"Going several years without a first-author paper is seen as a red flag in the academic job market. So what was I doing from 2017 to 2022? During those 'ghost years', it might have seemed to the outside world that I had disappeared from science, but I wasn't slacking off in the laboratory. I was discovering myself as a researcher, diving head first into my field of astrobiology, learning methods and developing research concepts."
"Last year's publications represent more than 40% of my first- and corresponding-author papers. By almost any measure, it was a wildly successful year. But I'm not here to brag. Rather, I want to point out that just because last year was prolific, it does not mean that the preceding years in which my research output was lower were not also successful."
An early-career researcher at Carnegie Science reflects on publishing seven first- or corresponding-author papers in 2025, representing over 40% of their career output. However, the author emphasizes that this prolific year should not overshadow the value of less productive periods. Between 2017 and 2022, the author published no lead-author papers—a gap typically viewed as detrimental in academia. During these 'ghost years,' significant invisible progress occurred: developing research skills, learning astrobiology methods, and conceptualizing projects that later became successful. While contributing as co-author on some manuscripts, many self-led projects experienced setbacks. The author argues that these foundational years were essential to becoming an effective scientist, despite appearing unproductive by traditional publication metrics.
#academic-publishing #early-career-researcher-development #publication-metrics-and-career-assessment #invisible-progress-in-science
Read at Nature
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]