I'm a physicist and I might have figured out too late that I really like research, even if it hurts. I had a tough PhD, during which I worked in isolation on a new technique. I didn't publish along the way (my supervisor didn't believe in conference papers, I got scooped and in general nobody cared, even if I repeatedly stressed the issue). After my defense I was unemployed and I finished the paper on my thesis work, which has a couple dozen authors (I'm first) and was published on Scientific Reports. I had a 2 years postdoc offer in the department I did my PhD in, but I felt I needed a change so I said no. I opted for a five months postdoc on a topic slightly related to the one I worked on during my PhD, and I loved it. The advisor was great and I really enjoyed being treated as a human and having the opportunity to work on a hard problem. Unfortunately the data I worked on was meh, so although I developed a new software suite it's still not clear if the data is good enough for a publication (I think so, but let's see).
I am applying for postdocs, and I am not getting any interview. Is it because I only have one paper (three more in the pipeline), although introducing a brand new technique? I have the impression I have been cheated: everybody kept saying publish and it will be better, but things are not better (except for the fact that I closed a quite big problem). I got interviews with a few software companies, but I have a strong feeling that I will miss the opportunity to do research independently, instead that implementing something... Do you think this is unreasonable?
I'm probably better than average as a researcher, but I have a worse than average track record. Is there a way to fix things or is it game over?