✕
Become Active
Become Active

Throwback: Fake Papers, Real Damage

2 July, 2026

News

Published on 13 July, 2026

Why Defining the Postdoc Matters, For All of Us

Universities, research organisations, funding agencies, and policymakers all use the term "postdoc"; but rarely do they mean the same thing. This is not a coincidence. In Germany, there is no shared definition of what a postdoc actually is, and that ambiguity shapes the everyday reality of researchers across the country.

At its core, a definition is about belonging. Being recognised as a postdoc should mean belonging to a clearly defined career stage with known career goals and peers on a similar track. It provides the foundation for collective organisation, representation, and institutional support. Without a common understanding of who qualifies as a postdoc, it becomes difficult to establish rights, expectations, and structures tailored to this phase of an academic career.

The consequences extend far beyond individual careers. Because postdocs are not captured as a distinct category in most statistics, even basic questions remain unanswered: How many postdocs are there? How long do they remain in academia? How many move into other sectors, and under what conditions? Without reliable data, any funding programme, career development measure, and policy intervention cannot be meaningfully aligned with the realities of this career stage. Pressure to stand out, the prevalence of temporary contracts, career uncertainty and mobility demands associated with postdoctoral employment therefore remain difficult to quantify, and easy to overlook. Barriers on transitioning to higher career stages become opaque.

A shared definition would therefore do more than provide administrative clarity. It would establish postdocs as a visible and measurable group, creating the foundation for representation, accountability, and evidence-based policy.

Our Definition

As the GPN Advocacy Working Group, we set ourselves the goal of advancing the conversation on the need for a unified definition of the postdoctoral phase. With our proposal, we aim to contribute the postdoctoral perspective and provide a framework for constructive exchange among stakeholders. Our proposed definition integrates multiple conceptual dimensions of the postdoctoral phase, highlighted below and discussed individually in the following section.

  • The postdoctoral researcher (postdoc) phase constitutes a transition phaseA following the completion of a PhD[1], during which researchers further develop their skills and independence, broaden their experience, and consolidate their scientific profileB in preparation for future careers in academia or beyondC. Postdoctoral researchers still exhibit key characteristics of R2-levelD,[2] Recognized Researchers.
  • Transitioning from R2-level to advanced senior roles (R3) marks the completionE of the postdoc phase, and institutional supportF should aim to achieve this well within the ERC Starting Grant eligibility window (up to 7 yearsG,[3] post-PhD).

 

[1] A PhD is considered complete upon the successful defense of the thesis.
[2] A not-yet fully independent R2-Recognized Researcher, as in the European Framework for Research Careers.
[3] The 7-year period may be extended due to parental/maternity leave, illness, and other circumstances.

Potential Dimensions of a Unified Definition

A unified definition must balance comprehensiveness with usability, capturing the relevant structural and contextual criteria without sacrificing clear boundaries or practical applicability across disciplines and administrative settings. A key step in this process is agreement on which dimensions should explicitly be included and which remain implicit but still shape practice. This question forms the foundation of any shared definition, regardless of its final form, and serves as an essential starting point for further discussion and future pathways.

Temporality of the postdoc (A)
Establishes the postdoctoral phase as a non-permanent, transitional stage between the PhD and more senior roles. Importantly, temporality as a dimension refers to the phase itself rather than to contract type. The end of the postdoctoral phase is therefore defined by career progression, not by the attainment of a permanent position. Roles such as junior research group leader may mark this transition while still being fixed-term.
Qualification objectives (B)
Emphasises personal development and progression as central elements of the postdoctoral phase, aligning well with the logic of academic career structures and funding schemes. Meaningful operationalisation depends on transparent, measurable career trajectories. The role profiles proposed by the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz and the Junge Akademie (Lecturer, Researcher, and Academic Manager) offer a promising structural basis for distinguishing career stages and anchoring the postdoctoral phase within a coherent personnel framework.
Career objectives (C)
Recognises the postdoc phase as a period of broader professional qualification rather than a holding pattern oriented solely towards the professorship. The skills, competencies, and independence accumulated during this stage equally prepare academics for careers beyond academia, in industry, the public sector, or civil society.
Link to international frameworks (R2/R3) (D)
Provides an internationally comparable reference structure for roles and responsibilities, offering a common language across international systems. However, such reference frameworks remain relatively broad in its formulation and does not clearly translate into specific expectations or operational criteria at the institutional level. Therefore, we have reflected our understanding of the R2 and R3 roles. Should the structural reforms of the academic middle tier envisioned by the Science Council materialise, its proposed S2 and S3 role profiles would offer a natural reference point for refining and anchoring this dimension further.
End defined by position or role (E)
Role-based criteria provide a functional boundary grounded in job descriptions and assigned responsibilities, which can improve administrative clarity. Yet formal classifications do not always reflect practical realities and vary considerably across disciplines and institutions, where roles are often far more heterogeneous than any categorical scheme can capture.This is precisely why transparent, communicable career trajectories are not merely desirable but constitutive of any definition that aims to be practically effective.
Integration into institutional support structures (F)
Highlights the need for comprehensive institutional support as a key component of a structured postdoctoral phase. Making this explicit within the definition can further incentivise the development of dedicated support structures for postdoctoral academics.
End defined by academic age (G)
Allows for simple categorisation and comparability, making it highly attractive from an administrative and data collection perspective. However, practical experience shows that this criterion alone does not adequately capture the diversity of postdoctoral trajectories, as it overlooks structural differences between disciplines, varying career interruptions, and heterogeneous progression paths. Researchers who have experienced non-linear trajectories may be excluded from support structures not because they have outgrown the postdoctoral phase, but because an administrative threshold has been reached. Anchoring the academic age dimension to an (internationally) recognised framework like the ERC Starting Grant (7 years) or the MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship eligibility (8 years) can elegantly accommodate parental and caregiving leaves without requiring explicit enumeration, yet does not fully resolve this tension.
Employment status
Defining postdoc status by fixed-term contract is administratively convenient but conflates researchers with vastly different levels of experience, roles, responsibilities, and support needs. As long as the German academic personnel structure remains far from the permanent positions envisioned by the Science Council, this criterion does not define the postdoctoral phase but establishes it as a residual category.
Click here for more information on differences of R2 and R3 profiles

 

Dimension

R2 Recognized Researcher

R3 Established Researcher

Research output and independence

Publications

Peer-reviewed articles or comparable publication formats as first or corresponding author. Collaborative contributions as co-author across research groups.

Consistent publication record as corresponding and senior author, with a growing body of independently led work.

Funding

Securing smaller grants (travel grants, seed funding, fellowships, or first national projects) or contributing as co-applicant in larger projects.

Securing significant competitive research funding as principal investigator (e.g., Sachbeihilfe for own position or PhDs, ERC Starting Grant, DFG Emmy Noether).

Professional Independence

Identifying and defining research questions, developing methodologies to address them, and demonstrating autonomy in managing parts of research projects or leading specific sub-projects.

Independently leading research projects or significant work packages as a junior research group leader, and developing novel research lines within the broader scope of the institution or discipline.

Conference Presentations

Regular participation in national and international conferences, presenting work through oral presentations, posters, or first invited talks.

Regular invited talks at respected conferences or symposia, chairing sessions, and actively contributing to the organisation of conferences.

Teaching and mentoring

Teaching

Limited, dependent teaching responsibilities (guest lectures, tutorials, seminars, lab course supervision). Acquiring first foundational teaching certification.

Teaching entire courses independently, taking on formal responsibilities such as course coordination or contributing to curriculum development. Developing a teaching philosophy and advanced teaching certifications.

Supervision

(Co-)supervision of Bachelor’s, Master’s, or PhD students under the guidance of a senior researcher.

Independent supervision of PhD students and postdocs, with mentees successfully completing their research projects.

Leadership

Leading small projects, managing tasks within larger teams, or coordinating specific work packages in research consortia.

Managing mid-sized research projects or research groups, mentoring team members, and shaping team strategy within larger institutional or collaborative frameworks.

Academic service and governance

Community Engagement

Involvement in professional networks, societies, or associations, contributing to workshops, acting as session chair at conferences, or participating in public outreach activities.

Holding active roles in professional societies (e.g., committee membership), organising events or workshops, and becoming a recognised contributor to the research community.

Academic self-governance

Participation in departmental and institutional governance activities and contributing to decision-making processes, without formal leadership responsibility. Providing input into academic policies when invited.

Holding formal roles in institutional governance bodies, with decision-making authority. Taking responsibility for committees, contributing to strategic institutional decisions, and performing representative functions.

Peer Review and Editorial Work

Reviewing manuscripts for journals and smaller grant proposals.

Frequently invited to review for high-impact journals and grants, serving on review panels, and taking on early editorial responsibilities (e.g., guest editing special issues and editorial board membership).

 

Future Activities: We welcome responses to this post and will incorporate feedback into our ongoing work. Further insights will come from the upcoming GPN survey, which will capture the lived realities of R2&R3 researchers across Germany.

We particularly look forward to the Theme Week organised together with the Volkswagen Foundation (26–28 August in Hanover), where we will co-host the symposium “A Shared Definition of the Postdoc Phase: Analysis, Stakeholders, and Vision for Germany”. The event will bring together postdoc representatives, universities, administrators, funding agencies, and policymakers in a workshop format to discuss pathways towards areas of shared understanding and practical implementations.

Ultimately, it must be acknowledged that any practical definition of the postdoc phase is, by necessity, a starting point. It will not capture every researcher who currently identifies as a postdoc — a label that is often used in the absence of more clearly defined alternatives. Without sharper boundaries separating the postdoctoral researchers from more senior academics, this ambiguity will persist, and with it the difficulty of building coherent identities and appropriate support structures for either group.

Background information

1Fragmented Definitions of Postdoctoral Status
The term “postdoc” in Germany has developed in the context of the internationalisation of the academic system, driven by reforms such as Bologna, the introduction of junior professorships, and the expansion of excellence-oriented funding schemes. As academic labour markets became increasingly internationally comparable, the term entered widespread use across institutions without ever being consolidated into a formal category. In practice, the term appears in job advertisements and career structures across universities, research institutions, funding agencies, and policy contexts, despite lacking a consistent meaning. Where definitions exist, they form no coherent system. Instead, they rely on heterogeneous criteria. Postdocs are variously defined by time elapsed since the PhD (ranging from a few years to well over a decade), career status (an ongoing qualification phase, or simply everyone without a professorship), contractual situation (fixed-term employment as a proxy), or external reference frameworks such as the European R2/R3 system. In Germany, one of the most recent introductions has been the statement paper by the Humanities and Science council (S1-S4). This fragmentation ultimately reveals the central issue: operationalisation is inconsistent where it exists at all.
2Our Approach in the German Postdoc Network
In response to a fragmented landscape of definitions, the GPN Working Group Advocacy has taken a different path. Instead of relying on externally imposed categories, we are building an understanding of the postdoc phase from within the community itself. Our process is driven by postdocs, through ongoing internal discussions, structured feedback, and exchanges in workshops and with postdoc support organisations. At the centre of this work is a simple commitment: to listen to the diversity of postdoctoral experiences and perspectives. Across disciplines, institutions, and career trajectories, we sought to bring together the many realities that shape the postdoctoral phase. One conclusion quickly emerged from these exchanges: Strictly time-based definitions tied to academic age alone fail to reflect the lived experience and diversity of this career stage. In developing our definition, we have oriented ourselves towards existing international frameworks such as the ERA R2/R3 framework, using them as reference points for thinking about roles, responsibilities, and career stages within the postdoctoral phase. It is therefore encouraging that recent contributions, such as the German Council of Science and Humanities' 2025 Vision for Academic Career Reform, move in the same direction, structuring the post-PhD phase into distinct categories. Ultimately, our goal was not to produce an administrative definition ready for immediate policy adoption. What we aim for instead is bringing the postdoc perspective into the conversation, challenging oversimplifications that do not reflect reality, and opening a space for dialogue to collectively explore how the postdoctoral phase can be understood and defined.

Author: Stefan Pieczonka
Contributors: Martin Blaser, Christophe Bousquet, Nadezda Dolgikh, Maria Dorofeikova, Alexandros Karakostis, Yves Klinger, Jasmin Knopf, Christina Müdsam, Laim Zizmare

Why Defining the Postdoc Matters, For All of Us
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. By using this website you agree to our Data Protection Policy.
Read more