bibliometrics - How is an experimental particle physicist evaluated?

As an undergraduate student majoring in physics, I intend to apply for a Ph.D. in experimental particle physics. I have known that working as physicists in this field is kind of different, as they are always affiliated to a collaboration (like CMS in LHC) and may appear as authors in loads of related papers, resulting in high citations. Therefore it seems traditional evaluations of a researcher (focusing on the citations or h-index) do not work when assessing an excellent and famous experimental particle physicist.

Thus I am asking:

• 
  

  How are particle researchers assessed in reality, in the case when a Ph.D. applier is searching for and comparing professors in the similar field, or when a researcher is going to find a position as an assistant professor? Does the specific role of a scientist in the collaboration (say, the group leader) matter in this evaluation procedure?

  
  


• 
  

  How does university ranking play into this? What are the probable differences between professors in particle physics who work at a higher-ranked institution (ranked by physics major) and those who work at a lower-ranked one – given that they are both affiliated to some big collaboration. This question comes to me since it seems one cannot distinguish a famous particle physicist by the conventional method which is performed by university ranking.

  
  

Answer

HEP PhD here.

What matters for a permanent position?

• By far the most important factor is the "physics." You need to have innovative ideas about how to discover particles. On the small experiments, this can mean new approaches for detectors, analysis, etc.; on the larger experiments, this usually means new analysis techniques.


• Another important factor is "leadership" -- you need to attend lots of meetings and make substantial contributions at all of them.


• Though it's understandable that universities want to hire the highest-impact people possible, this does lead to a slightly toxic environment. There are endless meetings where everyone argues over factors of epsilon, and everyone wants to be involved in dozens of things but not put time into any of them. Skills, teaching, and knowledge of other fields/subfields don't count at all.

How is this measured?

• The most important way is the letters of recommendation. You will need 3 for post-docs and up to a dozen for a faculty position.


• "Official" positions such as analysis lead, sub-convenor, etc. help a lot.



• Awards and grants also help, though there are not many of these for grad students.


• As you say, publications don't count at all, as there's no way to tell who worked on what (which is really stupid, IMO).

Finally, let me point out that here are ~10 US HEP faculty jobs per year and hundreds of HEP PhDs produced each year (and the lack of new particles showing up at CERN means that hiring is likely to decelerate). So, there is some element of randomness.