The authors regret errors that were made in the preparation of this manuscript, which do not impact the conclusions or findings of the paper (Pashayan et al. Reference Pashayan, Kehlenbach, Ye, Mueller and Willis2023). The following minor corrections and their corresponding locations within the published paper are reflected below:
-
• Data availability statement: The authors uploaded a replication file to the Harvard Dataverse that was not included at the point of submission to the journal. The journal editors have been notified of this, and research documentation and data that support the findings of this study are openly available at the Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/J1IBIS.
-
• Abstract: The authors clarify that they conducted an analysis of APSA digital surveys launched in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The APSA surveys asked members and non-members in the field of political science about a range of issues including employment, student academic climate, well-being, and other issues related to the status of participation in the industry.
-
• Survey authorship and distribution: The authors clarify that the surveys were distributed by APSA and were not designed or distributed by the APSA Committee on the Status of Graduate Students.
-
• Accurate N: The N for each survey is accurately reflected as follows: From the data collected by APSA in 2018, our analysis uses a sample of (N=245). From the data collected in 2020-21, we use a sample of (N=317). And from the data collected in 2022, we use a sample of (N=277) We then updated the descriptive statistics throughout to reflect this more accurate N.
-
• Updated statistics: The authors wish to correct that in the 2018 survey, 59.6% of surveyed job seekers applied for more than 25 jobs, and 35.1% applied for more than 50. This is a correction from 63.7% and 37.5%, respectfully, and is a result of the updated N.
-
• Clarified statistics: The authors clarify the major concerns of job seekers to be more in line with the survey questions, where 72.2% (adjusted from 71.4%) and 68.2% chose location and professional fit (respectfully) as major concerns from a list, followed by a ranking of priorities, where 31.45% chose professional fit as the highest priority and 13.5% considered location the most important. This clarifies the difference between the two separate questions, choosing important concerns and then separately ranking those concerns.
-
• Clarified statistics: The authors wish to correct that 55.5% of respondents held a PhD degree, not that 55.5% held a PhD degree and were unemployed.
-
• Clarified text: The authors wish to remove an unclear reference to graduate student family planning.
-
• Tables: The authors have updated Tables 1 and 2 to accurately reflect the correct N.
Table 1 Description of Surveys
Table 2 Graduate Student Respondents’ Reported Race or Ethnicity Across Surveys
Open access
