bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/523621

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

Abstract

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

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

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

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗