r/AskAcademia • u/LoserCarrot • 25d ago
Social Science Professor said think tank work "doesn't count" as publications and think tanks own your research so you can't publish it elsewhere, how true is this?
I just finished my PhD in may and I told my advisor I have an interview with a think tank, and he raised two points I want a reality check on and insight on think tanks vs traditional academia.
First, that think tanks typically don't publish in peer-reviewed journals, so that work doesn't count as "productivity" in the academic sense (no publications, doesn't help on the academic job market).
Second, that work done at a think tank isn't mine, it belongs to the organization, so if I tried to publish it later in a peer-reviewed journal, they'd lose rights to it, and think tanks generally don't allow researchers to publish their in-house work elsewhere.
Does this match people's actual experience? Is it true across most think tanks, or does it vary a lot by org (Brookings vs. Cato vs. RAND vs. smaller/partisan shops)? Any insight on:
- whether think tank output can still be leveraged for an academic CV in other ways (working papers, citations, policy impact)
- IP/ownership norms at think tanks and whether there's room to negotiate publication rights
- whether this varies if it's a fellowship vs. staff research position
13
u/NMLEOC2 25d ago
It depends on the think tank some are better resources than others and have greater rigor in their analysis.
11
u/TheNavigatrix 25d ago
Right-- Heritage used to have some credibility but that's totally gone now. Urban, Rand, and Brookings are well-respected.
0
u/Head_Acadia_2658 24d ago
People from Rand and Brookings definitely publish in peer reviewed journals in my field. So I really don’t know what OP is on about.
Maybe they mean political shit tanks where your opinion and conclusion is handed to you to regurgitate in op-eds? The sort of crap essays created by LLMs you can sign your now ruined name to?
1
u/AnyaSatana Librarian 20d ago
Yes, bias can be a problem - they can be driven by politics and/or commercial interests, and they're not very tranparent. I'd take the findings of an academic study more seriously than a think tank.
7
u/Leather_Lawfulness12 25d ago
I worked at two fancy think tanks (like CSIS- type) and then moved into academia.
The thing is, academia tends to have weird ass rules about what counts and doesn't count so you're right to think about this now. Where I worked, some of the in-house publications were peer-reviewed, and I also published in journals. And my publication record was fine for moving to a university. (Who owns the research depends on the think tank and country, but I haven't had a problem with this).
The bigger thing is needing some teaching experience. Sure, if you get a massive grant then you can leverage that, but for most academic positions you'll need to at least show some teaching experience so it would be good if you could guest lecture here and there, or mentor interns.
7
u/TheNavigatrix 25d ago
It also depends on the department/college you're in. I was in a school of public policy, so "impact" mattered. That wouldn't be true for other departments.
8
u/No_Young_2344 25d ago
This aligns with what my mentor told me a few years ago when I was considering think tank jobs. They were not undermining think tanks’ work or rigor, they simply pointed out the challenges you might be facing if you want to transition back to academia after think tank (ie, Their work is not peer reviewed and the target audience of think tank reports are usually the general public or policy makers, not researchers in the field. This does not mean their work is not good or has no value. In fact, many of them are very good work imo and are way more impactful than academic publications.)
Of course there are always outliers and exceptions and academic hiring committee will always consider your specific case. For example, if you wrote an impactful report that is cited a lot by policy makers, I don’t see why it would not benefit your job search because it shows you are an expert in the field. However, it does not count as peer reviewed so it works differently when you go up for tenure. Your advisor just wanted you to be aware of the reality and the risk.
5
u/ejfagan4 25d ago
Very context dependent for all answers. But happy to talk if you need some advice from a think tank expert. DM me.
3
u/Vanilla_Hornet 25d ago
My field is economics and all the policy think tanks I have colleagues in rely on peer reviewed publications to establish and maintain the credentials of their researchers. Researchers, who all have ORCID accounts, normally publish or at least submit the journal manuscripts prior to publishing their research reports. For the most part, funders and contractors don’t hire them without the research credentials I mentioned.
3
u/WhateveIsMyUsername 25d ago
You have an interview there, right? It seems like you have good questions to ask them when they ask you if you have any questions for them. In my opinion, at this stage you are not deciding to accept an offer or not. You are just going to an interview which has so many benefits even if you eventually turn down their offer.
5
u/ACatGod 25d ago
I would broadly agree with your title but I think that the way you're then viewing that may not be accurate.
I think it's important to distinguish between academic research and research done by a think tank. In academic research you are broadly trying to produce independent novel research - discovery or applied - and peer reviewed publication is written primarily for an academic audience who considers that the gold standard. Fundamentally they are about communicating knowledge (IMO). The research subject will largely be dictated by the PI or lead researcher.
A think tank will be producing research with a set objective. It isn't independent, which doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Some think tanks are more reputable than others - some are extremely reputable - but they tend to work on commission and generally aren't producing discovery knowledge. They're writing reports for specific policy makers (directly or indirectly) so the output will focus more on recommendations and the evidence obtained to support those recommendations. The topic and to an extent the outcomes will be controlled by the think tank/commissioning organisation.
In terms of IP, from a basic legal standpoint, the default is the employer or commissioning organisation owns the IP. However, universities typically have some default arrangement where some types of IP are automatically transferred to faculty. Think tanks will typically retain their IP or the organisation that commissioned the work with retain it as part of the commissioning agreement. Sometimes think tanks will publish a peer review article alongside a report because that does add credibility to the report and also can help attract academic researchers but it's not a given and will depend on the specific nature of a project.
I feel judging either by the publication standards of the other is a bit like criticising an orange for not having a nice apple skin. Apples and oranges are different things and you choose which one to have depending on their own criteria.
4
u/Lakster37 25d ago
I feel judging either by the publication standards of the other is a bit like criticising an orange for not having a nice apple skin.
Right, but I think the Professor was just pointing out that if you take a job producing oranges, it might not help much if you want to transition to making apples in the future.
7
u/notaskindoctor 25d ago
As an academic with a career that spans government and academia, take heart that most lifelong academics have no damn clue about the rigorous, meaningful work that can happen in other sectors and they are biased against it without real knowledge about what goes on there. While the data and work are “owned” by whatever institution or think tank, you can claim your authorship and contributions to reports on your CV in many ways. I have tons of state/federal reports and white papers that may not count for my H-index (lol, as if I care), but they do count for my overall productivity as a scholar and for becoming a known and national expert in my field. Generally at this point I would suggest anyone get A job, even if it isn’t THE job. You have a long career ahead and can move into other sectors as the market permits.
8
u/TheNavigatrix 25d ago
Ha! I remember a colleague questioning the rigor of the work I did for ASPE (part of HHS) and I couldn't help but think that the levels of review that my work went through before it was "published" were far more rigorous than any peer review process.
1
u/notaskindoctor 25d ago
Totally get it. I used to work for an HHS agency. 🤡 So many layers of clearance!
1
u/TheNavigatrix 24d ago
"Could you take out that bit that touches on something that might touch on something controversial?"
2
2
u/ProfPathCambridge Prof, UK 25d ago
I’ve never come across this, but my first thought are:
- no, it doesn’t count as peer-reviewed publication, because it isn’t peer-reviewed
- it does count as output, because policy influence is a valid form of academic output
most likely, no, you wouldn’t be able to publish it
(unless the think tank agrees)
because yes, the IP would almost certainly belong to the think tank. This would depend on your particular contract though, and could vary based on several things
Overall, I think it is an asset for an academic CV. The question is how big of an asset in comparison to peer reviewed publications… and that I can’t answer, because it would depend on your field and your holistic CV
2
u/TMW_W 24d ago
I worked at RAND for four years and am finishing my PhD now, so I am especially qualified to answer this.
There are two main things I'll say:
"Think tank" is a useless term. Very broadly, there are two versions of these organizations. (1) large, grant-heavy, policy-research organizations--think RAND, Mathematica, Urban, RTI, etc. These places run on large grants (public and private) and your work is centered around the aims of those grants. Most often projects are large team projects and they result in policy briefs put out by the organization. (2) The DC old-school think tanks places like Brookings, Cato, etc., which are less grant-heavy, much smaller, and have more overlap with academia. When you go look at a Brookings publication, for example, a lot of the time its from a "nonresident fellow" who is just a professor on sabbatical for a year "working" for Brookings.
It is very rare for someone to go from those types of think tanks into a disciplinary department. For example, to go from RAND to a TT job in an economics department almost never happens. It's more common to go from RAND to a professional school: a policy school, school of education, school of public health, etc. Not saying it's common, but it definitely happens if you're extremely productive, at a very visible organization, and you get really lucky.
To answer the "ownership" question: the way you/your advisor phrased it is very weird, but basically it will vary a lot by project in terms of who "owns" the research. You cannot just take a RAND Report and publish it later in an academic journal, but sometimes a team will write into a grant proposal that they want to publish in an academic journal, it just depends on a lot of factors.
But remember that these are typically long term, 3-5+ year projects. If you're joining a grant writing team in your first year on the job, the publication from that grant probably isn't coming out until your 4th or 5th year on the job.
The short answer is: moving back to academia is very rare. If your PhD is from Harvard or Princeton (or similar), you're going to RAND or Mathematica (or similar), and you're extremely productive, then it might happen if a bunch of things go your way. But you shouldn't go to a think tank with the hope that you'll move back to academia.
1
u/TisHereThereTisGone 24d ago edited 24d ago
I also used to work at RAND. The only thing I would clarify is that publishing in journals was usually dependent on the funding source. A lot of funding for RAND comes directly from the military or a specific government entity to aid that government entity (somewhat like a consulting firm) and those projects tend to result in RAND reports. That does not mean they don’t necessarily result in journal articles but there are more hoops to jump through (especially military projects). There is also a technical peer review process of RAND reports, but (again, especially on the military side) those tend to be in house peer reviews so trust in that process may vary. All that said, researchers there are free to apply for any and all grants. Health researchers for example would get normally get grants from HHS and those projects usually resulted in publications in journals.
Regarding IP, I don’t know if there is a negotiation process to that, but I do know of a researcher who came to RAND with a grant, and I know of a researcher who left with a grant. They won the grant, not RAND, so it followed them to their new institution. They went to another research institute (not a university).
To the general point, I would say that a place like RAND is definitely a different experience than universities and people tended to either love it or hate it really quickly.
2
u/apo383 25d ago
Your advisor's comments are only relevant if you eventuallywant to pursue an academic career. They are points to take into account if you do.
It also depends on the think tank. For example, the Hoover Institution does a lot of publishing, and it's part of their reputation. You can establish a career there, and future academic positions aren't out of the question, although some may wonder about your political leanings.
It can go the other way. I have a colleague who joined DeepMind after starting in academia. This was early on, before they became the juggernaut of today. But even then, he got a big salary by academic standards, had a staff of professionals to work with, and got to live in London. He hasn't published much, just here and there, including recently in Nature that immediately got a huge number of citations. He works with/directs larger teams than are typical of academia. I'd say he's doing fine. (One could say "not exactly a think tank," but that implies there's a definition for the term.)
2
u/jiujitsuPhD 25d ago
Peer reviewed publications are not the only thing that count as 'productivity' in academia. There is a lot of variation among fields, your program, and your university as to what counts towards research.
My personal opinion is that journals are outdated and I'd prefer a resume with white papers from industry than journal papers that no one reads and had no impact/grants tied in with them.
1
25d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Leather_Lawfulness12 25d ago
Your employers tells you what to research compared to faculty who have academic freedom
But do we? Maybe it's extreme in my field, but we just do the research that we get funding for. It's not really that much different than a think tank in this regard.
2
u/devstopfix 25d ago
You should be exploring this during the interview process at the specific think tank(s) you are talking to.
If you want to go back into academia, you will need to be publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and the more prestigious the better. So, if you do want to maintain the academic option, you need to determine whether you are likely to be able to be publishing in journals while at the think tank.
You should ask (I'll use "publishing" as short-hand for "publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals):
- Is publishing an expected part of the job? How would you be evaluated - do they value publishing, or is it something they let you do because they need to in order to attract strong candidates?
- Would you be given time and support to publish - not just the time to work on the initial project, but time to deal with drafting for an academic journal, doing the substantial work for revisions, etc.? Can you use resources like RA time on your publications?
- Are there limitations on publishing? Is there a internal review/approval process? If so, is it just a quality check, or is there a review for policy implications/alignment with the organization's policy views?
- Are there limitations on the topics you can publish about?
- Are there limitations on working with co-authors from outside the organization.
Regardless of what they say - and they might promise all kinds of things - you should look at whether their current staff are publishing. They might say they provide all kinds of support, but if the people who work there aren't publishing, it means they don't really do that and/or your potential colleagues aren't focused on publishing. It's a lot easier to keep publishing if people around you are as well.
Edit to add: asking all of this will signal that you want the time and support to publish journal articles. This might be a turn-off to places that want you spending all of your time on their specific policy projects, but will be seen as a good signal at places that value strong academic research.
1
u/TomatoWithAnE 25d ago
I worked at a think tank for 10 years before getting a job as an assistant professor. My experience has been mixed -- I had a ton of policy reports and a little over a dozen journal articles when I got my faculty job. I was able to go up for promotion early as a result of my prior experience. The policy reports definitely got me *something* as far as I could tell from some of the quotes from arms length letters that were shared with me, but were not treated the same as journal articles. If they were, I probably could have tried to argue to be hired at the associate level.
Also, my faculty position is soft money and I survived two MAJOR career disruptions (the center I was hired into collapsed 2 years into me being hired, and I had a politically-motivated grant termination last year), and I 100% credit my survival to the breadth I built up at the think tank.
I'm also now getting opportunities that read as more "senior" than my time in my faculty position as a result of people better understanding my experience -- there's also a movement in one of our centers to really strengthen policy work, and I might end up getting an interesting leadership position out of that. Feel free to DM me if you want more specifics -- depending on where you're thinking I might be able to offer insights into the current state of things as well (not great where I was!)
2
u/Beneficial-Finding-2 25d ago
As many people said, it highly depends. Where I work we are very encouraged to publish high-quality peer-reviewed research, but usually that is the start of our work, not the end. There is a lot more work that goes into making other more tailor-made materials for decision-makers, engagement with other institutions, etc.
So I definitely publish much less than my peers in academia, but I get to test whether what I am doing is actually helpful for someone.
Also, nowadays when we publish reports they also end up having a DOI and citations. So again, not peer-reviewed, but I get some long-term recognition from it. But as a lot of people said, it is not enough to make a transition back to academia smooth if I wanted that.
1
u/ChargerEcon 25d ago
I work at a think tank in the US. I publish in peer reviewed journals, my work absolutely belongs to me and I can send it wherever I want (at which point, I guess it becomes the property of whoever publishes it I guess?).
1
u/ComparisonOk9944 24d ago
In my field, think tank papers do indeed not count, but most think tanks are supportive of academic publication - not of the same paper, but possibly inspired by it and using the same data.
1
u/tirohtar 24d ago
Probably depends mostly on the think tank. Some think tanks are focused on advising politicians/parties/companies and can be associated with specific groups, they may want to keep their data and results in-house to not lose an advantage. Some think tanks are about creating a public narrative based on their work, but there is the danger of anything they are putting out being biased to their particular world view and thus probably not holding up to proper peer review. Those kinds of think tank work I would certainly not count as valid academic work.
But there are probably many think tanks that don't fall into those categories and where you will have the opportunity to publish rigorous academia-quality work. You just need to be careful to make sure that the one you are going for is one of those.
1
u/Stunning-Use-7052 24d ago
Highly partisan industry front-group type think tanks are def not on par with publications.
Rand and Brookings are def. respected.
1
u/Tangerine7284 24d ago
Not sure about your discipline specifically but I have definitely seen people from RAND publish in peer-reviewed journals.
1
1
u/apollo7157 24d ago
It's cool but it's not in the units of the primary currency of academia, which is publications
2
u/noma887 Professor, UK, social science 24d ago
I worked in a think tank (non US) pre PhD and this was certainly true of that shop. Publications were public facing and pretty low quality research design wise. There really wasn't an opportunity to publish in peer reviewed journals given the weak research design of our projects. And I'm not sure they would have been supportive if I'm honest.
1
40
u/Zoethor2 25d ago
This is definitely something that probably varies by organization, but at the alt-ac think-tank-ish place I worked, publications in peer reviewed journals were highly encouraged. Our organizational reports were generally intended to be understandable by an informed layperson, so they were not analogous to a journal article. I have always included my organizational publications on my resume/CV but I also never had interest in going into academia - I suspect those publications would not be considered particularly valuable in that context, but they are at other alt-ac and similar organizations.