The Goal of a PhD Program is Not to Write and Publish Research Papers
Often, I hear people say that the objective of a PhD student should be to publish research papers. In my mind, the publishing of research papers does not need to be the goal of a PhD student.
Instead, I believe that the most important goal of a PhD student should be to learn how to do research.
Naturally, as a PhD student learns how to do research and matures as a researcher, a common side-effect and part of the journey will be the publication of research papers. But, again, I do not believe that the publishing of research papers needs to be the goal of a PhD student.
Of course, for some post-PhD careers, publishing research papers may be critical — a topic I return to at the end of this post. Still, even for PhD students interested in such careers, I suggest that the most important part of the PhD program is to grow as a researcher, which includes embracing the full “research journey”, including both “successes” and “failures” with respect to publications; how many papers one publishes should not be viewed as the primary metric of success.
On why it is valuable to focus on one’s growth as a researcher rather than on publications.
I find the above framing to be valuable because it focuses on the journey — the learning of research processes — rather than on any specific destination, like the publishing of papers.
The research journey can be long and complicated, and can have many “failures” along the way. For example, the first (and second and …) submissions of research papers are often rejected.
If one focuses on publishing research papers as the goal, it is easy to miss the incredibly valuable lessons and growth opportunities that can arise even when research efforts do not immediately (or ever) result in publications.
But don’t I need to publish three research papers before I graduate?
I have heard people say things like, “don’t I need to publish three research papers before I graduate with a PhD?”
I can see why one might say this! Often, we see PhD students publish three (or more) papers before they graduate and, hence, from an external perspective it might seem like three publications are the “requirement” for graduation.
I have a different perspective. My perspective is that, to mature as a researcher, one benefits from experiencing the “research cycle” multiple times, for multiple projects. Yes, oftentimes these complete research cycles result in publications, but when they do so, those publications are a side-effect of experiencing a complete research cycle, not the goal.
And, sometimes, there are things outside the PhD student’s control that might lead to a research project completing a “cycle” but, nevertheless, not resulting in a research publication. For example, sometimes research projects with strong research questions and methodologies lead to negative results, and negative results can be harder to publish. Other times, a different research group might be tackling the same problem and might publish more quickly. And, other times, despite having written a paper that is strong and that one strongly believes in, reviewers still reject it.
By experiencing the full research cycle multiple times, for multiple projects, a PhD student’s “research process toolkit” grows. And, if one experiences and learns to navigate challenges — like the inability to publish a paper or rejections that delay the publication of a paper — they grow even more as a researcher.
While I am not going to argue that all PhD students need to experience paper rejections or failures-to-publish before graduating, I discuss later in this article the benefits one might receive if they do experience such situations.
There are full research cycles and there are micro research cycles.
There are also micro research cycles that are important for PhD students to experience, and I imagine almost all PhD students encounter these micro cycles during their PhD.
For example, sometimes one discovers that their initial research directions aren’t working out and they need to rewind and reconsider their research questions or methods. Other times, one discovers that although they thought their initial research direction was interesting to them personally, as they dive deeper into it, they discover that it is less interesting than they thought and hence they are having a hard time motivating themselves to work on it. Other times, one discovers highly related prior work, which leads to a shift in research directions.
These micro cycles offer so many valuable growth opportunities for PhD students, too, as they grow their “research process toolkit”. I thus encourage PhD students to embrace the learning opportunities associated with them, even if it can be frustrating to encounter changes in paths and obstacles while in the moment.
Here, readers might also be interested in my posts on:
- “Unseen PhD Effort, “Failures,” and the Research Iceberg Analogy”
- “The PhD Process, Measuring Progress, Procrastination, and Unlocking the Next Research Step”
For those seeking academic positions: Preparing for future research and preparing to advise their own students.
There are so many wonderful and unique paths post-PhD. Academia is only one such path. Here, I offer some more thoughts for those seeking academic positions post-PhD. While I am not in industry or government research, I believe that the thoughts here are also applicable for those eventually obtaining senior research positions in industry, government, or elsewhere.
I have heard that venture capitalists like to fund startups run by CEOs who have experience failing in their companies because such CEOs have deeply learned and grown from such failures. Naturally, venture capitalists also look for CEOs who have learned from those failures and are positioned to succeed with their next venture. While I am not a venture capitalist and don’t know the startup scene, I can say that a similar argument holds in academia.
Researchers that have “failed” multiple times will have acquired experiences and insights and wisdom that will (1) help them better navigate future projects and, if they find themselves in an academic career, (2) help advise their own students as those students learn and grow from “failures”, like when projects lead to negative results, are scooped, are rejected, and so on.
Thus, to a PhD student who experiences such a setback or “failure”, while of course it can be frustrating, I also encourage them to know that they are also growing and becoming stronger as a researcher — and possible future mentor — through the experience, and that the experience has the potential to positively impact their future research career.
(As this post suggests, I dislike the term “failure” in the context of academia. I wrote more about “failure” in earlier blog posts — the same earlier blog posts that I link to above. )
What goes into the dissertation, then?
If one does publish three or more papers over the course of their PhD, then it is not uncommon to include elements of at least some of those papers in their dissertation. But, if they do not, there are still possibilities as long as the PhD student experienced the research cycle multiple times, for multiple projects. The exact approach varies depending on the reason for lacking three publications.
For example, if one of the projects did not lead to a publication because, after significant effort and the application of solid research methodology, the ultimate findings were negative and hence harder to publish, one can still include that research and the negative result in their dissertation. Other times, solid research work may not find a peer-reviewed home for many reasons (e.g., topic fit for different publication venues), and one can still include that research in their publications.
Of course, the PhD student (and at least their advisor) should reflect carefully upon the reasons for rejection, and then act upon those reflections. And, the PhD student and entire committee should evaluate the entire dissertation. Still, the peer-review process is not flawless, and sometimes solid research and research results are rejected for many reasons. Here are some example reasons why even solid and well-written research papers might be rejected:
- The work might be highly cross-disciplinary, without any publication venue seeing it as a good fit.
- The work might be too forward looking for some venues, which prefer to focus on present-day vs possible future-day problems.
- The work might have taken a significant amount of time between data collection and completion and, from the perspective of a peer-reviewed publication venue, might seem “out of date”, but from the perspective of a dissertation spanning multiple years of research, might still be a perfect fit.
- The work might represent solid, scientific research, but might be focused on a problem of particular interest to industry and of less interest to peer-reviewed academic publication venues.
It is important for the PhD student’s dissertation to reflect multiple “complete” research cycles. I envision most concrete instances of the above example bullets to be “complete” research cycles that simply did not result in the project finding a publication home. Naturally, a PhD student and their advisor should work together to determine what constitutes “completeness” in borderline cases, and the PhD student’s committee will also evaluate the dissertation as a whole.
Continuing the topic of “what goes into the dissertation”, one might also be interested in my post on the research mosaic analogy and the dissertation — essentially, how to view a dissertation as a piece of art formed from multiple individual projects (or tiles, continuing the mosaic art analogy).
There are different types of jobs post-PhD, and some do require publications.
In writing this post, I realize that the PhD journey is multi-faceted. There is “what do I need to do to earn a PhD?” And, there is “what do I need to do to get a job after I graduate?” These two questions are interrelated yet different. Moreover, there are many different types of jobs, and some jobs may place greater or lesser emphasis on the role of publications in their hiring decisions.
It is true that academic positions likely require multiple research publications. Thus, for PhD students seeking academic publications, the calculus may be somewhat different than what I describe here. But, (1) academic jobs are not the only job possibilities post-PhD. There are many other types of valuable, rewarding careers! And the foundations in research that one cultivates during a PhD can be immensely valuable for those positions. And, (2), even for people desiring jobs that require strong research publications from their job candidates, there is significant value in recognizing that a PhD is not just about publishing papers — it is also about developing the foundations for a strong research career. Embracing and learning from both “successes” and “failures” will contribute to enriching those foundations.
Summary.
I suggest that the PhD process should focus on developing the foundations for a career firmly rooted in research maturity, not on publishing. That career might be in academia, industry, government, civil society, or elsewhere. By focusing one’s PhD on fully learning and experiencing the research process — including “failures” like paper rejections — one can deepen their growth as a researcher and, simultaneously, realize that there are career-long, valuable lessons to learn throughout the entirety of the PhD process, including from the “successes” and the “failures”.
Moreover, by focusing on the research journey in all its dimensionality, including “success” and “failure”, and not on publications, the PhD process can become less emotionally challenging.
Acknowledgements.
I learned so much about the PhD process from my own advisor, Mihir Bellare. After obtaining a faculty position, I continued to develop my own philosophy on advising and the PhD process through the advising my own PhD students. Much of my thoughts on advising and the PhD process have also been shaped through the co-advising of PhD students with UW Security Lab co-director Franziska Roesner. Thank you to all the students and postdocs that I have advised, past and present!
