First postdoc as "the big filter": myth or fact? I am currently halfway through my first postdoc (a two-year position). I have a Ph.D. in physics, published 3 papers during it, and since this postdoc is in a slightly different field, I still haven't published anything.
I am moderately comfortable in my original field, meaning that if I work for some months on something, it will most likely render some sort of publication (usually in Journal of Physics A/B or Physical Review A). However, my current situation at work is very stressful. I have less freedom than I thought I'd have to work on my own ideas, and the research environment is very dull. I find myself working on problems that might be simply too hard, and perhaps I can't solve them.
I started to wonder what will happen if I turn out not publishing anything during these two years. When I was struggling in my Ph.D., thinking about dropping everything and becoming a monk, I heard from many experienced researchers that it was OK if my Ph.D. was crappy. That the Ph.D. is not the &quot;big filter&quot; in the life of a researcher... And that this is the function of the first postdoc. They told me this is a decisive moment because people will not hire you afterward if you do poorly. In your Ph.D., the fact that you're still more of a student than a researcher usually saves you some explanations, but for the first postdoc, the lack of publications looks really bad when applying to a follow-up position. This is naturally very simplistic (a postdoc might not publish anything simply because his/her research group is non-existent, the boss is crazy, family problems, etc). However, if I were myself on the board analyzing applications, I cannot promise I wouldn't consider the lack of publications as a red flag.
If this filter is true, it makes the situation of someone who just happened to be unlucky in his/her first postdoc quite depressing. Maybe they will have to give up academia and go to industry, even if they don't want to, just because no one accepts them. As I really don't want to move away from academic research, I'm starting to get very anxious about this topic...
Well then... Is my stress justified? Will I be able to find another postdoc after this one even if I don't publish?
Like many other things in academia, this depends.
Having an unproductive postdoc is a point that will definitely come up with any future hiring committee. I’ve sat on a few myself (CS departments) and productivity is considered at every period of your academic life. Of course, if a candidate had a stellar PhD it will make up for it to an extent, but it’s entirely possible that such a candidate will be passed over in favor of a candidate with a less impressive PhD but a more consistent performance overall.
Such “performance gaps” always raise questions - does this indicate an issue with working independently? Working in a group?
Another point to consider is reference letters. Your postdoc host is not likely to write you a glowing letter if you are unproductive, which will hurt your chances of landing a position later on.
That being said, research does not always result in publications. If you made progress on an important problem and have at least a preprint/workshop publication, this may be enough. Hence, your focus should be on productivity rather than on the end product.
A postdoc is also an excellent time to show your commitment to the research community. Organizing workshops, taking on higher-ranking roles in program committees, setting up tutorials, writing a useful blog... All excellent ways of putting yourself out there and making yourself more marketable. Of course - research should absolutely come first, as it is the main evaluation criterion.
Remember - you successfully completed your PhD, you can (at least according to empirical evidence) succeed in this as well! Good luck!