research is good, but the eternal question of how to make anything in the humanities sound important to other people, you know?

October 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm

Please tag this post so that it appears under the teaching and research statement category!

October 13, 2012 at 9:05 pm

October 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm

Karen: “Just never simply ASSUME that longer is better in an RS or in any job document”

Yours Truly: “Just never simply ASSUME that they are going to read what you write. Often they a long CV, RS, and list of publications to tick all the boxes and cover their backs.”

November 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm

If I consider teaching and curriculum development part of my research, is it okay to mention this in the RS–specifically if written for a university more focused on teaching than research? My assumption is that R1 schools would look down on this…?

November 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Unless you’re in the field of education, you can’t include teaching or curric. in a RS.

December 16, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Than you very much Karen. A valuable guide

December 31, 2012 at 7:37 pm

Does the rule of no more than one future project description apply to the field of developmental psychology?

*Please delete above post with my full name, I did not realize it would post

January 1, 2013 at 9:35 am

You would need to investigate that among your profs and colleagues. I don’t know the expectations of all fields well enough to advise.

September 18, 2013 at 4:10 pm

I wrote a research statement and asked a friend in my department look at it. She said I should include a paragraph on collaborative work I’ve done as well. The problem is that all of my “collaborative” work is really “assistance”. I do not want to frame myself as a graduate student, but I also see the value in highlighting my ability to produce scholarship with other people. Any thoughts on this, Karen or others?

September 27, 2013 at 8:37 pm

Many thanks! I searched through a tone of sites for samples and examples, but yours is the most helpful.

September 29, 2013 at 7:32 am

Does one use references and include a reference list in a research statement?

October 24, 2013 at 10:40 am

I’d like to know the answer to this question, too.

Karen’s advise (Do not refer to other faculty or scholars in the document. The work is your own. If you co-authored a piece, do not use the name of the co-author. Simply write, “I have a co-authored essay in the Journal of XXX.”) sounds like you shouldn’t, but I personally see more advantages (that’s what scholars are used to, you can reference one paper multiple times without much space, you give the full information of your papers) then disadvantages (mention other authors).

So some remarks on using reference lists/bibliographies would be really interesting.

October 11, 2013 at 2:17 pm

You mention that P4 should include: “A summary of the next research project, providing a topic, methods, a theoretical orientation, and brief statement of contribution to your field or fields.”

How specific do you need to get with that information? I want the review committees to see that I have good, viable ideas for future research, but at the same time I’m worried that by giving too many details my ideas are liable to get stolen…not to mention that more detail means a lot more space on the document and I’m already finding it really hard to keep it to 2 pages even just using pretty general info. All the example research statements from my field that I’m reading make generalized statements like, “This area of my research will focus on developing and characterizing the structure of smart multifunctional materials for infrastructure applications,” but that just doesn’t seem like enough…

Thanks for the advice! Your blog has been so valuable as I am preparing my application package. 🙂

October 24, 2013 at 8:52 am

Hi Karen, I am applying for a few Phd positions & programs around the world, and some programs ask for a research statement, some for a statement of purpose. I fell Ill during my master’s studies and it had impacted my studies to the point of taking a leave of absence(and is known by my referees). As I understand, I can mention that in a SOP, but not in a research statement. Is there anyway I can communicate to the admissions committee about my situation (within the scope of my application) ?

October 30, 2013 at 7:13 am

Hello, Karen, I am an old follower returning. In a research statement, do you give considerably less space to what is already published, books and articles, and much more space and detail to describe projects(s) in progress or about to be launched as research proposal applications?

October 31, 2013 at 7:32 am

I recommend balancing about half and half; in the case of very young/junior candidates, though, the previous/current stuff is going to far outweigh the future stuff.

November 6, 2013 at 12:32 am

I am applying to an R1 and part of the app package asks for a “statement of research interests”. it sounds self-evident, but this is different from a research statement, right? They are, in fact, wanting to know what my future research projects are, to ascertain if i am a good prospect, correct?

Many thanks, Karen and co.!!!

November 8, 2013 at 10:40 am

No. it’s the same thing.

November 8, 2013 at 2:35 pm

Hi, I am applying to graduate school, and some programs ask for a research statement. I have not done any independent research, but have worked in a lab under a postdoc for three years. As a undergrad, is it okay to refer to the postdoc by name and say that I was assisting? Should this be structured any differently than the model you gave above? Thanks!

January 20, 2014 at 5:02 am

I’m applying for a PhD scholarship and I’m required to write a research statement. Is there any different format for a PhD student to be or just follow the same as per above?

Thanks a lot!

February 7, 2014 at 10:58 am

Hi, Could you please let me know if it is proper to mention some of projects in a certain master course that one took? I asked this because I am applying for a position that almost there is not a direct relation between my master thesis and my prospective PhD supervisor’s research interests. Thank you in advance.

February 21, 2014 at 11:23 pm

If some of your research background was for a government agency and your results went to government documents and forms, are you allowed to include it in your research statement. For example, I am applying for a job that calls for a research statement in which I would be designing stream sampling plans and in the past I worked for state government designing and implementing SOPs for stream sampling and EPA reports. This experience is much more applicable to the job than my dissertation research is. In other words, is the RS more to show I can do research and think like a researcher or that I have done similar research in the past?

March 6, 2014 at 10:00 am

Hi, This post has been really helpful to me. I have a question about citations in a research statement. Should I cite relevant or seminal studies? Or is a research statement assumed to be written out of the authors own confidence, experience, and general knowledge of their field of study? If yes to citations, is there an optimal amount? Thank you!

April 26, 2014 at 11:01 am

I dont understand why I cannot name who I collaborated with, or worked with and claim complete ownership. Most of all disseration ideas comes out of a collaborative effort. Seems kinda lame to suddenly act like every idea is all mine without giving due credit.

April 26, 2014 at 12:00 pm

it’s not claiming ownership. It’s focusing on the work that YOU did as part of the project and not dispersing attention to other scholars, in this particular document.

April 28, 2014 at 10:09 am

I disagree. All of your recommendations are valid except for this one. In science and engineering, almost all dissertation work is collaborative; that’s how it works, either through industry applications, a reagent or mathematical technique, opportunity to apply theory to projects etc. Of course, the student has to compe up with the research questions and hypothesis and methodologies but it is very rare for one lab to have everything that the student needs in-house and even rarer for the work to be done in complete isolation (you don’t see that many two author papers in STEM fields these days). Including names of other people would actually be a good thing as it shows a willingness to interact and collaborate with a diverse set of people, picking up new skills and perspectives; this is how science is done these days. Of course the research thrust should be from the individual, but that is like a given.

October 26, 2014 at 8:00 pm

I am also in a STEM field, and all of my research has been collaborative to one degree or another. In my tenure-track applications last year, I mainly phrased my research statement to say that I work with YYY group on YYY, lead studies of ZZZ within the ZZZ Collaboration, and so on. I didn’t get any interviews.

This year I received some feedback from a new letter writer (and current collaborator), who thought that last year’s statement made it hard for outsiders to tell what specific ideas I had and what I specifically did about those ideas. When I rewrote my research statement to focus on those issues this year, I ended up with a stronger document that didn’t need to mention my collaborators at all — not because I tried to claim credit for everything, but because I wrote about my own contributions rather than the corporate identity.

Since jobs go to individuals and not corporations, I am strongly inclined to agree with Karen’s advice, even for STEM fields. In fact, it may be even more important for those of us with highly collaborative research to discuss our own contributions and leave our colleagues out of our research statements. The CV/publication list makes it clear that we interact and collaborate with others. The difficulty is to demonstrate what I actually did as author #13 (in alphabetical order) that makes me actually worth hiring.

April 29, 2014 at 5:03 am

Dear Karen, I am applying for a faculty position and have been asked to provide along with the usual CV and cover letter “Research Program Plan” and “Teaching philosophy”. Could you please or anyone inform me if the “Research Program Plan”is the same as the RS or a detailed research proposal? Additionally, should I include in the teaching philosophy an experience in my undergraduate that has shaped my teaching philosophy? Finally, should my TP include any courses ever taught or course proposals? Your candid response will be appreciated. Thanks

April 29, 2014 at 8:00 am

The RPP is the same as a RS. Please read all my posts on the Teaching Statement for more on that—do NOT include your undergrad experiences. Check out my column in Chronicle Vitae for more on that question–it’s the column on how to apply to a Small Liberal Arts College (SLAC) job.

July 16, 2014 at 3:39 am

Dear Karen, I am applying for a postdoc position in Spain and have been asked to provide along with CV and references, a “cover letter with a description of research accomplishments and statement of overall scientific goals and interests (approximately 1000 words)”. This messes up the usual structure I have in mind. What do you suggest? Two different files or a hybrid between them in one file? thanks

September 17, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Hi Dr. Karen,

I just wanted to say thanks for such an awesome article and the pointers.

Cheers Sajesh

October 13, 2014 at 4:15 pm

I am a bit confused about what a “statement of previous researc” looks like. Any insights?

October 14, 2014 at 12:59 pm

basically this RS doc, without anything about future research.

October 22, 2014 at 5:49 pm

I’m applying for a tenure track position in Strategic Management but my dissertation was on a topic related to my field, pharmaceuticals. How do I craft a RS if I really haven’t thought about future research in topics related to management but my teaching experience and work experience (line management) is directly related to management/leadership?

October 27, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Hi, Dr. Karen,

I’m applying for tenure-track positions in Computer Science. My current research focus (and for the last year and a half in my postdoc) has been in “data science”, primarily applied to biology; my dissertation work was in computational biology. I don’t want to focus on the biology aspect; I see this research being more broadly applicable. I also have significant industry experience from before my PhD; I spent 6 years doing work that was very relevant to this field of data science (in finance and in global trade), and I’d like to tie that industry work into my research statement. What do you think about this? Some have told me I should just talk about my postdoctoral research, while others have said the industry experience, since it’s very relevant, makes me a stronger candidate and I should tie it and my dissertation work into my postdoc and future research.

What are your thoughts? Thanks!

October 31, 2014 at 7:41 am

I am a young scholar in Communication. My research plan includes a description of past and current research projects (dissertation + 4 subsequent projects) and a description of short and long term projects (work in progress and three major research projects I want to undertake). I have been told this is not enough and I need more projects in my proposal. Only 2 pages for so many projects (including a detailed timeline) does not seem feasible.

November 3, 2014 at 7:50 pm

Dear Dr. Karen, First, let me thank you for your website. I’ve been reading it carefully the past few weeks, and I’ve found it very informative and helpful. I’m in something of a unique situation, so I’m not sure how to best make use of your advice on the RS, which seems aimed at newly minted PhDs. I have been in my current position, teaching at a community college, since 1997. During this time, I completed my doctorate (awarded in 2008). I taught abroad on a Fulbright scholarship in 2010-11, and during that time revised and expanded my dissertation for publication (this included contextual updates and one complete new chapter). I was fortunate enough to get a contract, and the book appeared in 2012; the paperback is coming out this month. Given my experiences, I want to make the move to a 4-year institution, if possible (I realize the odds are slim). A few of the ads I’m looking at are asking for a research statement. So, how do I best handle my circumstance in the RS? The dissertation and book are largely the same. Where should I provide the detailed description of my project and the chapter summaries (as you’ve recommended)? How can I avoid redundancies? Your advice is appreciated.

November 5, 2014 at 3:02 am

Dear Dr Karen,

I have read parts of your blog with great interest .. I need some advice.. if you have a research statement where one is combining two different streams of research, is this generally a good idea or would it be better to have a single stream? At the moment mine RS is nearly 4 pages (I have a short 3 page version of this).

Can you also give advice about an “academic plan” is this simply the 1-2 page “teaching statement”? Do yo have pointers/advice for this?

best regards,

November 9, 2014 at 10:50 am

Greetings Dr. Karen, hope this message finds you well.

I am applying for my first post-doc fresh out of my PhD. But I also did a Master’s prior to my PhD which resulted in publications and a thesis. That being said, do you think I should add my Master’s research to my research statement? I planned on putting it just above my PhD research. Thanks a lot 🙂

November 10, 2014 at 11:46 am

I’m wondering if it’s acceptable to mention personal qualities in an RS, such as being a collaborative worker or being able to acquire new skills rapidly (with concrete examples, that is). Normally I would put that in a cover letter, but it seems that cover letters are a thing of the past.

November 10, 2014 at 10:01 pm

No, that is not the place for that. Really, no part of the academic job application is the place for that.

November 19, 2014 at 6:47 am

Dear Karen, a special question… how do your rules above changing when writing a research statement for someone who has 4+years of AP experience and tons of research after dissertation?

Yours and other suggestions seem to be from the point of view of a grad/post-grad. Need some good insight/advise on how to to tailor a description of your research that spans many different threads and is perhaps quite a bit different from your dissertation.

November 26, 2014 at 9:51 pm

Dear Karen,

Thank you for this useful post. What about career goals? Does one mention those in the research statement or cover letter, if at all? For example, for NIH career development awards one has to write a one-page personal statement that includes career and research goals. The two are often aligned.

More specific, can /should one say things along the lines of: “My primary career goal is to become a successful independent investigator focused on xxx research.” or “I plan to secure a faculty position at a major university or research institute where I can engage in cutting edge research on xxx.”

Thank you for your insights.

Best regards,

November 27, 2014 at 9:19 am

This is more industry/business talk and not typical for academia. If you are articulating a complex research and teaching plan, it is UNDERSTOOD that you’re aiming for an academic career.

November 30, 2014 at 9:58 am

Dear Prof Karen Greeting, hope this greeting finds you well I have read this blog with great interest…In my opinion, writing teaching and research statements are very difficult than writing a PhD research… For your info that I have finished my PhD research with 17 publications in 2 years and 4 months and since that time (2 years)still writing my research statement and not finish yet..

November 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm

Thank you for your reply! Leaving this out will save me a lot of space. Best regards

January 14, 2015 at 11:17 am

I am applying for a grad program in engineering and the university requires me to write a research statement. I have no prior research experience nor have I thought about any topics for research. How do I approach this problem?

January 14, 2015 at 2:29 pm

I’m sorry, I don’t provide advice on applications to grad programs.

January 16, 2015 at 1:07 am

Okay, thank you.

January 23, 2015 at 11:33 pm

Hi, can I cite a reference in statement of research interests for a postdoctoral position? If so, do I include the reference of the citation at the bottom of the page? Also, do I title my statement of research interests page as ” statement of research interests”? Thank you.

February 4, 2015 at 10:18 am

I am applying for a 1 yr postdoc in the social science and humanities. The initial position is offered for one year with a possibility of renewal for up to one more year.

My plan is to use the postdoc opportunity to convert my dissertation into a book manuscript. I have a 2 yr plan which i believe is realistic. Roughly first yr review expand literature, reassess chapters, conduct addition interviews to build on insights. The second year would be analysis of data and writing and revising. How do I reduce this to a yr? Or do I propose it as a two yr endeavor?

February 5, 2015 at 9:39 am

to be blunt, you should skip the expanding of the literature, the reassessing, and the additional interviews. Things like this are what delay books. Transform your diss into a book mss with a one-year writing plan, and submit it for publication by the end of that year. Early in the year (or before you arrive) you send out proposals for advance contracts. This is what makes for a competitive postdoc app.

February 27, 2015 at 9:31 am

Thanks for your post. I am writing my RS with your comments as my reference. However, I have some concerns and wish you could offer some suggestions.

You mentioned that when writing RS, we should 1) Do not waste precious document real estate on what other scholars have NOT done. Never go negative. Stay entirely in the realm of what you did, not what others didn’t; and 2) Do not position yourself as “extending” or “adding to” or “building off of” or “continuing” or “applying” other work, either your own or others.

My doctoral thesis is to theoretically extend a theoretical model and empirically test it, which implies that the developer of the original model missed something to consider and I help do it. But if I take (1) and (2) into account. I may not be able to describe the rationale of my dissertation and further show the contribution.

In addition, (part of) my future directions is to increase the generalizability of the extended model, which means that I may apply it to my future research; and to discuss a potential issue in the extended model. However, if I take (2) into account, it seems that I cannot address it in the RS. Interesting enough, I found a number of model developers applied their developed theoretical models throughout the year with different research focuses and to validate the model. Should not such a way recommended to be addressed in the RS? Just a bit confused.

Would you please kindly help with the above? Thanks a lot.

March 4, 2015 at 2:16 pm

I am in public health and am a generalist so I have conduct research on a wide variety of topics. My masters thesis was on cesarean delivery guidelines and my dissertation is on the effect of legislation that bans certain breeds of dogs. I don’t want to pigeon hole myself into a specific topic area, but also don’t want to seem scattered. My research is all related, because it is on health systems or health policy, so I am trying to unify my RS with the theme of research that improves population health. Would you suggest that I list only my dissertation work and a future project that aligns with that, or should I also list my masters work and/or a separate project on a maternal and child theme?

March 11, 2015 at 6:19 pm

With regard to your recommendation to leave names of others out of the research statement, I am struggling with what to do for an edited volume with some *very* prominent contributors. I am the sole editor for the book, and I brought these contributors together. Should their names still be excluded from the research statement, or perhaps included elsewhere (perhaps in the cover letter or CV)?

Thank you for your very helpful postings.

March 12, 2015 at 7:20 pm

I find that many people overestimate the importance/prominence of the names and their value for any job doc. But if they include, like, Judith Butler and her ilk, then sure mention 1-2 such names in the RS.

July 7, 2015 at 12:51 pm

When applying for a faculty position (first job as assistant professor), would you recommend sharing the link of the applicant’s PhD dissertation thesis (if it is available online), if so where exactly?

Thank you very much for all the valuable information!

July 22, 2015 at 12:08 pm

Dear Karen –

I have a question for those out there encountering job openings for technical staff (like myself) with BS degrees requesting research statements. How do I write a RS based on this? Everything I’ve seen online has been geared towards RS for graduate programs or for those with newly minted PhDs.

August 14, 2015 at 6:19 pm

Dear Karen, Is there a difference between a “one page Research Plan” and a “Research Statement” ? Thank you for your generous advice through this blog.

August 29, 2015 at 8:39 pm

Thank you for the helpful posts. I am a postdoc applying for faculty positions, and they all ask something similar but different. It’s either a research statement, a statement of research interests, or a research plan. Do mean my previous research experience, what I plan to do, or both? A research statement sounds like a research summary, but I feel like I’m missing something. I appreciate any clarity you can bring on the subject.

September 2, 2015 at 9:22 am

Dear Dr. Karen, Some of the postdocs require to submit a C.V. and a list of publications. Does it mean that, for these particular applications, the C.V. should not include publications at all? Thanks!

September 2, 2015 at 9:49 pm

Sorry, just realized that had a wrong tab opened while typing the question.

September 24, 2015 at 10:01 pm

Hi Karen, This is a very helpful website indeed. I’ve been teaching university for 5 years (ever since finishing my PhD), and now am at a top 10 university (at least according to the QS rankings, if you put any stock in them). However, I’m applying for what I think is a better job for me at a research museum, one that would have me doing research and supervising grad students as well as doing outreach (something I’ve got piles of experience with). The application asks for a 2-page statement of scientific goals. I’m a little unclear as to how this differs from the research statement. Does it? If so, how? Thanks so much.

October 13, 2015 at 7:09 am

This was really helpful in writing a research statement. Thanks

November 11, 2015 at 1:17 pm

I see that some applications require a vision statement: “no longer than two pages, that outlines one or more major unsolved problems in their field and how they plan to address them.”. Any thoughts about the differences from a research statement?

January 14, 2016 at 7:28 am

How long should the research statement be if it has been requested as part of the cover letter?

May 20, 2016 at 8:24 am

Thank you very much for the very helpful advice, Karen!

I’m a final year PhD in psychology and applying for a postdoc now. The postdoc project seems very prescribed, to the extent that the announcement includes how many studies are planned to be conducted, what the broad hypotheses are and the broad theoretical background. Yet, the application involves an RS. What is the best way to frame a future research project here? Just tailor my diss to fit into the proposed postdoc topic?

July 1, 2016 at 3:10 pm

The place in this blog that should contain the 5-paragraph model doesn’t seem to be present. Instead I get a […]. Possibly a web configuration problem?

July 7, 2016 at 4:58 pm

Please read the para at the top of the post. This and a handful of other posts (about 5 in total) have been shortened so as not to overlap with the content of my book.

August 15, 2016 at 7:43 am

Thank you so much for your wonderful advice.

I have a question regarding the relationship between future research and the title of the position in question and how much overlap there should be between the two. Is it acceptable to propose research that is (this is history-based) from a slightly later/earlier period, or a slightly different geographical region than the position focuses on? Or is it better to align oneself entirely with the constraints of the position?

Many thanks!

August 23, 2016 at 9:46 am

I plan to limit my RS to two pages, but my career trajectory and publication record is a bit unusual. I’m a nationally regarded thirty-three year veteran high school teacher and recent postdoc (2013) from a top tier history department. I’ve been teaching alma mater’s most popular summer session course since 2014. It’s my mentor’s course, but he’ll be replaced with a tenured professor with an endowed chair upon retirement – as well he should. Cornell Press is “interested” in my diss, but…I’m currently revising the original proposal. I’ve also published as often in International Journal of Eating Disorders, Psychology of Women Quarterly and International of Alzheimer’s & Other Dementias as I have in The Journal of Urban History, Long Island Historical Journal and New York Irish History. I teach “the best and the brightest” at a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse public high school. I often publish with my adolescent students, so my scholarship is pretty eclectic. How, exactly, do I sell that to a hiring committee upon retirement from high school/transition to university teaching in June 2017?

September 12, 2016 at 6:29 pm

What is your take on using headings to organize the RS?

October 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm

I am up for tenure this year, and am applying for a tenured position at another school (mainly because I am trying to resolve a two-body problem). Given that I have been out of grad school for quite a while, have a book and many papers published, another book in progress, etc, should my tenure statement be longer than 1-2 pages? What would be a typical length for a mid-career statement?

October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm

You can go onto a third page, if you’re on a second book.

October 19, 2016 at 4:08 pm

Hi Karen, I’m applying for tenure track jobs in English, and some applications ask for a research statement instead of a dissertation abstract, which is the more common of the two. I’ve been told that even if a dissertation abstract isn’t asked for, I should send one in with my application materials. If I’m asked for a research statement, do I still have to send a dissertation abstract as well? I’m a little worried about some overlap between the two (the obvious repetitions in contribution to the field, etc).

October 29, 2016 at 8:09 pm

I am being asked for a Scholarly Philosophy. Is this the same as a research statement? Are their any nuances of difference that I ought to attend to?

November 2, 2016 at 11:40 am

I’ve actuallynever heard that term. But I’d say it’s about the same as an RS, but perhaps with a bit more focus on wider contribution to the field.

November 8, 2016 at 10:55 am

Hello Karen,

I am a biologist on the market for a TT position (for more years than I would like to admit). I have always wondered whether including 1-2 figures or diagrams that help to illustrate your research plan would be helpful, and maybe even appreciated. I would like to know what you think.

We all know how overburdened search committees are. Pictures might help. Scientists are used to seeing such images in evaluating fellowship applications or grant proposals, why not research statements? I would think it would be a welcome change. So the potential benefit is you stand out and are more memorable, but you may also run the risk of alienating or offending someone, especially because this is uncommon.

Thanks for your posts and your book. I enjoy reading them.

November 10, 2016 at 9:53 am

Yes, in the sciences, diagrams are acceptable. It’s why science RSs are often 3-4 pages long. NOT in your cover letter of course.

January 12, 2017 at 11:56 am

Is it appropriate to put a date at the top or bottom of your statements?

August 4, 2017 at 5:32 am

I have been working as a fellow at a SLAC in the sciences and am directing undergraduate research that does not completely fit the mold of my usual work. Is it acceptable to mention these projects in the RS? Should I only mention ones that we will be trying to publish? Thanks

September 16, 2017 at 3:16 pm

Found some adjuncting this year after basically taking a year off last year. During that time, I was still working on getting material published from graduate school. This includes an article based on my dissertation. That articles is currently going through a revise and resubmit. The revise involves reframing and changing the names of important hypotheses. Do I discuss the work in my RS as it was discussed in my dissertation or talk about it as presented in this article yet to be expected for publication?

September 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm

accepted not expected

September 29, 2017 at 3:43 am

The part about not presenting your work as being better than other peoples’ is hard because constantly in your thesis you are setting up arguments like that! This is why my findings are interesting – because they are better than what other people did/found previously. The old paradigm was limited/wrong, hence my contribution is new/better. That is part of the academic writing genre! But I can see it will come across as much more mature if you downplay that in an application letter.

October 7, 2017 at 12:00 pm

Thanks for this great blog and the book!

I’m applying for a two-year postdoc. They say they want a “research statement,” but I really think they mean a proposal. This is short term, non-TT. I feel like the advice you give about “timeline, timeline, timeline!” is what will make this work better for this application.

Said otherwise, there is no time for a second project in this postdoc (or maybe you beg to differ?) Therefore it seems odd to talk about it.

October 7, 2017 at 2:11 pm

correct, they want a research proposal. Please read the chapters about that in my book. There is time in a two year postdoc to begin to launch a second project.

January 12, 2018 at 1:08 pm

I am just starting my higher education career. I only have my dissertation as published work. How do you suggest I handle to writing of my research statement given those circumstances?

August 27, 2019 at 6:26 am

Hi, I am a fresh PhD about to apply for my first job. I’ve been asked to write a scholarly agenda and am struggling to find what should be included in this. Any help would be great. The position is at a liberal arts college for a tenure track position in the biology department. Thanks

August 27, 2019 at 9:56 am

That would be the RS, and this blog post is about that. Also, check my book out, it has a chapter on this as well, updated from this post. If you need personal help, contact us at [email protected] to get on the calendar for editing help.

September 17, 2019 at 9:22 pm

Thank you for your excellent blog and book. I’m applying for a TT job where they don’t ask for a cover letter, but for a combined statement on research & teaching max 3p. In this case, do I still skip the letterhead and formal address? And what structure/format would you suggest?

Thank you in advance!

September 18, 2019 at 5:00 pm

if it’s truly not meant to be a letter, then don’t make it a letter! Just send a two page Rs and a one page TS nicely integrated into a single doc, with your name at the top.

December 23, 2019 at 6:23 am

Dear Karen, thank you for your wonderful advice here and in the book.I wonder regarding the the 1st para of the research statement. I have seen that many start by stating “I am a historian of X. My work focuses on Y in order to Z …

Is this what you mean by “A brief paragraph sketching the overarching theme and topic of your research,situating it disciplinarily”? would love to see an example of a good 1st para…

December 23, 2019 at 11:12 am

Lili, I provide examples to clients, so if you’d like to work with me, do email at [email protected] !

January 13, 2020 at 4:39 pm

I am just graduating as an undergrad and looking for entry-level research. Should I put something short on my interests if I do not have research experience, or is this section better to be left blank?

October 12, 2020 at 10:49 pm

Any differences with corona? I have two small ongoing projects related to covid. Other than that, I only have my thesis. Would mentioning these two projects be ‘too much’? They are not similar to each other: one has a clear logical link to my thesis, while the other is a new avenue that I want to pursue. They are not big enough to be my second project, but they are my current research. Should I mention them both? One? None?

January 6, 2022 at 11:51 am

Thank you for such detailed information! I searched on your site today in attempt to answer the question “what is a scholarly agenda,” and was pointed to this posting, which doesn’t seem correct, but I at least wanted to ask the question. Is the scholarly agenda a typical piece of writing for tenure processes? I’m about to go up for my three year review in a humanities-based tenure track position, where I am asked for one, and although I’ve written a draft, the university has no template, and in truth, I really don’t understand the aim of the scholarly agenda beyond the general idea of ‘where I want to be as a scholar and professor in three years.’ I’m looking for a blow-by-blow / paragraph-by-paragraph idea of how to structure the piece. I can’t find examples beyond law schools, which isn’t so helpful. Do you have any recommendations?

[…] Dr. Karen’s Rules of the Research Statement | The Professor Is In. […]

[…] Dr. Karen’s Rules of the Research Statement | The Professor Is In […]

[…] Dr. Karen’s Rules of the Research Statement (from The Professor Is In.) […]

[…] at the time. Could that possibly be good enough? I went out and searched the internet and I found Dr. Karen’s Rules of the Research Statement. One page long? That doesn’t sound so scary. I didn’t think I could get even my simple […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Who Is Dr. Karen?
• Who Is On the TPII Team?
• In The News
• Why Trust Me?
• Testimonials
• Peer Editing
• PhD Debt Survey
• Support Fund
• I Help With Custody Cases for Academics

•   UoN Digital Repository Home

Research Papers

By Issue Date Authors Titles Subjects

Search within this community and its collections:

Sub-communities within this community

Faculty of agriculture & veterinary medicine (fag / fvm) [295], faculty of arts & social sciences (foa&ss / fol / fbm) [1544], faculty of education (fed) [24], faculty of engineering, built environment & design (feng / fbd) [242], faculty of health sciences (fhs) [36], faculty of science & technology (fst) [194], collections in this community, district cultural profiles [0], ongoing research [16], test data [0], recent submissions, a region-based histogram and fusion technique for enhancing backlit images for cell phone applications , adoption of improved forage technologies and its effect on household income among dairy farmers in bomet county, kenya , effect of african union activities on political and economic development of african countries: a case study of kenya , participatory approaches and performance of community water projects- a case of world bank funded programme water projects in garissa county, kenya , effectiveness of conflict early warning system as a framework for conflict prevention in africa. case study of south sudan , meanings of gendered lexical contrasts in kenyan english usage , assessment of biomass potential for sustainable charcoal production in kajiado county;towards informed policy decisions , development of a ready-to-eat sorghum snack supplemented with sesame and baobab fruit for nutritional and sensory quality , a cybersecurity assessment of the remote working environment during covid-19. a case study of financial regulators in kenya , strategic management practices within pharmaceutical distributors in kenya , influence of principals' management practices on teachers' job satisfaction in public secondary schools in isiolo sub-county, in kenya. , framework for effective management of cyber security on e-learning platforms in public universities in kenya , an assessment of the adoption of robotic process automation in kenyan insurance companies , on decomposition of operators in hilbert spaces , strategic management practices and organizational culture among microfinance institutions in kenya , ai chatbot: improve efficiency in handling student queries at the department of computing and informatics, nairobi university , climate change and violent conflict: a case study of puntland state of somalia (2008-2020) , influence of gemba-kaizen strategy on performance of bamburi cement plc in kenya , effect of online working on employee job satisfaction among large commercial banks in nairobi city county, kenya , the contribution of trust in quality groundnuts seed selection and sourcing among small-holder farmers in uganda .

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Treseder Lab

Fungi, Ecosystems, and Global Change

Advice for writing research statements for faculty applications

October 9, 2019 by Kathleen K. Treseder Leave a Comment

These are recommendations that EEB members developed during our Ecology Group discussion:

• Committee members typically have about 5 minutes to spend on each statement during the first round of review (although will spend longer during subsequent rounds).
• There are only 1-2.
• Figure is a conceptual model that summarizes research approach, rather than merely an interesting photo.
• Figure is clearly organized, large enough to read, and high resolution once uploaded.
• Keep paper short enough that you can use spacing to separate sections, and don’t have to resort to small font and margins.
• Bolding key headings/items is good, so long as not overused.
• Avoid having too many different numbering systems (for sections, research questions, hypotheses, etc.), which quickly can get confusing.
• Good to start with statement of who you are (e.g., community ecologist) and what you study.
• Instead of just listing projects, papers, etc., provide cohesive description of overall research trajectory.
• While descriptions of student mentoring are helpful, they are more appropriate in a teaching or diversity statement.
• Committee members typically do not read them.
• If most of the papers listed are yours, they’re in the CV anyway.
• Can strengthen application, but not required/expected.
• The risk is that applicant misunderstands faculty’s research or departmental politics (i.e., proposes collaborations among people who don’t get along), or proposes to fill a gap that has recently been filled (and department website just hasn’t been updated yet).
• By identifying its strengths
• By proposing how you could bridge X and Y
• Most importantly, by tailoring your application to the departmental needs identified in the job call.
• Important to describe future research directions since committee will want to know plans for next 5-10 years.

To keep in mind

Recognizing diversity of research backgrounds from even search committee

Get feedback from people not in your lab group

Vision for research program, not collection of projects – sense of what it is they are trying to do

Articulation of how the work is set apart from what other people in the field are doing

Easy to read – prose and format

Organization / Formatting

Page # with name on each page

Clear headings to guide reader

Headings convey content / are overview by themselves

Hierarchy: Use of open space, not overly complex (ideally not more than 2 levels, 3 at most)

Highlighting important statements within text

Organize by research question / theme, not chronologically; don’t make a laundry list / don’t be constrained by chronology

One (or 2) good graphic – conceptual, summarizing work completed (could be “info graphic”), general approach

Photos can help if appropriate

Potentially separate funding section

Less than 3 pages

Color is good but don’t count on it being viewed as such

Use consistent format with other documents (Teaching, Diversity statements, CV, etc.); have your application appear as unified package visually.

Conversational writing style

Avoiding jargon / acronyms

Don’t overly cite outside literature (OK not to cite any outside lit at all)

Consider full / brief citation within text (vs. bibliography at end)

Like seminar, have broad framing and some technical detail

Content – Intro

Overview paragraph – clear statement of purpose, background

Context early on for what field is missing / needs big questions

Statement of your identity as researcher

Content – Body

Clearly document what work is done at what stages of career

Integrating different fields – impact of research on outside fields

Make a narrative that describes a unified research program

Clean transition from past work to future plans – past work as “preliminary data”

Make clear your research techniques, tools you bring

Content – Future

Specific hypotheses / goals for future plans – conveying you are at the stage of writing grant proposals

Content – Funding

Demonstrate likelihood of getting funding from different agencies, not just one

Potentially continuing project if feasible

Customizing to job – synergies

Connecting to local systems

Mentioning existing research / facilities within target department

Don’t point out deficiencies of department / what is missing, just what is added

Work that can be done on the ground at the target department

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations

Meredith T. Niles

1 Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences & Food Systems Program, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America

Lesley A. Schimanski

2 Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Erin C. McKiernan

3 Departamento de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

Juan Pablo Alperin

Associated Data

RPT documents from this project can be found here: Alperin, Juan Pablo; Muñoz Nieves, Carol; Schimanski, Lesley; McKiernan, Erin C.; Niles, Meredith T., 2018, "Terms and Concepts found in Tenure and Promotion Guidelines from the US and Canada", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VY4TJE , Harvard Dataverse, V3, UNF:6:PQC7QoilolhDrokzDPxxyQ== [fileUNF]. Niles, Meredith T.; Schimanski, Lesley A.; McKiernan, Erin C.; Alperin, Juan Pablo, 2020, "Data for: Why we publish where we do", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MRLHNO , Harvard Dataverse, V1.

Using an online survey of academics at 55 randomly selected institutions across the US and Canada, we explore priorities for publishing decisions and their perceived importance within review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). We find that respondents most value journal readership, while they believe their peers most value prestige and related metrics such as impact factor when submitting their work for publication. Respondents indicated that total number of publications, number of publications per year, and journal name recognition were the most valued factors in RPT. Older and tenured respondents (most likely to serve on RPT committees) were less likely to value journal prestige and metrics for publishing, while untenured respondents were more likely to value these factors. These results suggest disconnects between what academics value versus what they think their peers value, and between the importance of journal prestige and metrics for tenured versus untenured faculty in publishing and RPT perceptions.

1. Introduction

The concept of “publish or perish” has been a dominant credo in academia, especially in high-income Western contexts, for decades, but its effects may be particularly evident as the rate of academic publishing continues to grow rapidly. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of academic publications increased 56% [ 1 ]. In 2018, there were more than 33,000 academic peer-reviewed English language journals publishing more than three million articles a year [ 2 ]. This ever increasing volume of research has led many academics to question how to keep up with this pace of knowledge communication [ 3 ].

While these trends pose obvious challenges to those trying to stay abreast of the latest developments in their field, they may also be having more subtle consequences for academia writ large, as they touch not just on the practice of research, but on the very nature of academic careers. Namely, the increased volume of academic publishing may influence how academics perceive academic publishing expectations. Faculty at academic institutions assume that strong research and publication records are necessary in their review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) process [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Furthermore, faculty express concerns about the amount and type of publishing expected of them (i.e., that it should be in prestigious journals with high journal impact factors (JIF)) and their capacity to achieve the amount of publications expected by their universities [ 7 ]. Indeed, some universities undertake interventions to increase faculty publishing efforts, in part because of the potential financial gains associated with this increased volume [ 8 ]. Prioritization of quantity and journal metrics have also led many to question and study the quality of research outputs [ 9 ], as retractions of articles, especially in “high impact” or prestigious journals increases [ 10 ], and reproducibility of results are in question [ 11 ].

Amidst this increasing volume of literature and the potential consequences that come with it, this study aimed to explore the drivers of academic faculty publishing decisions, particularly as they relate to the RPT process. Using a dataset gathered from faculty of 55 institutions across the US and Canada, we asked:

• Do faculty perceive measures of impact, prestige, and volume to influence their decisions on where to publish their academic work?
• In what ways do faculty perceive their own publishing decision-making as different from that of their peers?
• How do faculty perceive the valuation of their publication outputs and metrics in the RPT process?
• What is the relationship between faculty publishing decisions and their perceptions of the RPT process?

2.1 Survey and data collection

To answer these questions, we surveyed faculty from a broad set of universities in the United States and Canada, as part of a larger project on current RPT practices [ 12 , 13 ]. For this project, we collected RPT documents (e.g., policies, guidelines, presentations) from a representative sample of universities in the United States and Canada, and many of their academic units (e.g., faculty, department, school). The sample of institutions was stratified based on institution type using the 2015 edition of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education [ 14 ] and the 2016 edition of the Maclean’s University Rankings [ 15 ], which classify institutions into those focused on doctoral (i.e., research-intensive) programs (R-Type), those that predominantly focus on master’s degrees (M-Type), and those focused on undergraduate (i.e., baccalaureate) programs (B-Type). Full details of the sample selection and document collection strategy are available in Alperin et al. [ 12 ].

Following this strategy, we were able to obtain documents from 381 academic units of 60 universities (out of a set of 129 universities for which we obtained university-level documents). Using this list of academic units, we searched for a page listing the faculty members of each unit, and selected up to five faculty members from without paying attention to their characteristics. In the end, we were able to identify 1,644 faculty from 334 of the 381 units spanning all 60 institutions (with some units not listing email addresses publicly, and some units not having 5 faculty members listed). We chose to limit the collection of names from the units for which we had guidelines so that, in a forthcoming study, we could study the relationship between the two.

The selected participants were invited to participate in an online survey on September 17th, 2018, with reminders sent on a weekly basis until October 29th, 2018 to any who had not yet responded. A total of 338 people (22%) from 55 different institutions responded to the survey. Of these, 84 (25%) were faculty at Canadian institutions and the remaining 254 (75%) were from the United States; 223 (66%) were from R-Type institutions, 111 (32%) from M-Type institutions, and 4 (1%) from B-Type institutions. Responses were then anonymized, leaving only the institution type and discipline along with the survey responses for analysis, as per the research protocol filed with the Office of Research Ethics at Simon Fraser University (file number: 2018s0264).

2.2 Data analysis and model development

Data were aggregated into Stata 15.0 [ 16 ] for analysis. To analyze statistically significant differences between variables, we selected appropriate statistical tests based on the distribution of data including the Kruskal Wallis test, chi square tests, Wilcoxon Rank sum test, and Spearman’s correlations for non-parametric data and one-way analysis of variance and Pearson’s correlations for continuous data.

To understand how multiple factors relate to publication decisions, we constructed ordered logistic regression models across the ten publication factors with multiple key independent variables including demographic factors (age, gender, institution type, tenure status), total number of publications the respondent typically published annually (pubs published), and a sub-set of components perceived to be valued by the respondent in the RPT process that were related to publishing (e.g., rptpubnumbers, rptpre-print, rptopenaccess, rptsociety, rptjournalIF, rptjournalname, rptpubtotal) ( Table 1 ). Models are reported in log-odds statistics, which can be interpreted as coefficients greater than 1 indicating a greater odds of occurrence and coefficients less than 1 indicating a reduced odds of occurrence.

3.1 Survey respondents overview

The largest portion of survey respondents were tenured faculty (63.5%), followed by tenure-track who were not yet tenured, (20.3%), Department chairs (8.8%), Deans (3.8%), research faculty (1.9%), and Lecturers (1.6%). Given that Department chairs and Deans are typically positions held by individuals later in their careers, these two responses were added to the tenured faculty category for further analyses (bringing the total to 76.1%). Similarly, research faculty and lecturers were grouped with not-yet-tenured faculty. The overwhelming majority of respondents reported a PhD as their highest degree (92.9%), while 5.1% reported a professional degree and 2.1% reported a master’s degree. Our sample was nearly perfectly split between men (49.9%) and women (49.3%) with a small portion of respondents (less than 1%) indicating non-binary identity. Due to the very small number of those reporting non-binary gender identity, the data from these participants were necessarily excluded from those statistical analyses/models that differentiated between gender categories.

Just over two thirds of respondents (67.6%) came from R-type institutions, while the remaining 32.4% came from M-type institutions. Four responses were received from B-type institutions, and given this small sample size, they are not considered in our statistical analysis. We classified the respondents’ academic units by discipline using the National Academies Taxonomy [ 17 ] and found that 53% came from Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), 21% from Life Sciences (LS), 17% from Physical Sciences and Mathematics (PSM); and the remaining 9% from units that could not be classified into a single area.

The majority of respondents (65.3%) had served on a RPT committee previously, with tenured faculty much more likely to have served on RPT committees (84% compared to 13% non-tenured, p < 0.001). Older faculty were also more likely to have served on RPT committees (p < 0.001).

3.2 Factors affecting publication decisions

Respondents predominantly averaged 1–2 peer-reviewed publications per year (47.4%), followed by 3–5 publications (23.2%), less than one-peer-reviewed publication per year (18.0%), more than six peer-reviewed publications per year (8.7%), and 2.8% of respondents not publishing peer-reviewed publications. Women reported publishing fewer articles than men (p = 0.084) ( S2 Table ). Respondents at R-type institutions were also more likely to publish than those at M-type institutions (p < 0.001) ( S2 Table ).

There were clear factors considered important by respondents when evaluating where to publish their academic work ( Fig 1 ). Overall, respondents’ top three most valued factors were: (1) whether the journal had a readership they wanted to reach, (2) the overall prestige of the journal/publisher/venue, and (3) whether it was a journal/publisher/venue that their peers regularly read. Some demographics correlated with variability on these values ( S1 and S2 Tables). Non-tenured respondents placed higher importance on the JIF compared to tenured faculty (mean 4.61 compared to 4.18, p = 0.029). The rated importance of the JIF (r = -0.156, p = 0.009), journal citation frequency (r = -0.182, p = 0.002), and journal prestige (r = -0.165, p = 0.005) were negatively correlated with age (i.e., were less important to older respondents) while that of society journals was positively correlated with age (r = 0.124, p = 0.039). Finally, journal cost was a more important factor for women than for men (mean 4.14 compared to 3.16, p = 0.001).

Scale ranges from 1 (not important) to 6 (very important). Factors are ordered in their overall rate of importance (percent indicating a 4, 5 or 6).

Compared to their own perceptions of important priorities when publishing, respondents perceived differences in how their peers rate important factors for publishing ( Fig 2 , Table 2 ). Considering the mean responses, the top factors respondents thought their peers felt were important included: (1) the overall prestige of the journal/publisher/venue, (2) the JIF, and (3) both the readership they want to reach and the journal/publisher/venue being regularly read by their peers. Overall, we find that there are many statistically significant differences between how people perceive their own publishing priorities versus those of their peers. For example, respondents were more likely to think their peers valued the prestige of the journal/publisher/venue compared to themselves (mean 5.02 others compared to 4.76 self, p = 0.013), as well as to value the JIF compared to themselves (mean 4.77 others compared to 4.29 self, p < 0.001), and how often the journal is cited (mean 4.57 others, 3.87 self, p < 0.001). Conversely, respondents were more likely to perceive they valued the readership compared to their peers (mean 5.02 self compared to 4.60 others, p < 0.001), and that the publication was open access (mean 3.29 self compared to 2.73 others, p< 0.001).

Factors are ordered from greatest to least difference between self and peer perceptions. Higher means for a given variable are highlighted for emphasis.

3.3 Perceptions of performance, review, and tenure

Respondents perceived certain factors were valued in the RPT process more than others. Overall, regardless of demographics, respondents perceived that the total number of publications (mean 5.40), the number of publications per year (mean 5.29), and the name recognition of the journals (mean 4.83) were the most valued factors in their RPT processes ( Fig 3 ).

Bars show percentage of respondents. Scale ranged from 1 (not valued) to 6 (very valued). Factors are ordered in their overall rate of importance (e.g., percent of respondents indicating a 4, 5 or 6).

Perceived values of particular factors in the RPT process varied according to a number of demographics ( S4 , S5 and S6 Tables). Correlations between age and such factors suggest that older faculty value blogs (r = 0.160, p = 0.010), book chapters (r = 0.122, p = 0.045), performances (r = 0.317, p < 0.001), and open access journals (r = 0.250, p < 0.001) in the RPT process more than younger faculty. Comparing tenured and non-tenured respondents, books (mean 4.34 compared to 3.74 non-tenured, p = 0.025) and book chapters (mean 3.61 tenured compared to 3.14 non-tenured, p = 0.009) were more valued by those who were tenured. Finally, women valued publications per year more than did men (mean 5.51 for women compared to 5.11 for men, p = 0.001), and also total number of publications (mean 5.60 for women compared to 5.20 for men, p = 0.001). We also found that respondents at R-type institutions, when compared with those at M-type institutions, were more likely to place higher importance on journal name recognition (mean = 4.97 compared to 4.58, p = 0.013) and JIF (mean = 4.81 compared to 4.37, p = 0.014) and less likely to place importance on book chapters (mean = 3.29 compared to 3.86, p = 0.001).

3.4 Publication decision models

To examine the factors related to publication decisions, we ran a series of ordered logit models with the ten publication priorities (as listed in Fig 1 ) as dependent variables (outcomes) and demographics, publication history, and perceptions of factors that matter in the RPT process as independent variables. The question here was, for each factor that influences publication decisions, what was the relative importance of demographics, publication history, and perception of the RPT process in determining the importance placed on that factor? For instance, if respondents value the JIF when selecting where to disseminate their work, is this best explained by, for example, their age, their gender, their number of prior publications, or their perceived value of the JIF within the context of RPT evaluations? Such models allow us to consider all of these factors simultaneously in seeking to understand the values guiding faculty publishing decisions. All model results are reported in the supplementary materials ( S5 – S14 Tables), and here we explore the general trends found across the models through a summary table ( Fig 4 ).

Dependent variables are in the first column, with independent variables across the top row. Positive symbols indicate a significant greater odds relationship. For example, in model 7 (Journal Citations) below, there is a greater odds relationship with the JIF and pre-prints, which means that respondents who felt JIF and pre-prints are important in the RPT process had greater odds of valuing journal citations in publication decisions. Conversely, negative symbols indicate a reduced odds relationship with the dependent variable. Full model results can be found in S7 – S16 Tables.

Across the ten models we find that the factors affecting publication decisions are more likely to correlate with the perception of what is valued in the RPT process than with demographic factors including age, gender, institution type, and tenure status. In fact, demographic factors only have a statistically significant relationship in two of the 10 models. In one of these (model 4), older people have increased odds (b = 1.37, p = 0.019) of valuing society journals in publication decisions and in another (model 10) men have reduced odds (b = 0.40, p = 0.001) of finding cost important for publication decisions (i.e., women are more likely to find cost important in publication decisions). In another model (model 2), it is not demographic characteristics, but faculty behavior (the number of peer-reviewed publications per year) that results in increased odds of faculty valuing journal readership (b = 1.68, p = 0.003).

Conversely, we find that in 9 of the 10 models (all but model 10) at least one aspect of faculty’s perception of the RPT process is correlated with a factor affecting publication decisions. Perceptions of the importance of journal name (i.e., name recognition of the journals) and open access value (e.g., public availability of the journals) in the RPT process are the factors most frequently associated with a publication decision model (3 of the 10 models), followed by perceived importance of pre-prints and JIF in RPT (2 of the 10 models). Overall, these results suggest that faculty perceptions of the RPT process are a greater influence on publication decisions than are university type or other respondent demographics.

4. Discussion

Through our survey of faculty at more than 50 institutions across the US and Canada, we explored factors related to publishing decisions and their relationship to the RPT process. We found that overall, respondents value journal readership, journal/publisher prestige and whether the journal will be read by their peers. At the same time, respondents felt that their peers prioritized factors differently when considering where to publish, namely that their peers put greater emphasis on the journal’s prestige, JIF and journal citations. We found that tenure status and age are important distinguishers in these perspectives, as older and tenured faculty place less emphasis on the JIF, how often the journal appears to be cited, and the overall prestige of the journal/publisher/venue than do their younger and non-tenured colleagues.

When it comes to faculty perceptions of the RPT process, respondents overwhelmingly expressed that they thought publication quantity and prestige were the most important, with total number of publications, number of publications per year, and the name recognition of the journal perceived as most valuable. However, this perception was not held equally between respondents of all ages and career stages, nor by respondents at different institution types. Older and tenured faculty were less likely to place emphasis on these factors than younger and non-tenured faculty, and respondents from M-type institutions were less likely to place importance on the journal’s name recognition or its JIF. When looking at how these perceptions, demographics, and the institutional characteristics affect publication decisions through a series of ordered logit models, we find that it is the RPT perceptions that are more frequently linked to publication decisions versus any institutional or demographic factors.

These results confirm that the RPT process, and faculty’s perceptions of it, have an important role in shaping where faculty publish. These perceptions may in part be driven by the RPT documents themselves; in a recent study, we found that 40% of R-type institutions mentioned the JIF in their RPT documents, and 87% of the institutions mentioning it did so in a way that encouraged JIF consideration in the RPT decision [ 13 ]. Similarly, we found journal name recognition and the JIF to be among the most important factors shaping publication decisions, especially by respondents at R-type institutions. Whether RPT documents play a role in shaping these perceptions or not, our findings show that how the RPT process is perceived matters in shaping faculty decisions about where to publish. That being said, understanding the values that drive publication decisions is complicated by the mismatch between faculty’s own values and how they perceive those of their peers, whom they see as valuing prestige and the JIF more than they do.

Our results confirm previous findings that faculty seem to be often driven by readership and peer exposure to their work when deciding where to publish [ 18 ], but simultaneously add depth to discussions about the role that prestigious journal names and citation measures like the JIF have in shaping publication decisions. Most importantly, our work suggests that any shift away from JIF, journal names or citation measures may be challenged not by faculty’s own values, but by the perception they have of their peer’s publication decisions, which we find to be markedly different than their own. Put plainly, our work suggests that faculty are guided by a perception that their peers are more driven by journal prestige, journal metrics (i.e., JIF and journal citations), and money (i.e., merit pay) than they are, while they themselves value readership and open access of a journal more.

The idea that respondents generally perceive themselves in a more favorable light than their peers (e.g., less driven by prestige or money), elicits multiple self-bias concepts prevalent in social psychology, including illusory superiority [ 19 ]. That people generally perceive themselves to be “better” is not unique to this particular topic [ 20 , 21 ]. However, our results do suggest that the guise of fame and prestige in academic publishing may not matter as much as previously thought. As such, subjective norms—how we perceive what others value or think, and the perceived social pressure to act in a certain way [ 22 ]—could be critical to enabling understanding of people’s individual preferences compared to their peers. If faculty truly value journal metrics and prestige outcomes less than readership and peers reading their work, but perceive “others” to be the promoters of these concepts, fostering conversations and other activities that allow faculty to make their values known may be critical to addressing the disconnect. Doing so may enable faculty to make publication decisions that are consistent with their own values.

The perception of others’ values is especially important when we consider that the disconnect is also apparent in what faculty perceive is valued in the RPT process. We find that faculty, especially non-tenured faculty, perceive that quantity and prestige are major drivers of the RPT process. Others have found similar outcomes with faculty reporting that publication in high ranking journals [ 23 , 24 ], or quantity of publications [ 23 ] rather than quality of publications [ 25 ] are among the most important factors for determining academic career progression. However, our results suggest that these perceptions may be counter to reality, since we also find that older and tenured faculty—those most likely to serve on RPT committees—value these factors less and are significantly more likely to value outputs such as blogs and open access journals, results that are consistent with other findings [ 18 ]. Thus, non-tenured faculty may be driven by traditional scholarly incentives, which they believe to be valued in the RPT process, leading to behavioral patterns that are inconsistent with their expressed drivers of publication decisions. More than 60% of early career faculty strongly agreed that they shape their publication decisions to match those perceived as important for RPT [ 18 ], a finding consistent with our multiple models that showed RPT perceptions are a significant factor in various publishing decisions ( Fig 4 ). For example, while we find that faculty generally perceive themselves to value open access publications more than their peers, they also perceive this is not highly valued in the RPT process. This potential mismatch between an individual’s values and the perceptions of others’ values, including those doing evaluations in RPT committees, may explain the incongruence between the enthusiasm for open access publishing and faculty’s actual behaviors [ 18 ].

Furthermore, respondents ranked components of publishing that have to do with publicly available outputs (e.g., pre-prints, open access, and blogs) as the least important in the RPT process. These perceptions may be in part due to the lack of attention that such public facing documents receive and the extent to which they are promoted (or not) in RPT documents. Alperin et al. [ 12 ] found that RPT documents generally lacked focus on public facing outputs such as these. For example, mentions of open access only appeared in the RPT documents of five percent of the 129 institutions they sampled, and the majority of those were cautious or neutral, and not supportive of open access publishing venues. In this context, our results indicate that the lack of emphasis on such outputs may be related to perceptions that they are of less importance in the RPT process.

Lastly, we would be remiss not to highlight that these mismatches in perception have a potentially outsized impact on women in academia. We found that women were significantly more likely than men to publish fewer articles and consider the cost of a journal in their publication decisions, and more likely than men to value the number of publications per year and total number of publications with regard to the RPT process. There are multiple potential factors at play with these results. First, others have also found that women publish less than their male counterparts (e.g. [ 26 , 27 ]), which have been correlated with research resources that have been historically lower for women in institutions [ 26 ]. In science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, men are also invited to submit publications twice as frequently as women [ 28 ]. Second, these perceptions may be driven in part by how men and women spend their time in academia, as previous research has found that women are more likely to work additional hours devoted to teaching and may produce fewer research papers [ 29 , 30 ]. Relatedly, men are more likely to rate research as important to their career advancement than are women, suggesting that women may be turning away from research in their careers [ 31 ] even though they perceive that research is valued in the RPT process. However, it is also possible that women are more cost sensitive and value the number of publications because in some cases, women submit fewer grants [ 32 , 33 ] and also receive fewer grants [ 34 ]. Since grants provide funding for publications, and often include number of publications as a criteria of evaluation, this may explain some of our findings.

We also want to highlight that there are several limitations to the scope and interpretation of this work. First, we acknowledge that the geographic focus area in North America, and especially Canada and the U.S. means that this work may not be representative of other regions, especially non-English speaking or Western regions. As well, given that the survey utilizes self-reported information, we acknowledge that these are perceptions, which may not reflect actual behaviors. Future research could better connect individual responses to such questions with actual publication records to better verify the links between self-reported behaviors and actual publication decisions.

5. Conclusion

As the pace of academic publishing continues to grow, so do the concerns about a focus on quantity over quality by individual faculty and by universities as a whole, through the RPT process. Our results confirm that faculty value the readership of a journal over other citation metrics or perceived prestige, but that such values may be at odds with what they believe to be valuable in the RPT process. However, our work goes further by showing that these same faculty believe that quantity and prestige of publications still dominate RPT decisions and that faculty, especially those who are non-tenured and younger, believe these factors to be the most important, even though the very people serving on RPT committees value these outputs far less. The resulting mismatches are concerning, especially when coupled with the increased volume of research, as it suggests that the factors guiding publication decisions are inconsistent with faculty’s own values.

Our earlier analysis similarly found that values related to various concepts of ‘publicness’ were significantly present in RPT documents, signaling an institutionalized valuation of publicly oriented activities beyond academic publishing, but that faculty may not feel they will be rewarded if they pursue them, as the documents simultaneously presented clear guidelines to publish traditional research outputs and to use citation metrics to assess them [ 12 , 13 ]. The results presented here confirm that faculty perceive these publicly oriented outputs (e.g., blogs, pre-prints, and open access) as being far less important in the RPT process than other traditional research metrics and outputs. All this to say, it appears there is a continued need to hold conversations in academia about the nature of academic publishing and how publishing decisions are perceived in the RPT process.

These conversations should consider that, in an environment in which there is a growing number of ways in which faculty can share their work, and in which there is an ever increasing number of works available, many faculty are most interested in choosing academic publishing venues that have a readership of interest and find journal metrics or other factors related to prestige and monetary incentives less important. Importantly, they should also consider that faculty perceive their peers to place more value on journal metrics, prestige, and monetary incentives than themselves, but that, despite these personal motivations, the majority of them believe it is publication quantity and journal prestige and metrics that are the most heavily weighted factors in the RPT process.

These findings can also be brought to bear on the conversations that are already taking place regarding the need for alternative models for research evaluation. Efforts such as HuMetricsHSS (Humane Metrics in the Humanities and Social Sciences) and DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment) have recognized a need to change the values underlying the evaluation of academic outputs. Our results indicate that the value of such visible efforts and public discussions about how to evaluate research may be in helping faculty realize that their peers share their values, rather than in changing the values themselves. We suggest that future research could explicitly evaluate how such alternative approaches are utilized by faculty, and whether they are serving to change what faculty perceive will be valued in the RPT process.

Supporting information

ANOVA were used for statistical significance tests.

ANOVA were used for statistical significance tests for all variables except for “pubs published”, which is a categorical variable where chi2 tests were used.

Total n = 154.

Total n = 203.

Total n = 204.

Total n = 205.

Total n = 202.

Total n = 192.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jennifer Peruniak and Carol Muñoz Nieves for their assistance in survey design and data collection, and Esteban Morales and Michelle La for their contributions to our team. We would also like to thank and acknowledge the OpenCon community who brought us together in the first place, and whose work inspires and invigorates us year after year.

Funding Statement

Funding for this project was provided to JPA, MTN, ECM, and LAS from the Open Society Foundations (OR2017-39637) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2020; 15(3): e0228914.

Decision Letter 0

PONE-D-19-21675

Dear Alperin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

One expert in the field has commented on your paper and, although their valuation of the paper is positive, it is true that several issues contained in the current version of the paper (and queriers raised from its review) need revision and response from you. You will find many comments -all of them should be responded in detail- that are appended below.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 15 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Please do not include funding sources in the Acknowledgments or anywhere else in the manuscript file. Funding information should only be entered in the financial disclosure section of the submission system. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-acknowledgments

2. If materials, methods, and protocols are well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail, but the submission should include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods ). In this case, please provide additional information about your sampling method (from https://elifesciences.org/articles/42254 ) in this submission's methods section in order to enable reproducibility and replicability.

3. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "MTN is a member of the board

of directors of The Public Library of Science (PLOS). This role has in no way influenced the outcome or development of this work or the peer-review process."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests ).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article provides interesting data on faculty perceptions of publishing. This is a valuable and timely area of study. However, the paper would need to undergo significant revisions in order to meet the PLOS ONE publishing criteria (namely: (3) Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail; and (4) Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.) I describe these concerns as well as other comments on improving the manuscript below.

The introduction assumes a North American context for academe, without explicitly framing it as such. It specifically references the growth of English-language journals and describes scenarios that apply predominately to North American universities. By taking for granted this context, it frames North American as the normative context for academic structure. I would strongly encourage the authors to reframe the introduction to acknowledge this context explicitly, rather than implicitly.

The last three research questions acknowledge that this is perception-based. The first question should also acknowledge that these are self-reported factors; the actual influence of these issues is difficult to measure post-hoc and via self-report. The authors should include a limitation section that acknowledges that what authors report as their rationale for choosing a publication may be an idealized version of reality. This may be another explanation for the “mismatch” observed.

What exactly is meant by “pseudo-randomly”? Why manual selection rather than the assignment of a number to each faculty member and the use of a random number generator? This description of the sampling procedure reduces confidence.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it is unclear why the sampling used the sample frame of institutions derived from the previous study (Alperin et al., 2019). Given that no analysis was done linking responses with policies, there is no justification for this sample, which may not have been the most appropriate frame for the research questions posed. More justification for this choice is necessary.

The authors need to use caution in the interpretation and reporting of Likert-type questions. Means should not be used for not ratio data. For example, the authors examine the number of publications per year, in binned categories. They then conclude that women publish fewer articles than men—citing that their mean is 3.05 compared to 3.28, where a score of 3 indicates 1-2 publications and 4 indicates 3-5 publications. The authors should only use modal amounts and categorical analyses such as Chi-squared for these data.

In Table 2, it is essential to note that two things are skewing this: the first is that one-third of the respondents are not from research-intensive universities, yet they may consider peers to be at all universities. Therefore, it may not be necessarily incorrect that things like funding and JIF have higher importance to their peers. (As a small note of concern, the authors round 32.4% up to 33% in the description of the respondents; this is non-standard and should be fixed.) Furthermore, the majority of respondents are past-tenure; therefore, it again might be true that these things matter less. This may be less of a gap between perceptions of self and perceptions of others, but rather the fact that the selves and the peers are not equally represented in these data. I do not find convincing the statement that there is a “mismatch between faculty’s own values and how they perceive those of their peers”. The second paragraph of the discussion seems rather to support the interpretation that this is a mismatch of institutional culture and academic status. The entire discussion, however, seems to focus on this disconnect, which does not appear to be substantiated. The logic of the discussion seems highly problematic in that it at once acknowledges a difference in expectations by career stage (which is well-documented) and then suggests that junior faculty are somehow living under a false reality because they have different expectations and values than their tenured peers.

The authors fail to cite the most relevant and contemporary research in the introduction and discussion discussion. For example, in the discussion of gendered differences in the responses, they fail to note the considerable research on funding/resources (e.g., Ginther, Duch), attrition, or the productivity puzzle. The majority of their references are more than a decade old. In fact, they only cite four journal articles other than their own published in the last decade. For another topic, this would be irrelevant; however, given that they are making claims about the state of contemporary research and that more recent articles are available, I would encourage them to conduct an appropriate review of the literature. This will allow them to better motivate the article, to contextualize it in previous knowledge, and to demonstrate the contribution of this work.

Related to this, the authors state that the work builds upon Alperin (2019), but this is not listed in the references. Given that the reader is referred to this for an explanation of the methods, this is a major concern. (The work cannot be evaluated without the information in this reference and it is not available in the manuscript.)

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

25 Nov 2019

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you and the three reviewers for the helpful feedback on our manuscript “Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations”. We are pleased to resubmit our manuscript with the requested revisions. Below you will find the reviewers’ feedback (in gray) interspersed with a description of how we addressed each of the points raised (in black).

As requested over email, please update the competing interests to read as follows: "MTN is a member of the board of directors of The Public Library of Science (PLOS). This role has in no way influenced the outcome or development of this work or the peer-review process, nor does it alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials."

We would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the reviewers for you’re their thoughtful feedback. We are convinced that we have adequately addressed all of the expressed concerns and that the manuscript has been improved as a result of this process.

Assistant Professor, Publishing

Associate Director, Public Knowledge Project

Director, Scholarly Communications Lab

Simon Fraser University

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 1

28 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-21675R1

Dear Dr. Alperin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

With kind regards,

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Good concept; fairly well designed study; well written and presented...

I do not agree to the statement that females submit less publications because they are more into teaching....It is said that ' One who does no research has nothing to teach '. Also, in most academic institutions, it is now mandatory that teachers should have to have a number of publications to their credit to make themselves eligible for promotion to higher posts.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

10 Feb 2020

Dear Dr. Alperin:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

For any other questions or concerns, please email gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sergio A. Useche

An Overview of the Faculty Job Application Process

Applying for a faculty position at a North American university is a long process that requires several specialized documents and a lengthy interview process. Here's an overview of the application process.

Academic jobs can be posted at any time, but many American and Canadian tenure-track jobs are posted in the late summer or early fall. Applications are then generally due in November and December. Shorter, fixed-contract positions like visiting assistant professorships or lecturerships are often posted in the spring.

Key Application Materials

For most faculty positions the following application materials are required:

• A cover letter - the cover letter presents overview of the applicant and shows why they are the right person for this position. An academic cover letter will cover the candidate’s research and contributions to the field as well as publishing plans, future projects, teaching experience, and specific interest in the department.
• A CV - A curriculum vitae lists the applicant’s academic qualifications, employment history, plublications, awards, grants, conference presentations, teaching experience, and service activities. Learn more about how to write an academic CV here .
• Recommendation letters - Most positions require three to five letters of recommendation from senior faculty who can comment thoughtfully on the applicant and their work.

In addition to a cover letter, CV, and recommendation letters there are several other documents that might be required as part of the application. These could include:

• a teaching portfolio
• sample syllabi
• a writing sample
• a research statement
• a statement of teaching philosophy

First-Round Interviews

There will be several rounds of interviews for faculty positions. After reviewing all the applications, the search committee will create a shortlist of 15 to 25 candidates. In many fields, the first-round of interviews take place at the discipline's national association's annual meeting. Candidates might be asked to provide secondary material before the interview such as a writing sample. Conference interviews usually last 20-30 minutes and will take place in a hotel room, suite, or cubicle in the conference centre. If the field doesn’t conduct conference interviews, first-round interviews will be done over video. Regardless of the format, the candidate will be asked about things like their dissertation, publications, plans for future projects, teaching, and course development. After these interviews are complete, the search committee will narrow down the shortlist. The remaining candidates are then ranked by the entire department and the top three are flown out for individual on-campus interviews.

The Campus Interview

Each of the top three applicants will be invited to spend a day on two on campus. During this time, they will have several one on one meetings/interviews with the search committee, departmental faculty, the department head, and even the dean. Each candidate will give a “job talk” lecture on their research to the faculty, graduate students, and sometimes undergrads in the department. The job talk is followed by a Q&A and often a reception. Many campus interviews will also include a teaching demonstration, where the candidate will prepare a sample lesson for undergraduate students. During the visit, the candidate will get a tour of campus and also eat meals with members of the faculty and search committee.

Making an Offer

After the campus interviews are complete, the department will make its final decision. Once they get permission from the administration to make the offer, the chair will contact the successful applicant and offer them the position. The candidate will then receive the full offer letter and contract and the time frame to accept. If the candidate turns down the offer, the department may make an offer to their second choice candidate or there may be a failed search.

If the candidate accepts the offer, the chair of the search committee will contact the other finalists and let them know that the position has been filled.

Discover related jobs

Discover similar employers

Accelerate your academic career

Tips for Moving to the UK to Research or Study

The UK is a great place to study or research. Here is some practical adv...

German Academic Job Titles Explained

German job titles are slightly different from their American equivalents...

Moving to Denmark to Research or Study

Denmark attracts thousands of students and researchers each year. Here a...

Belgian Academic Job Titles Explained

What's the difference between a docent and a hoogleraar? Here's a breakd...

PhD, Postdoc, and Professor Salaries in France

France has a strong academic tradition and is committed to investing in ...

Moving to Finland to Research or Study

Who wouldn’t want to study or work in the happiest country in the world?...

Jobs by field

• Electrical Engineering 187
• Programming Languages 168
• Artificial Intelligence 167
• Molecular Biology 162
• Machine Learning 162
• Materials Engineering 145
• Cell Biology 135
• Biochemistry 129
• Materials Chemistry 127
• Mechanical Engineering 127

Jobs by type

• Postdoc 375
• Assistant / Associate Professor 155
• Professor 108
• Research assistant 90
• Researcher 83
• Engineer 77
• Lecturer / Senior Lecturer 68
• Management / Leadership 50
• Tenure Track 41

Jobs by country

• Belgium 358
• Netherlands 194
• Morocco 150
• Germany 105
• Switzerland 100
• Luxembourg 67

Jobs by employer

• Mohammed VI Polytechnic Unive... 154
• KU Leuven 141
• Ghent University 74
• University of Luxembourg 66
• Eindhoven University of Techn... 64
• University of Antwerp 56
• KTH Royal Institute of Techno... 49
• ETH Zürich 47
• University of Twente 40

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Faculty spotlight: teddy garcia aroca.

I grew up in a small town called El Paraiso in Honduras, surrounded by mountains covered with coffee farms. Coming from a family of coffee farmers, coffee played a significant role in my upbringing. I pursued my bachelor's degree at the Universidad Nacional de Agricultura where I was first introduced to plant diseases. This sparked my interest in working with plant pathogens. My initial opportunity came during my undergraduate research at the University of Georgia where I studied the pathogen causing dollar spot on grasses,  Clarireedia homoeocarpa . A year after, I attended Louisiana State University for and internship that turned into my master's degree focusing on the indirect effects of glyphosate on Cercospora Leaf Blight (CLB), a foliar fungal disease of soybean. I continued at LSU for my doctorate in plant pathology researching an emerging disease of soybean in the southern United States. During my doctorate, I was inspired to remain in academia driven by my passion for bridging the gap between applied and fundamental research and motivating the next generation of scientists. Before joining UNL, I completed a postdoctoral fellowship in New York, where I investigated the genetic diversity and evolution of human and animal bacterial pathogens.

What is your position at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln?

I am an assistant professor and quantitative fungal ecologist in the Department of Plant Pathology.

What drew you to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln?

This position is my dream job! As an assistant professor in quantitative fungal ecology, I have the opportunity to combine my passions for teaching, research, and fungi. Our lab engages in a variety of exciting activities from studying diseases in both agricultural and non-agricultural ecosystems including Nebraska's sandhills and prairies, to presenting our findings at international conferences. Our multidisciplinary approach, which incorporates state-of-the-art tools in fungal and bacterial biology, taxonomy, ecology, genomics, and bioinformatics, enables us to address fundamental questions across diverse microorganisms and ecosystems and build the framework to develop novel management strategies.

Our lab focuses on understanding the temporal and spatial population dynamics of soil-borne pathogens at the local, regional, and global scales. Currently, we are investigating a widespread soil-borne fungal pathogen that thrives in various environments and is a common re-emerging pathogen. Using signatures in its DNA sequences, we have reconstructed its diversity and evolutionary history uncovering fascinating insights into its host preferences. Given the impact of these pathogens on agricultural systems, we study patterns of fungicide resistance or natural inhibition across a variety of foliar and soil-borne pathogens, providing useful information for farmers in the region. Additionally, we often venture into the wilderness to discover rare fungi and unique plant pathogens. Nebraska provides an ideal setting to combine all these approaches allowing us to study variations in pathogen populations over time and across different ecosystems while providing useful information for stakeholders.

What aspect of working in an educational setting do you enjoy the most?

Interacting with students is the highlight of my work. Engaging with both undergraduate and graduate students provides some of the most rewarding experiences in academia.

What do you consider your greatest achievement?

One of my proudest accomplishments is describing a novel soil-borne pathogen species on soybean that produces antimicrobial and phytotoxic secondary metabolites. We named this pathogen  Xylaria necrophora  due to its propensity to cause necrotic-like damage to soybean roots.

What is something that most people don’t know about you?

I am an avid astrophysics enthusiast. I've watched hundreds of astrophysics documentaries, and they never cease to fascinate me. An ideal weekend for me involves watching nature and astrophysics documentaries, along with the occasional movie.

What is your life like outside of work?

Outside of work, I enjoy playing soccer regularly and socializing with friends after games and on weekends. I also like watching movies and TV shows. When I can, I spend time outdoors, but I am equally content staying at home.

Originally written and published by IANR News. See the original here . 

Explore Tags

• "IANR is Global" Series
• Latin America
• Middle East and Northern Africa
• Sustainable Development Goals

Main navigation

• BCL/JD Program
• Graduate Programs
• Faculty Members

Call for papers - 2025 Baxter Family Competition on Federalism

• Tweet Widget

2025 edition:  Thinking Outside the Box

Call for papers now open! 

Open to law and political science students/PhD candidates, recent graduates, and junior practitioners or scholars from around the world. 

The overarching goal of the Essay Competition is to advance research and foster informed debate on federalism.  Essays are evaluated by a jury comprised of world renown experts on federalism. 

The theme of this year’s edition is Federalism: Thinking Outside the Box 

Papers must be written in English or French and be a maximum of 8000 words in English and 8800 words in French. 

Prizes ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 CND and the chance to present one’s research at the Baxter Family Symposium on Federalism held in Montréal in Spring 2025. 

The deadline to submit an essay is February 7th, 2025, at 11:59 pm, Eastern Standard Time (Montreal Time) 

Submissions are to be emailed to Professor Johanne Poirier, Peter MacKell Chair in Federalism, at  baxter-competition.law [at] mcgill.ca

Submission Guidelines – 2025 Edition 

Author eligibility 

All undergraduate or graduate students in law or political science students, as well as junior scholars, lawyers or practitioners who graduated in these disciplines with five (5) years of working experience or less, from anywhere around the world. 

To be eligible, authors must either 

Be currently enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate program in law or political science; 

Hold a law or political science degree and have obtained their most recent degree (in law or political science, or otherwise) after February 7th, 2020; or 

Have been admitted to the Bar (or the local equivalent) after February 7th, 2020. 

Papers may be co-authored, to the extent that each author is eligible. If the submitted paper is selected, the Prize would be divided between authors. 

Criteria for submission 

Original text in English or in French; 

Maximum of 8,000 words for texts in English and of 8,800 words for texts in French (including, in both languages, references). The word count should appear on the first page; 

Text not yet submitted for publication as of February 7th, 2025; 

Main text written in 12-point font, double-spaced, with 2.5 cm (1 inch) margins on all sides; 

Numbered in the upper right corner; 

Submitted in Microsoft Word format; 

The main text should be anonymised; 

Must include complete references in footnotes; 

Must include an abstract summarizing the main question and main conclusions (maximum 200 words). 

It should be accompanied by a distinct document that includes 

author’s name 

author’s contact information (e-mail, phone number, address) 

statement affirming the eligibility for the Competition (University affiliation or date of graduation) 

unpublished status of the paper. 

Deadline for Submission 

February 7th, 2025, at 11:59 pm, Eastern Standard Time (Montreal time). Submissions are to be emailed to Professor Johanne Poirier, Peter MacKell Chair in Federalism, at  baxter-competition.law [at] mcgill.ca . 

For any further inquiries, please email  baxter-competition.law [at] mcgill.ca . 

Faculty of Law

Department and university information.

• Law Admissions - BCL/JD
• Law Admissions - graduate programs
• Law Student Affairs Office
• Graduate studies in law
• Law Career Development Office
• Nahum Gelber Law Library
• Focus online
• Business Law Platform
• Canada Research Chair in Transsystemic Property and Sustainable Communities
• Centre for Human Rights & Legal Pluralism
• Centre for Intellectual Property Policy
• Fortier Chair in Int'l Arbitration & Commercial Law
• Institute of Air & Space Law
• Labour Law and Development Research Laboratory
• Oppenheimer Chair in Public International Law
• Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private & Comparative Law
• Peter MacKell Chair in Federalism
• Private Justice and the Rule of Law
• Research Group on Health & Law
• Rule of Law and Economic Development
• Stikeman Chair in Tax Law
• Wainwright Fund

Carlina Duan

Assistant Professor / Walker Percy Fellow

2024, Ph.D., Joint Program in English and Education, University of Michigan

2019, M.F.A., Creative Writing (Poetry), Vanderbilt University

2015, B.A., English and Creative Writing, University of Michigan

Carlina Duan is a poet, educator, and scholar. She is the author of I Wore My Black est Hair   (Little A, 2017); and Alien Miss   (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 2021), a finalist for the Brittingham and Felix Pollak Prize and the Midwest Book Awards.

Carlina received her M.F.A. in Poetry from Vanderbilt University, and her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan’s Joint Program in English and Education, where she was a 2023-2024 David and Mary Hunting Fellow at the Institute for Humanities, and the former Poetry Editor for Michigan Quarterly Review . Carlina is deeply committed to community-engaged arts education, and has joyfully served as a teaching artist for poetry projects such as Staying Power; Room Project; and MTSU Write. Her scholarly work focuses on documentary poetics and aesthetics, archival innovations, reading poetry, and Asian American literature.

Carlina’s recent poems appear in POETRY , Narrative Magazine , Poets.org , The Kenyon Review , Poetry Daily , The Slowdown Show , and elsewhere. She is the recipient of awards and artist residencies from Tin House, the Academy of American Poets, the U.S. Fulbright Program, Hedgebrook, the Barbara Deming Memorial Fund, Willapa Bay AiR, Lighthouse Works, Good Hart Artist Residency, and other places. In addition to her textual poems, Carlina builds a material/visual poetic practice, and her broadsides and poem-videos have been exhibited at the Crooked Tree Arts Center, Hirschl & Adler, and the XR: XF: Extended Realities, Extended Feminisms  show.

Carlina teaches poetry at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, where she is an Assistant Professor in the department of English & Comparative Literature, and Walker Percy Fellow in Creative Writing.

Publications:

• Alien Miss  (University of Wisconsin Press, 2021)
• I Wore My Blackest Hair  (Little A, 2017)

Selected Poems:

• “After She Mispronounces My Name for the Fourth Time” ( The Kenyon Review , 2023)
• “Blades of Grace” ( POETRY Magazine,  2022)
• “Possible” ( Poetry Daily,  2021)

Teaching Awards

• Moscow Prize for Excellence in Teaching Writing and Composition, University of Michigan (2023)
• Lighthouse Works Fellowship, 2023
• Hedgebrook Writing Residency, 2023
• Good Hart Artist Residency and Harbor Springs Book Festival Feature, 2022
• Barbara Deming Award for Creative Nonfiction, 2023
• Hopwood Poetry Award, 2021
• Willapa Bay Artist Residency, 2021
• Theodore Roethke Poetry Prize, 2021
• Academy of American Poets 1st Place Prize, Vanderbilt University, 2019
• Tin House Writing Residency, 2019
• Narrative Magazine 30 Below Literary Contest, 1st Place Winner, 2017

Courses Taught:

• ENG 131 – Introduction to Poetry Writing
• ENG 407 – Advanced Poetry Writing

Curriculum Vitae / Resume

Research interests:, faculty type.

MIT Libraries logo MIT Libraries

MIT Specifications for Thesis Preparation

Approved November 2022 for use in the 2022-2023 academic year. Updated March 2023 to incorporate changes to MIT Policies and Procedures 13.1.3 Intellectual Property Not Owned by MIT .

View this page as an accessible PDF .

Table of Contents

• Thesis Preparation Checklist

Timeline for submission and publication

• Bachelor’s degree thesis
• Graduate degree thesis

Dual degree theses

Joint theses, what happens to your thesis, title selection, embedded links.

• Special circumstances

Signature page

Abstract page.

• Acknowledgments

Biographical notes

Table of contents, list of figures.

• List of tables
• List of supplemental material

Notes and bibliographic references

Open licensing, labeling copyright in your thesis, use of previously published material in your thesis, digital supplementary material, physical supplementary material, starting with accessible source files, file naming.

• How to submit thesis information to the MIT Libraries

Placing a temporary hold on your thesis

Changes to a thesis after submission, permission to reuse or republish from mit theses, general information.

This guide has been prepared by the MIT Libraries, as prescribed by the Committee on Graduate Programs and the Committee on Undergraduate Program, to assist students and faculty in the preparation of theses. The Institute is committed to the preservation of each student’s thesis because it is both a requirement for the MIT degree and a record of original research that contains information of lasting value.

In this guide, “department” refers to a graduate or undergraduate program within an academic unit, and “thesis” refers to the digital copy of the written thesis. The official thesis version of record, which is submitted to the MIT Libraries, is the digital copy of the written thesis that has been approved by the thesis committee and certified by the department in fulfillment of a student’s graduation requirement.

The requirements in this guide apply to all theses and have been specified both to facilitate the care and dissemination of the thesis and to assure the preservation of the final approved document. Individual departments may dictate more stringent requirements.

Before beginning your thesis research, remember that the final output of this research—your thesis document—should only include research findings that may be shared publicly, in adherence with MIT’s policy on Open Research and Free Interchange of Information . If you anticipate that your thesis will contain content that requires review by an external sponsor or agency, it is critical that you allow sufficient time for this review to take place prior to thesis submission. 

Questions not answered in this guide should be referred to the appropriate department officer or to the MIT Libraries ( [email protected] ).

• Final edited and complete thesis PDF is due to your department on the date specified in the Academic Calendar.
• Hold requests should be submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate and Graduate Education or TLO concurrent with your thesis submission.
• Thesis information is due to the MIT Libraries before your date of graduation.
• Departments must transfer theses to the MIT Libraries within 30 days from the last day of class (end of term).
• One week later (30 days from the last day of classes + 7 days) or one week after the degree award date (whichever is later) the MIT Libraries may begin publishing theses in DSpace@MIT.
• If you have requested and received a temporary (up to 90-day) hold on the publication of your thesis from the Vice Chancellor, your thesis will be placed on hold as soon as it is received by the Libraries, and the 90-day hold will begin 30 days from the last day of class (end of term).
• If your thesis research is included in a disclosure to the TLO, the TLO may place your thesis on temporary hold with the Libraries, as appropriate.

Submitting your thesis document to your department

Your thesis document will be submitted to your department as a PDF, formatted and including the appropriate rights statement and sections as outlined in these specifications. Your department will provide more specific guidance on submitting your files for certification and acceptance.

Your department will provide information on submitting:

• A PDF/A-1  of your final thesis document (with no signatures)
• Signature page (if required by your department; your department will provide specific guidance)
• Original source files used to create the PDF of your thesis (optional, but encouraged)
• Supplementary materials  (optional and must be approved by your advisor and program)

Degree candidates must submit their thesis to the appropriate office of the department in which they are registered on the dates specified in the Academic Calendar. ( Academic Calendar | MIT Registrar ). September, February, and May/June are the only months in which degrees are awarded.

Bachelor’s degree theses

Graduate degree theses, submitting your thesis information to the libraries.

Information about your thesis must be submitted to the Libraries thesis submission and processing system  prior to your day of graduation. The information you provide must match the title page and abstract of your thesis . See How to submit thesis information to the MIT Libraries section for more details .

The academic department is required to submit the thesis to the MIT Libraries within one month after the last day of the term in which the thesis was submitted ( Faculty Regulation 2.72 ). The thesis document becomes part of the permanent archival collection. All thesis documents that have been approved will be transferred electronically to the MIT Libraries by a department representative via the MIT Libraries thesis submission and processing system .

The full-text PDF of each thesis is made publicly available in DSpace@MIT . A bibliographic record will appear in the MIT Libraries’ catalog, as well as the OCLC database WorldCat, which is accessible to libraries and individuals worldwide. Authors may also opt-in to having their thesis made available in the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.

Formatting specifications

Your work will be a more valuable research tool for other scholars if it can be located easily. Search engines use the words in the title, and sometimes other descriptive words, to locate works. Therefore,

• Be sure to select a title that is a meaningful description of the content of your manuscript; and
• Do: “The Effects of Ion Implantation and Annealing on the Properties of Titanium Silicide Films on Silicon Substrates”
• Do: “Radiative Decays on the J/Psi to Two Pseudoscalar Final States”

You may include clickable links to online resources within the thesis file. Make the link self-descriptive so that it can stand on its own and is natural language that fits within the surrounding writing of your paragraph. The full URL should be included as a footnote or bibliography citation (dependent on citation style).

• Sentence in thesis: Further information is available on the MIT Writing and Communications Center’s website . The full-text PDF of each thesis is made publicly available in DSpace@MIT .
• Footnote or Bibliography: follow the rules of your chosen citation style and include the full website URL, in this case http://libraries.mit.edu/mit-theses

Sections of your thesis

Required (all information should be on a single page)

The title page should contain the title, name of the author (this can be the author’s preferred name), previous degrees, the degree(s) to be awarded at MIT, the date the degree(s) will be conferred (May/June, September, or February only), copyright notice (and legend, if required), and appropriate names of thesis supervisor(s) and student’s home department or program officer.

The title page should have the following fields in the following order and centered (including spacing) :

Thesis title as submitted to registrar

Author’s preferred name

Previous degree information, if applicable

Submitted to the [department name] in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree(s) of

[degree name]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Month and year degree will be granted (May or June, September, February ONLY)

Copyright statement

This permission legend MUST follow: The author hereby grants to MIT a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise any and all rights under copyright, including to reproduce, preserve, distribute and publicly display copies of the thesis, or release the thesis under an open-access license.

[Insert 2 blank lines]

Note: The remaining fields are left aligned and not centered

Authored by: [Author name]

[Author’s department name] (align with the beginning of the author’s name from the previous line)

[Date thesis is to be presented to the department] (align with the beginning of the author’s name from the first line)

Certified by: [Advisor’s full name as it appears in the MIT catalog]

   [Advisor’s department as it appears in the MIT catalog] (align with the beginning of the advisor’s name from the previous line), Thesis supervisor

Accepted by: [name]

[title – line 1] (align with the beginning of the name from the previous line)

[title – line 2] (align with the beginning of the name from the first line)

Note: The name and title of this person varies in different degree programs and may vary each term; contact the departmental thesis administrator for specific information

• Students in joint graduate programs (such as Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) should list both their MIT thesis supervisor and the supervisor from the partner academic institution.
• The name and title of the department or the program officer varies in different degree programs and may vary each term. Contact the departmental graduate administrator for specific information.
• For candidates receiving two degrees, both degrees to be awarded should appear on the title page. For candidates in dual degree programs, all degrees and departments or programs should appear on the title page, and the names of both department heads/committee chairs are required. Whenever there are co-supervisors, both names should appear on the title page.

Here are some PDF examples of title pages:

• Bachelor’s Degree – using a Creative Commons license
• PhD candidate – using a Creative Commons license
• Master’s candidate – dual degrees
• Masters’ candidates – multiple authors
• Masters’ candidates – multiple authors with dual degrees and extra committee members
• Bachelor’s Degree – change of thesis supervisor

Title page: Special circumstances – change of thesis supervisor

If your supervisor has recently died or is no longer affiliated with the Institute:

• Both this person and your new supervisor should be listed on your title page
• Under the new supervisor’s name, state that they are approving the thesis on behalf of the previous supervisor
• An additional page should be added to the thesis, before the acknowledgments page, with an explanation about why a new supervisor is approving your thesis on behalf of your previous supervisor. You may also thank the new supervisor for acting in this capacity
• Review this PDF example of a title page with a change in supervisor

If your supervisor is external to the Institute (such as an industrial supervisor):

• You should acknowledge this individual on the Acknowledgements page as appropriate, but should not list this person on the thesis title page
• The full thesis committee and thesis readers can be acknowledged on the Acknowledgements page, but should not be included on the title page

Not Required

Please consult with your department to determine if they are requiring or requesting an additional signature page.

Each thesis must include an abstract of generally no more than 500 words single-spaced. The abstract should be thought of as a brief descriptive summary, not a lengthy introduction to the thesis. The abstract should immediately follow the title page.

The abstract page should have the following fields in the following order and centered (including spacing):

• Thesis title

Submitted to the [Department] on [date thesis will be submitted] in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of [Name of degree to be received]

[Insert 1 blank line]

Single-spaced summary; approximately 500 words or less; try not to use formulas or special characters

Thesis supervisor: [Supervisor’s name]

Title: [Title of supervisor]

The Abstract page should include the same information as on the title page. With the thesis title, author name, and submitting statement above the abstract, the word “ABSTRACT” typed before the body of the text, and the thesis supervisor’s name and title below the abstract.

Acknowledgements

An acknowledgement page may be included and is the appropriate place to include information such as external supervisor (such as an industrial advisor) or a list of the full thesis committee and thesis readers. Please note that your thesis will be publicly available online at DSpace@MIT , which is regularly crawled and indexed by Google and other search-engine providers.

The thesis may contain a short biography of the candidate, including institutions attended and dates of attendance, degrees and honors, titles of publications, teaching and professional experience, and other matters that may be pertinent. Please note that your thesis will be publicly available online at DSpace@MIT , which is regularly crawled and indexed by Google and other search-engine providers.

List of Tables

List of supplemental material.

Whenever possible, notes should be placed at the bottom of the appropriate page or in the body of the text. Notes should conform to the style appropriate to the discipline. If notes appear at the bottom of the page, they should be single-spaced and included within the specified margins.

It may be appropriate to place bibliographic references either at the end of the chapter in which they occur or at the end of the thesis.

The style of quotations, footnotes, and bibliographic references may be prescribed by your department. If your department does not prescribe a style or specify a style manual, choose one and be consistent. Further information is available on the MIT Writing and Communications Center’s website .

Ownership of copyright

The Institute’s policy concerning ownership of thesis copyright is covered in Rules and Regulations of the Faculty, 2.73 and MIT Policies and Procedures 13.1.3 . Copyright covers the intellectual property in the words and images in the thesis. If the thesis also includes patentable subject matter, students should contact the Technology Licensing Office (TLO) prior to submission of their thesis.

Under these regulations, students retain the copyright to student theses.

The student must, as a condition of a degree award, grant to MIT a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise any and all rights under copyright, including to reproduce, preserve, distribute and publicly display copies of the thesis, or release the thesis under an open-access license. The MIT Libraries publish the thesis on DSpace@MIT , allowing open access to the research output of MIT.

You may also, optionally, apply a Creative Commons License to your thesis. The Creative Commons License allows you to grant permissions and provide guidance on how your work can be reused by others. For more information about CC: https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/ . To determine which CC license is right for you, you can use the CC license chooser .

You must include an appropriate copyright notice on the title page of your thesis. This should include the following:

• the symbol “c” with a circle around it © and/or the word “copyright”
• the year of publication (the year in which the degree is to be awarded)
• the name of the copyright owner
• the words “All rights reserved” or your chosen Creative Commons license
• Also include the following statement below the ©“ The author hereby grants to MIT a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise any and all rights under copyright, including to reproduce, preserve, distribute and publicly display copies of the thesis, or release the thesis under an open-access license.”
• Also include the following statement below the © “The author hereby grants to MIT a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise any and all rights under copyright, including to reproduce, preserve, distribute and publicly display copies of the thesis, or release the thesis under an open-access license.”

You are responsible for obtaining permission, if necessary, to include previously published material in your thesis. This applies to most figures, images, and excerpts of text created and published by someone else; it may also apply to your own previous work. For figures and short excerpts from academic works, permission may already be available through the MIT Libraries (see here for additional information ). Students may also rely on fair use , as appropriate. For assistance with copyright questions about your thesis, Ask Scholarly Communications .

When including your own previously published material in your thesis, you may also need to obtain copyright clearance. If, for example, a student has already published part of the thesis as a journal article and, as a condition of publication, has assigned copyright to the journal’s publisher, the student’s rights are limited by what the publisher allows. More information about publisher policies on reuse in theses is available here.

Students can hold onto sufficient rights to reuse published articles (or excerpts of these) in their thesis if they are covered by MIT’s open access policy. Learn more about MIT’s open access policy and opt-in here . Ask Scholarly Communications for more information.

When including your own previously published articles in your thesis, check with your department for specific requirements, and consider the following:

• Ensure you have any necessary copyright permissions to include previously published material in your thesis.
• Be sure to discuss copyright clearance and embargo options with your co-authors and your advisor well in advance of preparing your thesis for submission.
• Include citations of where portions of the thesis have been previously published.
• When an article included has multiple authors, clearly designate the role you had in the research and production of the published paper that you are including in your thesis.

Supplemental material and research data

Supplemental material that may be submitted with your thesis is the materials that are essential to understanding the research findings of your thesis, but impossible to incorporate or embed into a PDF. Materials submitted to the MIT Libraries may be provided as supplemental digital files or in some cases physical items. All supplementary materials must be approved for submission by your advisor. The MIT Libraries can help answer questions you may have about managing the supplementary material and other research materials associated with your research.

Contact [email protected] early in your thesis writing process to determine the best way to include supplemental materials with your thesis.

You may also have other research data and outputs related to your thesis research that are not considered supplemental material and should not be submitted with your thesis. Research materials include the facts, observations, images, computer program results, recordings, measurements, or experiences on which a research output—an argument, theory, test or hypothesis, or other output—is based. These may also be termed, “research data.” This term relates to data generated, collected, or used during research projects, and in some cases may include the research output itself. Research materials should be deposited in appropriate research data repositories and cited in your thesis . You may consult the MIT Libraries’ Data Management Services website for guidance or reach out to Data Management Services (DMS)( [email protected] ), who can help answer questions you may have about managing your thesis data and choosing suitable solutions for longer term storage and access.

• Supplementary information may be submitted with your thesis to your program after approval from your thesis advisor. 
• Supplemental material should be mentioned and summarized in the written document, for example, using a few key frames from a movie to create a figure.
• A list of supplementary information along with brief descriptions should be included in your thesis document. For digital files, the description should include information about the file types and any software and version needed to open and view the files.
• Issues regarding the format of non-traditional, supplemental content should be resolved with your advisor.
• Appendices and references are not considered supplementary information.
• If your research data has been submitted to a repository, it should not also be submitted with your thesis.
• Follow the required file-naming convention for supplementary files: authorLastName-kerb-degree-dept-year-type_supplemental.ext
• Captioning ( legally required ): text versions of the audio content, synchronized with the video: ways to get your video captioned
• Additional content, not required:
• For video, an audio description: a separate narrative audio track that describes important visual content, making it accessible to people who are unable to see the video
• Transcripts: should capture all the spoken audio, plus on-screen text and descriptions of key visual information that wouldn’t otherwise be accessible without seeing the video

For physical components that are integral to understanding the thesis document, and which cannot be meaningfully conveyed in a digital form, the author may submit the physical items to the MIT Libraries along with their thesis document. When photographs or a video of a physical item (such as a model) would be sufficient, the images should be included in the thesis document, and a video could be submitted as digital supplementary material.

An example of physical materials that would be approved for submission as part of the thesis would be photographs that cannot be shared digitally in our repository due to copyright restrictions. In this case, the photographs could be submitted as a physical volume that is referred to in the thesis document.

As with digital supplementary information and research materials, physical materials must be approved for submission by your advisor. Contact [email protected] early in your thesis writing process to determine if physical materials should accompany your thesis, and if so how to schedule a transfer of materials to the MIT Libraries.

Creating your thesis document/digital format

You are required to submit a PDF/A-1 formatted thesis document to your department. In addition, it is recommended that original files, or source files, (such a .doc or .tex) are submitted alongside the PDF/A-1 to better ensure long-term access to your thesis.

You should create accessible files that support the use of screen readers and make your document more easily readable by assistive technologies. This will expand who is able to access your thesis. By creating an accessible document from the beginning, there will be less work required to remediate the PDF that gets created. Most software offers a guide for creating documents that are accessible to screen readers. Review the guidelines provided by the MIT Libraries .

In general:

• Use styles and other layout features for headings, lists, tables, etc. If you don’t like the default styles associated with the headings, you can customize them.
• Avoid using blank lines to add visual spacing and instead increase the size of the spaces before and/or after the line.
• Avoid using text boxes.
• Embed URLs.
• Anchor images to text when inserting them into a doc.
• Add alt-text to any images or figures that convey meaning (including, math formulas).
• Use a sans serif font.
• Add basic embedded metadata, such as author, title, year of graduation, department, keywords etc. to your thesis via your original author tool.

Creating a PDF/A-1

PDF/A-1 (either a or b) is the more suitable format for long term preservation than a basic PDF. It ensures that the PDF format conforms to certain specifications which make it more likely to open and be viewable in the long term. It is best for static content that will not change in the future, as this is the most preservation-worthy version and does not allow for some complex elements that could corrupt or prevent the file from being viewable in the future. Guidelines on how to convert specific file types to PDF/A .

In general: (should we simplify these bullets)

• Convert to PDF/A directly from your original files (text, Word, InDesign, LaTeX, etc.). It is much easier and better to create valid PDF/A documents from your original files than from a regular PDF. Converting directly will ensure that fonts and hyperlinks are embedded in the document.
• Do not embed multimedia files (audio and video), scripts, executables, lab notebooks, etc. into your PDF. Still images are fine. The other formats mentioned may be able to be submitted as supplemental files.
• Do not password protect or encrypt your PDF file.
• Validate your PDF/A file before submitting it to your department.

All digital files must be named according to this scheme: authorLastName-kerb-degree-dept-year-type_other.ext

• Thesis PDF: macdonald-mssimon-mcp-dusp-2023-thesis.pdf
• Signature page: macdonald-mssimon-mcp-dusp-2023-sig.pdf
• Original source file: macdonald-mssimon-mcp-2023-source.docx
• Supplemental file: macdonald-mssimon-mcp-2023-supplmental_1.mov
• Second supplemental file: macdonald-mssimon-mcp-2023-supplmental_2.mov
• Read Me file about supplemental: macdonald-mssimon-mcp-2023-supplemental-readme.txt

How to submit thesis information to the MIT Libraries

Before your day of graduation, you should submit your thesis title page metadata to the MIT Libraries  prior to your day of graduation. The submission form requires Kerberos login.

Student submitted metadata allows for quicker Libraries processing times. It also provides a note field for you to let Libraries’ staff know about any metadata discrepancies.

The information you provide must match the title page and abstract of your thesis . Please have a copy of your completed thesis on hand to enter this information directly from your thesis. If any discrepancies are found during processing, Libraries’ staff will publish using the information on the approved thesis document. You will be asked to confirm or provide:

• Preferred name of author(s)as they appear on the title page of the thesis
• ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher. The goal is to support the creation of a permanent, clear, and unambiguous record of scholarly communication by enabling reliable attribution of authors and contributors. Read ORCID FAQs to learn more
• Department(s)
• A license is optional, and very difficult to remove once published. The Creative Commons License allows you to grant permissions and provide guidance on how your work can be reused by others. Read more information about CC .
• Thesis supervisor(s)
• If you would like the full-text of your thesis to be made openly available in the ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global database (PQDT), you can indicate that in the Libraries submission form.
• Open access inclusion in PQDT is at no cost to you, and increases the visibility and discoverability of your thesis. By opting in you are granting ProQuest a license to distribute your thesis in accordance with ProQuest’s policies. Further information can be found in the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Author FAQ .
• Full-text theses and associated supplemental files will only be sent to ProQuest once any temporary holds have been lifted, and the thesis has been published in DSpace@MIT.
• Regardless of opting-in to inclusion in PQDT, the full text of your thesis will still be made openly available in DSpace@MIT . Doctoral Degrees: Regardless of opting-in the citation and abstract of your thesis will be included in PQDT.

Thesis research should be undertaken in light of MIT’s policy of open research and the free interchange of information . Openness requires that, as a general policy, thesis research should not be undertaken on campus when the results may not be published. From time to time, there may be a good reason for delaying the distribution of a thesis to obtain patent protection, or for reasons of privacy or security. To ensure that only those theses that meet certain criteria are withheld from distribution and that they are withheld for the minimum period, the Institute has established specific review procedures.

Written notification of patent holds and other restrictions must reach the MIT Libraries before the thesis in question is received by the MIT Libraries. Theses will not be available to the public prior to being published by the MIT Libraries. The Libraries may begin publishing theses in DSpace@MIT one month and one week from the last day of classes.

Thesis hold requests should be directed to the Technology Licensing Office (TLO) ( [email protected] ) when related to MIT-initiated patent applications (i.e., MIT holds intellectual property rights; patent application process via TLO). Requests for a thesis hold must be made jointly by the student and advisor directly to the MIT Technology Licensing Office as part of the technology disclosure process.

Thesis hold or restricted access requests should be directed to the Office of the Vice Chancellor ([email protected]) when related to:

• Student-initiated patents (student holds intellectual property rights as previously determined by TLO) [up to 90-day hold]
• Pursuit of business opportunities (student holds intellectual property rights as previously determined by TLO)[up to 90-day hold]
• Government restrictions [up to 90-day hold]
• Privacy and security [up to 90-day hold]
• Scholarly journal articles pending publication [up to 90-day hold]
• Book publication [up to 24-month hold]

In the unusual circumstance that a student wants to request a hold beyond the initial 90-day period, they should contact the Office of Vice President for Research , who may consult with the TLO and/or the Office of the Vice Chancellor, as appropriate to extend the hold. Such requests must be supported by evidence that explains the need for a longer period.

Find information about each type of publication hold, and to learn how to place a hold on your thesis

After publication

Your thesis will be published on DSpace@MIT . Theses are processed by the MIT Libraries and published in the order they are transferred by your department. The Libraries will begin publishing theses in DSpace@MIT one month and one week from the last day of classes.

All changes made to a thesis, after it has been submitted to the MIT Libraries by your department, must have approval from the Vice Chancellor or their designee. Thesis documents should be carefully reviewed prior to submission to ensure they do not contain misspellings or incorrect formatting. Change requests for these types of minor errors will not be approved.

There are two types of change requests that can be made:

• Errata: When the purpose is to correct significant errors in content, the author should create an errata sheet using the form and instructions (PDF)  and obtain approval first from both the thesis supervisor or program chair, before submitting for review by the Vice Chancellor.
• Substitution: If the purpose of the change is to excise classified, proprietary, or confidential information, the author should fill out the  application form (PDF) and have the request approved first by the thesis supervisor or program chair, before submitting for review by the Vice Chancellor.

Students and supervisors should vet thesis content carefully before submission to avoid these scenarios whenever possible.

You are always authorized to post electronic versions of your own thesis, in whole or in part, on a website, without asking permission. If you hold the copyright in the thesis, approving and/or denying requests for permission to use portions of the thesis in third-party publications is your responsibility.

MIT Libraries Thesis Team https://libguides.mit.edu/mit-thesis-faq [email protected] | https://thesis-submit.mit.edu/

Distinctive Collections Room 14N-118 | 617-253-5690 https://libraries.mit.edu/distinctive-collections/

Technology Licensing Office [email protected] | 617-253-6966 http://tlo.mit.edu/

Office of the General Counsel [email protected]  | 617-452-2082 http://ogc.mit.edu/

Office of Graduate Education Room 3-107 | 617-253-4680 http://oge.mit.edu/ [email protected]

MIT Libraries,  Scholarly Communications https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/ Ask Scholarly Communications

Office of  the Vice Chancellor Room 7-133 | 617-253-6056 http://ovc.mit.edu [email protected]

Office of the Vice President for Research Room 3-234 | 617-253-8177 [email protected]

MIT Writing and Communications Center Room E18-233 [email protected] | https://cmsw.mit.edu/writing-and-communication-center/

Welcome to the Department of Earth, Geographic, and Climate Sciences

Coastal habitats can weather sea-level rise if there is enough sediment.

Salt marshes: critical habitats threatened by rapid sea-level rise, may in fact thrive despite higher water levels. The key factor that determines whether salt marshes collapse or flourish involves not water, but sediment.

Learn more about what the Department of Earth, Geographic, and Climate Sciences has to offer

Explore our undergraduate programs.

Student Spotlight: Helen Sajo

Helen Sajo aspires to become a professor one day to teach geography. She hopes to inspire her students to share her passion for the field!

"I chose geography as my secondary major after taking a general education class about climate change my freshman year. It inspired me to look at the world in a more geographical point of view and combined with primary major of economics this proved to be really beneficial.”

In the news

Massachusetts is coming off one of the wettest years on record and one of the wettest winters on record, and we are now in one of the wettest Marches to date. It's no secret that our seas are rising and as of late, so are our rivers. One UMass Amherst professor is sounding a new alarm – a rising water table.

Upcoming Events

Mailing Address:

EGCS - UMass Amherst 233 Morrill 2 627 N. Pleasant St Amherst, MA 01003-9354

Phone: (413) 545-2286 Fax: (413) 545-1200