Search

Writing academic research papers acceptable for journal publication is not often taught in graduate programs let alone in undergraduate studies. Students and early career researchers (herein known as students for both categories) usually undergo a trial-and-error period to learn how to navigate the publication submission process—a long and daunting task. However, E-mentoring, or electronic mentoring, has proven to be beneficial for students. E-mentoring opportunities can be found by a pro-active student seeking out published researchers in their fields and requesting if they can mentor them. Colleges, universities or other academic institutions may have formal or informal research or peer review programmes, internship, field experience or practicum courses for-credit. Academic journals may also host student mentoring programmes for peer review, editing, and/or research writing hands-on experiences. Mentoring students in research writing and the journal publication process should start as early in one’s academic career as possible. Age or academic status should not be seen as a deterrent or disadvantage when mentored by a patient, experienced and enthusiastic research mentor. Such e-mentoring experiences can be offered by individual researchers, at the institutional level or from the academic journal—the latter being the most ideal model worthy of advocacy and replication.

Abstract Meta‐research, also known as “research on research” is a field of study that investigates the methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives along the research continuum. Meta‐research literacy is imperative to ensure high quality, transparent and reproducible primary data or meta‐research products. In this commentary, we propose that early career researchers should be trained in meta‐research as a foundation to develop a deeper understanding of the research process and ability to appraise the research literature and design high‐quality original studies, irrespective of their chosen field of study. We discuss the importance of meta‐research and open science from the perspective of an early career trainee, highlighting essential areas for growth and obstacles one may encounter.

Aim of the study: Cardiac arrest research has not received as much scientific attention as research on other topics. Here, we aimed to identify cardiac arrest research barriers from the perspective of an international group of early career researchers. Methods: Attendees of the 2022 international masterclass on cardiac arrest registry research accompanied the Global Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry collaborative meeting in Utstein, Norway, and used an adapted hybrid nominal group technique to obtain a diverse and comprehensive perspective. Barriers were identified using a web-based questionnaire and discussed and ranked during an in-person follow-up meeting. After each response was discussed and clarified, barriers were categorized and ranked over two rounds. Each participant scored these from 1 (least significant) to 5 (most significant). Results: Nine participants generated 36 responses, forming seven overall categories of cardiac arrest research barriers. “Allocated research time” was ranked first in both rounds. “Scientific environment”, including appropriate mentorship and support systems, ranked second in the final ranking. “Resources”, including funding and infrastructure, ranked third. “Access to and availability of cardiac arrest research data” was the fourth-ranked barrier. This included data from the cardiac arrest registries, medical devices, and clinical studies. Finally, “uniqueness” was the fifth-ranked barrier. This included ethical issues, patient recruitment challenges, and unique characteristics of cardiac arrest. Conclusion: By identifying cardiac arrest research barriers and suggesting solutions, this study may act as a tool for stakeholders to focus on helping early career researchers overcome these barriers, thus paving the road for future research.

“Publish or perish” is a term used for the culture adopted in universities, whereby academic members of staff, typically although not exclusively on research and teaching contracts, are required to publish research. Minimum levels of quantity and quality may apply and these may be included in key performance indicators and annual staff reviews to ensure compliance. Whilst this culture has been reported in universities for nearly a century, most recently it has cascaded down to doctoral students who are increasingly expected to publish and otherwise disseminate research during their studies (i.e., research outside of that which is to be submitted in their thesis). This entry relates primarily to doctoral students in a UK setting and studying a monograph route (rather than a published papers submission) in the humanities. It further explores the role played by supervisors to help doctoral students to publish, and in turn the help and guidance supervisors need to offer as support. Many of the findings explored in this entry apply equally beyond the parameters noted above, and, as demonstrated in the literature, international students and institutions are facing similar issues.

When volcanic unrest occurs, the scientific community can advance fundamental understanding of volcanic systems, but only with coordination before, during, and after the event across academic and governmental agencies. To develop a coordinated response plan, the Community Network for Volcanic Eruption Response (CONVERSE) orchestrated a scenario exercise centered around a hypothetical volcanic crisis in Arizona’s San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF). The exercise ran virtually from February 4 to March 4, 2022. Over 60 scientists from both academic and governmental spheres participated. The scenario exercise was assessed for its effectiveness in supporting collaborative production of knowledge, catalyzing transdisciplinary collaboration, supporting researcher confidence, and fostering a culture of inclusion within the volcanology community. This identified a need to support early career researchers through community and allyship. Overall, the 2022 CONVERSE exercise demonstrated how a fully remote, extended scenario can be authentically implemented and help broaden participation within the volcano science community.

ABSTRACTThere is concern that the time taken to publish academic papers in microbiological science has significantly increased in recent years. While the data do not specifically support this, evidence suggests that editors are having to invite more and more reviewers to identify those willing to perform peer review.

Transformative learning occurs when a person, group, or larger social unit encounters ideas that are at odds with their prevailing perspective. This discrepant perspective can lead to an examination of previously held beliefs, values, and assumptions. The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) has since 2011 been training and supporting faculty from different African universities, to become more reflective and productive researchers, research leaders, educators, and change agents who will drive institutional changes in their institutions. As part of a mid-term evaluation of CARTA, an open-ended question was posed to the CARTA fellows asking them to describe any changes they had experienced in their professional lives as a result of the CARTA Programme. The 135 responses were inductively coded and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. These themes were subsequently mapped onto Hoggan’s typology of transformative learning outcomes. CARTA fellows reported shifts in their sense of self; worldviews; beliefs about the definition of knowledge, how it is constructed and evaluated; and changes in behaviour/practices and capacities. This paper argues that the changes described by the CARTA fellows reflect transformative learning that is embedded in CARTA’s Theory of Change. The reported transformation was enabled by a curriculum intentionally designed to facilitate critical reflection, further exploration, and questioning, both formally and informally during the fellows’ PhD journey with the support of CARTA facilitators. Documenting and disseminating these lessons provide a guide for future practice, and educators wishing to revitalise their PhD training may find it useful to review the CARTA PhD curriculum.

This commentary is a critical reflection by early career researchers (ECRs) working in qualitative health research (QHR) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The consequences of the pandemic have been acutely felt by ECRs working in QHR. Many studies stopped, almost overnight, as healthcare institutions restricted access and redeployed staff, forcing researchers to redesign or even abandon projects. We reflect on the burden of these challenges for insecurely employed QHR ECRs and discuss the approaches adopted to retain scientific integrity and redesign studies. We also highlight the impact of COVID-19 on career development and relationship building – both during the emergency pandemic period and in the reshaped context of academia that continues to operate under the long shadow of COVID-19. We conclude by outlining a programme of change for how the practice and organisation of QHR could be reshaped, identifying opportunities for learning from the pandemic. Embracing these learnings will benefit not only the careers and wellbeing of QHR ECRs, but also universities, funders and the overall health and future of QHR.

Abstract Background Research capacity-strengthening is recognized as an important component of global health partnership working, and as such merits monitoring and evaluation. Early career researchers are often the recipients of research capacity-strengthening programmes, but there is limited literature regarding their experience. Methods We conducted a qualitative study as part of an internal evaluation of the capacity-strengthening programme of the international HERA (HEalthcare Responding to violence and Abuse) research group. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with group members, and thematic analysis was undertaken. Results Eighteen group members participated; nine of these were early career researchers, and nine were other research team members, including mid-career and senior researchers. Key themes were identified which related to their engagement with and experience of a research capacity-strengthening programme. We explored formal/planned elements of our programme: mentoring and supervision; training and other opportunities; funding and resources. Participants also discussed informal/unplanned elements which acted as important facilitators and/or barriers to engaging with research capacity-strengthening: English language; open relationships and communication; connection and disconnection; and diversity. The sustainability of the programme was also discussed. Conclusions Our study gives voice to the early career researcher experience of engaging with a research capacity-strengthening programme in a global health group. We highlight some important elements that have informed adaptations to our programme and may be relevant for consideration by other global health research capacity-strengthening programmes. Our findings contribute to the growing literature and important discussions around research capacity-strengthening and how this relates to the future directions of global health partnership working.

Soft skills are the elementary management, personal, and interpersonal abilities that are vital for an individual to be efficient at workplace or in their personal life. Each work place requires different set of soft skills. Thus, in addition to scientific/technical skills that are easier to access within a short time frame, several key soft skills are essential for the success of a researcher in today’s international work environment. In this paper, the trainees and trainers of the EU-CardioRNA COST Action CA17129 training school on soft skills present basic and advanced soft skills for early career researchers. Here, we particularly emphasize on the importance of transferable and presentation skills, ethics, literature reading and reviewing, research protocol and grant writing, networking, and career opportunities for researchers. All these skills are vital but are often overlooked by some scholars. We also provide tips to ace in aforementioned skills that are crucial in a day-to-day life of early and late career researchers in academia and industry.

Volcanology education is important for the development of geoscientists and scientifically literate citizens. We surveyed 55 volcanology instructors to determine their learning and teaching practices, perceptions of academic development, and educational support needs. Instructors reported using a wide range of practices and tools, but lectures, field experiences, maps, rock samples, academic literature, and inherited teaching materials are the most common. Instructors valued educational support from others (e.g., talking with colleagues and students, consulting with learning and teaching specialists) over conducting their own investigations. However, they did not report engaging in as many of these activities as they valued. Instructors requested more support in resource sharing and collation, conference workshops, and co-creation of resources and educational research. We suggest that instructors and academic development staff work together to share and build knowledge in the learning and teaching of volcanology in higher education, and to improve student learning outcomes.

Open science (OS) is currently dominated by a small subset of practices that occur late in the scientific process. Early career researchers (ECRs) will play a key role in transitioning the scientific community to more widespread use of OS from pre-registration to publication, but they also face unique challenges in adopting these practices. Here, we discuss these challenges across the OS life cycle. Our essay relies on the published literature, an informal survey of 32 ECRs from 14 countries, and discussions among members of the Global Working Group on Open Science (Global Young Academy and National Young Academies). We break the OS life cycle into four stages—study design and tracking (pre-registration, open processes), data collection (citizen science, open hardware, open software, open data), publication (open access publishing, open peer review, open data), and outreach (open educational resources, citizen science)—and map potential barriers at each stage. The most frequently discussed barriers across the OS life cycle were a lack of awareness and training, prohibitively high time commitments, and restrictions and/or a lack of incentives by supervisors. We found that OS practices are highly fragmented and that awareness is particularly low for OS practices that occur during the study design and tracking stage, possibly creating ‘path-dependencies’ that reduce the likelihood of OS practices at later stages. We note that, because ECRs face unique barriers to adopting OS, there is a need for specifically targeted policies such as mandatory training at the graduate level and promotion incentives.

Abstract The extent to which the COVID‐19 pandemic will have a negative impact on Early Career Researchers (ECRs) within the field of pediatric pain and in general is still unclear, but it is likely to be far reaching and may disproportionality affect women. Yet, there is also great opportunity to take advantage of the rapid adaptions to working life that we have all undertaken during the pandemic. In particular, continuing to have online options for conference attendance I think will have a positive impact on ECRs, and in particular female ECRs, now and in the future. Moreover, the pediatric pain research community is relatively small and highly international; by enabling wider participation in our conferences we will diversify our research output and expedite our aim of providing better treatment of pediatric pain.

This study explored journal publishing and authorship by South Korean early career researchers (ECRs) in the field of library and information science (LIS). This research analyzed relevant journal publication data and conducted interviews to obtain information on the experiences and opinions of ECRs. Results indicated that South Korean ECRs in LIS were highly productive. This was evidenced by their annual publishing rate of 2.04 articles per person. In addition, Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) publications were produced at an annual average of 0.26 articles per person, while the quartile ratings for SSCI journal publications were also relatively high. However, unlike the trends seen in other academic fields, their collaborative research efforts were not considered very high because such efforts did not correspond to half their total publications. ECRs often participate as lead or corresponding authors despite being new researchers. ECRs are publishing first in the journals approved by their universities. These researchers cannot receive proper credit if the journal was not approved in this manner. ECRs are particularly disadvantaged when publishing in international journals corresponding to specific areas that are not on the SSCI list. By examining the journal publishing and authorship efforts of ECRs, this study discovered a variety of difficulties that should be addressed. For example, South Korean universities do not currently have cooperative research guidelines to solve authorship problems. The results from this study can serve as a basis to establish academic publishing and authorship policies while promoting scholarly communication in LIS and other scientific fields.

There is a growing expectation that doctoral candidates and early career academics publish research outputs such as journal articles and conference papers, and that they share their findings with key stakeholders beyond academia. However, it is not known if these expectations are being coupled with support from mentors and peers within institutions. Through interviews with recent PhD graduates working as early career researchers in Australia and Japan, this paper investigates if mentor and peer support for producing both academic and translational outputs was forthcoming during their doctoral candidature and beyond. It also investigates kinds of supports provided in doctoral candidature and early career. Thirty early career researchers in Australia and Japan took part in this qualitative study involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of respondents. Researchers made translation support available for Japanese respondents so that those with limited English could take part. Findings suggest that mentor and peer support were not universal, and some respondents did not have a mentor or significant peer influence supporting their production of academic or translational research outputs. Support for sharing research with audiences beyond academia could be limited, with production of outputs for academic audiences consistently a greater focus of support. There were no mentoring supports for translational outputs that had salience across Australia and Japan within the sample. While limited attention has been given to the role that peer influence may play in supporting research output production of early career researchers the more even power relationship between peers as opposed to the peer-/mentor dyad can allow unique supports to flourish. Where institutions expect growing and diverse research output production by doctoral candidates and early career researchers, they should also ensure that support is provided through facilitating mentoring and peer relationships.

Many early-career researchers are involved in the peer review of manuscripts for scientific journals, typically under the guidance of or jointly with their advisor, but most of the evidence about this activity is anecdotal. Here we report the results of a literature review and a survey of researchers, with an emphasis on co-reviewing and 'ghostwriting'. The literature review identified 36 articles that addressed the involvement of early-career researchers in peer review, most of them about early-career researchers and their advisors co-reviewing manuscripts for the purposes of training: none of them addressed the topic of ghostwriting in detail. About three quarters of the respondents to the survey had co-reviewed a manuscript. Most respondents believe co-reviewing to be a beneficial (95%) and ethical (73%) form of training in peer review. About half of the respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite 81% responding that ghostwriting is unethical and 82% agreeing that identifying co-reviewers to the journal is valuable. Peer review would benefit from changes in both journal policies and lab practices that encourage mentored co-review and discourage ghostwriting.

ABSTRACT Microbial metazoa inhabit a certain “Goldilocks zone,” where conditions are just right for the continued ignorance of these taxa. These microscopic animal species have body sizes of

It is trite to say publish or perish, yet many early career researchers are often at a loss on how to best get one’s work published. With strong competition and many manuscripts submitted, it is difficult to convince editors and reviewers to opt for acceptance. A pragmatic approach to publishing may increase one’s odds of success. Here, we-- a group of postdocs in the field of plant science-- present specific recommendations for early career scientists on advanced levels. We cannot provide a recipe-like set of instructions with success guaranteed, but we come from a broad background in plant science, with experience publishing in a large number of different journals of varying topics and impact factors. We provide tips, tricks, and tools for collaboration, journal selection, and achieving acceptance.

By sharing their experiences, early-career scientists can help to make the case for increased government funding for researchers.

Science hackathons can help academics, particularly those in the early stage of their careers, to build collaborations and write research proposals.