Ph.D. graduates - how many papers did you produce directly from your Ph.D. or D. Phil data?

Question

Question as a result of a daft alcohol induced query.

1) How many journal-published papers did you produce directly from your Ph.D. data total (not including work done post-Ph.D / D.Phil)?

2) In how many of these papers were you first or more importantly corresponding author (again not including work done post-Ph.D / D.Phil)? Perhaps a better way to ask is with how many of these papers did you actually do the donkey work and wrote the paper?

As far as I've been able to make out, most Ph.D. graduates finish with one journal paper, their primary or secondary supervisor being the first or corresponding author.

Answer 1

I produced 2 but I was lazy and should have done another. In one I was just in alphabetical order and in the other I put it through under my own name as I had left the Mech Eng dept and was doing a post doc in the chemistry dept (although I still hadn't been awarded my PhD). What you say looks about right to me.

Answer 2

1) Two journal papers in Elsevier journals (and about 10 conference papers)

2) Corresponding author of the other one (the second one), I did the basic donkey work and writing of both of them, but the supervisor was first&corresponding author in the first one.

Answer 3

Two papers as first author. Desperately trying to squeeze out a third. It depends heavily on the field though, as I know some people who have managed four or five.

Answer 4

(Apologies or being a naughty boy and adding a comment under a slightly different identity BTW.)

The answers above are pretty much a I expected. Of the people I know of, it's coming out as the Ph.D. plus possibly one or two papers. Of people I know about:

1. One lad did the donkey work and his name didn't even appear on the paper - only his supervisors name appeared on it. Supervisor did him good and proper (poor lad).

2. Someone else had a paper done by their supervisor after they'd finished their Ph.D. and long since gone (essentially they'd done the donkey work again and the supervisor put their name in first - but they did get named).

3. Of my own colleagues, the tendency has been not to get a journal paper out (including my two direct predecessors), but two or three conference papers and a few posters.

4. Another lad was listed as a second author on a paper after he finished when one of the other research staff inherited his data and decided to write it.

5. On another forum, one lad has said one paper but ten very drunken conference proceedings.

--------

During the actual period of my own Ph.D., three papers were put out with me as second author and one of these was so badly written (with data used that shouldn't have been used - errors on the part of my supervisor and one of his researchers were unintentional but avoidable), that I felt I had to reassess it and put the record straight. I was also asked by my external examiner to ensure plenty papers resulted from my work.

As a result of this, I ended up with three further papers as first author before the combined errors of both my supervisor and senior researcher were fully cleared up (I guess I got a little too mad at them). I also made very sure one of my two predecessors was listed as a second author on each of these three latter papers as he helped me one hell of a lot during the early stages of the Ph.D. and I felt I owed it to him for all his efforts (he was dyslexic and him getting his own Ph.D. was one hec of an achievement - then he helped me out too - thanks for all the beer lad!!!). Four conference papers (two by myself and two by my supervisor) also came out of this.

I know the above makes me seem sad, but if this is compared with one person I'm aware of, she has managed at least 12 first authorships and 4 secondary authorships. Admittedly, a good many of these have been done after the finish of her Ph.D., with some done from her post-doc work. However, her total may be a lot higher, as she has one hec of a work ethic (workaholic???). These figures don't even include conference proceedings.

Elsewhere, places in the States demand three papers before you can submit the final thesis and with five year Ph.D.'s instead of three years over there, there's the scope for a lot more.

To me, the point of the exercise was to see what extra work in addition to the Ph.D. thesis people did and it seems (from answers here and elsewhere) that the general gist is to just get through it with the minimum necessary (i.e. thesis, one to three papers, with possibly one or two as first author, probably three to five conference proceedings and a few posters) due to the amount of effort that has to be put into the darn things. That probably would have been my whack had I not got narked with one of the papers written by my supervisor and one of the senior researchers - to be fair, they were really good to me overall.

Looking back, I do wonder if all the work was worth it, as it's only a good (career) move if you're after an academic career. In the outside world, it doesn't seem to really help and as I'm finding, for some jobs it's a hinderance. The whole exercise gave me a big boost in self-confidence, but that's it. A Ph.D. is something you only really do for yourself and your own self worth.

Perhaps this will help other people thinking about doing a doctorate when they hear about the extra work they have to do in addition to the thesis and the final viva (oral exam). Unless you have it laid down in black and white, the thesis, one or two papers (probably done with you as a second author) and a few conferences (with inevitable drinking) will get you there. That said, it's still darn hard work (also making sure you get named and your supervisor doesn't claim all credit like in point 1 above helps).

Apologies for the long winded answer.

Answer 5

Basically a big fat zero. However, the damn thing was published as a book. I don't think anyone read it but my mum though.