Introduction Today a system that sets wrong incentives for the scientific community is prevailing that is relying on an outdated system for the communication of science through centralized publisher cartels. As a result, science in some fields is suffering from increasingly poor reproducibility. This bears the risk of loss of credibility among the public and increased scarcity of public funding (Ioannidis, 2005;
In a series of short analyses we took a closer look on the practice of (co-)authorship in various disciplines, using a Scopus database (see www.elephantinthelab.org). We found significant differences among the subject areas that we analyzed. While in nearly all disciplines the mere number of authors per article increased (2010-2016), the average number of authors per paper in these disciplines varies considerably.
Scientists must compete for limited funding as well as for academic positions and recognition. Many factors contribute to success, but Hirsch’s h -index puts the emphasis squarely on citations (Hirsch, 2005). In such a system, it is perceived that more citations should lead to more funds, promotions, job security, et cetera.
Motivation As the major currency in the scientific reputation economy, the analysis of article publishing reveals different disciplinary cultures and working styles.
Lab meetings: love them or loathe them, they’re an important part of lab-life. There’s many different formats and ways to do a lab meeting. Sometimes it feels like we’ve tried them all! I’m going to describe our current format and then discuss some other things to try. Our current lab meeting format is: Weekly. For one hour (Wednesdays at 9am) One person each week talks about their progress. It rotates around.
Outreach means trying to engage the public with what we are doing in our research group. For me, this mainly means talking to non-specialists about our work and showing them around the lab. These non-specialists are typically interested members of the public and mainly supporters of the charity that funds work in my lab (Cancer Research UK). The most recent batch of activities have prompted this post on doing outreach.
Ten years ago today I became a PI. Well, that’s not quite true. On that day, I took up my appointment as a Lecturer at University of Liverpool, but technically I was not a PI. I had no lab space (it was under construction), I had no people, and I also had no money for research. I arrived for work.
The future of cell biology, even for small labs, is quantitative and computational. What does this mean and what should it look like? My group is not there yet, but in this post I’ll describe where we are heading. The graphic below shows my current view of the ideal workflow for my lab. The graphic is pretty self-explanatory, but to walk you through: A lab member sets up a microscopy experiment.
Today I saw a tweet from Manuel Théry (an Associate Ed at Mol Biol Cell ). Which said that he heard that the Editor-in-Chief of MBoC, David Drubin shops for interesting preprints on bioRxiv to encourage the authors to submit to MBoC.