Early career newSletters
Editorial: Do we want to clone ourselves?
Refereeing journal papers: hints for new reviewers
Early and Mid-Career Researchers Forum
Forget the competition, and collaborate
News bulletin
EDITORIAL: Do we want to clone ourselves?
I often wonder whether we have PhD training all wrong.
The Australian PhD is based on the English model: a PhD student will spend three years in a one-to-one relationship with a supervisor, who is expected to create a clone. The research project will be narrow and in depth, learned papers will be produced and the whole enterprise is designed to create new researchers who have the same set of skills and who will follow the same career path as their supervisors (if they are really good).
I was told, time and again, when I started my PhD in 1960, ‘A PhD is a training in research!’, no more, no less. To understand this attitude, it is important to remember that it originated a hundred years ago, when only about 3% of young people went to university, and a tiny proportion of these went on to do a PhD.
Surely, this style of PhD training is not what we need today. There are about 2000 PhD degrees awarded by Australian universities in scientific disciplines each year. There might be 300 posts each year that become vacant for researchers in universities and CSIRO (and I suspect that is a generous estimate). A few of our PhD graduates will be international students who will return to their own countries; others will be Australians who will take up postdocs abroad. However, we must also factor in overseas postdocs who come to Australia seeking long-term posts and who will compete with local graduates for these relatively few positions.
So, what happens to the majority of PhDs who don’t end up fulfilling their dream (or the dream of the system) and filling a senior research post?
Rather than regretting their ‘loss’, shouldn’t we welcome the diversity of positions they may move into? I believe that there is great value in PhD graduates filling senior posts in many walks of life. Would our captains of industry, our politicians, our trade union leaders and our top police and defence chiefs, for example, not benefit from the rigorous intellectual and research training that a PhD provides?
In order for such a shift to occur, both our attitudes and the PhD course must change. A PhD should continue to take three years, consisting of a rigorous research program and the wonderful/horrible discipline of having to publish, but with a parallel emphasis on acquiring life skills. Every PhD student should learn most of the following: finance, negotiation skills, media, time management, mentoring, emotional intelligence, and writing and speaking plain English. Such training would not only prepare PhD students who want to move into the parallel universes of business or politics that would greatly benefit from more scientific expertise, it would also help those who choose to pursue a traditional research career.
Professor Bob Williamson
Secretary for Science Policy
Australian Academy of Science
Balanced Scientist Postgraduate Student Program
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre offers a PhD training program that aims to produce better, more ‘balanced’ scientists that are attractive to employers, particularly in industry. As well as pursuing a research project, students participate in an 80-day training program to learn leadership, management, business and entrepreneurial skills. For more information, see www.invasiveanimals.com/research/goals/goal-11/11e1/.
How do you think PhD training in Australia could be improved?
We invite you to submit your opinions, ideas and comments. Selected responses will be published in the next issue of Early Days. Please email your response to ecr@science.org.au before 31 January 2012.
Refereeing journal papers: hints for new reviewers
Dr James Tickner
Science Leader, CSIRO
Editor, Applied Radiation and Isotopes
Have you ever complained about how long an editor is taking to reach a decision on your paper? Perhaps you should be blaming the reviewers. Persuading scientists to submit their comments punctually occupies most of an editor’s time and an ill-considered review can stall the whole process.
If you are invited to review a paper, there are only two reasons for declining: a conflict of interest (check the ethics statement on the journal’s website) or knowing nothing about the topic. Pleading that you are too busy is not a good excuse. When considering whether you have sufficient knowledge of the paper’s subject matter, remember that most journals appoint several reviewers with overlapping areas of interest. It is quite reasonable to focus your review on the areas where you have most expertise, but do let the editor know.
Your review should start with a summary of the main features of the work, focusing on its novelty and scientific impact (check earlier papers by the same authors), along with any significant criticisms of the approach, accuracy, methods and conclusions of the research.
Comment on the structure and flow of the paper next. You should consider whether the introduction establishes the context of the research adequately, including appropriate references to existing work; whether any explanations could be improved or shortened and whether any figures and tables should be added or removed.
Your review should conclude with any minor corrections. Although your job is not to proofread the paper, any suggestions are usually gratefully received.
A considered review should take anything from a few hours to a few days to prepare and generally run to several pages. Whilst at times a chore, reviewing can also be very rewarding, helping you to improve your own writing style and introducing you to research that you would otherwise miss.
Lastly, remember the months you have spent waiting for a decision on your seminal paper, and submit your own review on time.
For the last word in how (not) to review, see Haile’s classic letter: Nature 268 (1977) p100. Available at www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5616/pdf/268100a0.pdf
Early and Mid-Career Researchers Forum
Welcome to the Early and Mid-Career Researchers Forum, an exciting initiative recently launched by the Australian Academy of Science. The forum will comprise early to mid-career researchers in the natural and applied sciences from across Australia.
The forum will work with the Academy to provide an opportunity for researchers at or near the beginning of their careers to make a positive contribution to Australian science policy at a national level. This will include advising the Academy on early to mid-career researcher issues, assisting the Academy to inform science policy development on relevant issues, helping to organise and run early to mid-career researcher events including Think Tanks and Frontiers of Science meetings, and organising a national conference.
At the inaugural meeting of the interim committee on 24 October 2011, discussion focused on professional development, job security, funding opportunities and gender equity. These topics align with the four overarching issues in Australian science raised by Academy President Suzanne Cory in her recent presentation to the National Press Club:
- increasing investment in research and development
- increasing international exposure and collaborations
- retaining women in science
- enhancing scientific education at all levels of the community.
The forum is sponsored by the Academy, with generous donations from the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Monash University and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute for Medical Research.
If you are a PhD student, postdoctoral fellow or launching your independent research career, we encourage you to sign up to the Academy’s early to mid-career researcher mailing list to receive regular updates on the work of the forum and to contribute your ideas. See science.org.au/ecr/ecrlist.html.
Please send your ideas and feedback to ecr@science.org.au.
Interim committee members
Dr Andrew Brooks, University of Queensland
Dr Ben Chuwen, University of Tasmania
Dr Michelle Dunstone, Monash University
Dr Raelene Endersby, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research
Dr Krystal Evans, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute for Medical Research
Dr Marguerite Evans-Galea (Chair), Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Dr Rosemary Keogh, Royal Women’s Hospital
Dr Darren Saunders, Garvan Institute for Medical Research
Dr Andrew Siebel, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute
Dr James Tickner, CSIRO
Forget the competition, and collaborate
Dr Spring Chenoa Cooper Robbins
Postdoctoral researcher, University of Sydney
Second place is the first loser!
No excuses!
Don’t come to play; come to win!
What do these phrases have in common? They all sound a little extreme, the type of annoying slogans a high school coach might yell at you. But most of all, they all reflect the underlying, nagging voice we hear throughout our PhD candidature and early career in research.
This voice is urging us to PRODUCE! We all know the saying ‘publish or perish’ and most of the time this pressure pushes researchers into isolation, working hard to spin research data into publication gold. Sometimes the voice is not so quiet — it may literally come screaming across your desk. It is a voice that is difficult for early career researchers to ignore.
However, this research working style is often counterproductive. Instead of working alone, we should all be working together. Ideas come faster, easier, and are usually better when discussed with colleagues. Working together distributes workload and improves product. Inviting people to work with you almost guarantees you will receive invitations in return, thus doubling (or tripling or quadrupling) the number of projects (and potential grants and papers) you take part in.
So, when the temptation comes to skip the next university luncheon or early career researcher networking session in favour of staying in your office or lab to get some work done, remember the possibilities that potential collaborations hold.
Taking on this advice is not likely to completely eliminate your competitive nature, nor will it dampen your competitors’ zeal. Collaboration is still a form of competition in many ways. For example, there is the competition among collaborators to be chief investigator on a grant application, or the first author on a paper. But, that’s just friendly competition, right?
News bulletin
Defining quality for research training in Australia
In November, the Academy made a submission to the Department of Innovation, Industry and Research consultation paper, Defining quality for research training in Australia. One of the Academy’s recommendations was that Australian higher degrees by research should include broader skills training to prepare candidates for the ‘real world’ and facilitate their development of transferable, professional skills. The full text of the Academy’s submission is available at science.org.au/reports/documents/defining-quality-for-training.pdf.
Invest in international science or languish: Academy releases plan for global engagement of Australian scientists
On 22 November 2011, the Academy released a position paper, Australian science in a changing world: innovation requires global engagement, proposing an integrated international science program to ensure that Australian science remains internationally competitive and relevant. Recommendations include funding for strategic partnerships and collaborative innovation projects, an expanded network of science and innovation counsellors in Australian embassies and the creation of a national advisory board for international science collaboration. The full report is available at science.org.au/reports/documents/Innovationrequiresglobalengagement.pdf
Geoengineering for climate remediation
The first major meeting in Australia to provide a forum for crossdisciplinary discussion on geoengineering the climate was held on 23–24 September 2011 at the Academy’s Shine Dome in Canberra. A summary of the findings and conclusions of the discussion can be found at science.org.au/natcoms/nc-ess/documents/geoengineering-symposium-summary.pdf.
2012 Public Lecture Series
The Academy’s 2012 public lecture series Caring for the Australian countryside: lessons from the past and present will examine sustainable sociology, mining, agriculture, culture and environment in country Australia. Adjunct Professor Bill Gammage will give the first lecture, Aboriginal land management through history, on Tuesday 7 February 2012. The Academy’s public lectures are held at the Shine Dome in Canberra and live-streamed from 6pm at www.science.org.au/livestream/.
