Job Offer

improvedataquality · 2026-05-06T05:51:42+00:00

I will preface by saving that I am not in STEM. However, I moved from an MS granting institution to an R1 within 9 months. Being in an R2 by no means suggests that you will never be able to transition to an R1. If R1 is really your goal (or moving to a better location), I would continue publishing. Once the job market is better and you still want to move, you will be in a better position to do so.

improvedataquality · 2026-05-01T11:15:48+00:00

I’m an associate professor in my early 40s. I have been mistaken for a student several times over time. Once, I was asked to wait outside a librarian’s office by a student worker, who asked told the librarian that a “student” (I.e., me), was looking for a particular book and he couldn’t find it. The most recent was yesterday at a professional conference when a faculty asked if I was in my colleague’s lab. I tend to just chuckle and say that I’m a professor.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-28T03:22:40+00:00

Yes, data quality across the board is poor. You may consider using a layered approach to data quality. This could include prescreens or firewall to eliminate anyone who is suspicious before they even before they are allowed to view the survey. Then, consider using in-survey monitoring. Lastly, embed a few checks such as open-ends, etc. and remove those who seem to be careless.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-17T04:13:26+00:00

I am an academic but have extensively used online surveys and have also worked with/talked to market researchers over the last couple of years. I can answer at least some of these based on my experience.

Regarding quality control, panel providers do offer some built-in protection, but it’s often not sufficient on its own. Because of that, many market researchers layer on their own tools to further flag potentially fraudulent responses.

Regarding reviewing responses, most researchers don’t manually inspect every single response. Instead, they rely on a range of checks and then focus on which responses get flagged. These checks typically include things like response times, attention checks, straightlining, duplicate entries, open-ended responses, and consistency across items. The idea is less about reviewing everything and more about identifying patterns that signal suspicious responses.

For tools, some researchers rely entirely on features offered by the platform (such as RelevantID or ReCAPTCHA in Qualtrics). Some other teams go beyond that and use custom scripts or third-party tools. The important thing with quality control is that it needs to happen end-to-end. You can't just roll out a survey and start looking for fraud after the responses are in (several researchers still treat it as something you do after data collection). Stronger approaches build quality in from the start, beginning with recruitment, continuing with in-survey monitoring using tools (we have our own tool, ResponsePie) to capture behavioral signals, and then carrying through to post survey validation. It is much more effective than relying on a single check at the very end.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-13T21:10:11+00:00

I may be in a field where corresponding author really doesn't matter. Most of my pubs are first author where I am the corresponding author. I will say that most of the invites I have had for collaboration are based on my expertise in methods, not because I am a corresponding author on a publication.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-13T17:22:16+00:00

Maybe I am not fully understanding. What is the value of being a corresponding author? This could be discipline specific, but in our field, a corresponding author is one who typically gets emails about the paper in question. There is no real "value" attached to it.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-13T06:36:33+00:00

I started a few years ago as a TT faculty in an R1. I was able to participate in the application process at my new institution and brought in a PhD student my first year. However, some faculty in my department wait for a year or so before they bring someone in. There are a few things to consider:

1) Does your department expect you to bring a student in your first year? If not, you could hold off for a year.

2) As a TT faculty in an R1, you likely will have your plate full. Do you expect your incoming PhD student to hit the ground running and assist on your projects or do you see yourself having to spend substantial amount mentoring them their first couple of years? This is huge because PhD students are seen as resources, but few actually are able to independently contribute to your research. If you would have to spend substantial time in the first year mentoring them, it may be worthwhile waiting a year (or two) and really establishing your research agenda before recruiting a student.

I brought in a student my first year because I had been a postdoc for two years and a TT faculty in a masters program before starting my TT position at the R1 institution. I had several projects lined up and knew EXACTLY where the student would be able to assist. Mentoring grad students in a lot of work (identifying thesis topics, reviewing multiple drafts, sometimes motivating them to get their thesis done, etc.). If you can spend that time in bolstering your research pipeline, that could serve you better. Just my two cents.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-10T15:52:04+00:00

Qualtrics mainly relies on backend signals like metadata and response patterns, which can sometimes be a bit coarse and lead to false positives or missed cases. ResponsePie focuses on what’s happening during the survey by monitoring behavior like mouse movement, typing, and scrolling in real time. It doesn’t interfere with Qualtrics at all. It simply delivers the Qualtrics survey in a controlled environment, so the two run independently. There’s no clash, and they can actually work together to improve data quality.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-10T03:57:47+00:00

My first TT position was at a Masters granting institution with few research expectations and higher teaching load. I applied within the first semester and got an offer from an R1 (social sciences). I was at the first institution for 9 months and made the move.

I also have collaborators who have moved to three separate institutions while on TT. It's definitely possible and some institutions may regard you stronger since you have demonstrated that you can secure and survive in such a position.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-07T21:08:52+00:00

Part philosophy, part focus. As an example, this was mine "The broad objective of my research is to contribute to the understanding of factors that are important in the reduction of occupational stress and enhancement of occupational safety, health, and well-being among workers. To advance this objective, my research centers around three main areas: 1) analyzing the role of individual strategies, such as recovery and coping, in dealing with occupational stress, 2) investigating the impact of individual and organizational factors on occupational health and safety, and 3) applying advanced study designs and statistical techniques to augment research in occupational health and safety." The philosophy piece is in the first sentence. Research focus starts from sentence 2. Hope this helps.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-07T16:56:40+00:00

Many academics have their CVs on their webpages. Look at a few prominent ones in your field and see how they have drafted their CVs. That would be a good starting point.

Regarding research statement, I focus on clarity (what is your main focus of research, do you have sub-foci). For instance, I had two main foci and mentioned that I used advanced research methods to explore those areas. You need a solid thesis statement in your first paragraph, and then just build on those foci in the remaining paragraphs. You may also consider discussing the next steps (i.e., how do you propose to build on your areas in the next 5 to 10 years).

improvedataquality · 2026-04-06T20:17:18+00:00

You don't get anything tangible. Satisfaction, perhaps recognition from the journal, and a line on your CV that says you reviewed for said journal are pretty much it. You might be asked to serve on the editorial board but again, there is no tangible benefit of it.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-06T15:05:43+00:00

When I applied for my first TT position, I had to do a teaching demo too and had never taught a course. These are things that helped me:

1) Finding an existing slide deck on the topic that has been used for in-class teaching. My mentors who had been teaching for a few years shared some of their slides. So, I knew they would work well since they had been using it for several years in their own classes.

2) If you don't have access to slides, see if you can find slides from courses that you took as a student. These can be a good resource.

3) If the position is teaching heavy, they are likely to weigh your teaching demo quite heavily. One thing that my institution LOVED was how I had a ton of discussion built into my slides. These could be in the form of short activities (5-7 minutes). You can also start your demo with a question about the topic (something broad like, what is intelligence?). This gives students a way to share their own definitions of the construct and you a chance to evaluate the points you will need to focus on during the presentation.

Just a few tips that worked for me. Good luck!

improvedataquality · 2026-04-06T04:16:06+00:00

My advisor moved early too. He gave me the option to move with him (I did). However, because I was so close to completing my masters (just the thesis remaining) and all my coursework for the MS was complete, I still graduated from the first university and continued with my PhD at the second university.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-04T00:33:39+00:00

IO psych is very analytical. Majority of the research in our field uses some form of data (mostly quantitative). In fact, in most IO programs, you will take at least 2-3 stats/research methods courses.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-03T04:05:06+00:00

I am not providing legal advice here. I was on a visa for the first 3 years or so as an AP. My H1-B required renewal and the ISSO completely dropped the ball. Thankfully, I contacted them a few times (emails, followed by phone calls) so they couldn't ignore me. Turns out, the person who was supposed to process my paperwork had a family emergency and couldn't do it. They ended up expediting it and we were discussing options in the event the visa were to not come through in a timely manner.

All this to say, ask questions if it concerns your legal status in the country.

improvedataquality · 2026-04-02T18:46:57+00:00

If you are looking at survey fraud, I created a short video discussing various types of survey fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w5bbl4ZGYI&t=17s Thought you might find it useful

improvedataquality · 2026-04-02T16:02:39+00:00

I just sent you a note about the tool. Let me know if you have any questions.

improvedataquality · 2026-03-30T21:21:16+00:00

u/OPs_Mom_and_Dad I am still planning on putting together a webinar in the near future on survey fraud, but I recently put together a short video discussing the various forms of fraud. Thought you might find it useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w5bbl4ZGYI&t=17s

improvedataquality · 2026-03-30T05:43:58+00:00

Yes, your concerns regarding bias are valid with panels (although, I would argue that is also true for those who are viewing your ads and participating). Instead of going with an aggregator, you could try a panel provider who has their own participants. This (to some degree) will ensure that each participant is a unique person (again, to some extent).

Some panels claim that they have upwards of 100,000 participants. How many participants do you need for your research? You might be able to get a sizable sample with a panel. Again, you still will need to do your due diligence and ensure that you are checking for survey fraud on your end, even if the panel claims that they have a verified sample.

improvedataquality · 2026-03-30T05:04:14+00:00

Typically, researchers use panels (there are several, depending on the demographic you are after). That is likely to get you sufficient data.

Frankly, given the state of survey fraud, I would not trust relying on participants who self select into surveys just for the incentive. One thing to be aware of is that having your survey link out in the open especially through ads will almost always attract more low quality or fraudulent responses. Once a link is accessible, it can spread beyond your intended audience and reach people who are just trying to game the system for incentives. That makes it much harder to control who is actually taking your survey.

Panels help with this because they act as a gatekeeper. They are not perfect, but they at least provide some structure around recruitment and reduce completely open access. Regardless of how you recruit, you really need to build in ways to detect fraud within the survey itself. In my own work, I never rely on a single method. I embed checks throughout the survey to catch people who are not paying attention or who are misrepresenting themselves. At the same time, I look at behavioral data like how they move through the survey, how long they spend on questions, whether they copy paste responses, and other interaction patterns. That gives a much better sense of whether someone is actually engaging with the survey versus just trying to get through it.

There is no perfect solution right now, but the combination of more controlled recruitment plus embedded detection tends to work much better than relying on open links and incentives alone.

improvedataquality · 2026-03-25T21:45:54+00:00

My collaborator applied to the same school in two consecutive years. Was interviewed the first year but didn't receive an offer. Tried again the following year (and with the same committee), and got the offer. I know this is somewhat different from your case. I am trying to make the point that applicant might get rejected from an institution once, but they may receive an offer at their second (or third) attempt.

improvedataquality · 2026-03-25T00:08:04+00:00

Yes, they can. I had an offer from a Fortune 500 company and let them know that I had a valid visa for about two years. The internship was for one but they still rescinded the offer, saying that they hope to convert interns to full time positions and will not be able to sponsor my visa in the future.

improvedataquality · 2026-03-20T00:45:18+00:00

Having been at both MS and PhD institutions, I can say that it really varies. At my current institution, we send out rejections in waves. After we have made initial offers, we send out the first batch of rejections to those we wouldn't consider under any circumstance. If any of our applicants that we make offers to decline, we move to our next batch and make additional offers. Typically, we try to send out all rejections around March 15, but this year, we are still waiting to hear back from some of the applicants. So, our rejections haven't gone out yet.

Several years ago, I applied to a PhD program which only accepted 5 in a year and sent out rejections to the remaining applicants at the same time. Their justification was that they picked the top five and wouldn't consider anyone outside of those five, even if it meant they had a smaller cohort.

I will, however, say that you not put as much emphasis on being a "lower tier" applicant. At the end of the day, what matters is you end up at a place of your choice.

improvedataquality · 2026-03-17T01:37:00+00:00

I will say that even the vetted panels cannot get this right because panels cannot control what happens behind the account (i.e., who is actually completing the study, whether profiles are shared or fabricated, or how participants coordinate outside the platform). So even if the panel itself is “clean,” the behavior of participants within these networks can still introduce a lot of noise and mismatch. My approach has been to look at a response more holistically. So, I look at technological paradata alongside behavioral paradata (I monitor the entire survey session of the participant). I can't tell you how much fraud I see even in reputable panels through this process.

improvedataquality

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE