The article of Bhattacharjee looks at Stapel’s story from a different perspective. It looks deeper into what has turned an enthusiastic talented young scientist into a cheating salesman. Many of the corners that he sheds light on are not specific to the Stapel’s case and are still serious vulnerabilities the whole of scientific practice of these days. I just quote a few passages here but strongly recommend reading the original article:

…Each case of research fraud that’s uncovered triggers a similar response from scientists. First disbelief, then anger, then a tendency to dismiss the perpetrator as one rotten egg in an otherwise-honest enterprise. But the scientific misconduct that has come to light in recent years suggests at the very least that the number of bad actors in science isn’t as insignificant as many would like to believe…

…Stapel did not deny that his deceit was driven by ambition. But it was more complicated than that, he told me. He insisted that he loved social psychology but had been frustrated by the messiness of experimental data, which rarely led to clear conclusions. His lifelong obsession with elegance and order, he said, led him to concoct sexy results that journals found attractive. “It was a quest for aesthetics, for beauty — instead of the truth,” he said.

…In his early years of research — when he supposedly collected real experimental data — Stapel wrote papers laying out complicated and messy relationships between multiple variables. He soon realized that journal editors preferred simplicity. “They are actually telling you: ‘Leave out this stuff. Make it simpler,’ ” Stapel told me. Before long, he was striving to write elegant articles…

…What the public didn’t realize, he said, was that academic science, too, was becoming a business. “There are scarce resources, you need grants, you need money, there is competition,” he said. “Normal people go to the edge to get that money. Science is of course about discovery, about digging to discover the truth. But it is also communication, persuasion, marketing. I am a salesman. I am on the road. People are on the road with their talk. With the same talk. It’s like a circus.” He named two psychologists he admired — John Cacioppo and Daniel Gilbert — neither of whom has been accused of fraud. “They give a talk in Berlin, two days later they give the same talk in Amsterdam, then they go to London. They are traveling salesmen selling their story.”…

 

I think this is an article every scientist and policymaker should read and think with himself, what is he doing to prevent such cases from happening again and again?

Recently, two companies have launched initiatives that try to overhaul the peer review process. One offers money for reviews, the other more credits to reviewers, and more than that: they both want to take the review process out of the hands of the editorial staff of journals where the author has submitted his or her work. The big potential advantage is that reviews can be re-used when a paper travels from journal to journal in its quest to get published.

I find this idea quite attractive. What I see all the time is that papers rejected by a high impact journal are subsequently submitted to a journal a bit lower on the impact factor ladder, and if they are not accepted there, they are sent to journal number three, and so on. There are so many journals these days that almost every manuscript eventually is published in a journal somewhere. But the journey can be long, frustrating, and along the way many reviewers spend (or should I say waste?) their precious time, looking at the same paper. Often a reviewer gets to review the same paper multiple times! All in all, this is an inefficient process.

Peerage of Science and Rubriq want to change this. You submit a paper to their site, the paper gets reviewed, possibly revised by the authors, and is offered, together with the reviews and everything, to interested journals. Peerage is free and does not pay the reviewers, but as a submitting author you have to pay with credits that you can earn by reviewing papers. Moreover, you can gain a reputation as an excellent reviewer and get your reviews published in an online journal called Proceedings of Peerage of Science. Here is an article about Peerage. Rubriq takes a slightly different approach and pays reviewers $100 per review, so if you review very quickly you could even make a living out of this. Now, isn’t that nice for the postdoc in between jobs? Authors submitting to Rubriq pay $500 to $700 per manuscript and get a standardized review that Rubriq calls a scorecard and an R-score, all within two weeks. Here is an article about Rubriq.

Will it work? This will largely depend on the willingness of journals to use these services. Scientific journals, especially the ones with high impact factors, are often very conservative and complacent, in my experience. Will they easily embrace a new procedure that could be seen as giving them less power? I’m also not sure if a reviewer can review a paper well if he or she does not know to which journal it is submitted. The supposedly neutral ‘scorecard’ procedure of Rubric should handle this. But I highly doubt if Rubriq will be able to obtain good quality reviews in such a short period of time. That said, I find both initiatives interesting, and potentially advantageous for authors, reviewers, and journals. What do you think?

The scientific community keeps on finding new ways to facilitate to judge scientists. The old-fashioned way of reading her papers, listening to her talks,  interviewing her for more than an hour, reading recommendation letters, and consulting colleagues personally takes way too much time.

List of Output becoming a book

Given the quality and ease of use of writing and plotting software the number of papers a scientist coauthors is exploding. The ease at which old email messages can be searched and the ease at which files onpersonal computers can be indexed and searched, leads to very long lists of outputs attached to c.v.’s. Conference proceedings, talks given at institutes, lists of successful research proposals together with the long list of publications makes the c.v. unreadable.

Counting

The old-fashioned way of judging scientists has two drawbacks: (i) it takes time and (ii) the judgement is done by the community itself. Especially the latter is a nightmare for managers and grant officers, who needs the power to control to upgrade their own c.v. Many non-scientists can count, so the counting of output has become an art. Publications are counted and citations are counted and lumped in indices likes the h-index. Classifying a scientist by just one number, her h-index, makes life very simple for the control freaks who want to control the scientists.

Key publications

More serious organizations have added a new way of classifying a scientist. The scientist is asked to report to a search committee or in a grant proposal the list of what she considers herself to be her best five publications. This requirements is a challenge for the scientist. What makes a publication a key publication. Here are some deliberations:

1. Put in the list the publications you are most proud of.
2. Put in the list the publications with the highest citation scores.
3. Put in the list the publications with the most influential coauthors.
4. Put in the list only your newest publications.
5. Put in the list those publications that are most relevant for the proposal you are applying for.
6. Put in the list only those publications where you are the last author.
7. Put only papers there that have appeared in high-impact journals.

A number of these deliberations will lead to different lists. If you are a senior scientist and your most important papers are not of recent date your list will expose you as a scientist close to retirement. If you put only recent papers in your list, young committee members might not know that you are the author of a world-famous older paper.

My advice

The way I put together my five key publications is the following:

• Two very recent papers in high impact journals.
• Two papers I am proud of and have at least a reasonable citation score. No matter how old they are.
• One paper in a high-impact journal with an age between five and ten years.
• If your list is part of a collaborative proposal with colleagues also putting in their list of key publications there should be overlap, but not too much. So one shared publication with a co-applicant is advisory. Do not waste key publication space by different applicants listing the same publication.

I only list papers of which I am the last author.

Your way?

Our readers and me are curious how you put together your list of key publications.

Undergraduate students

As a first example, I would like to take undergraduate students. From acquaintances in other disciplines than physics (psychology, medicine, pharmacy) I heard that it is rather uncommon to have undergraduate students as co-authors. An important reason is that many students are involved in the project, and including them on a paper would drastically increase the number of authors.

In my research however, I feel they often greatly contribute to the research. First, they do work that is otherwise not done, e.g. some wild new idea that can be explored. Second, they are often involved in many discussions, which may give new insights. Hence, if they were part of the project I would be inclined to ask them as co-author. On the other hand, some undergraduate students only do what they are told. If they are lucky, and some nice results come out, should they still be co-author? I would guess not.

Specialists

Another interesting group of people is specialists. For example, someone that makes a crucial sample or someone that performs a specific and important measurement that you cannot do yourself (easily). Typically these people are not part of the entire of the research. Should these people be invited as co-authors, if so for how many papers? For example, a sample is made, on which different sets of measurements are performed, that are published separately. I would say that the person who made this sample made a crucial contribution to all papers, and hence should be co-author. However, it is the people who perform the extra measurements, that may put most work (i.e. time) in it. Ad Lagendijk’s survival guide for scientists suggests inviting the specialist as an author for one paper. I think this is rather meager, especially since they are never first authors but often second, third or fourth authors. Secondly, most sample production is so complicated that a lot of time is lost when an inexperienced PhD student does it, instead of the experienced specialist. Hence, the student can obtain more results because of the effort of the specialist.

Former colleagues

The last category is the “almost finished spectacular result”. What happens often is that someone invests his PhD in doing a spectacular and very hard measurement. The plans were too ambitious however, and the student leaves a paved road for his or her successor. The new PhD student has a huge benefit of all the work done, is able to get the job done and obtains the spectacular results that were hoped for. Sometimes, this may even be a series of very interesting results. I think in these cases credits are due to the student who started the project and got it running. Again, I feel this student deserves to be co-author on a number of papers that build on his work. This will, like the case of the specialist, not be first authorships, and therefore some generosity is fair. It is difficult, however, where to draw a line. For me, it should be leading that a student gets a fair amount of papers, compared to the quality of the work.

To finalize this post, I wish to note that all of this would not be a big deal if we would not try to quantify the quality of a scientist using the number of authored papers. This leads to the effect that PhD students already have to worry about the number of papers they write, and the impact factor of the journals they write for.

For most of us however red flags go up when reading these kind of emails. I receive several similar emails each month from companies like BIT Life Sciences. Many of my colleagues received exactly the same invitations and they are generally not very well aimed; I tend to get a lot of invitations outside my field. There seems to be a rapidly increasing number of companies which, according to their own websites, produce a large number of journals and conferences in different areas of science and medicine. These companies have clearly identified a source of income in the form of scientific budgets, and are trying to exploit the blind ambition of many scientists to present their results at high-profile conferences. In addition, the author-pays policy of open access turns out to be an easy source of income and bogus publishers are lining up to publish our scientific data in hundreds of new open-access journals with virtually no peer-review but high publication fees.

Based on their apparent financially driven aims and associated agressive marketing strategy, such companies are categorized as “predatory”. It appears that the organizers and journal editors seem primarily interested in filling their pockets with money from those willing to pay conference fees and open-access publication costs. I would identify a conference ‘bogus’ based on the following criteria

• The conference is organized by a commercial entity aiming to make a profit by filling up as many sessions as possible
• The conference does not appear to have as a primary goal to bring together a specific community but targets an as broad audience as possible
• The invitation is not personally sent by an international committee of respectable scientists
• The conference does not have a long history or is not organized by leading scientists

Most bogus conferences are relatively easy to spot and one has to be naive to fall into this trap. They have overambitious names such as “The First World Conference in …” and boast 30 parallel sessions such as to attract as many speakers as possible for their “invitation to give a speech”. However, to my experience recent invitations such as in the introduction are increasingly difficult to catch. Luckily, thanks to independent bloggers it is possible to get a more accurate opinion about which companies have a bad reputation. A useful list points out the predatory publishers and conference organizations.

Now if sufficient scientists respond to these emails, a proper conference may be formed which may even obtain some form of credibility.  Probably the best solution will be for everyone to avoid supporting these conferences so that they will not gain ground and perhaps eventually will die out altogether. It will be useful for the community if someone who has visited such a conference will speak up and shares his / her experiences, whether they are good or bad.

Some time ago I was asked by Oxford University Press to write an article for their Library Magazine about which document format is better: pdf or xml. I defended pdf and following is my text. Martin Fenner defended xml. You can download both contributions as pdf file (!) here.

Pdf is still strong
For scientists the pdf (Portable Document Format) standard, put forward in 1993 by Adobe, is a blessing. Suddenly we didn’t need expensive Postscript printers any longer and the output was from then on both of high graphical quality and consistent. Up to today publishers of scientific content cannot afford to refrain from supplying a pdf version of their content. Out of commercial reasons software companies and publishing companies are continuously looking for opportunities to kill the standard. Microsoft, a company that till now has not been able to have its cash-cow word processor MS-Word produce consistent output, decided to invent an open xml standard, Office Open XML. The malversations by Microsoft to get this standard accepted, read like a soap opera. Adobe’s pdf is an open ISO-standard since 2008. It is also the only file format that can reasonably be protected without the use of dedicated servers. Although the increased use of Javascript makes it less safe.

Supplementary material
Another line of attack by science publishers is to lure the scientist away from the pdf file by convincing the scientific community that important additional scientific material – like video, interviews, photographs and large datasets – can be more conveniently packaged in a different format. Preferably a proprietary xhtml-like format that due to the inclusion of proprietary server-side scripts will be bound to the web site of the publisher. Many of the additions are not necessary or even unwanted. For sharing of large datasets scientific collaborations find their own way of sharing data and need no assistance of commercial publishers.

Amusing is the fact when you look at the quality of the state of the art (x)html-versions of scientific manuscripts as shown on present-day publishers’ websites they are still of much lower quality than the 1993 pdf files.

Improved pdf files
In my opinion scientists are happy with the proliferation of the pdf file. There is some room for improvement and signs of danger. Pdf files allow for bookmarks and hyperlinks, that are useful for navigating through large pdf files. I would like those implemented more frequently, by authors and publishers. The danger is that Adobe is continuously updating and complicating its Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat. Javascript is now allowed in pdf.

The answer to the question in the title is of course: pdf.

In science the dilemma of either cooperating or competing is everywhere. The situation is never black or white and depends on the discipline. In this post I will limit myself to the typical small-science group model: one group leader, one or two postdocs and a number – typically between 4 and 6, of PhD students.

Pressure
All the group member are under pressure. PhD students have to finish their thesis in time, with preferably a couple of first-author articles in glossy magazines.

On the level of PhD students there is already possibly competition if the work of PhD students overlap either with respect to subject or when equipment is shared.

The postdoc’s first aim is to get at some academic place a tenure track position. He needs papers. The PhD students might not want him on their papers, or the other way around.

Group leader
And then the group leader. He is competing all the way. With other group leaders. Both locally and internationally. He wants to be promoted to full professorship. His ambition is an endowed chair. Or an invitation to become a full professor at a renowned institute. Or he just wants a higher salary.

The subject of this post is to discuss how a group leaders present the group he leads  to the outside world in general and in particular to his competitors. Let us call the scientist Mary Johnson leading a group called Nano Biodevices based at the University of California Santa Barbara. How should she refer to this group:

• My group
• Our group
• The Johnson group

US style
When I listen to US scientists, it is quite clear. They will talk about “my group”, “my lab”, “my postdoc” and “my PhD student”. When non-scientists hear this possessive scientist talking they might think that slavery is not yet abolished in science. Anyway Mary will talk about “my group”.

It is clear that if Mary would refer to the group as “The Johnson group” she should go in therapy.

Some of the “my group” group leaders do not realize that they use this terminology. However others, specially those at famous  institutes were postdoc candidates and candidates for PD positions are lining up, consider their group members as a disposable workforce. The scientific results of the whole group should be attributed solely to the leader of “my group”.

In my opinion the act of group leaders referring to their group as “my group”  is an insult to all group members. As far as I know I have never did it. I will refer to the group of which I am the  group leader as to  ”our group”. Sounds so much better and so much closer to the truth.

Other people talking referring to the group
During conference presentations speakers might want to refer to results obtained by the group Nano Biodevices. Problem of course is that these hyped-up names are not useful in a scientific discussion. Referring to the group as “Mary Johson’s group” is a practice I do not like that. I think “the group of Mary Johnson” is slightly better. Even better is “the UCSB group”.

Junior scientists
If you have choice between various groups to join, check if you can find out how they refer to the group they are leading. This observation might help you in making the choice.

Follow @ad_lagendijk

So we thought it was time to do it differently. At least in biology and medicine for now. With some PhD students we’ve set up a new tool called biomeeter.com, a website that provides an overview of conferences organized in the different fields of biology. Now over 600 meetings can be found here, among which the meetings of the large organizers like Gordon, Keystone and EMBO. And new meetings are added every day.

We want to get the database complete by keeping the website open source. This means everybody can freely add a meeting. We will then check and categorize it to ensure the quality of the website. You can easily search by category, but also by keyword and location. So if you’ve always wanted to go to Singapore; here’s your chance to find a reason for it.

We’re still trying to optimize the usability so any feedback is more than welcome! And if you like it: spread the word to your friends. Because the more people know about it the more meetings will be in the database. We hope it can help you!

cheers,

Ruud Wijdeven

PhD students at the Netherlands Cancer Institute

Reach us at biomeeter@gmail.com, @biomeettweet

The most positive aspect was the large variety of subjects I learned about, these big conferences certainly broaden your general knowledge. This may be important to put your work in perspective, and it may give inspiration for future research topics or positions. Secondly, despite the broad scope of the conference, there are typically a few sessions that are closely related to your subject. Hence you also get a good update on the most recent results within your field. Last, these big conferences often have big technical exposition, where you can learn about the latest equipment for your research. Also, chances are big that you meet some people from companies where you have equipment from. These people may have good suggestions to get the most out of your equipment.

One of the more disappointing parts of this conference was giving a talk there. Albeit the conference is huge, there are many parallel sessions, and hence your audience may be small. Second, people often leave during the session, hence it is hard to get into touch with people who liked your talk or had questions. Last, the actual number of “big shots” in the field was rather small at the talk, partially because they picked another talk, but also the number of big shots seemed small compared to small scale conferences. A reason may be that these big shots all get invited to small scale conferences.

In general, opportunities to meet people seemed limited. A nice way to deal with this issue may be to make some appointments with people that you (vaguely) know, or want to get into touch with. This requires some preparation, but may result in some nice contacts for collaborations or future jobs.

To conclude, I think the large scale conference are occasionally nice, and for PhD students they serve the specific purpose of broadening your knowledge and get inspiration for future jobs or new subjects. To get your work well known, get easy contacts and good discussion about your work, small scale conference seem more suitable.

Your application should consist of the following:

• body of the email (BODY, size 1 page)
• attached cv (CV)
• attached motivation letter (ML, size less than 1 page)
• attached information about your grades (GRADES, size less than 1 page)
• attached (PowerPoint) presentation (PRESENTATION, duration of presentation about 20 minutes or about six slides)
  -

Here are the guidelines (improved due to comments by Mirjam and Peter):

1. Relevant expertise: Only apply to those group leaders whose field of research and your expertise overlap. I get regularly applications form people applying for an “organic chemistry” position, whereas my field of research is optics.
   -
2. Show in ML your interest: Study the science record of the group you are applying to. Either by checking them on Google Scholar, Web of Science, or their their own web site. Check their successes in the media. Explain in ML in detail why you chose that group and what you like about the research – and mention some of their recent successes in your own wording. Make a connection between your expertise and interest and the work in the group. Explain why you want to work in that institute and in that country. Add something personal about why you study science and about your ambition in science. Do not iterate your CV in your ML.
   -
3. CV : Make your CV very clear. No running text,  but more a collection of tables with headings like: ” Education”  ”Skills” and “Experience”. Do not blow up your cv with trash. No publications “in preparation”. Do not claim skills that you obviously Do not hide your weak points and discuss obvious weak points in your CV or in your ML like “During my study I switched from experiment to theory and that caused a delay”. The scientist reading your cv should be able to get the main points in 30 seconds.
   -
4. GRADES: If you have all your grades readily available on official university certificates you can send a copy. But this is not really necessary. In any way summarize your grades in half a page or so. What the scientist who is receiving your application really wants to know is: are you in the top 10%,  or top 20% or top 30%. If you grades are lower you do not need to apply, unless you have a very good explanation.
   -
5. PRESENTATION: Prepare a 20 minute presentation (pdf file, Open Office or PowerPoint) in which you present research you have been doing as a master student. Prepare it carefully and spend time on it. Do not make a mess out of the presentation.
   -
6. BODY: Summarize in the body the main parts of CV, ML and GRADES
   -
7. Make the email personal.  Do not start with: “Dear professor” or “Dear doctor”. But start with “Dear Dr. Johnson”.
   -
8. Spelling and grammatical errors: Avoid these errors. Have a colleague student read and correct your application. Do not claim to be fluent in English if your application obviously shows you are not.
   -

If you follow this advice each application will cost time, a few hours, but the success rate is much higher than sending a hailshot, that is sending hundreds of identical emails to different group leaders. In the latter case your chance of success is zero.

Follow @ad_lagendijk