These slides shows some of the results from a bibliometric analysis about the scientific production of Canadian postdocs, presented on the Science and Technology Indicators conference in Leiden, Netherlands, 2014.

1. 30 avril 2014
The contribution of the
postdoctoral fellows to the
advancement of knowledge
Held Barbosa de Souza
held.bsouza@gmail.com
Vincent Larivière
vincent.lariviere@umontreal.ca
École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information
Faculté des arts et des sciences
Université de Montréal
This work was supported by the Observatoire des sciences et des technologies
and the Canada Research Chair Program
1

2. The postdoctoral fellows
✤
Young researchers recently graduated
✤
Seek a position in academia (80% in Canada)
✤
overpopulation of postdocs in some fields (Nerad and Cerny
1999; Jones 2013)
✤
more competition
✤
longer period in transitional positions
✤
9 000 postdocs in Canada in 2012 (Mitchell et al 2013)
✤
That is probably an underestimation, as the status of postdocs is
relatively unclear in Canada
2

3. Computer Science :
overpopulation of postdocs or PhDs?
Source : Jones 2013
Postdocs
Tenure-track
faculty
3

4. Postdoctoral system issues
✤
Bad employment conditions (Mitchell 2013; Åkerlind 2005; NIH 2012)
✤
Governmental postdoctoral scholarships in Canada have a lower
amount than doctoral scholarships
✤
Lack of systematization for the management of profiles (AAU 1998;
2005)
Status unclear - students or researchers? (AAU 1998; 2005)
✤ ✤
Overpopulation
4

5. Impact in the media 1/2
Source: Radio-Canada
5

6. Impact in the media 2/2
6
Source: Washington Post

7. Important facts about postdocs
They have more chances to be placed in prestigious institutions
(Hornbostel et al. 2009; Su 2011)
✤
✤
Young researchers are in the period of their life of more creativity
(Simonton, 1977)
✤
Engaged full time in research
✤
Main purpose is to contribute to research
7

8. Postdoctoral scholarships
in Canada
✤ Federal gouvernment: 81,000$CAN for two years
✤ Provincial government (Quebec): 60,000$CAN for two years
✤ Very low success rate…
✤ Contrary to doctoral scholarships on which students do not
pay taxes, postdoc scholarships are imposed.
✤ So the net effect is that PhD students earn more more
money than Postdocs!
8

9. The aim of the study
✤ Despite their importance in the research system, their overall
contribution to the knowledge produced in Canada stays
unkown.
✤ What proportion of papers to they account for?
✤ What is the scientific impact of their papers?
✤ Do “productive”postdocs remain more active after their
postdoc period?
9

10. Methodology
10

11. Population and
publication window
✤
Postdocs granted by the Canadian and Quebec provincial
government, between 2004 and 2008
- N = 3 454 postdocs
Two publication windows:
✤
Indicators:
Number of publications
Average of relative citations (ARC)
11
6 years
25 027 papers
postdoc
period
(3 years)
11 327 papers

12. 12
Postdoc list constitution

13. 13
Match between postdocs names and bibliographic database

14. Results
14

15. Productivity
15
Average annual number of papers of postdocs during their fellowship
(competition year plus two years), and by faculty members and PhD
students from Québec, 2000-2007

16. Average of relative citations
16
Average of relative citations (ARC) of papers published by postdocs
during their fellowship program (competition year plus two years), and
by faculty members and PhD students from Québec, 2000-2007

17. Evolution of scientific
productivity and impact (1/3)
17
Health programs

18. 18
Evolution of scientific
productivity and impact (2/3)
Natural Sciences and Engineering programs

19. 19
Evolution of scientific
productivity and impact (3/3)
Social Sciences and Humanities programs

20. Conclusion (1/2)
✤
Postdocs have higher productivity and scientific impact than
established researchers
✤
The evolution of the indicators during the 6-year period studied shows
little change, except for CIHR and SSHRC (impact)
Because of the lack of standardised information on postdocs in
universities,we could only analyse data for a small proportion of
Canadian postdocs – those who have had direct governmental
✤
funding.
20

21. Conclusion (2/2)
✤ Population of postdocs with scholarships - represents the elite
of the whole group
✤ Could explain the high score obtained
✤ Results can not be generalized
✤ First step towards understanding the contribution of
postdoctoral fellows to the advancement of knowledge in the
country.
✤ Could inform policies aimed at a better (financial) support for
postdocs
21

22. Bibliography
Braun D. 2014. Faire de longues études pour mal gagner sa vie. Radio-
Canada, 7 mars 2014. < http://ici.radio-canada.
ca/nouvelles/societe/2014/03/07/004-postdoctorants-canadiens-difficultes.
shtml >.
Brian V. 2012. U.S. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren’t there. The
Washington Post, July 7, 2012.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-pushes-for-more-scientists-
but-the-jobs-arent-there/2012/07/07/gJQAZJpQUW_story.html>.
Gingras Y, Larivière V, Macaluso B, Robitaille J-P. 2008. The effects of aging
on researchers publication and citation patterns. Plos One 3, no 12 : e4048.
Hornbostel S, Böhmer S, Klingsporn B, Neufeld J, Von Ins M. 2009. Funding of
young scientist and scientific excellence. Scientometrics 79, no 1 : 171–190.
22

23. Bibliography
Jones A. 2013. The explosive growth of postdocs in Computer science.
Comunications of the ACM 56, no 2 : 37-39.
Larivière V. 2010. A bibliometric analysis of Quebec’s PhD students’
contribution to the advancement of knowledge. Montreal : School of
Information Studies, McGill University.
Mitchell JS, Walker VE, Annan RB, Corkery TC, Goel N, Harvey L, Kent DG,
Peters J, Vilches SL. 2013. The 2013 Canadian Postdoc Survey: Painting a
Picture of Canadian Postdoctoral Scholars. Canadian Association of
Postdoctoral Scholars and Mitacs.
Simonton DK. 1997. A predictive and explanatory model of career
trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review 104, no 1 : 251–267.
Su, X. 2011. Postdoctoral training, departmental prestige and scientists'
research productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer 36 : 275-291.
23