Stimulated by a recent blog post 12 very wise guidelines for surviving science in which @ad_mico reflects on some of his career to date “The applicant has too many papers where he is neither first nor last” struck a chord with me as in effect this is very similar feedback I have had on several fellowship applications. Since World War II the scientific workforce has greatly expanded due to increased governmental funding, increased science education and commercialisation of such discoveries there has been a concomitant increase in scientific publications as a result with an increasing number of authors per article. In part this is due to the increased multi-disciplinary nature of projects in which scientists from historically separate disciplines collaborate with each other, a good thing in my mind. However the increasing emphasis placed on scientific metrics (many of which at best are likely to be highly inaccurate, at worst completely unreliable) and the increasing necessity to show that your work and by extension you have impact is helped fuelling the increasing author numbers on science papers. Add this to a flat lining, if not decreasing investment in science, with significant increases in scientifically trained people and you can understand why there are such scrabbles for scientific authorship. Everyone knows it is what defines your research credibility. So more papers, good, right? Well not entirely, there is a somewhat antiquated view (in my humble opinion) that all that matters is either first or last authorship. Unfortunately token authorships can be common in scientific papers and ultimately devalue middle authors that have actually physically and intellectually contributed to the work. Therefore many scientists knowing this practice occurs (and may have participated themselves) exclude this impact as credible and focus solely on first and last authorships. To me this is short sighted and particularly so in individuals that have contributed to multiple scientific fields (but I am completely biased), as it can highlight intellectual flexibility, potential scientific creativity and the competency to work between disciplines. I like to contribute, working on multiple problems with multiple different people concurrently (I think it makes you more creative) and have done so in diverse fields of science, something I am personally proud of. In the end however it appears that the academic scientific institution does not highly value such people and whilst science is ready for multi-disciplinary science it is not yet quite ready for multi discipline scientists, unless you are first or last author of course.
- My Tweets
Tag cloudAcademia angel investors baby grants big data Big science biology hacker changing science funding Crowd funding DIYbio Doctor of Philosophy expectations Feedback fellowship fellowship feedback fixed term contract funding Funding of science gender equality children Grant writing investors Jennifer Rohn junoir fellowship junoir fellowships lack of fellowships Lateral thinking lego gender lego research institute lego science figures Life sciences Little science Master's degree modern science multidisplinary Open access open science open source science PhD PhD advice postdoc contract duration postodoctoral research pressure Principal investigator research contract research funding Research proposal rush to publish sci-hub science angel investor science budget science funding science investors scientific authorship Scientific community scientific credibility scientific independance Should I do a PhD Small science talent exodus Technology Strategy Board time Time travel unrealisitc what is a PhD like
- Top five tips when asking for an academic reference (or any for that matter) June 15, 2016
- The forgotten middle authors of science, how there is an I in team May 25, 2016
- Confession of an early career research scientist (ECR), most of my academic research to date has been ‘published’ in closed source journals March 31, 2016
- Time Diet: Productivity tools for life in the lab (and outside) March 29, 2016
- Sci-hub, open access and why we need to let go of our obsession with prestige March 24, 2016
- © DIYLifesci, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.