F. Molina-Lopez

Paying peer reviewers = 85% faster editorial decisions. And payments gave high-quality reviews. (the story is described in Nature) At Biology Open, peer reviewers were paid for high quality reviews. $290 per peer review. Miraculously, the time to editorial decisions DROPPED: - Unpaid reviews: 38 days. - Paid reviews: 5-6 days. And review quality WENT UP. 📍How it works: “When researchers apply to become paid reviewers for Biology Open, we screen their CVs and check whether they’re legitimate and have peer-review experience. We currently have 500 pre-contracted reviewers from all over the world. Ideally, what I envision is a system where reviewer applicants undertake a manuscript-reviewing test. And we’d review that review, so if it scored high enough, we’d hire them.” - Editor-in-chief Daniel Gorelick. Nature: “Do you think paying reviewers could work in other journals and in other disciplines?” Editor-in-chief: “Absolutely. There’s been such a profound aversion to paying peer reviewers, whether it’s on principle or because people think it will never work. We’ve demonstrated that it works.” So... At last, there’s light at the end of the tunnel. __

Rejection of your paper or grant has NO relevance to the opinion of #research community. It is nothing but the opinion of one person. Several examples: 1. The first paper on graphene was rejected from Nature because “it did not constitute a sufficient scientific advance”. Later, it was awarded a Nobel prize. 2. The first manuscript showing the microbiome-brain connection was published after 7 submissions that took 3 years. Today, this field has exploded. I expect it will get a Nobel prize in the future. 3. Theodore Maiman tried to publish a paper describing the first operating laser in Physical Review Letters and… got a rejection! 4. Peter Ratcliffe, who worked on cells’ response to changes in oxygen levels, got his key paper rejected from Nature (see photo). Later, he was awarded a Nobel Prize for this work. And there are many other examples… . And yet I see so many young scientists stressing about rejections. For some reason, they seem to genuinely expect that the editors should know which study is truly worth it. As a result, many rejections are met with surprise and disbelief:  “How could they reject it? They publish so much trash, and yet they think our detailed 3-year-long study is not interesting to the community! WHY?” . Well, the reality is: - Most editors have very little time to delve into your study. They can easily FAIL to recognize the potential impact of your study. Proper communication in the cover letter and clear writing style can help (although only to a limited degree). - Many reviewers have little idea about the science in your paper. But they can have a big ego. So, if they have a bad day or were rejected recently, it’s easy for them to find 1000 technical reasons to reject your paper as well. - Most scientists genuinely don’t know if your discovery can make any impact. If we could predict the course of science, we would be living very differently! My message is simple: Forget about objectivity. Academia is a very subjective world. Fight for objectivity but don’t take it for granted. A great study will be found, cited and recognized. Disregard of where it’s published. A bad study requires a high-impact journal to be found and cited. But the long-time recognition might be a problem. High-IF journals are simply billboards. Their rejections do NOT represent the opinion of a scientific community. You can get rejected but don’t reject yourself! Believe in your results. #AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter

Postdoc is conceptually different from a #PhD position. Below are some key points to keep in mind before starting postdoc. 1️⃣ The harsh reality of being a postdoc: 1. Postdoc is a contractual (not educational) position. Your postdoc duties are defined by your contract & agreement with your advisor. 2. Usually, a contract is given for 1 year and renewed annually. It does NOT offer the same job security that PhD students enjoy. Be prepared to start searching for a new position in 1st year and leave anytime. 3. Postdoc is inherently a position for academia (with a few exceptions like in bio). Often, companies will assume that you’ve chosen an academic track, not industry. They’d rather hire a fresh PhD graduate from the same field than a postdoc. So, your job search outside academia may become challenging, especially if you do fundamental research. 4. If you want to be a faculty, your postdoc may require a lot more efforts than you originally expected, making it the most intense time of your life. Be prepared. _________ 2️⃣ If you take postdoc because you want to be more competitive for senior academic positions, keep in mind that: 0. Choosing the right lab & advisor is statistically MORE important than simply working hard and publishing papers during postdoc (esp. in the U.S.). However, working with an advisor who can write an excellent recommendation letter does NOT mean that you will also get prepared for a faculty life and become a great scientist. Your advisor should be a good mentor for this. 1. As the competition for faculty positions can easily reach over 1/300 and you have ~1 year before applying for positions, postdoc time often turns into a “race”. The worst part is that hard work does NOT necessarily lead to success. 2. Postdoc is NOT a must for being a faculty. Some students secure professor positions at the end of their PhDs (esp. at the top universities in the U.S.). 3. Postdoc lasts 1-3 years. If you’re a first-year postdoc and apply for faculty positions, committees will be OK with you showing your PhD work during interview. But starting from your 2nd year, they expect you to show successful postdoc results. 4. Some committees expect that a 3-year postdoc should complete as much work as a 5-year PhD student. It’s like a fast-track PhD. 5. Often (esp. in STEM), the expected number of “postdoc papers” is on average 1 paper per 1 year, unless the work is unusually complex. NOT 10 papers/year. 6. Publishing a lot of papers is normally viewed negatively. Coauthoring tens of papers will send a RED flag to the committee. For decent universities, it's (almost always) quality over quantity. 7. Doing a second postdoc is rarely helpful in landing a faculty position. 8. Ideally, postdoc should be in a different field than your PhD. Switching fields is viewed positively and can be helpful in landing a faculty position. But it is much more challenging because your time is very limited but you must do outstanding research. Also, I know many people who didn’t change fields but became faculties nonetheless. Good luck! #AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter