Analysis and news
Conference highlights early-career research barriers ‘If scientists are successful, we are successful.’ That was the message of Miriam Maus, at PubCon – IOP Publishing’s staff conference
IOP Publishing invited three inspiring early career researchers (ERCs) to the conference. They shared their first-hand insights on the challenges they face in the physical sciences, with a view to inform what publishers can do differently.
First steps into academia ‘It is really difficult for us as ERCs to establish ourselves and get recognised by journals,’ argued Caitlin Duffy, a PhD student at the High Field Magnet Lab at the Radbout University in The Netherlands. ‘You either have to work with someone who is already recognised, or you have to somehow work on an experiment that gets you into science. I think it would be helpful to establish dedicated journal issues that encourage ERCs and discourage the big shots to publish their articles in those outlets.’ ‘Breaking into the cycle of science is the
hardest thing for ERCs’, added Jess Wade, a young British physicist in the Blackett Laboratory at Imperial College London. Her public engagement work in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) advocates for women in physics, as well as tackling systemic biases. ‘When we are trying to establish
ourselves as scientists, reputation and recognition is what gets you to move up the career ladder. ‘This is harder for people from historically marginalised groups. For example, when it comes to peer review, your currency is the number of times your work is cited: it can determine whether you get a fellowship or a permanent position or a promotion. There’s a huge amount of evidence that white men are cited more than women and people of colour. If we are excluding people out of the academic cycle due to bias and discrimination, some will never get a chance to establish themselves in academia.’
www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo
Credit where credit is due Another issue that was brought up by the ERCs was the lack of credit ERCs receive for the work they do. ‘I’ve known several ECRs who constantly do peer review for research leaders without knowing they were taking the credit for it, or even what the responses of the reviewers were. Research leaders should never take credit for the work of more junior researchers. It’s a bad habit, but it’s done throughout the sector,’ added Wade. ‘A way to address this issue is to encourage
“It’s a constant balancing act between networking, conducting experimental research, writing and reviewing work”
ERCs to create their own academic profile, so that journals know who the specialist is and who to contact for reviewing papers on that topic. It will help the ERCs to establish themselves and gain experience and it will help the journals to get expertise without having to ask the same reviewers over and over again.’ Karen Syres, a lecturer in physics at
the Jeremiah Horrocks Institute, agreed, suggesting: ‘It would be good if people who turn down review requests are asked to suggest one of their postdoctoral researchers or PhD students to review instead.’ When asked what publishers should
stop doing to help ERCs progress their careers, all three panellists agreed the peer review process should be more efficient. ‘I find submitting papers longwinded
and depressing,’ said Syres. ‘I’ve been at this game for a few years now, but understanding and navigating the publishing process is hard. You have to go through all sorts of questions you’re not expecting – for example, listing software used to create the figures, or sometimes it can take hours to add students or co-authors to the system.’
Be kind by order Other issues that affect ERCs are heavy workloads and time management. According to Duffy, it’s a constant balancing act between networking, conducting experimental research, writing and reviewing work, all alongside her personal life. ‘At the university where I work we have
a high teaching load,’ added Syres. ‘I have about 100 lectures a year and I have colleagues who have about 200 lectures a year. I’m lucky enough to have some PhD students, but how else can we carry out research and write papers with so many demands on our time?’ The panellists agreed accredited training
that is recognised by institutions could be a valuable means to support ERCs. Training as part of conferences could be an effective way to reach ERCs and more established researchers, as there is a need to better understand the peer review process and what best practice should look like. IOP Publishing offers Peer Review
Excellence, a training programme tailored for the physical sciences and delivered by top- level physicists from around the globe. The accredited training and certification offers a mix of online workshops and digital learning, with the opportunity to gain hands-on review experience. To join IOP Publishing’s free peer review excellence training, please register here:
ioppublishing.org/peer- review-excellence
Miriam Maus is publishing director at IOP Publishing
Summer 2022 Research Information 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34
