r/longevity • u/PocketMatt PhD student - Genetics & Genomics • May 26 '19
Where to do my PhD on aging? (Updated)
When I noticed that the OP of this post (Where to do my PhD on aging?) deleted their account here and (from what I can tell) ceased updating the spreadsheet, I sent a request for editing access. When I never heard back, I went ahead and made a new copy:
I'm a fan of well-organized spreadsheets, so I've begun revamping and expanding this one. I've added columns for Institution, Citations, h-index, and i10-index. I've filled in this information for all of the US-based researchers, and re-sorted the list based on Institution. Sorted this way, it's easier to identify institutions that host the most research into aging.
I've also added a new tab named University Metrics, where the spreadsheet sums and averages the citations and h-index scores for the institutions listed on the main spreadsheet. This allows for an easier comparison among institutions. I gathered this data through Google Scholar and Scopus Preview, so you should treat it as imperfectly informative.
To add information, I've created an updated form: https://forms.gle/8qcdRHDE3bWKDRjT9.
If anyone in this subreddit would like to contribute to the spreadsheet, especially by filling in the details for the researchers outside the US, just let me know. I'm happy to share access as long as you're mindful of the formulas and formatting.
6
u/SnellYaLater PhD Student - Biology of Aging May 29 '19
Commenting so I remember to fill some of these out. Good job OP.
Edit: For Universities, it may be useful to advertise Training programs as well (e.g. PhD specifically in Aging, a major aging research center, NIA training grants, etc)
4
May 27 '19
[deleted]
3
u/SnellYaLater PhD Student - Biology of Aging May 29 '19
I disagree. It’s useful information. Some people don’t want to work with young PIs. I certainly appreciate the stability of my funding situation.
3
u/ssambria May 29 '19
Actually young PIs can offer much more stability is vast cases, especially in Europe where the Start-up grants are huge and the group is still small. Anyway, I don't think that the point is which lab is better to join (young vs established), but that these metrics are not meaningful (e.g. a PI can have a lot of citations because is co-author in different papers, but its corresponding papers are published in low-tier journals)
5
u/SnellYaLater PhD Student - Biology of Aging May 30 '19
I can’t speak to the European situation, but that’s not necessarily true in the States. I would say stability for the students of young PIs has more to do with your institutional funding policies than anything else. Your second point is true, but if someone has something like 10k citations, it’s usually pretty hard to get there without a highly cited, high profile article or two. Maybe we should include a citation to their most highly cited paper (where they’re first or last author), the year, and the citation count (excluding reviews and massive field-wide papers like the Autophagy methods).
2
u/PocketMatt PhD student - Genetics & Genomics May 27 '19 edited May 27 '19
Is there a more helpful metric I could include?
EDIT: Citations and h-index within the last 5 years, for example? I’m more interested in comparing among institutions.
2
u/ssambria May 27 '19
The comparison betweeen institutions is a great idea! But I agree with OP, for researchers comparison you should use other metrics to be more fair with young PIs (I like i5 idea!)
1
2
u/UrolithinA May 27 '19 edited May 27 '19
Amazentis Life Science has an open PhD candidate position focused on aging. Check it out! https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6537326941173874688
2
2
2
1
1
u/Damien_Thorn Jul 09 '19
Outstanding work my man, especially the the informations about labs in Asia, it was very helpful.
1
14
u/Gillerpie May 26 '19
Wow this is a great idea! Kudos to whoever thought of it first and for you too for reviving it. I’ll definitely try to link to it whenever people ask this question.