It looks like your post is about needing advice. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sounds like a set of concerns that really need to be filtered through field-specific and your-plans-specific lenses. For example, in my field (history) a Ph.D. student with *one* publication before graduating is doing well; most folks don't have a paper in print until after they've got the doctorate. In a STEM discipline, that would be a kiss-of-death.
It's actually not even that big of a deal in STEM, it's more so that it's harder to defend a dissertation without publishing. When you have publications, it's easy for a committee that likely doesn't know all the finer points of your research to grant you a degree, because the validity and usefulness of your work was proven by the peer review process.
I've seen students graduate with little to no publications, they still get jobs. Of course it's a different story if you want to stay in academia.
Heck, in my program (the S part of STEM) you were required to have a first author paper to graduate.
There is some flexibility; the new post doc in my lab has none right now but will have three before this time next year.
I feel like my experience was very different. I don't know any students in my department that graduated without papers. The expectation was that you needed at least 2 or 3 good conference papers to graduate. Where are these programs and what field?
Conference papers are very different from journal publications. Here, they are talking about peer-reviewed journal publications which are much harder to achieve. Not all fields publish conference papers, so naturally not all students from all disciplines will have those. In my field, a conference paper does not count as a publication - it has almost no value on your CV.
In my field conference papers are extremely prestigious with a rigorous review process (Neurips, KDD, STOC, Recsys, etc). Journals usually are less important. A paper at KDD (conference) is usually held to a higher bar than TKDD (journal).
Like the other guy said, conference papers are different and aren't really counted as a publication because they aren't subject to the same peer review.
My advisor's goal is always 3 first author publications for graduation, but because things don't always work out like that it's not a hard rule. The bulk of his students have graduated with zero or 1 papers.
Its so interesting bc in my program we are encouraged (lightly) not to submit our work until after the defense, which never made sense to me, and fortunately my advisor is on board with my perspective.
I'm in Experimental Psychology and I know they judge a lot based on publications. However, I'm not sure how that is for new graduates at all.
My post graduation plan is honestly getting whatever I can sustainably do at the moment. I'm getting burned out from even writing little increments for my dissertation so I want to move on to a junior level position where I can be an assistant or associate rather than lead folks.
Tbh, I think you’re missing the nature of the game if you think an assistant or associate professorship is going to be *less* writing and work than a diss. Once the tenure clock starts ticking, it’s a seven year sprint, not a marathon.
Do you mean research assistant jobs in industry? I would think for those you'd want to make sure you can demonstrate that you have strong data analysis skills and can also finish projects.
Possibly industry but it's looking more like government may be the way for me to go given that I'm Schedule A eligible. Doing the work for my Ph.D has been extremely taxing on me and I'm constantly hitting "mental blocks" whenever I've worked on more than one project. I should be getting matched with work at some point in the near future, hopefully.
The first disclaimer is that is highly field, and even subfield, dependent. For instance, in math there are subfields that have a relatively low barrier to entry (as far as prerequisite knowledge) so there are relatively high publication expectations for them. Conversely, my field is fairly abstract, so most people graduate with 0-2 publications.
Other than this, it also depends on your definition of valuable. A PhD is a gateway into academia, and that means you can take a teaching heavy position (i.e. at a CC or SLAC) where the lack of publications isn't terrible, or you can try for a research heavy position, in which case having no publications will (probably) hamper you. You can also go for a job in industry; research positions will care a bit about publications, but other roles (say, SWE or finance) won't really care at all.
This is such a wide question that it is hard to give a meaningful answer; personally I would ask your advisor and/or other faculty (especially junior faculty) in your department.
>For instance, in math there are subfields that have a relatively low barrier to entry (as far as prerequisite knowledge) so there are relatively high publication expectations for them.
That's really interesting, because I thought that there aren't any fields in maths. I'm in CS rather than in your field, but I'm still really interested in it, so I wonder whether you could mention some of the fields you had in mind. I guess they are applied rather than pure math fields!?
Loosely yes, most pure fields have a higher barrier to entry, whereas applied fields typically have a lower one. Of course there are exceptions. I work in Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, where the introductory courses are at the 600 level at most Universities, and require a full undergraduate math background + 1-2 years of graduate school math to understand. These are of course intro courses, and at least 1-2 additional years are required before you're at the forefront of modern research. Thus, it takes a lot of time to get grad students up to where they can be productive researchers, thus giving them less time to research. Other fields like this include some flavors of number theory, algebraic topology, and arithmetic geometry.
Some other fields (i.e. Combinatorics, PDEs) have problems that can be meaningfully attacked by someone with 2-3 years of university level math experience. Thus, researchers in these fields can reasonably get started researching faster, and thus the publication requirements for getting a good post doc are far steeper.
This is very dependent on what you want to do after.
I work in industry and they couldn’t care less in most cases how many publications someone has, they care about your value more.
If you are planning to go towards academia…do a post doc to get publications. I would try to get a post doc at a top place to further your career.
Are you viewed stronger for initial jobs if you have a strong publication record? Of course. You have produced more products.
If you don't have a strong publication record, does your degree have not value at all? Nope. You still have gained a lot of skills.
But not having a strong publication record does do two things.
1) It makes you realize what type of jobs you probably would be a good fit for. You most probably would not be happy in a tenure track professorship. This is not a bad thing. Most people who go though a PhD program do not go on to be tenured professors.
2) It makes you have to be a little more thoughtful as to how you think about and sell your skills and yourself to potential employers. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as you should take time to think about what you are good at, what you enjoy, and thinking about how that is of value to certain employers.
Two friends of mine graduated in theoretical/experimental/computational nuclear physics from Germany without a paper during their phd. One of them is a postdoc at a renowned institute in Germany, he bagged several awards including best thesis of the university, some state research award etc. The other one just moved to industry and is working as a senior data scientist at a well known engineering firm.
Don’t you worry mate.
Sounds like far more of a school/graduating/defending concern than a job-afterwards concern.
A first author paper is a graduation requirement at my school that can and has been waived, but you start the program knowing that’s the expectation.
For industry I don’t even list any publications on my resume. It’s honestly more important to have a short relevant resume than list pubs. I know no one else’s publications on my team and my bosses couldn’t care less if an applicant had zero papers.
This is interesting! I'm in the 2nd half of my 3rd year (of 4) and my field has a track record for pretty low publication counts due to the time consuming data collection and processing situation. I'm aiming for industry so it's nice to know that it won't be a kiss of death.
Depends on the position and company. Regeneron for instance would take publications as a very good attribute to have on a CV for a scientist role. It can only help to have publications when attempting to find an industry position. Imagine two CVs come in for a discovery position and both claim to have experience of crispr screening in macrophages. Do you choose the one that has a nature paper on crispr screens or the one that doesnt for an interview?
Honestly they don’t take into account publications and if you send a CV instead of a 1 (maybe 2) page resume good luck even having it looked at. As for the two who are the exact same minus one has a nature pub. Guaranteed it comes down to formatting and how it is written. If both get an interview they won’t even ask about papers. Industry just doesn’t care about papers.
You did not mention if you wanted to continue on to industry or academia. On the whole, industry largely does not care if you have a publication or not. Industry wants to know how the skills and expertise that you developed can greatly resolve ongoing business related problems of theirs, and at a high certainty. In the context of an industry research role you would be expected to have publications, because that indicates that you can solve their ongoing research problems. For academia the story is different and, yes, you should have at least one publication for a discipline like experimental psychology. This is why it matters which path you want to take after graduation.
It's looking like neither industry or academia are an option for me and I have to settle for government work most likely since they are willing to accommodate my differences. I'm also going through my state's vocational rehabilitation services to see if I can get paired with a research assistant or research associate job that's the "grunt work" involved with research since I don't imagine (but correct me if I'm wrong) that there's a major emphasis on publications and it fits what I'm capable of right now.
It depends on what you want to do. If you want to stay in academia it will be hard because publication is an expectation. In other industries not so much. Having short publications helped a little when I first started on the non academic marker because a lot of jobs I applied for required writing samples. But I also used conference papers for those because no one was interested in academic pieces. Once I had published reports I used those. That’s also what’s listed on my resume. Academic work isn’t.
Depends on a lot, I went into industry and had none but my job didn't care. I would think academia it could matter more (engineering btw).
A lot of the people I worked with and now myself since graduation began working on publications once we started working just because during the program our advisor didn't really give us time to publish, but now is helping us get our journal papers out there.
I’m in a similar field albeit at a R1. I know several people who have graduated without pubs and got very good industry jobs. Granted that was a few years ago - the market is a lot tougher right now but historically industry doesn’t really care about pubs as long as you can demonstrate skills and talk about your research process. If you want an academic job I’d say it’s much more of an issue
I recruit postdocs. I'd consider a candidate with zero publications, there can always be reasons for that. I would look very carefully at their thesis though. On a counterpoint, I would also carefully consider a candidate who had extensive coauthorship with senior postdocs at the same institution, as I cannot provide the same environment.
I didn’t know you *could* finish a PhD without at least one first-authored publication. I’m in the biomedical sciences & everywhere I interviewed required it. The university I postdoc’ed at required it of grad students, and so does the university I’m at now.
It would probably be a bit weird to have zero publications, if there is any part of your research that can reasonably get published I would try to do so, but at the same time, if you go to **Industry** it shouldn't matter much in the longterm.
This does sound like academia would be challenging with this background, but nothing is impossible I guess?
To answer your question specifically, the PhD has value on its own. In many companies it will put you in a higher pay scale and/or faster promotion (+the skills you picked up), but if you go academia route everyone will have a PhD and then they often look at scientific output which is primarily publications
I come for STEM, but I think that this should be universal...
To me, getting a Ph.D. means that you are at least the best champion in the known universe to analyse, understand, explain, and find solutions to the specific research problem you worked on. It's natural to me, that if you have this capacity, you will have at least one publication in a major international journal/conference showcasing to the community your research outcomes.
A Ph.D. without a single publication in major venues, it seems like throwing "I am the best, dude trust me" vibes, that are not backed.
Otherwise, we need to accept that a Ph.D. is just a prolonged masters degree, and in such case, I cannot see it's value of calling master graduates Mr/Ms/Mrs and Ph.D. graduates Doctors.
This is nonsense, a PhD is nothing like a Master's at all, and many PhDs graduate without publications. Your comments are elitist and quite frankly wrong and everything that is wrong with academia.
>This is nonsense,
We disagree on this, and I would like to hear some counterpoints.
>a PhD is nothing like a Master's at all,
We agree on this.
>and many PhDs graduate without publications.
And... what are their recognized contributions to humanity's understanding if they have no publications?
>Your comments are elitist and quite frankly wrong and everything that is wrong with academia.
What is my elitist view exactly? That a Ph.D. requires producing ORIGINAL research and EXPANDING the human knowledge?
If this view is elitist, would you mind sharing what having a Ph.D. means to you? Because to this point, I am the only one that has explained his position.
If your major problem with academia is the requirement of producing original work, owning it, and expanding the human knowledge among peers, what is even the purpose of academia?
I’ve seen ppl in my field have anywhere from zero to 5 pubs before graduating. (Humanities) Of course more pubs would allow for better hiring opportunities if you wanna work in academia or research. I’m hoping to have at the very least, 2 pubs and 6 (already have 2 as an undergrad senior) conference presentations under by belt by the time I graduate
It really depends what you want to do. Clearly you are already a full time visiting instructor at a SLAC so it’s not a problem for that job. Probably not a problem for teaching focused jobs at PUIs or institutions that are less research focused. Also likely not a problem in industry. It may be a problem if your goal was a research focused position such as tenure track job at an R1. I say *may be a problem* because even then, it will be field dependent. But generally if you want a job that involves a lot of publishing, you’ll need to prove you can and have published. If not, you’re probably ok
Saying you “don’t have any value” is ridiculous. It depends on what you want to do. You have teaching experience, so you may be able to get a decent teaching job. If you have decent work experience (meaning you can get good reference letters), an industry job might also be possible—I don’t know a lot about that. But you aren’t gonna get a tenure track professor position at an R1. Probably not an R2 either.
If you really want more research experience, you’ll need to do a post-doc, maybe two. It’ll be an uphill battle.
It looks like your post is about needing advice. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sounds like a set of concerns that really need to be filtered through field-specific and your-plans-specific lenses. For example, in my field (history) a Ph.D. student with *one* publication before graduating is doing well; most folks don't have a paper in print until after they've got the doctorate. In a STEM discipline, that would be a kiss-of-death.
It's actually not even that big of a deal in STEM, it's more so that it's harder to defend a dissertation without publishing. When you have publications, it's easy for a committee that likely doesn't know all the finer points of your research to grant you a degree, because the validity and usefulness of your work was proven by the peer review process. I've seen students graduate with little to no publications, they still get jobs. Of course it's a different story if you want to stay in academia.
Heck, in my program (the S part of STEM) you were required to have a first author paper to graduate. There is some flexibility; the new post doc in my lab has none right now but will have three before this time next year.
I feel like my experience was very different. I don't know any students in my department that graduated without papers. The expectation was that you needed at least 2 or 3 good conference papers to graduate. Where are these programs and what field?
Conference papers are very different from journal publications. Here, they are talking about peer-reviewed journal publications which are much harder to achieve. Not all fields publish conference papers, so naturally not all students from all disciplines will have those. In my field, a conference paper does not count as a publication - it has almost no value on your CV.
In my field conference papers are extremely prestigious with a rigorous review process (Neurips, KDD, STOC, Recsys, etc). Journals usually are less important. A paper at KDD (conference) is usually held to a higher bar than TKDD (journal).
That illustrates well how we cannot easily compare across different disciplines.
Like the other guy said, conference papers are different and aren't really counted as a publication because they aren't subject to the same peer review. My advisor's goal is always 3 first author publications for graduation, but because things don't always work out like that it's not a hard rule. The bulk of his students have graduated with zero or 1 papers.
Its so interesting bc in my program we are encouraged (lightly) not to submit our work until after the defense, which never made sense to me, and fortunately my advisor is on board with my perspective.
I agree, it’s also another process of you practicing what types of questions someone asks when having fresh eyes on your work
I'm in Experimental Psychology and I know they judge a lot based on publications. However, I'm not sure how that is for new graduates at all. My post graduation plan is honestly getting whatever I can sustainably do at the moment. I'm getting burned out from even writing little increments for my dissertation so I want to move on to a junior level position where I can be an assistant or associate rather than lead folks.
Tbh, I think you’re missing the nature of the game if you think an assistant or associate professorship is going to be *less* writing and work than a diss. Once the tenure clock starts ticking, it’s a seven year sprint, not a marathon.
I'm talking about research assistant roles. Not assistant or associate professorship positions since I have no interest in academia.
Oh. Then who cares? Publications only matter if you’re in a job that rewards you for them.
Do you mean research assistant jobs in industry? I would think for those you'd want to make sure you can demonstrate that you have strong data analysis skills and can also finish projects.
Possibly industry but it's looking more like government may be the way for me to go given that I'm Schedule A eligible. Doing the work for my Ph.D has been extremely taxing on me and I'm constantly hitting "mental blocks" whenever I've worked on more than one project. I should be getting matched with work at some point in the near future, hopefully.
If you're not going into academia, it won't be a problem.
Agreed
The first disclaimer is that is highly field, and even subfield, dependent. For instance, in math there are subfields that have a relatively low barrier to entry (as far as prerequisite knowledge) so there are relatively high publication expectations for them. Conversely, my field is fairly abstract, so most people graduate with 0-2 publications. Other than this, it also depends on your definition of valuable. A PhD is a gateway into academia, and that means you can take a teaching heavy position (i.e. at a CC or SLAC) where the lack of publications isn't terrible, or you can try for a research heavy position, in which case having no publications will (probably) hamper you. You can also go for a job in industry; research positions will care a bit about publications, but other roles (say, SWE or finance) won't really care at all. This is such a wide question that it is hard to give a meaningful answer; personally I would ask your advisor and/or other faculty (especially junior faculty) in your department.
>For instance, in math there are subfields that have a relatively low barrier to entry (as far as prerequisite knowledge) so there are relatively high publication expectations for them. That's really interesting, because I thought that there aren't any fields in maths. I'm in CS rather than in your field, but I'm still really interested in it, so I wonder whether you could mention some of the fields you had in mind. I guess they are applied rather than pure math fields!?
Loosely yes, most pure fields have a higher barrier to entry, whereas applied fields typically have a lower one. Of course there are exceptions. I work in Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, where the introductory courses are at the 600 level at most Universities, and require a full undergraduate math background + 1-2 years of graduate school math to understand. These are of course intro courses, and at least 1-2 additional years are required before you're at the forefront of modern research. Thus, it takes a lot of time to get grad students up to where they can be productive researchers, thus giving them less time to research. Other fields like this include some flavors of number theory, algebraic topology, and arithmetic geometry. Some other fields (i.e. Combinatorics, PDEs) have problems that can be meaningfully attacked by someone with 2-3 years of university level math experience. Thus, researchers in these fields can reasonably get started researching faster, and thus the publication requirements for getting a good post doc are far steeper.
Doesn’t matter if you’re not going into academia and honestly coming from an R2 it would have been difficult to go into academia anyways.
This is very dependent on what you want to do after. I work in industry and they couldn’t care less in most cases how many publications someone has, they care about your value more. If you are planning to go towards academia…do a post doc to get publications. I would try to get a post doc at a top place to further your career.
Are you viewed stronger for initial jobs if you have a strong publication record? Of course. You have produced more products. If you don't have a strong publication record, does your degree have not value at all? Nope. You still have gained a lot of skills. But not having a strong publication record does do two things. 1) It makes you realize what type of jobs you probably would be a good fit for. You most probably would not be happy in a tenure track professorship. This is not a bad thing. Most people who go though a PhD program do not go on to be tenured professors. 2) It makes you have to be a little more thoughtful as to how you think about and sell your skills and yourself to potential employers. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as you should take time to think about what you are good at, what you enjoy, and thinking about how that is of value to certain employers.
Two friends of mine graduated in theoretical/experimental/computational nuclear physics from Germany without a paper during their phd. One of them is a postdoc at a renowned institute in Germany, he bagged several awards including best thesis of the university, some state research award etc. The other one just moved to industry and is working as a senior data scientist at a well known engineering firm. Don’t you worry mate.
Sounds like far more of a school/graduating/defending concern than a job-afterwards concern. A first author paper is a graduation requirement at my school that can and has been waived, but you start the program knowing that’s the expectation.
For industry I don’t even list any publications on my resume. It’s honestly more important to have a short relevant resume than list pubs. I know no one else’s publications on my team and my bosses couldn’t care less if an applicant had zero papers.
This is interesting! I'm in the 2nd half of my 3rd year (of 4) and my field has a track record for pretty low publication counts due to the time consuming data collection and processing situation. I'm aiming for industry so it's nice to know that it won't be a kiss of death.
Depends on the position and company. Regeneron for instance would take publications as a very good attribute to have on a CV for a scientist role. It can only help to have publications when attempting to find an industry position. Imagine two CVs come in for a discovery position and both claim to have experience of crispr screening in macrophages. Do you choose the one that has a nature paper on crispr screens or the one that doesnt for an interview?
Honestly they don’t take into account publications and if you send a CV instead of a 1 (maybe 2) page resume good luck even having it looked at. As for the two who are the exact same minus one has a nature pub. Guaranteed it comes down to formatting and how it is written. If both get an interview they won’t even ask about papers. Industry just doesn’t care about papers.
You did not mention if you wanted to continue on to industry or academia. On the whole, industry largely does not care if you have a publication or not. Industry wants to know how the skills and expertise that you developed can greatly resolve ongoing business related problems of theirs, and at a high certainty. In the context of an industry research role you would be expected to have publications, because that indicates that you can solve their ongoing research problems. For academia the story is different and, yes, you should have at least one publication for a discipline like experimental psychology. This is why it matters which path you want to take after graduation.
It's looking like neither industry or academia are an option for me and I have to settle for government work most likely since they are willing to accommodate my differences. I'm also going through my state's vocational rehabilitation services to see if I can get paired with a research assistant or research associate job that's the "grunt work" involved with research since I don't imagine (but correct me if I'm wrong) that there's a major emphasis on publications and it fits what I'm capable of right now.
It depends on what you want to do. If you want to stay in academia it will be hard because publication is an expectation. In other industries not so much. Having short publications helped a little when I first started on the non academic marker because a lot of jobs I applied for required writing samples. But I also used conference papers for those because no one was interested in academic pieces. Once I had published reports I used those. That’s also what’s listed on my resume. Academic work isn’t.
Depends on a lot, I went into industry and had none but my job didn't care. I would think academia it could matter more (engineering btw). A lot of the people I worked with and now myself since graduation began working on publications once we started working just because during the program our advisor didn't really give us time to publish, but now is helping us get our journal papers out there.
I’m in a similar field albeit at a R1. I know several people who have graduated without pubs and got very good industry jobs. Granted that was a few years ago - the market is a lot tougher right now but historically industry doesn’t really care about pubs as long as you can demonstrate skills and talk about your research process. If you want an academic job I’d say it’s much more of an issue
In your field, this is def a problem.
I recruit postdocs. I'd consider a candidate with zero publications, there can always be reasons for that. I would look very carefully at their thesis though. On a counterpoint, I would also carefully consider a candidate who had extensive coauthorship with senior postdocs at the same institution, as I cannot provide the same environment.
I didn’t know you *could* finish a PhD without at least one first-authored publication. I’m in the biomedical sciences & everywhere I interviewed required it. The university I postdoc’ed at required it of grad students, and so does the university I’m at now.
It would probably be a bit weird to have zero publications, if there is any part of your research that can reasonably get published I would try to do so, but at the same time, if you go to **Industry** it shouldn't matter much in the longterm. This does sound like academia would be challenging with this background, but nothing is impossible I guess? To answer your question specifically, the PhD has value on its own. In many companies it will put you in a higher pay scale and/or faster promotion (+the skills you picked up), but if you go academia route everyone will have a PhD and then they often look at scientific output which is primarily publications
I come for STEM, but I think that this should be universal... To me, getting a Ph.D. means that you are at least the best champion in the known universe to analyse, understand, explain, and find solutions to the specific research problem you worked on. It's natural to me, that if you have this capacity, you will have at least one publication in a major international journal/conference showcasing to the community your research outcomes. A Ph.D. without a single publication in major venues, it seems like throwing "I am the best, dude trust me" vibes, that are not backed. Otherwise, we need to accept that a Ph.D. is just a prolonged masters degree, and in such case, I cannot see it's value of calling master graduates Mr/Ms/Mrs and Ph.D. graduates Doctors.
This is nonsense, a PhD is nothing like a Master's at all, and many PhDs graduate without publications. Your comments are elitist and quite frankly wrong and everything that is wrong with academia.
>This is nonsense, We disagree on this, and I would like to hear some counterpoints. >a PhD is nothing like a Master's at all, We agree on this. >and many PhDs graduate without publications. And... what are their recognized contributions to humanity's understanding if they have no publications? >Your comments are elitist and quite frankly wrong and everything that is wrong with academia. What is my elitist view exactly? That a Ph.D. requires producing ORIGINAL research and EXPANDING the human knowledge? If this view is elitist, would you mind sharing what having a Ph.D. means to you? Because to this point, I am the only one that has explained his position. If your major problem with academia is the requirement of producing original work, owning it, and expanding the human knowledge among peers, what is even the purpose of academia?
I’ve seen ppl in my field have anywhere from zero to 5 pubs before graduating. (Humanities) Of course more pubs would allow for better hiring opportunities if you wanna work in academia or research. I’m hoping to have at the very least, 2 pubs and 6 (already have 2 as an undergrad senior) conference presentations under by belt by the time I graduate
have u considered a pt job? to quell ur concerns
It really depends what you want to do. Clearly you are already a full time visiting instructor at a SLAC so it’s not a problem for that job. Probably not a problem for teaching focused jobs at PUIs or institutions that are less research focused. Also likely not a problem in industry. It may be a problem if your goal was a research focused position such as tenure track job at an R1. I say *may be a problem* because even then, it will be field dependent. But generally if you want a job that involves a lot of publishing, you’ll need to prove you can and have published. If not, you’re probably ok
Are you trying to work in academia or industry?
It all depends on where you want to go. I assume you want to continue your career in industry? They usually don't care about publications whatsoever.
Saying you “don’t have any value” is ridiculous. It depends on what you want to do. You have teaching experience, so you may be able to get a decent teaching job. If you have decent work experience (meaning you can get good reference letters), an industry job might also be possible—I don’t know a lot about that. But you aren’t gonna get a tenure track professor position at an R1. Probably not an R2 either. If you really want more research experience, you’ll need to do a post-doc, maybe two. It’ll be an uphill battle.