Early Career Publishing strategies? (Keep publications to a minimum before tenure-track job?) I read that whatever you publish before beginning a tenure-track job does not count towards tenure, so it might be wise to wait with those publications until a tenure-track position is reached. (I read this in the book The Professor is In, by the way)

On the other hand, I would imagine that a tenure-track position is obtained quicker (or: at all), if one has publications, and to have more publications seems generally better than to have less publications (with some other assumptions here, regarding equal journal impact factor and so on)

What do people think? Is there a strategy which might make more sense than others? Does it make sense to hold back? Or not really?

edit:

Here is the quote I am referring to in the book, I hope it is ok to share this here:


  “Write your dissertation with an eye to the publications that it will
  become. As I have said, you need at least one refereed journal article
  while you are still ABD. At the same time, be aware that publications
  that date from before you accept your tenure track job do not
  typically count toward tenure. So the balance is delicate indeed. You
  must publish enough to get a job without prematurely exhausting the
  supply of material you will need for tenure. That is why I recommend
  writing a master’s thesis, which will give you material for a
  publication without cutting into your dissertation material.”


From: Kelsky, Karen. “The Professor Is in : The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.d. into a Job
I read that whatever you publish before beginning a tenure-track job does not count towards tenure,


The first part may be formally correct at some universities, but this restriction is impossible to enforce in practice.  Your reputation has a high-quality researcher doesn't depend on only your faculty publications; it depends on all your publications.  The people who write your tenure letters will write about your best work (in their opinion), regardless of when you published it.  Pretending that your pre-faculty publications simply don't exist would be stupid, even if it were possible.

A much more accurate statement is that your tenure case will focus on your publications since being hired as an assistant professor.  Faculty publications are more important, but that absolutely does not mean that pre-faculty publications don't matter at all.

(I am assuming a reasonable tenure process, where the committee actually makes a good-faith effort to assess the quality and impact of the candidate's research record, as opposed to merely counting CV bullets.  Sadly, some departments are stupid.)


  so it might be wise to wait with those publications until a tenure-track position is reached.


This is absolutely wrong.  Competition for tenure-track faculty positions is fierce—a typical tenure-track position, even at a mid-ranked department, attracts hundreds of applicants.  Submitting anything but the strongest possible application is foolish.

Candidates for tenure-track jobs are judged primarily by the quantity, quality, visibility, impact, and reputation of their research record.  All else being equal, applicants with more good publications are much more likely to be hired than applicants with fewer good publications, not only because they have longer CVs, but because they can attract stronger recommendation letters (because the references have more research to talk about).

Normally, of course, all else is never equal, but here I'm comparing your changes if you publish more versus your chances if you publish less.

In my experience*, getting a tenure-track faculty position is considerably more difficult than getting tenure.  Most PhDs do not get faculty positions; most assistant professors do get tenure.  Worry about getting the tenure-track faculty position first.

(*I'm a full professor at a highly-ranked American computer science department; I've written dozens of tenure letters and have many years of experience on hiring and tenure committees.)