Postdocs have been integral to the academic research ecosystem for decades, and their rates of recruitment have plummeted following the pandemic. Several professors, especially tenure-track professors, find it difficult to recruit suitable candidates and have expressed their concerns [¹] regarding low pay, minimal benefits, high productivity expectations, lack of work-life balance, and a dearth of permanent jobs in academia. These have led to a decline in the number of postdocs from the United States [²] and international postdocs - who account for 57% of the U.S. STEM postdoc population - have turned away from these positions due to several other issues that include visa troubles, lack of guidance and insufficient funding [³]. An academic lab is where fundamental ideas and insights are nurtured, potential targets for technology development and innovation are handed out, and postdocs are an integral part of this process. Thus, shielding and sparking increased interest among them is pivotal to stabilizing the foundation of a research ecosystem.

In the late 20th century, the culture of expos was started to promote, network, and potentially recruit new potential candidates for jobs, which were replicated for postdoc recruitment in a few institutes for graduate students in the early 2000s, primarily in-person and in-house researchers. However, for the external candidates and international students, principal investigators and mentors preferred the traditional approach through letters of intent, cover letters, and recommendations from former mentors; this was time-consuming for potential applicants to prepare each time around and wait for the response. In recent years, with the development of technology, faster approaches have helped students and interested candidates to complete entire applications in minutes. However, information regarding essentials such as resources for postdoc transitions and maximizing their experience, choosing the right mentor who’d match their career goals, information on living standards, benefits and parenthood accommodations, etc. are now at the forefront of their choices. Postdoc expos are conducted to address all these kinds of questions and provide information and guidance to candidates in exploring postdoc careers.

Advantages of Postdoc Expo for Institutes

The introduction of postdoc expos at the institute level would highlight the research culture, environment, resources, infrastructure, and funding of the institution to potential candidates who lack information. For instance, low-ranked institutes/universities are not easily recognized by candidates compared to the top-ranked schools. Introducing the faculty, various departments, postdocs, and alumni, and their research can spark curiosity and help shed inhibitions in approaching mentors. Institutes can then create a database with CVs they received during the expo and pass them on to the mentor looking to hire postdocs. This would help in screening several candidates and this organic one-on-one approach during an expo would also help them determine their future career goals. Several institutes in the state/country can come together to organize an expo, which could also exhibit the collaborative nature of the institutes and the principal investigator. One such approach was seen recently during the Wisconsin Postdoc Expo, where four institutes from the state (Medical College of Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Morgridge Institute, and Versiti Blood Research Institute) came together to organize the expo to dive into the postdoctoral experience that could benefit both national and international students looking for such positions.

Advantages of Postdoc Expo for Potential Candidates

Information, resources, and easy communication are the key factors for researchers transitioning from doctorate to postdoctoral researchers - these are all key topics discussed at postdoc expos. This would ease the entire application process and allow for an understanding of all the pros and cons involved in pursuing postdoctoral opportunities.

Overall, postdoc expos would be beneficial for both candidates and institutes and in turn, mentors who are looking for the perfect fit into their labs. National as well as international students would then be able to explore more opportunities in a limited time that could aid their career plans. Simplifying the entire postdoc interview process and increasing transparency in recruiting postdocs are key problems that can be solved through such expos in the future.

References:

[¹] Langin, K. (2022). As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for structural change in academia intensify. Science, 376(6600), 1369-1370.
[²] https://www.science.org/content/article/fewer-u-s-scientists-are-pursuing-postdoc-positions-new-data-show
[³] https://www.science.org/content/article/international-postdocs-u-s-are-short-changed-more-ways-one

Speakers, moderators, and facilitators for the NPA’s Accessibility and Inclusion Equity Summit held on November 8, 2024.

The NPA’s Accessibility and Inclusion Equity Summit was held on November 8, 2024. Representatives from diverse institutions across the country were in attendance to discuss and shed light on accessibility and inclusion for individuals with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals. Tom Kimbis, J.D., executive director & CEO of the NPA, fairly captured the intent of the summit in his welcoming note, which was to “amplify messaging from the lived and professional experiences of neurodiverse individuals, or people with disabilities, that many in the postdoctoral space may be unfamiliar with.” This fully virtual summit, featuring three hour-long panels with roundtable discussions along with an interactive workshop in the final hour, introduced key concepts such as neurodiversity and ableism, identified impediments inhibiting full accessibility, as well as sparked inspiring conversations on potential ways forward.

The first panel, “Neurodiversity: Barriers, Equity, and Inclusion,” was moderated by Angela Fowler, Ph.D., director of postdoctoral affairs, School of Medicine, Indiana University. While introducing the concept of neurodiversity, David Caudel, Ph.D., associate director of The First Center for Autism and Innovation at Vanderbilt University, pointed out that Albert Einstein was a famous example of a neurodiverse scientist who struggled despite his brilliance, a Nobel prize recipient in physics who was initially unable to get employed as a physicist. Talking about accessibility, Caudel questioned, “If we’re not thinking about how we can create a space for these [neurodiverse] folks to thrive and be successful as well, how many Einsteins are we losing?” Ashley Shew, professor at the Department of Science, Technology, and Society at Virginia Tech, expanded on the term neurodiversity as a “big umbrella”, and a “community term” that “even without a diagnosis, people can realize that they’re not thinking in neurotypical ways.” When asked about helpful tips, AJ Link, the founding president of the National Disabled Law Students Association (NDLSA), suggested that “it wasn’t necessarily the label that helped” and emphasized the importance of understanding how you fit into the world, and where your community is, and what you need to support yourself.” Lastly, on the topic of disclosing one’s neurodivergence to others, Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science, remarked that the choice to disclose is often a complicated and personal one, often aided through conversations with knowledgeable people.

The second panel, “Understanding Barriers for Postdocs with Disabilities,” was moderated by Logan Gin, Ph.D, assistant director for STEM, Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning at Brown University. On the topic of recognition of barriers for people with disabilities in academia, Bonnie Swenor, Ph.D., the founder and director of the Johns Hopkins Disability Health Center (DHRC), pointed out that most of the conversation and dialogue is happening at the undergraduate level and falls off for graduate students, let alone postdocs and barely considers faculty.” Swenor added that conversations on ableism, and its impact on policies, procedures, and attitude should also take place in addition to those on accessibility and accommodations. When prompted about what efforts can be made to start the conversations, Rupa Valdez, Ph.D., associate professor in systems and information engineering as well as public health sciences at the University of Virginia, commented that bringing other people into the conversation has been a huge part of trying to move spaces forward. Both speakers emphasized the importance of individuals with disabilities being in leadership roles, as conversations need to take place “top down and bottom up.”

The third panel, “Pathways to Greater Accessibility and Inclusion for Postdocs with Disabilities,” was moderated by Melissa Wynn, Ph.D., program officer at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Lisa Yates, Ph.D., director of disability support services at Moreno Valley College, presented a range of research topics - academic ableism, sanism, and the cost of oppression in addition to the ways of providing relevant institutional support. Kate Mittendorf, Ph.D., research assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, spoke about allyship, accommodations as access barriers, and ways to become an access accomplice. Mittendorf emphasized to leaders the importance of “refram[ing] approaches to disability, from reactive to proactive.” Yates expanded this notion by talking about universally designed learning environments (UDL): "If we had the design, we wouldn’t need the accommodations.”

The fourth panel, “How I Can Navigate Disclosure & Thrive as a Postdoctoral Scientist with Disabilities,” was an interactive workshop led by Aixa Alemán-Díaz, Ph.D., senior program manager at the American Geophysical Union, along with Brianna Blaser, Ph.D., director of Access Computing at the University of Washington. Participants and facilitators joined the conversations in a safe and inclusive environment to discuss experiences as well as available resources for learning and accommodation. During this session, one of the postdoc participants expressed seeking “a bit of inspiration for the future, to see people with similar experiences in similar positions and how they managed.” This comment well described the entirety of the summit which was greatly enriched by the speakers, moderators, facilitators, and participants.

This year’s summit was a success, but a lot more must be done to continue the conversation and our commitment towards increasing accessibility and inclusion for individuals with disabilities, and neurodivergent individuals. As emphasized in the summit, these conversations need to take place in postdoctoral spaces, institutional inclusion initiatives, and learning and work spaces, across the organizational hierarchy as well as on the national and global landscapes. These dialogues could then lead to additional policies and practices that promote an inclusive and accessible society.

Recorded sessions of the NPA Accessibility and Inclusion Equity Summit are available for your viewing. (link)

Building a career within academia can be rewarding but challenging. There are opportunities to grow, explore interests, and find resources, but many a time, these opportunities and communities are hidden behind a layer of social networking skills that need to be developed. Although a personal search for opportunities can be fruitful, there are a vast number of opportunities hidden beneath the surface, accessible when you find a supportive network of peers and mentors who advocate for you, nominate you, and send you relevant resources. Research also shows that supportive networks help reduce burnout, and increase productivity and job satisfaction, making establishing and maintaining supportive networks a win-win from multiple angles [^1,2]. Postdocs are in transition between being a student and fully established in their careers. This stage fosters you to gain technical expertise, personal development, and leadership experiences to prepare for a career ahead. With so many expectations, supportive networks can help alleviate some of these stressors and reduce the workload of finding opportunities for growth.

Defining What Support Looks Like in Academia

Support in academia is multifaceted, and mentors can arise in the form of faculty, principal investigators, peers, and others who can guide you with publishing, grant writing, networking, ideation, and more. Support can also be specific to having a safe work environment with emotional support, understanding, and social guidance. Isolation and lack of mental healthcare can reduce productivity, ability to focus, and effective work [^3,4]. This means that understanding impostor syndrome, work-life balance, or personal challenges in the workplace can become just as important as understanding technical skills in the workplace.

Who Can Be in Your Support Network?

Your support system can be diversified and is not limited to your lab, department, or institution. It can include:

1. Mentors: Faculty, advisors, or senior colleagues from any institution, organization, or company who can provide career and personal guidance.
2. Peers: Fellow postdocs or researchers from any institution, organization, or company who share experiences and insights.
3. Institutional resources: Postdoctoral associations and fellowships that share information on webinars, workshops, and networking opportunities.
4. Mental health counselors: Professionals who can help with learning how to take care of your mental health through conversations on stress management, work-life balance, and organizational culture.
5. Professional connections: Conference acquaintances who may share interests, or online communities on social media including LinkedIn or Bluesky.
6. Personal Allies: Friends, family, partners, and communities that can provide emotional support and celebrate milestones with you.

How to Build a Strong Support Network

Building a network requires effort and intentionality. Here are some steps to get started:

• Join professional organizations: Groups like the NPA or your local university postdoctoral association can offer opportunities for workshops, personal development opportunities, networking events, and access to peers and mentors.
• Attend conferences and workshops: Networking events in your research field and at your workplace can help you gain access to potential mentors and collaborators. Don’t forget to send follow-up messages after meeting these connections so that you’re able to foster a fruitful relationship. Consider adding these connections on professional social media accounts.
• Engage in online communities: Slack, Bluesky, and LinkedIn often have spaces and groups that can be invaluable for finding support remotely.
• Ask for help: Don’t hesitate to reach out to people already in your network for advice, guidance, and recommendations for connections. You’ll never know until you ask, and e-connections are now more common than ever. You can ask to get connected through email, LinkedIn, or even through Zoom.

Nurturing and Maintaining and Leveraging Your Support Network

Building relationships is only the first step because strengthening and maintaining the connections takes effort and commitment. Maintaining these networks through regular or timed emails, coffee chats, Zoom calls or social media posts can help keep these connections strong. Networks can become a tool for career advancement if you ever need introductions to others, recommendations, nominations, letters of reference, feedback on applications, and collaborations. It’s important to remember that support is a two-way street and no one attains success alone. Offering your connections help and support can reinforce the bonds you’re building as well as help you gain mutual trust and respect. Take the leap and your first step today, your future self will thank you!

References:

[1] Charoensukmongkol, P., Moqbel, M., & Gutierrez-Wirsching, S. (2016). The role of coworker and supervisor support on job burnout and job satisfaction. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 13(1).
[2] Li, X., Hu, A., Song, H., & Wang, Z. (2024). How does workplace support promote postdoctoral career growth? A conservation of resources perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1294982.
[3] Nicholls, H., Nicholls, M., Tekin, S., Lamb, D., & Billings, J. (2022). The impact of working in academia on researchers’ mental health and well-being: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. PloS one, 17(5), e0268890.
[4] van der Weijden, I., & Teelken, C. (2023). Precarious careers: postdoctoral researchers and wellbeing at work. Studies in Higher Education, 48(10), 1595-1607.

Postdoctoral appointments are well known for having certain drawbacks: the positions are typically insecure and funding-dependent, and the pay and benefits may be subpar compared to industry positions with similar research experience requirements. Postdocs often feel isolated as emerging scholars with limited visibility in their academic departments because they are viewed as trainees as opposed to potential colleagues. Despite these concerns and a growing trend of multiple postdoctoral appointments being expected prior to tenure-track appointments, 70-80% of postdocs still prioritize an academic career trajectory (Andalib et al., 2018; Woolston, 2020). To address these issues, some colleges and universities have created postdoctoral conversion programs, in which there is a pathway for a postdoc to become a tenure-track faculty member at their fellowship institution (Culpepper et al., 2022).

For postdoctoral scholars, this is a tremendous opportunity. If such programs can provide clear performance standards that must be achieved to be eligible for a tenure-track position and guide postdocs through the hiring processes (“conversion”) in a transparent manner, such efforts could be a game changer in the academic job market. Conversion programs could reduce the anxiety of needing to be on the national job market, allowing scholars to put down roots geographically and ramp up their research program in a way that will seamlessly transition into tenure-track work without having to rebuild a lab/program from scratch. Such programs also offer benefits to colleges and universities. Many programs are mechanisms to recruit and retain top talent while also diversifying the faculty members, leading to increased innovation (Hofstra et al., 2020) and student success (Bitar et al., 2022).

Campus approaches to postdoc conversion programs vary across different universities (reviewed in Culpepper et al., 2022). For instance, the University of Missouri’s Preparing Future Faculty for Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral Program and the Dean’s Diversity Postdoctoral Fellows at the Ohio State University identify specific disciplinary foci or scholarly areas of inquiry that will be prioritized in a given cycle (likely aligned with where there are available resources or strategic initiatives). On the contrary, Fellows for Faculty Diversity at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the Bridge to Faculty program at the University of Texas San Antonio, are open to all scientific disciplines. Some programs accept international applications, while others are limited to scholars with U.S. citizenship/permanent residency. Most often, the candidate applies directly to the program, but there are unique cases (such as the University of New Mexico’s Inclusive Excellence Postdoctoral and Visiting Scholars program) where departments nominate candidates, and thus scholars must first reach out to departments and discuss their potential nomination. While most appointments last up to two years, exceptions like the NYU Scholars to Faculty program last three years. Finally, the workload expectations for postdocs also vary. While most programs expect that fellows will be primarily focused on research/scholarship, programs like the University of New Hampshire’s Postdoctoral Innovation and Diversity Scholars program require teaching one class per year, while the Carolina Postdoctoral Program for Faculty Diversity offers teaching opportunities as an option.

In a few unique cases, campuses within university systems work together on postdoc-to-faculty programs. In the University of California (UC) System, the President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program (PPFP) has been in operation for over 40 years. UC campuses that hire PPFP fellows receive financial incentives (e.g., salary, start-up funds) from the UC Office of the President. The University System of Maryland’s PROMISE Academy Alliance was initiated with support from the National Science Foundation. In this program, a diverse group of universities, including regional comprehensives, historically Black colleges and universities, primarily undergraduate campuses, research-intensives, and professional schools, came together to help campuses create conversion processes and increase the number of postdocs obtaining tenure-track faculty positions, preferentially within Maryland’s system. Of the 10 PROMISE Academy fellows that started between 2018-2022, nine have converted into tenure-track faculty positions to date (six retained within the state system).

Postdocs have the opportunity to explore regional institutions with distinct missions and faculty work environments as potential employers. Most postdoc conversion programs are deeply committed to ensuring that fellows receive high-quality mentoring and professional development opportunities. As such, postdocs can enhance their professional networks, laying the groundwork to generate robust regional research collaborations. The PPFP and PROMISE Academy Alliance have been successful enough that they have jointly received NSF Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES funding for a project called Re-Imagining STEM Equity Utilizing Postdoc Pathways (RISE UPP). In this project, the PPFP and PROMISE Academy Alliance postdoc conversion models are being adapted in three university systems: University of North Carolina, University of Texas, and Texas A&M University systems.

Given the promise of postdoc conversion programs, it is very important for an individual postdoc to consider certain aspects before shortlisting or negotiating prospective conversion programs or composing any applications. We recommend asking the following questions:

1. At what level does this program exist (e.g., within a college, a campus, or with a university system)? What are the advantages/disadvantages of participating in a program that is focused at this level?
2. What is the process for identifying the faculty member who will serve as a mentor? To what extent are mentors expected to participate in training or professional development of postdocs during conversion?
3. What kinds of resources (e.g., equipment, research funds, professional development, relocation expenses) will be provided to establish a successful academic career?
4. What performance criteria does one need to meet to be eligible to convert into a faculty role? How will the progress vis-a-vis those expectations be formally and regularly communicated to postdocs (e.g., during annual reviews; or by an internal committee)? To what extent are there opportunities or expectations revolving around teaching?
5. Is there a formalized expectation that I will smoothly transition into a faculty role at the university where I complete my fellowship (e.g., in an official offer letter), or will I be expected to apply for positions on my own?

We encourage postdoctoral scholars and institutions alike to consider conversion programs as a beneficial mechanism for productivity, equity, and recruiting and retaining talent.

Cedars Sinai happy hour and award ceremony at EP & LP West Hollywood

Since 2009, the NPA has celebrated National Postdoc Appreciation Week (NPAW) during the third week of September. Postdoctoral scholars are often considered one of the most crucial yet inconspicuous members of the scientific workforce. Their dedication and contributions to advancing research deserve spotlight and appreciation. Despite the transient nature of postdoctoral positions, postdocs themselves offer a plethora of scientific skills - groundbreaking ideas, mentoring the next generation of scientists, offering technical and experiential expertise to the research group they are a part of, amongst fulfilling many other duties in their roles. In addition, postdocs master a range of transferable skills – adapting to new challenges, negotiating with collaborators, delivering scientific as well as general presentations, and translating their innovations into well-structured research grants and scholarly papers. Their ability to combine their big-picture vision with detailed planning, execution, and managerial adeptness prepares them to take on diverse career paths.

In this article, we shall highlight these unique qualities that make postdocs stand out, drawing from lessons learned and key takeaways from the NPAW celebrations held across the nation. These insights showcase the invaluable contributions postdocs make to the scientific community and underscore why their role deserves recognition.

As a scientific community, postdocs share more in common than they think.

ORISE poster session

The postdoctoral community on a campus may need to be better connected owing to the diversity of fields they specialize in. Reserving a week to share and celebrate their groundbreaking research with an audience is an important step towards building connections. “We know that building a postdoc community can be difficult - unlike graduate students, we don’t start our position with a cohort of our peers, and some of us are the only postdoc in our department. NPAW is an excellent way to meet other postdocs on campus, strengthen our community, and feel a sense of belonging”, comments Sara Stoner, Ph.D., University of Colorado - Denver postdoctoral association (PDA) NPAW planning committee co-chair.

Across the nation, many universities focused their celebrations not only on professional development but also on social engagement and mental wellness. The week kicked off at Jefferson University with a social “Donuts & Discussion: Postdoc Coffee Break,” giving postdocs a relaxed space to connect before diving into Tuesday’s Mentors and Minds: Postdoc-PI Trivia Lunch. Events like these, alongside the University of Missouri’s family picnic or Cedar-Sinai Medical Center’s breakfast gathering and happy hour amidst a stunning view of Hollywood, social gatherings offer postdocs a platform to connect on a personal level, creating a sense of community that extends beyond their professional roles. Events like those held during NPAW encourage postdocs to step out of their specialized silos, engage with peers, and feel part of a larger, supportive network. By embracing this holistic approach, universities not only strengthen the postdoc experiences but also foster a more collaborative and resilient academic community.

Postdocs are inadvertent leaders.

TAMU postdoc symposium poster presentation

At the University of British Columbia’s NPAW, keynote speaker Olumuyiwa Igbalajobi, Ph.D., a former UBC postdoc and founder of Scholarships Cafe, shared his journey into entrepreneurship. His insights on leveraging postdoctoral training to identify needs and carve out unique niches left a lasting impression on the UBC postdoctoral community. "I had never considered an entrepreneurial route after my postdoc," shared UBC postdoctoral association president Jordyn Rice, Ph.D., emphasizing how Igbalajobi's path inspired postdocs to consider non-traditional career avenues.

This aligns with broader insights shared across other institutions, like those from Arthur Markman, Ph.D., a keynote speaker at the University of Texas-Austin highlighting the fact that we are inherently and unknowingly developing leadership skills as postdocs. “Every time we respond to referee reports on a paper, we're responding to criticism in a measured way; every time we start a new project, we're internalizing new ideas to rapidly set goals; in our collaborations, we're being mentors to our graduate and undergraduate students. These are skills that we often don't realize that we're learning, but they're so key to being not only good faculty members but good scientists.”

University of British Columbia

Career panelist Lauren Usher, Ph.D.,a former University of Wisconsin-Madison postdoc who works as a partner at Gener8tor, a nationally-ranked venture capital firm, echoes this sentiment: “Postdocs gain a vast array of transferable skills and their ability to learn quickly plays a huge advantage in any role they take up.” In addition, postdoctoral association executive councils, which are run primarily by postdocs for postdocs, are a true test of teamwork, planning, and leadership. Organizing career panels and symposia, flash talks and poster sessions, and social gatherings such as trivia nights and scavenger hunts while managing budgets and other responsibilities, all contribute to the development of leadership skills.

Ray Garner, Ph.D., Texas A&M University postdoc association’s communications officer, also highlights the importance of communication in leadership: “We still continue to learn more and more about how these events should be run after multiple years of organizing them. Communication is key! Postdocs are so spread out across campus that it's hard to get them involved and out of their offices, but by effectively using our listservs, social media, and even those personal connections, we were able to get them to attend these meetings and show them how appreciative we are of all of their hard work.” Postdocs develop leadership skills in ways they may not fully recognize, from mentoring and project management to organizing events and fostering community. These transferable skills not only shape them into successful scientists but also prepare them for diverse future roles.

Postdocs are multi-faceted individuals, whose lives extend far beyond just research.

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Have you ever noticed how challenging it can be to explain your work to non-academic friends? Instead of overwhelming them with scientific jargon, postdocs possess a unique ability to communicate and translate their research in a relatable way - an often-overlooked skill. In an ideal world, being a successful researcher involves competitive metrics such as h-indices, number of publications, conference presentations, and strong letters of recommendation. “But, beyond that, having a clear research vision and a bold attitude towards paving uncharted territories in your field is what makes you stand out in your faculty interviews”, highlights Snehal Chaudhari, Ph.D., an assistant professor at the Biochemistry Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

A postdoc’s role involves higher-level thinking and problem-solving, so it is no surprise that scientists are inherently creative. For example, the University of Missouri’s scientific art and graphical abstract competition was a roaring success. Postdocs showcased their creativity by blending art and science, leading to fascinating displays that captured the intersection of innovation and imagination. Similarly, the “Science Olympics” event organized by the Postdoc Society at Cedars-Sinai received an overwhelming response. Reimagining traditional sporting events with a scientific twist, postdocs demonstrated their laboratory prowess in "science archery," racing to pipette with precision, and engaging in a unique version of water polo where participants poured precise volumes into test tube cylinders!

Garner encapsulates the important role postdocs play in research: “NPAW as a whole is crucial to show postdocs that we see them. The position of ‘postdoc’ is so ephemeral, it’s easy to take them for granted and use them rapidly before they move on to bigger and better things. Having a week like NPAW to show our appreciation is crucial since they are usually responsible for most of the cutting-edge research.”

As we reflect on the unique journey of postdocs, it's important to acknowledge their contributions and their growth, creativity, and resilience. Every challenge they face is a step toward greater achievement, and their diverse skill set is shaping the future in many fields. Let’s continue to celebrate their impact and offer support as they navigate their path, knowing that their efforts are paving the way for innovation and progress across disciplines.

Special thanks to the following individuals for sharing their institutions' inspiring NPAW highlights, enriching this article with a nationwide perspective on postdoc celebration and support:

• Ray Garner, PhD., communications officer, Texas A&M University PDA
  • TAMU-NPAW Event Photo credits: Texas A&M University Photography
• Bilal Mirza, Ph.D. and Aksheev Bhambri, Ph.D., president, UT Southwestern Medical Center PDA
• Anjugam Paramanantham, Ph.D., president, University of Missouri PDA and Filip Tirpak, Ph.D., social chair, University of Missouri PDA
• Lisa Golden, PhD., vice president, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus PDA
• Sara Stoner, Ph.D., NPAW planning committee co-chair, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus PDA
• Elisabeth Jaeger, Ph.D., Ayoub Bouguettaya, Ph.D., Madhura Subba Rao, Ph.D., and Emma Yates Casler, Ph.D., GPS committee, Cedars-Sinai
• Will Woodbery, education project manager, STEM Workforce Development, Outreach and Engagement, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
• Sarah Henderson, coordinator, human resources and postdoctoral affairs, Postdoctoral Fellows Office, The University of British Columbia.
• Thomas Jefferson University postdoctoral association
  

Networking at the 2025 NPA Annual Conference that will take place in Boston March 21-22 can seem like a daunting task, even for extroverts. But with the right approach, this process can become an invaluable tool for career growth.

The goal of networking is to build professional relationships and the key to successful networking lies in practice and reflection. With each opportunity, you can improve your approach. This article serves as an introduction to networking for early-stage researchers who are looking to leverage opportunities in such situations for both professional and personal growth. You will find tiny habits and tricks here that could go a long way in starting your networking path on the right foot - with ease and confidence.

Here are some practical tips to help you network confidently and effectively.

Before the conference

Before a conference, it is important to spend significant time researching the attendees and speakers. For the upcoming 2025 NPA Annual Conference, a key figure to connect with is our keynote speaker Nicholas Dirks, Ph.D., the president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences. His insights into the postdoctoral experience are bound to be both unique and highly influential. Beyond the keynote speakers, make a list of people you would like to meet with and consider reaching out to them in advance via LinkedIn. You can introduce yourself, express interest in meeting them at the event, and invite them to attend your poster presentation or talk. Also, if you want to get specific information or feedback from them, let them know in advance so they can be prepared.

Prepare a brief, compelling introduction - often called an “elevator pitch” - that highlights your background, research, or goals in just a few precise sentences. To keep conversations engaging, prepare a list with a few open-ended icebreaker questions. Avoid yes or no questions because you risk getting one-word answers - a total conversation killer! Instead, choose open-ended questions that foster more engaging conversation.

Announce your conference attendance on platforms like LinkedIn or X (formerly Twitter). Following the event’s social media accounts is a great way to stay updated and find attendees with similar interests. Finally, after connecting with attendees, maintain those relationships by interacting with their social media posts—through likes, comments, or shares.

During the conference

At the conference, making a positive impression is key to engaging with others. Before joining a group, observe their body language and look for openness and a welcoming attitude. Be mindful of your body language as well - appear approachable and friendly. A warm smile and eye contact can go a long way, especially during spontaneous conversations. Small moments, like waiting in line for coffee or attending panel discussion sessions, can turn into valuable networking opportunities.

Commenting on the conference or truthfully complimenting someone’s presentation is another effective way to start conversations. For example, you may ask, “Have you attended this event before?” or, “What sessions are you most excited about?” Compliments like “Your presentation was fantastic!” ” Your research will make a significant impact in the field and the society,” or “I loved how you highlighted X in your talk” are great conversation starters. Wearing appropriate and comfortable clothing that boosts your confidence is important - business casual is typically a safe choice.

Avoid huddled conversations with known friends and colleagues, instead make an effort to branch out and converse with new people. At conferences, you will run into strangers or people whose work you may be unfamiliar with. Approach someone standing alone and say, “Mind if I join you? These events can be overwhelming.” This can make them feel more comfortable and break the ice. Facilitate connections for others by introducing colleagues to people you’ve met and fostering group conversations. Above all, be honest and show up as your authentic self in your interactions, as people appreciate genuineness.

After each conversation, ask yourself: "What went well? What can I improve for next time?"

After the conference

Effective networking extends well beyond the event itself and following up is crucial - if you don’t, you’re not truly networking. It is best to send a follow-up email within 24-48 hrs after the event, as attendees are usually the most responsive during this window. Don't let your collected business cards gather dust; instead, reach out with a personalized message and a LinkedIn connection request.

Equally important to maintaining your professional brand is to develop, cultivate, and keep your online presence active on platforms such as LinkedIn. Continue interacting with your network to stay visible. Social media can significantly enhance your visibility, so regularly engage with your network by liking, sharing, or commenting on their posts to stay on their radar. Show value by actively supporting your contacts—sharing insights, offering help, or providing meaningful interactions. Use online tools to keep your contact information easily accessible, and focus on developing strong communication and interpersonal skills, as they will set you apart.

In summary, the art of true networking involves building genuine relationships - this starts way before an event and extends even beyond it. Keeping an open mind, learning through experiences, establishing a courteous and engaging demeanor, and developing good social habits such as active listening and respectful communication can go a long way toward enriching your long-term professional growth.

The previous section of this article focused on the period before and during the preparation of the application. In this section, the focus will be on what happens after your submission and the possibilities of resubmission. The objective of this POSTDOCket article is to delve into common questions, particularly highlighting less-discussed aspects of the NIH K99/R00 grant.

(1) What is an "Impact Score"?

After four months from your submission, you will receive an impact score: a score of lower value is better. Most funded applications will have scores between 10 to 20, and up to around 35, depending on the institute. Note that only the top half of applications are ‘discussed’ and get scored, while the bottom half is ‘not discussed’ and is marked as ND, which is not a good outcome for your application. However, even an ND should not discourage you, since it is possible to go from an ND to ‘fully funded’, after resubmission. This was my own experience, and the sections below will discuss the approaches I followed.

(2) What is a "Summary Statement"?

Just after a month of receiving your score (i.e., five months after submission of the application), you will receive the Summary Statement, which justifies your score or ND status. This Summary Statement is the single most valuable outcome of your K99 application. It provides the original feedback from the NIH panel, on the strengths and weaknesses of your proposal. I started valuing the NIH system after receiving the Summary Statement, because, unlike all the other non-NIH applications, you receive detailed feedback on your research, regardless of whether your proposal was discussed or not. This helps you improve and refine your work.

(3) How do you Address the Summary Statement in your Resubmission?

Upon receiving the Summary Statement, it is a good time to reach out to the program officer (PO). The PO will either confirm if the score is in the fundable range (fingers crossed!) or provide guidance for resubmission. Your Summary Statement will contain separate scores for each criterion (i-iii) discussed below, and the ideal scores are between 1 and 3. Scores above 4 indicate that there is substantial room for improvement.

(i) Candidate and Career Development: This reflects the fundamental question – do the reviewers favor your application? Usually, their opinion is based on your productivity during your doctorate and postdoc. If their assessment of you is not favorable, you can turn the situation in your favor by enhancing your training plan with additional co-mentors and support letters, publishing your work as a preprint, and strengthening aspects of productivity in your mentor’s statement in which you should request your mentor or co-mentor to address specific concerns from the Summary Statement.

(ii) Research Plan: This section addresses the question of whether they appreciate your research ideas and process. This section is most likely where most concerns arise, and lower scores here will significantly impact the overall score. But, the good news is that this is the most actionable part of your application. It’s important to address ALL reviewer concerns with experimental data. Even if the recommended experiments seem challenging, you should still do them! You will have almost nine months from the initial submission to resubmission. Being proactive during this time can help generate as much experimental data as possible to maximize preliminary data in your application.

(iii) Mentor/Institute: This refers to the question of whether the reviewers view your research environment favorably. Addressing this is straightforward. In most cases, concerns may arise if your principal investigator (PI) is relatively new and has a limited history of NIH funding. This can be effectively overcome by establishing a senior co-mentor who holds multiple NIH-funded grants.

From my personal experience, in my first submission, I received scores of 1–2 in all criteria except in the Research Plan, where my scores were 4–6, leading to the ND. In my resubmission, I addressed all reviewer concerns, and I firmly believe this was a key factor for my application to progress from ND to ‘fully funded’ upon resubmission. The key point here is that you do not necessarily need a first-author publication to get the K99, but you absolutely need preliminary data.

Keep in mind that any manuscript review process is very lengthy, and the faculty job search process is also quite time-consuming. When you work the math backward, this means that by the time you get your K99, you should be close to submitting your paper and going on the job market. This means that by the time you submit your K99 application, you should ideally have a significant amount of data, that is not just “preliminary” but already close to publication quality.

(4) What is "Response to Summary Statement" and "Council Meeting"?

If your score falls within the fundable range, your PO might ask you to submit a response within one month after you receive your Summary Statement. This response will advocate for your application in the Council Meeting. Approximately two months after the Summary Statement, the NIH Council Meeting will determine which grants get funded. If your grant is selected, there will be a few additional formalities before you receive the Notice of Award (NOA), the official confirmation of funding. Now it’s time to celebrate!

(5) How do you Manage Mental Health Through These Stages?

Managing mental health while navigating through various stages of the application process can be undeniably challenging. From my experience, the waiting period after submitting the application was particularly tough in terms of mental health. I struggled with self-doubts and harsh self-judgment during this period. Surprisingly, the phase after receiving the summary statement was very satisfying. Despite major reviewer concerns, having clear directions and an essential to-do list, motivated me to overcome self-doubt and focus purely on the science. I realized that the ultimate goal is not just to receive the NOA, but to receive the Summary Statement. It teaches you how NIH grants work, helps you streamline your research, and most importantly, gives you valuable experience in navigating the NIH system.

The lesson I learned, and would like to share is despite being a very intense journey, the most fun part is the science. Maintaining your focus on science and seeking feedback to improve your research can make the journey very fulfilling.

The NIH’s K99/R00 Pathway to Independence Award provides up to five years of grant support in two phases - two years of mentored postdoctoral training (K99) and additional funding for up to three years of independent research support (R00). This prestigious and highly competitive award can fund up to approximately 1 million dollars and is the only NIH funding available for international postdocs. This article aims to discuss the overlooked aspects of the K99/R00 award in two parts. Part I will focus on the period before and during the preparation of the application; while Part II will delve into what happens after the submission and the potential of resubmission.

(1) Should you apply?

Do you aspire to establish your own independent lab? If yes, then K99/R00 is your first crucial step. The application process will provide unique insights into the NIH funding process, especially valuable to the international postdocs initiating their first NIH grant application. Your goal for the K99/R00 application should not be to just secure the grant but to master the overall grant writing process.

(2) What is the eligibility and when should you apply?

There are three cycles of application – in February, June, and October. To be eligible, applicants must not have more than four years of postdoctoral experience at the time of initial submission or the subsequent resubmission. The four-year countdown starts from the date of receiving a doctorate and not from the start date of the postdoc. For instance, if you earned your doctoral degree in March 2024, the latest you can resubmit your application is February 2028, meaning your first application will be due in June 2027. The grant review process is time-consuming, so you won’t be able to resubmit in the next cycle. Be sure to allow enough time for resubmission. Your eligibility period is therefore much shorter than you might think!

(3) Are first-author publication(s) mandatory?

It is generally perceived that a first-author publication is essential, but there have been many cases of successful applications without one. In my own experience, publications from my doctorate and co-authored publications during my postdoc were evaluated to assess productivity. However, having substantial preliminary data was considered more favorable in securing the grant.

(4) Should you contact NIH before applying?

It is important to contact NIH before applying. This will help target the most appropriate institute, thereby enhancing the chances of your application. Engaging with multiple institutes through their program officers (PO) and sending them your specific aims, NIH Biosketch, and eligibility timeline can help the POs offer tailored advice and suggestions for modifications. Importantly, in my experience, the POs can even recommend alternative institutes where your application would fit better. Building a good relationship with your PO early on is crucial, as they serve as the point of contact between you and NIH.

(5) How much time do you require?

While preparing the application, most of your time will be spent writing the research proposal. After completing the specific aims page, it took me about three months to craft the whole application including receiving feedback and making revisions. To ensure success, allow yourself sufficient time to describe facilities, equipment, budget, career development, institutional environment, etc. In addition, the application also requires reference letters and supplemental letters, including mentor and co-mentor statements, letters of support, and an institutional letter. Seek feedback on language and the experimental approaches, and most importantly obtain an “overview feedback” – a quick review from the mentor to evaluate the significance of the research questions and clarity of aims. Considering these different levels of feedback, it’s imperative to allocate enough time for yourself and those assisting with the application.

(6) How to manage time during application?

A strategy that I found effective is to dedicate specific blocks of time to writing and research. For example, I spent my mornings writing and reserved my afternoons for experiments. This approach greatly helped me both in my writing and research. Taking breaks from writing helped me edit the application with a much clearer perspective, which significantly improved my editing. Further, spending time on research resulted in generating preliminary data for the application and it also ensured that progress was made on my first-author postdoc manuscript. Remember, prioritizing publications is crucial to obtaining a faculty position. Not being able to secure a K99 won’t necessarily hinder your chances, so keep making progress.

(7) What sets writing a K99/R00 grant different from other grants?

It is important to understand that the K99 is a "training" grant. The ‘Candidate Section’ should detail your training objectives, including two to three experimental techniques and other career development goals. Emphasizing the importance of training throughout the grant is key. For example, I ensured to highlight the significance of training in sections such as (i) a personal statement in NIH Biosketch, (ii) a few sentences at the end of the specific aims page, (iii) a summary paragraph between the K99 and R00 research proposal, and (iv) I also requested my mentors and recommenders to include specifics of my training plan in their letters. Collectively, what needs to be conveyed is the need for funding to accomplish your “training” objectives during the K99 phase, and that this “training” is integral in establishing an independent program during the R00 phase.

(8) How to manage mental health throughout the application?

Preparing the application can be extremely stressful, especially while managing lab work, preparing manuscripts, and concerns about your independent career. The period before the application was particularly challenging for me as I was overly self-critical. However, working on the research part of the application turned out to be surprisingly delightful. I thoroughly enjoyed brainstorming scientific ideas and expressing them in my writing, which helped me overcome self-doubt. I’ve learned that science brings me joy, while self-doubt only leads to unnecessary mental stress.

Recommended resource:

Among the numerous K99/R00 informational resources available online, I found the blog of Anita Devineni, Ph.D.,  inspiring as it simplifies the complexities of K99/R00 in relatable terms.