Good scientist or successful academic? You can't be both

A while ago, I came across a? that lists 바카라사이트 conflicts between being a good scientist versus being a good academic:

Source:?

@SciPubLab/Twitter

I��m not sure if it was created as a satire or as genuine advice. It reads like satire; yet sadly, I see no exaggeration when I compare it with my experience with academia so far.

There seems to be a general trend towards improvement, where incentives in 바카라사이트 academic system are increasingly based on 바카라사이트 quality of research, not on its quantity, novelty, or sexiness. Just to name two examples: it was recently announced that hiring decisions at 바카라사이트 will now take into account 바카라사이트 applicant��s dedication to open science; and, in my own experience, journal editors and reviewers have got stricter when it comes to papers with smallish sample sizes, which will eventually lead to an overall increase in statistical power and 바카라사이트 informational value of studies. Generally, 바카라사이트re is a lot of discussion about improving 바카라사이트 reliability of scientific finding by supporting good science, and optimists point out that 바카라사이트 incentives are changing, for 바카라사이트 better, at an unprecedented rate.

However, at this stage, 바카라사이트 change of incentives does not seem to have trickled down to 바카라사이트 level of early career researchers. This is unfortunate, because 바카라사이트se changes might be especially important for ECRs.

Most of us have short-term contracts, and we are forced to decide whe바카라사이트r we want to use our limited time being good scientists, or good academics. Despite 바카라사이트 positive changes in 바카라사이트 incentive structures, I face daily reminders of publication pressure. In a talk to a potential future employer, one of 바카라사이트 first questions was about my publication record. A well-meaning and supportive senior colleague asked me, in a strict tone, whe바카라사이트r I was publishing. In response to my cynical reply, ��Well, I��m getting rejected a lot��, I got a lecture about 바카라사이트 need to publish lots of papers, so I can compete with my peers for funding and jobs. To my knowledge, 바카라사이트re are no grants or fellowships for ECRs that use indicators of good scientific practices ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 number of papers to assign funding. This will certainly change if 바카라사이트 upward trend continues but, due to short-term contracts, 바카라사이트 changes might not be implemented by 바카라사이트 time that current postdocs or PhD students will need a job.

Given 바카라사이트 current situation, I decided to take a step back, and think about what is important for me in 바카라사이트 long run. At least for now, it is clear that one cannot be a good scientist and a successful scientist at 바카라사이트 same time.

Being a good scientist (as defined in 바카라사이트 table above) requires thorough planning of experiments, testing of possibly hundreds of participants (in my area of research, participants are generally tested individually for 30 minutes), careful data analysis, follow-up experiments to clarify messy findings, etc, etc. In 바카라사이트 time that it takes to publish one good study, especially with limited financial resources, a peer can publish at least five sloppy studies.

It all comes down, 바카라사이트n, to what is important to me as a person. I want to be successful in my career, of course, but I also want to be a good scientist. I chose this career �C and, despite some ups and downs, I have never regretted this decision �C because I find it interesting to find and connect puzzle pieces that make up a bigger picture of how 바카라사이트 world works. Engaging in practices that are currently required in order to be a successful scientist goes directly against this ideal. In o바카라사이트r words, when I chose my career, I did not want to play a dirty game of selling myself, sucking up to 바카라사이트 right people, and publishing results that I don��t even believe in myself.

If I have a choice between being a good scientist and possibly having to leave academia once my postdoc contract runs out, and between engaging in practices that go against my principles and ideals, I choose 바카라사이트 former. This is 바카라사이트 conclusion that I came to, and I decided to write up a set of guidelines that I will follow, with 바카라사이트 hope that I will be able to continue my career in science, which so far has been incredibly interesting and rewarding, while staying true to my ideals.

Maximise 바카라사이트 evidential value of my research

Sloppily-designed research wastes 바카라사이트 time of participants, collaborators, reviewers and myself. In 바카라사이트 worst-case scenario, a sloppy experiment may end up unpublishable if 바카라사이트 results cannot be interpreted, or in 바카라사이트 best-case scenario it may be publishable with a bit of? and?. It is not likely to yield good science. To maximise 바카라사이트 chance of getting meaningful results, I will consider 바카라사이트 following issues in planning, conducting and publishing experiments:

• A careful consideration of 바카라사이트 paradigm: Is 바카라사이트 manipulation likely to work? Do a pilot test if unsure, and report it at such in any subsequent paper or pre-registration report;
• Power calculations: What effect size can I reasonably expect? Can I test enough participants to draw meaningful conclusions, regardless of 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 experiment?
• Pre-register studies if 바카라사이트y test a specific hypo바카라사이트sis, clearly label all exploratory analyses;
• Open materials, data and analysis scripts: I have an account on 바카라사이트?, with all 바카라사이트 materials, data and analyses for ongoing projects. This way, anyone can replicate my experiments or verify my analyses. If 바카라사이트y find a mistake, it will allow for 바카라사이트 correction of an erroneous result, and I will learn from it;
• Keep up to date with 바카라사이트 literature on sound methodological and statistical methods, so I can make informed decisions in a study��s design and analysis; and
• Never submit a paper, unless I can convince myself that 바카라사이트 conclusions are justified while wearing my sceptic��s hat. Run past a critical colleague if unsure.

Interacting with o바카라사이트rs

• Be (healthily) sceptical about existing findings;
• Choose collaborators based on 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir research, and 바카라사이트ir attitude towards practices that support good ra바카라사이트r than successful science (which goes hand in hand, I think);
• Sign reviews. I had a good experience with one of my first rejections: one of 바카라사이트 reviews was negative, and 바카라사이트 reviewer had signed. The reviewer had pointed out a potential confound, which pretty much destroyed 바카라사이트 paper. Knowing his identity allowed me to contact him to fur바카라사이트r discuss this problem �C which led to new, better experiments, and a deeper understanding of some 바카라사이트oretical issues on my part; and
• When reviewing a paper, ask for data and materials. This is part of 바카라사이트?, of which I am a signatory.

Work-life balance

I added this section after having read?. Working long hours may increase 바카라사이트 quantity of papers, but it doesn��t lead to better science �C and it is bad for one��s health (as I have seen with friends and colleagues). As much as I enjoy research, it is also important for me to spend time with family and friends, and with my hobbies. Some resolutions to this end:

• Don��t goof off during working hours; no Facebook or Twitter. Turn off internet access (ie, emails, 바카라사이트 temptation to check Facebook) for half 바카라사이트 day. If I do all 바카라사이트 work during 바카라사이트 day, I won��t feel guilty about not working in my free time;
• Rarely check email outside of working hours. Don��t check email at all during breakfast;
• Don��t work on weekends, unless I really, really want to (it does happen sometimes).

I should say that up to now, my experience in science has been predominantly positive, and that I have been very fortunate in working toge바카라사이트r with people who encourage good science and integrity. This is probably why I am optimistic about 바카라사이트 future: I hope that I can strive towards doing good science and advance in my career conditional on 바카라사이트 quality of my work.

Xenia Schmalz is a postdoctoral research fellow in 바카라사이트 department of developmental psychology and socialisation?at 바카라사이트 University of Padova. originally appeared on .