, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 485–495 | Cite as

Careers in science: policy issues according to Nature and Science editorials

  • Cathelijn J. F. Waaijer


This study analyzes the editorials in Science and Nature published between 2000 and 2012 about careers in science. Of the total body of documents, 8.8 % dealt with science careers. The editorials were manually classified by topics and then mapped using the VOSviewer. This revealed six easily distinguishable clusters: career conditions in science, the attractiveness of science as a career, merit-based career policies, the effect of research funding on careers, specific groups underrepresented in science, and mobility of scientists. The paper summarizes the main thrust of the arguments in these editorials. There is strong agreement about the problems in scientific careers, but less consensus on the solutions to these problems. The paper also explores whether mapping on the basis of automatically identified terms could have provided adequate results, but concludes that manual classification is needed.


Academic careers Scientific careers Classification Bibliometric mapping Editorials 

JEL classification

J21 J23 J24 J60 J70 



For their help with various aspects of the preparation of the manuscript I would like to thank several CWTS colleagues: Cornelis A. van Bochove, Martijn S. Visser, Bert J. van der Wurff, Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, Inge C. M. van der Weijden, and Paul Wouters.

Supplementary material

11192_2013_958_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 23 kb)


  1. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(8), 3157–3162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Commission of the European communities (2003). Researchers in the European Research Area. One Profession, Multiple Careers.Google Scholar
  3. Jonkers, K. (2011). Mobility, productivity, gender and career development of Argentinean life scientists. Research Evaluation, 20(5), 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kaminski, D., & Geisler, C. (2012). Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention in Science and Engineering by Gender. Science, 335(6070), 864–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kreckel, R., Burkhardt, A., Lenhardt, G., Pasternack, P., & Stock, M. (2008). Zwischen Promotion und Professur: das wissenschaftliche Personal in Deutschland im Vergleich mit Frankreich, Großbritannien, USA, Schweden, den Niederlanden, Österreich und der Schweiz. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
  6. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1999). Sociology of science—Are the foreign born a source of strength for US science? Science, 285(5431), 1213–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. National Research Council (2005). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investigators in biomedical research. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  8. Rice, C. (2012). Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried. The Guardian Higher Education Network. London: Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved June 1, 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Schiermeier, Q. (2004). Germany’s junior professors fight for their rights. Nature, 431(7011), 889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Timmers, T. M., Willemsen, T. M., & Tijdens, K. G. (2010). Gender diversity policies in universities: a multi-perspective framework of policy measures. Higher Education, 59(6), 719–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. van Balen, B., & van den Besselaar, P. (2007). Universitaire onderzoeksloopbanen: een verkenning van problemen en oplossingen. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.Google Scholar
  12. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Newsletter, 7(3), 50–54.Google Scholar
  15. van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2405–2416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Waaijer, C. J. F., van Bochove, C. A., & van Eck, N. J. (2010). Journal Editorials give indication of driving science issues. Nature, 463(7278), 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Waaijer, C. J. F., van Bochove, C. A., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). On the map: Nature and Science editorials. Scientometrics, 86(1), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zimmer, C. (2012). A sharp rise in retractions prompts calls for reform. New York Times. New York City: The New York Times Company. Retrieved June 1, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science and Technology StudiesLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations