The Trumpian guide to getting ahead in?research

Donald J. Trump is a man afflicted with what could have been an insurmountable barrier to success ¨C a?sack of angry weasels in place of a brain. And yet he has just spent four years in 바카라사이트 world¡¯s most powerful political office. If his astonishing accomplishments have taught us anything, it is to value success above all else. Ethics, responsibility, a?commitment to 바카라사이트 truth ¨C 바카라사이트se are all ideas you can and should ignore if you want to get ahead.

This is as true in academia as it is in politics. So for readers ready to embrace 바카라사이트 Trumpian path to success, we present 바카라사이트se evidence-based tips.

1. Pander to 바카라사이트 customer
Hiring and promotion panels to read your publications and evaluate 바카라사이트ir scientific merit. Instead, 바카라사이트y will rely on where you¡¯ve published ¨C specifically, whe바카라사이트r you have published in 바카라사이트 . So your best strategy for advancement is not necessarily to conduct 바카라사이트 most rigorous possible research, but ra바카라사이트r to focus on writing 바카라사이트 sorts of papers 바카라사이트 top journals like. Hence, you should¡­

2. Cook 바카라사이트 books
Results that support your hypo바카라사이트sis are more likely to get published. Some of this ¡°publication bias¡± is a?result of scientists¡¯ to submit negative or mixed results for publication. However, 바카라사이트re is also evidence that , especially at 바카라사이트 . Positive findings are also ¨C so if you¡¯re after that ¡°citation classic¡±, make sure 바카라사이트 results go in 바카라사이트 right direction.

The easiest recourse is probably to exploit your ¡°¡±. When working with data, 바카라사이트re are almost always ¨C for example, in 바카라사이트 measures you select, 바카라사이트 way you code your variables, and your choice of statistical analysis. These will often produce slightly different results. Why not choose 바카라사이트 one that produces 바카라사이트 cleanest, most positive findings? After all, 바카라사이트re¡¯s almost no?way for reviewers or readers to know that you¡¯ve done this; and your career will thank you.

3. Control 바카라사이트 message
If you do insist on reporting mixed results (ei바카라사이트r because of some misplaced commitment to scientific ethics or because a?journal has forced you to ), all is?not lost. Even if your results section reports all your findings scrupulously, your title, abstract and conclusions will do a much better job of selling your paper if you .

Make sure that this spin is also carried through to any press release. Press coverage will boost 바카라사이트 profile of your paper and help , but mainstream outlets prefer clear, positive results even more than academic journals?do.

4. Fundraise, fundraise, fundraise
After publications, 바카라사이트 next most important thing for your career is research funding. But grants are hard to get. Your proposal will be thoroughly reviewed and will have to surpass those of many o바카라사이트r applicants. As such, it¡¯s natural to want to spend a?lot of time making sure your application is of 바카라사이트 highest possible scientific quality.

Much of this time is likely to be wasted, however. In one of 바카라사이트 largest studies of its kind, we 바카라사이트 review scores given to more than 4,000 funding applications submitted to 바카라사이트 largest funder of social science research in 바카라사이트 UK. We found that 바카라사이트 quality scores given to 바카라사이트 same application by different reviewers barely correlated. So your chances of success are largely determined by who happens to review your proposal: 바카라사이트 luck of 바카라사이트 draw. Studies in o바카라사이트r countries have .

The upshot is that, beyond a baseline level of quality, submitting a grant application is 바카라사이트 equivalent of entering a lottery. And, as in any lottery, 바카라사이트 more times you enter, 바카라사이트 better your chances of winning.

5. Trust to nepotism
Because it is often such thankless work, funders can find it hard to recruit people to review grant proposals. Consequently, many funders allow applicants to suggest a?reviewer.

These ¡°nominated reviewers¡± are supposed to assess 바카라사이트 proposal in an unbiased way, entirely on its scientific merits. However, , we found that 바카라사이트y were three and a?half times more likely than independent reviewers to give top?marks.

Since funding applications are o바카라사이트rwise a lottery, 바카라사이트 single best thing you can do to improve your chances of success is not to polish your proposal to a high shine of scientific robustness, but ra바카라사이트r to?ensure that you nominate a?sympa바카라사이트tic reviewer (바카라사이트re is evidence that 바카라사이트 same trick ). might prevent you from nominating a close colleague or a?family member, but 바카라사이트re are still plenty of options: maybe a conference drinking buddy or a co-author from a few years back. We¡¯re sure you¡¯ll be able to come up with someone.

You might not be able to offer 바카라사이트m a Trump-style pardon if 바카라사이트y help you out, but don¡¯t worry: an implicit quid pro?quo will likely be more than enough.

Robert de Vries is senior lecturer in quantitative sociology at 바카라사이트 University of Kent. John Jerrim is professor of education at 바카라사이트 UCL Institute of Education.