scholarly journals Assessing the Landscape of U.S. Postdoctoral Salaries

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodoniki Athanasiadou ◽  
Adriana Bankston ◽  
McKenzie Carlisle ◽  
Carrie Niziolek ◽  
Gary McDowell
Keyword(s):  
Public Institutions ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Private Institution ◽  
Postdoctoral Position ◽  
Job Titles ◽  
Job Title ◽  
Type Data ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
Reporting Data

AbstractPurposePostdocs make up a significant portion of the biomedical workforce. However, data about the postdoctoral position are generally scarce, including salary data. The purpose of this study was to request, obtain and interpret actual salaries, and the associated job titles, for postdocs at U.S. public institutions.MethodologyFreedom of Information Act Requests were submitted to U.S. public institutions estimated to have at least 300 postdocs according to the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Graduate Students and Postdocs. Salaries and job titles of postdoctoral employees as of December 1st, 2016 were requested.FindingsSalaries and job titles for over 13,000 postdocs at 52 public U.S. institutions and 1 private institution around the date of December 1st, 2016 were received, and individual postdoc names were also received for approximately 7,000 postdocs. This study shows evidence of gender-related salary discrepancies, a significant influence of job title description on postdoc salary, and a complex relationship between salaries and the level of institutional NIH funding.ValueThese results provide insights into the ability of institutions to collate actual payroll-type data related to their postdocs, highlighting difficulties faced in tracking, and reporting data on this population. Ultimately, these types of efforts, aimed at increasing transparency, may lead to improved tracking and support for postdocs at all U.S. institutions.

scholarly journals Assessing the landscape of US postdoctoral salaries

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodoniki Athanasiadou ◽  
Adriana Bankston ◽  
McKenzie Carlisle ◽  
Caroline A. Niziolek ◽  
Gary S. McDowell
Keyword(s):  
Geographic Region ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Pay Gap ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Postdoctoral Position ◽  
Job Titles ◽  
University Systems ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Job Title ◽  
Using Data

Purpose Postdocs make up a significant portion of the biomedical workforce. However, data about the postdoctoral position are generally scarce, and no systematic study of the landscape of individual postdoc salaries in the USA has previously been carried out. The purpose of this study was to assess actual salaries for postdocs using data gathered from US public institutions; determine how these salaries may vary with postdoc title, institutional funding and geographic region; and reflect on which institutional and federal policy measures may have the greatest impact on salaries nationally. Design/methodology/approach Freedom of Information Act Requests were submitted to US public universities or university systems containing campuses with at least 300 science, engineering and health postdocs, according to the 2015 National Science Foundation’s Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Salaries and job titles of postdocs as of December 1, 2016, were requested. Findings Salaries and job titles for nearly 14,000 postdocs at 52 US institutions around December 1, 2016, were received. Individual postdoc names were also received for approximately 7,000 postdocs, and departmental affiliations were received for 4,000 postdocs. This exploratory study shows evidence of a postdoc gender pay gap, a significant influence of job title on postdoc salary and a complex relationship between salaries and the level of institutional National Institutes of Health/NSF funding. Originality/value These results provide insights into the ability of institutions to collate and report out annualized salary data on their postdocs, highlighting difficulties faced in tracking and reporting data on this population by institutional administration. Ultimately, these types of efforts, aimed at increasing transparency regarding the postdoctoral position, may lead to improved support for postdocs at all US institutions and allow greater agency for postdocs making decisions based on financial concerns.

Presidential Privilege and the Freedom of Information Act

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Contemporary Politics ◽  
Government Secrecy

Executive privilege (EP) as a political tool has created a grey area of constitutional power between the legislative and executive branches. By focusing on the post-WWII political usage of executive privilege, this research utilizes a social learning perspective to examine the power dynamics between Congress and the president when it comes to government secrecy and public information. Social learning provides the framework to understand how the Cold War's creation of the modern American security state led to a paradigm shift in the executive branch. This shift altered the politics of the presidency and impacted relations with Congress through extensive use of EP and denial of congressional requests for information. When viewed through a social learning lens, the institutional politics surrounding the development of the Freedom of Information Act is intricately entwined with EP as a political power struggle of action-reaction between the executive and legislative branches. Using extensive archival research, this historical analysis examines the politics surrounding the modern use of executive privilege from Truman through Nixon as an action-reaction of checks on power from the president and Congress, where each learns and responds based on the others previous actions. The use of executive privilege led to the Freedom of Information Act showing how policy can serve as a congressional check on executive power, and how the politics surrounding this issue influence contemporary politics.

Early Experiences of Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act: a View from the Wales Office of the Information Commissioner

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jones
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Early Experiences

Anne Jones, Assistant Commissioner for Wales, reports on how the Act has been implemented in Wales, discusses some of the issues that have arisen as a result, and outlines the Information Commissioner's approach to its regulation.

scholarly journals Trends in orthopaedic antimicrobial prophylaxis in the UK between 2005 and 2011

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 495-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
RS Aujla ◽  
DJ Bryson ◽  
A Gulihar ◽  
GJ Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Uk

Introduction Antimicrobial prophylaxis remains the most powerful tool used to reduce infection rates in orthopaedics but the choice of antibiotic is complex. The aim of this study was to examine trends in antimicrobial prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery involving the insertion of metalwork between 2005 and 2011. Methods Two questionnaires (one in 2008 and one in 2011) were sent to all National Health Service trusts in the UK using the Freedom of Information Act. Results In total, 87% of trusts that perform orthopaedic surgery responded. The use of cefuroxime more than halved between 2005 and 2011 from 80% to 36% and 78% to 26% in elective surgery and trauma surgery respectively. Combination therapy with flucloxacillin and gentamicin rose from 1% to 32% in elective and 1% to 34% in trauma surgery. Other increasingly popular regimes include teicoplanin and gentamicin (1% to 10% in elective, 1% to 6% in trauma) and co-amoxiclav (3% to 8% in elective, 4% to 14% in trauma). The majority of changes occurred between 2008 and 2010. Over half (56%) of the trusts stated that Clostridium difficile was the main reason for changing regimes. Conclusions In 2008 a systematic review involving 11,343 participants failed to show a difference in surgical site infections when comparing different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimes in orthopaedic surgery. Concerns over C difficile and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus have influenced antimicrobial regimes in both trauma and elective surgery. Teicoplanin would be an appropriate choice for antimicrobial prophylaxis in both trauma and elective units but this is not reflected in its current level of popularity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document