Adam Levy delves into the article of the future, examining the rise of lay summaries, the pros and cons of preprint servers, and how peer review is being crowd-sourced and opened up. Manuscripts are mutating. These changes range from different approaches to peer-review, to reformatting the structure of the paper itself. Pippa Whitehouse, an Antarctica researcher at Durham University, UK, commends small changes to the paper's summary over the last few years, telling Adam Levy: “Often now there's a short layman's review of the work. I find those really useful in subjects slightly outside my field. “I see a title that looks useful and don't quite understand the language in the technical abstract, but sometimes the lay abstract can give me just enough insight into the study.” Sarvenaz Sarabipour, a systems biologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, praised preprint servers from an early career researcher perspective in a&nbsp;February 2019 article&nbsp;published in&nbsp;PloS Biology. She tells Levy: “It's very beneficial for researchers to deposit their work immediately, because journals are not able to do that. Preprinting is decoupling dissemination from the peer-review process. It's wonderful to have it published earlier. “The peer review process is inhibitory to dissemination but of course has added value. “As a very early career researcher you don't have many papers, so it's wonderful to have something out quicker and be able to discuss that with colleagues and more senior researchers. "Researchers can notice each others' work quicker. They contact each other if they have something similar and they may start collaborating.” But catalyst researcher Ben List, managing director at the Max Planck Institute for Coal Research in Mülheim, Germany, sounds a note of caution about preprints. "In my field of chemical synthesis it's a bit risky,” he tells Levy. "It's a different thing in physics or biology where experiments take a long time. In chemistry you see something and within a few days you can actually reproduce this work. I'm not 100% sure if this is the future of publishing, in chemistry at least." List is editor-in-chief of organic chemistry journal&nbsp;Synlett.&nbsp;Its approach to peer-review involves e-mailing a paper to a panel of up to 70 reviewers. This "crowd-reviewing" system is both quicker and more collaborative, he argues, and the size of the panel reduces the risk of bias. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Adam Levy delves into the article of the future, examining the rise of lay summaries, the pros and cons of preprint servers, and how peer review is being crowd-sourced and opened up. Manuscripts are mutating. These changes range from different approaches to peer-review, to reformatting the structure of the paper itself. Pippa Whitehouse, an Antarctica researcher at Durham University, UK, commends small changes to the paper's summary over the last few years, telling Adam Levy: “Often now there's a short layman's review of the work. I find those really useful in subjects slightly outside my field. “I see a title that looks useful and don't quite understand the language in the technical abstract, but sometimes the lay abstract can give me just enough insight into the study.” Sarvenaz Sarabipour, a systems biologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, praised preprint servers from an early career researcher perspective in a&nbsp;February 2019 article&nbsp;published in&nbsp;PloS Biology. She tells Levy: “It's very beneficial for researchers to deposit their work immediately, because journals are not able to do that. Preprinting is decoupling dissemination from the peer-review process. It's wonderful to have it published earlier. “The peer review process is inhibitory to dissemination but of course has added value. “As a very early career researcher you don't have many papers, so it's wonderful to have something out quicker and be able to discuss that with colleagues and more senior researchers. "Researchers can notice each others' work quicker. They contact each other if they have something similar and they may start collaborating.” But catalyst researcher Ben List, managing director at the Max Planck Institute for Coal Research in Mülheim, Germany, sounds a note of caution about preprints. "In my field of chemical synthesis it's a bit risky,” he tells Levy. "It's a different thing in physics or biology where experiments take a long time. In chemistry you see something and within a few days you can actually reproduce this work. I'm not 100% sure if this is the future of publishing, in chemistry at least." List is editor-in-chief of organic chemistry journal&nbsp;Synlett.&nbsp;Its approach to peer-review involves e-mailing a paper to a panel of up to 70 reviewers. This "crowd-reviewing" system is both quicker and more collaborative, he argues, and the size of the panel reduces the risk of bias. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Naturejobs Podcast

How the academic paper is evolving in the 21st century

Your paper has been accepted, reviewed and published. Now you need to get it talked about by journalists, the public, your peers and funders. Pippa Whitehouse recalls seeking advice and media training from colleagues in her university press office when her first paper was published. “I recorded some soundbites and listened back to them and reflected on how to communicate information very clearly. It gave me a lot of confidence,” says Whitehouse, an Antarctica researcher at the University of Durham, UK. ”All of the interaction I've had with the press has been really positive,” she adds. “It can seem a little bit daunting to begin with, but if you give it a go I think you'll find the media are very interested in finding out about science.” In the third episode of this four-part podcast series about getting published, Jane Hughes describes her role as director of communications and public engagement at The Francis Crick Institute in London. She and her team help 1,500 researchers communicate their science to the press, public, policymakers and funders. Hughes recommends reaching out to press-office colleagues as soon as possible to discuss a paper's potential for attracting newspaper, broadcast or online media coverage. Researchers can take other steps themselves to get a paper talked about, she tells Levy. ”One thing that can make a difference is an image, a video or something alongside the paper that you can share on social media,” says Hughes. She also warns against over-hyping a paper's findings. ”Try not to sensationalize or over-simplify. You can work with your press office to make sure the message gets across properly.” For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Your paper has been accepted, reviewed and published. Now you need to get it talked about by journalists, the public, your peers and funders. Pippa Whitehouse recalls seeking advice and media training from colleagues in her university press office when her first paper was published. “I recorded some soundbites and listened back to them and reflected on how to communicate information very clearly. It gave me a lot of confidence,” says Whitehouse, an Antarctica researcher at the University of Durham, UK. ”All of the interaction I've had with the press has been really positive,” she adds. “It can seem a little bit daunting to begin with, but if you give it a go I think you'll find the media are very interested in finding out about science.” In the third episode of this four-part podcast series about getting published, Jane Hughes describes her role as director of communications and public engagement at The Francis Crick Institute in London. She and her team help 1,500 researchers communicate their science to the press, public, policymakers and funders. Hughes recommends reaching out to press-office colleagues as soon as possible to discuss a paper's potential for attracting newspaper, broadcast or online media coverage. Researchers can take other steps themselves to get a paper talked about, she tells Levy. ”One thing that can make a difference is an image, a video or something alongside the paper that you can share on social media,” says Hughes. She also warns against over-hyping a paper's findings. ”Try not to sensationalize or over-simplify. You can work with your press office to make sure the message gets across properly.” For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

How to get media coverage for your research

It's important not to take reviewers' comments personally, even if you feel they have misunderstood the science, Adam Levy discovers.It’s a great feeling when your manuscript is accepted, but the peer-review process after that can be tough, particularly for first-time authors. In the second episode of this four-part series on publishing a paper, Adam Levy asks four researchers and a manuscript editor how best to respond when your paper is rejected or subjected to peer review comments that you disagree with. Jen Burney, an environmental scientist at the University of California San Diego, says of peer review feedback: “It always feels incredibly intimate and personal the first time you read it. Who are these jerks and why are they responding this way. Didn't they understand what I did?” In May 2019 Heike Langenberg, then chief editor of Nature Geoscience, published an editorial on the art of responding to reviews after handling a particularly fraught dispute between an author and a reviewer. “You always have to be very careful to see all sides of any dispute, discussion or problems," she says. "As editors we try to put ouselves into the shoes of the referees and of the authors. We try to be as fair as possible to all sides.” For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

It's important not to take reviewers' comments personally, even if you feel they have misunderstood the science, Adam Levy discovers.It’s a great feeling when your manuscript is accepted, but the peer-review process after that can be tough, particularly for first-time authors. In the second episode of this four-part series on publishing a paper, Adam Levy asks four researchers and a manuscript editor how best to respond when your paper is rejected or subjected to peer review comments that you disagree with. Jen Burney, an environmental scientist at the University of California San Diego, says of peer review feedback: “It always feels incredibly intimate and personal the first time you read it. Who are these jerks and why are they responding this way. Didn't they understand what I did?” In May 2019 Heike Langenberg, then chief editor of Nature Geoscience, published an editorial on the art of responding to reviews after handling a particularly fraught dispute between an author and a reviewer. “You always have to be very careful to see all sides of any dispute, discussion or problems," she says. "As editors we try to put ouselves into the shoes of the referees and of the authors. We try to be as fair as possible to all sides.” For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

How to bounce back from a bruising peer-review or paper rejection

Getting published for the first time is a crucial career milestone, but how does a set of experiments evolve into a scientific paper? In the first episode of this four-part podcast series about writing a paper, Adam Levy delves into the all-important first stage of the process, preparing a manuscript for submission to a journal. He also finds out about the importance of titles, abstracts, figures and results, why good storytelling counts, and the particular challenges faced by researchers whose first language is not English. Pamela Yeh, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, shares some personal pet peeves when she reads a paper: “I can’t stand those papers that have really long sentences with a ton of commas and a lot of jargon. I don’t think the writer is thinking about the reader,” she says. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Getting published for the first time is a crucial career milestone, but how does a set of experiments evolve into a scientific paper? In the first episode of this four-part podcast series about writing a paper, Adam Levy delves into the all-important first stage of the process, preparing a manuscript for submission to a journal. He also finds out about the importance of titles, abstracts, figures and results, why good storytelling counts, and the particular challenges faced by researchers whose first language is not English. Pamela Yeh, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, shares some personal pet peeves when she reads a paper: “I can’t stand those papers that have really long sentences with a ton of commas and a lot of jargon. I don’t think the writer is thinking about the reader,” she says. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

How to write a top-notch paper

PhD programmes in "the rainbow nation" mostly lead to academic careers, but reform is needed to boost collaboration and integration, higher education experts tell Julie Gould. It's 25 years since since South Africa's first free elections swept Nelson Mandela to power as president. But higher education in the "rainbow nation" (a term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to describe the post-apartheid era), could do more to encourage integration and collaboration between black, white and international students. Jonathan Jansen, a professor in the Faculty of Education at Stellenbosch University, tells Julie Gould that despite seismic political change in 1994, education, research, and economics have not kept pace with the country's democratic transformation. Liezel Frick, director of the Centre for Higher and Adult Education at Stellenbosch University, says that around 60% of students are part-time, with many having staff positions at universities. Doctoral education still clings to a research-focused "Oxbridge model," she adds, and unlike programmes in North America does not offer credits for coursework and elective classes. "What is different is that we do not have an over-production of PhDs. A lot of PhDs still get absorbed into the academic sphere," she says. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

PhD programmes in "the rainbow nation" mostly lead to academic careers, but reform is needed to boost collaboration and integration, higher education experts tell Julie Gould. It's 25 years since since South Africa's first free elections swept Nelson Mandela to power as president. But higher education in the "rainbow nation" (a term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to describe the post-apartheid era), could do more to encourage integration and collaboration between black, white and international students. Jonathan Jansen, a professor in the Faculty of Education at Stellenbosch University, tells Julie Gould that despite seismic political change in 1994, education, research, and economics have not kept pace with the country's democratic transformation. Liezel Frick, director of the Centre for Higher and Adult Education at Stellenbosch University, says that around 60% of students are part-time, with many having staff positions at universities. Doctoral education still clings to a research-focused "Oxbridge model," she adds, and unlike programmes in North America does not offer credits for coursework and elective classes. "What is different is that we do not have an over-production of PhDs. A lot of PhDs still get absorbed into the academic sphere," she says. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

How apartheid's legacy can still cast a shadow over doctoral education in South Africa

The thesis is a central element of how graduate students are assessed. But is it time for an overhaul? Julie Gould finds out. How do you decide whether or not somebody is a fully trained researcher? Janet Metcalfe, head of Vitae, a non-profit that supports the professional development of researchers, tells Julie Gould that it's time to be "really brave" and look at how doctoral degrees are examined. But what role should the thesis play in that assessment? Does it need overhauling, updating, or even scrapping? Inger Mewburn, who leads research training at the Australian National University in Canberra and who founded of&nbsp;The Thesis Whisperer&nbsp;blog in 2010, suggests science could learn from architecture. Student architects are required to produce a portfolio, creating a "look book" for assessors or potential employers to examine as part as part of a candidate's career narrative. For graduate students in science, this could include papers, journals, articles, presentations, certificates, or even video files. "The PhD is meant to turn out individual, beautifully crafted, entirely bespoke and unique knowledge creators," she tells Gould. "And we need people like that. We need creative people with really different sorts of talents. We don't want to turn out 'cookie cutter' researchers." David Bogle, who leads early career researcher development at University College London, tells Gould that UCL's three-pronged mission statement includes impact. "We want our research to make an impact, and in order to support and reinforce that it is now mandatory to include a one page impact statement at the front saying 'this is the difference it will make in the world,'" he tells Gould. "Any impact — curriculum, society, business, anything. It might not end up making that difference, but we want people to think about it." What about the pressure to publish? In October 2019 Anne-Marie Coriat, Head of UK and EU Research Landscape at the Wellcome Trust in London, argued in a&nbsp;World View&nbsp;article published in&nbsp;Nature Human Behaviour&nbsp;that PhD merit needs to be defined by more than publications. She tells Gould that the experience of getting published is a good thing, but making it mandatory is not. "Learning writing skills is a hugely important part of PhD training. Should it be a requirement that all students publish in peer reviewed journals in order to pass the PhD? My answer is absolutely and emphatically no." For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

The thesis is a central element of how graduate students are assessed. But is it time for an overhaul? Julie Gould finds out. How do you decide whether or not somebody is a fully trained researcher? Janet Metcalfe, head of Vitae, a non-profit that supports the professional development of researchers, tells Julie Gould that it's time to be "really brave" and look at how doctoral degrees are examined. But what role should the thesis play in that assessment? Does it need overhauling, updating, or even scrapping? Inger Mewburn, who leads research training at the Australian National University in Canberra and who founded of&nbsp;The Thesis Whisperer&nbsp;blog in 2010, suggests science could learn from architecture. Student architects are required to produce a portfolio, creating a "look book" for assessors or potential employers to examine as part as part of a candidate's career narrative. For graduate students in science, this could include papers, journals, articles, presentations, certificates, or even video files. "The PhD is meant to turn out individual, beautifully crafted, entirely bespoke and unique knowledge creators," she tells Gould. "And we need people like that. We need creative people with really different sorts of talents. We don't want to turn out 'cookie cutter' researchers." David Bogle, who leads early career researcher development at University College London, tells Gould that UCL's three-pronged mission statement includes impact. "We want our research to make an impact, and in order to support and reinforce that it is now mandatory to include a one page impact statement at the front saying 'this is the difference it will make in the world,'" he tells Gould. "Any impact — curriculum, society, business, anything. It might not end up making that difference, but we want people to think about it." What about the pressure to publish? In October 2019 Anne-Marie Coriat, Head of UK and EU Research Landscape at the Wellcome Trust in London, argued in a&nbsp;World View&nbsp;article published in&nbsp;Nature Human Behaviour&nbsp;that PhD merit needs to be defined by more than publications. She tells Gould that the experience of getting published is a good thing, but making it mandatory is not. "Learning writing skills is a hugely important part of PhD training. Should it be a requirement that all students publish in peer reviewed journals in order to pass the PhD? My answer is absolutely and emphatically no." For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

The PhD thesis and how to boost its impact

Scientific research&nbsp;is not the endeavour of a single person. It requires a team of people. How can this be better reflected in graduate student training, asks Julie Gould. Is science ready for "Team PhD", whereby a group of students work more collaboratively, delivering a multi-authored thesis at their end of their programme?&nbsp; Jeanette Woolard, who recently secured a&nbsp;£4.5m Wellcome Trust grant to fund a four-year collaborative doctoral training programme in her lab at the University of Nottingham, UK, believes it could happen one day. "The team driven PhD is not distant dream. It's soon-to-be a fulfilled reality," Woolard, professor of cardiovascular physiology and pharmacology, tells Julie Gould.&nbsp;"If you give it enough of an incentive and wave the flag hard enough for team science, it will come." Woolard's&nbsp;Wellcome grant allows four graduate students to have their own research focus but to work collaboratively.&nbsp;"Each of the individual candidates are still&nbsp;pursuing an individual PhD and they will each write up an individual thesis at the end of their four year period of study," she says, arguing that the scientific&nbsp;community&nbsp;and students themselves&nbsp;aren't&nbsp;yet ready for programmes that culminate in a team focused thesis.&nbsp;"I think individual students still either like the idea or deserve the opportunity to defend their own piece of work at the end of their studies." The new programme at Nottingham, she says,&nbsp;provides&nbsp;them with "the most collaborative environment&nbsp;possible,&nbsp;where they have the opportunity to work together as much as they can, to utilise as many skills as are available, and to really experience a dynamic, collaborative team-driven environment.&nbsp; "Ultimately that's what there are going to experience especially if they go into industry or pursue excellence in academia. Our best outputs now are judged as being multidisciplinary," Woolard adds. A team thesis may be some way off in science, but what about other disciplines? Jill Perry is Executive Director at the Carnegie Project. She tells Gould how the project is helping to redefine the education doctorate in the US. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Scientific research&nbsp;is not the endeavour of a single person. It requires a team of people. How can this be better reflected in graduate student training, asks Julie Gould. Is science ready for "Team PhD", whereby a group of students work more collaboratively, delivering a multi-authored thesis at their end of their programme?&nbsp; Jeanette Woolard, who recently secured a&nbsp;£4.5m Wellcome Trust grant to fund a four-year collaborative doctoral training programme in her lab at the University of Nottingham, UK, believes it could happen one day. "The team driven PhD is not distant dream. It's soon-to-be a fulfilled reality," Woolard, professor of cardiovascular physiology and pharmacology, tells Julie Gould.&nbsp;"If you give it enough of an incentive and wave the flag hard enough for team science, it will come." Woolard's&nbsp;Wellcome grant allows four graduate students to have their own research focus but to work collaboratively.&nbsp;"Each of the individual candidates are still&nbsp;pursuing an individual PhD and they will each write up an individual thesis at the end of their four year period of study," she says, arguing that the scientific&nbsp;community&nbsp;and students themselves&nbsp;aren't&nbsp;yet ready for programmes that culminate in a team focused thesis.&nbsp;"I think individual students still either like the idea or deserve the opportunity to defend their own piece of work at the end of their studies." The new programme at Nottingham, she says,&nbsp;provides&nbsp;them with "the most collaborative environment&nbsp;possible,&nbsp;where they have the opportunity to work together as much as they can, to utilise as many skills as are available, and to really experience a dynamic, collaborative team-driven environment.&nbsp; "Ultimately that's what there are going to experience especially if they go into industry or pursue excellence in academia. Our best outputs now are judged as being multidisciplinary," Woolard adds. A team thesis may be some way off in science, but what about other disciplines? Jill Perry is Executive Director at the Carnegie Project. She tells Gould how the project is helping to redefine the education doctorate in the US. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Team PhD

Julie Gould asks six higher education experts if it's now time to go back to the drawing board and redesign graduate programmes from scratch. Suzanne Ortega, president of the US Council of Graduate Schools, says programmes now include elements to accommodate some of the skills now being demanded by employers, including project and data management expertise. "We can't expect to prepare doctoral researchers in a timely fashion by simply adding more and more separate activities," she tells Gould. "We need to redesign the curricula and the capstone project," referring to the PhD as a long-term investigative project that culminates in a final product. Jonathan Jansen, professor of education at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, calls for more flexible and modular programmes and describes as an example how MBA programmes have evolved from a full-time one year course to include part-time online only programmes and a "blended" combination of the two approaches. "It's about trying to figure out in terms of your own lifestyle what kind of progarmme design works for you," he says. "One size does not fit all." But Jansen's colleague Liezel Frick, director of the university's centre for higher and adult education, says it's important to remember the ultimate goal of a PhD. She tells Gould: "I get the point around flexibility but it's still a research focused degree. You still have to make an original contribution to your field of knowledge. Otherwise it becomes a continuing professional development programme where you can do odds and ends but never get to the core of it, which is a substantive research contribution." David Bogle, a doctoral school pro-vice-provost at UCL, London, says it's important to remember that graduate students are part of a cohort and community who should be respected and rewarded, not looked down on and treated as second class citizens. "At the moment there's a certain amount of 'I'm the supervisor. You should be looking to me as the primary source of inspiration,' when in fact the inspiration comes from peers, professional communities, training and cross disciplinary activities." This is the second episode in a five-part series timed to coincide with&nbsp;Nature's&nbsp;2019 PhD survey. Many of the 6,300 graduate students who responded call for more one-to-one support and better career guidance from PhD supervisors. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Julie Gould asks six higher education experts if it's now time to go back to the drawing board and redesign graduate programmes from scratch. Suzanne Ortega, president of the US Council of Graduate Schools, says programmes now include elements to accommodate some of the skills now being demanded by employers, including project and data management expertise. "We can't expect to prepare doctoral researchers in a timely fashion by simply adding more and more separate activities," she tells Gould. "We need to redesign the curricula and the capstone project," referring to the PhD as a long-term investigative project that culminates in a final product. Jonathan Jansen, professor of education at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, calls for more flexible and modular programmes and describes as an example how MBA programmes have evolved from a full-time one year course to include part-time online only programmes and a "blended" combination of the two approaches. "It's about trying to figure out in terms of your own lifestyle what kind of progarmme design works for you," he says. "One size does not fit all." But Jansen's colleague Liezel Frick, director of the university's centre for higher and adult education, says it's important to remember the ultimate goal of a PhD. She tells Gould: "I get the point around flexibility but it's still a research focused degree. You still have to make an original contribution to your field of knowledge. Otherwise it becomes a continuing professional development programme where you can do odds and ends but never get to the core of it, which is a substantive research contribution." David Bogle, a doctoral school pro-vice-provost at UCL, London, says it's important to remember that graduate students are part of a cohort and community who should be respected and rewarded, not looked down on and treated as second class citizens. "At the moment there's a certain amount of 'I'm the supervisor. You should be looking to me as the primary source of inspiration,' when in fact the inspiration comes from peers, professional communities, training and cross disciplinary activities." This is the second episode in a five-part series timed to coincide with&nbsp;Nature's&nbsp;2019 PhD survey. Many of the 6,300 graduate students who responded call for more one-to-one support and better career guidance from PhD supervisors. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

It's time to fix the "one size fits all" PhD

Students need to be clear about their reasons for pursuing a PhD and the career options open to them, Julie Gould discovers. In 2015, labour economist Paula Stephan told an audience of early career researchers in the US that the supply of PhD students was outstripping demand. “Since 1977, we've been recommending that graduate departments partake in birth control, but no one has been listening. "We are definitely producing many more PhDs than there is demand for them in research positions,” she said. In this first episode of this five-part series about the future of the PhD and how it might change, Julie Gould asks Stephan, who is based at Georgia State University, if her view has altered. Anne-Marie Coriat, head of UK and EU research landscape at the Wellcome Trust in London, says students need to be clear about why they want to pursue a PhD. "Look at what you're getting into, try and understand that, and then network," she says. Forty per cent of respondents to Nature's 2019 PhD survey, published this week, said that their programme didn’t meet their original expectations, and only 10% said that it exceeded their expectations — a sharp drop from 2017, when 23% of respondents said that their PhD programme exceeded their expectations. Despite a global shortage of jobs at universities and colleges, 56% of respondents said that academia is their first choice for a career. Just under 30% chose industry as their preferred destination. The rest named research positions in government, medicine or non-profit organizations. In 2017, 52% of respondents chose academia and 22% chose industry. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Students need to be clear about their reasons for pursuing a PhD and the career options open to them, Julie Gould discovers. In 2015, labour economist Paula Stephan told an audience of early career researchers in the US that the supply of PhD students was outstripping demand. “Since 1977, we've been recommending that graduate departments partake in birth control, but no one has been listening. "We are definitely producing many more PhDs than there is demand for them in research positions,” she said. In this first episode of this five-part series about the future of the PhD and how it might change, Julie Gould asks Stephan, who is based at Georgia State University, if her view has altered. Anne-Marie Coriat, head of UK and EU research landscape at the Wellcome Trust in London, says students need to be clear about why they want to pursue a PhD. "Look at what you're getting into, try and understand that, and then network," she says. Forty per cent of respondents to Nature's 2019 PhD survey, published this week, said that their programme didn’t meet their original expectations, and only 10% said that it exceeded their expectations — a sharp drop from 2017, when 23% of respondents said that their PhD programme exceeded their expectations. Despite a global shortage of jobs at universities and colleges, 56% of respondents said that academia is their first choice for a career. Just under 30% chose industry as their preferred destination. The rest named research positions in government, medicine or non-profit organizations. In 2017, 52% of respondents chose academia and 22% chose industry. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Too many PhDs, too few research positions

Adam Levy talks to 2019 John Maddox Prize winner Bambang Hero Saharjo and Olivier Bernard, the Canadian pharmacist whose campaign against vitamin C injections for cancer patients earned him the early career stage prize. The John Maddox Prize recognises the work of individuals who promote science and evidence, advancing the public discussion around difficult topics despite challenges or hostility. Bambang Hero Saharjo, winner of the 2019 prize, is a lead expert witness on illegal peatland fires in Indonesia. He has presented evidence on nearly 500 environmental cases for the Indonesian government, often facing threats and harassment. Saharjo, a professor in the forestry faculty at Bogor Agricultual University, was nominated by Jacob Phelps, a lecturer in tropical environmental change and policy at Lancaster University, UK, who says: "His work serves not only to bring justice in individual cases, but has inspired a vision of what is possible in Indonesia—a future in which courts are true centres of evidence-based justice, even in the face of entrenched interests; where academics are genuine public servants, and in which science has a prominent role inthe public discourse." In 2012 pharmacist and broadcaster Olivier Bernard created Le Pharmachien, a comic website to help the public separate myths from facts about healthcare. An English version, The Pharmafist, is also available. More recently Bernard has spoken out against high-dose vitamin C injections for cancer patients. This intervention is not supported by the current body of scientific evidence and Olivier's campaign led to him facing intimidation and cyberbullying. Bernard is winner of the John Maddox Prize early career stage award. The prize is a joint initiative between&nbsp;Nature&nbsp;and the charity Sense about Science, which challenges the misrepresentation of science and evidence in public life. It is named in honour of Sir John Maddox, who edited&nbsp;Nature&nbsp;for a total of 22 years between 1966 and 1995. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Adam Levy talks to 2019 John Maddox Prize winner Bambang Hero Saharjo and Olivier Bernard, the Canadian pharmacist whose campaign against vitamin C injections for cancer patients earned him the early career stage prize. The John Maddox Prize recognises the work of individuals who promote science and evidence, advancing the public discussion around difficult topics despite challenges or hostility. Bambang Hero Saharjo, winner of the 2019 prize, is a lead expert witness on illegal peatland fires in Indonesia. He has presented evidence on nearly 500 environmental cases for the Indonesian government, often facing threats and harassment. Saharjo, a professor in the forestry faculty at Bogor Agricultual University, was nominated by Jacob Phelps, a lecturer in tropical environmental change and policy at Lancaster University, UK, who says: "His work serves not only to bring justice in individual cases, but has inspired a vision of what is possible in Indonesia—a future in which courts are true centres of evidence-based justice, even in the face of entrenched interests; where academics are genuine public servants, and in which science has a prominent role inthe public discourse." In 2012 pharmacist and broadcaster Olivier Bernard created Le Pharmachien, a comic website to help the public separate myths from facts about healthcare. An English version, The Pharmafist, is also available. More recently Bernard has spoken out against high-dose vitamin C injections for cancer patients. This intervention is not supported by the current body of scientific evidence and Olivier's campaign led to him facing intimidation and cyberbullying. Bernard is winner of the John Maddox Prize early career stage award. The prize is a joint initiative between&nbsp;Nature&nbsp;and the charity Sense about Science, which challenges the misrepresentation of science and evidence in public life. It is named in honour of Sir John Maddox, who edited&nbsp;Nature&nbsp;for a total of 22 years between 1966 and 1995. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

My courtroom battles to halt illegal peatland fires in Indonesia

Tom Baden's work into the neuroscience of vision has earned him the inaugural Nature Research Award for Driving Global Impact. Tom Baden, professor of neuroscience at the University of Sussex, UK, is the first winner of an award to recognise early career researchers whose work has made, or has the potential to make, a positive impact on society. Baden's research on zebrafish and mice showed that eyes have vastly greater computational powers than people previously thought, rather than being faithful recorders of the real world. The judges of the award, run in partnership with Chinese technology company Tencent, said Baden's research could have a significant impact on both diagnostic and therapeutic ophthalmology research. In addition to his research, Baden tells Julie Gould about his interest in open hardware and 3D printing and its potential to make well equipped labs more affordable for developing countries. Baden is also cofounder of Teaching and Research in Neuroscience for Development (TReND) in Africa. This nonprofit, which launched in 2010, runs research courses in sub-Saharan Africa and helps to place scientists who’d like to teach there into the region’s universities. The group also collects unused lab equipment from facilities in the United States and Europe and redistributes it to laboratories across Africa. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Tom Baden's work into the neuroscience of vision has earned him the inaugural Nature Research Award for Driving Global Impact. Tom Baden, professor of neuroscience at the University of Sussex, UK, is the first winner of an award to recognise early career researchers whose work has made, or has the potential to make, a positive impact on society. Baden's research on zebrafish and mice showed that eyes have vastly greater computational powers than people previously thought, rather than being faithful recorders of the real world. The judges of the award, run in partnership with Chinese technology company Tencent, said Baden's research could have a significant impact on both diagnostic and therapeutic ophthalmology research. In addition to his research, Baden tells Julie Gould about his interest in open hardware and 3D printing and its potential to make well equipped labs more affordable for developing countries. Baden is also cofounder of Teaching and Research in Neuroscience for Development (TReND) in Africa. This nonprofit, which launched in 2010, runs research courses in sub-Saharan Africa and helps to place scientists who’d like to teach there into the region’s universities. The group also collects unused lab equipment from facilities in the United States and Europe and redistributes it to laboratories across Africa. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Working Scientist: The award-winning neuroscientist who blazes a trail for open hardware

Two projects aimed at boosting female representation in STEM have won the second Nature Research Awards for Inspiring Science and Innovating Science, in partnership with The Estée Lauder Companies. Jean Fan spent a year volunteering at a science club for high school students during her PhD programme at Harvard University and was struck by how many of them dismissed the idea of becoming scientists themselves. "A lot of my students would make remarks like 'I'm not quite a maths person,' or would not see themselves as future scientists," she tells Julie Gould. "I really wanted to leave them with some type of gift to encourage them to continue developing their interest in science." As a result Fan, who was the sole female graduate student in her PhD bioinformatics programme, launched cuSTEMized, a non-profit that uses personalised educational storybooks (which she writes and illustrates) to inspire girls about scientific careers. This week, at a ceremony in London, she won the 2019 Inspiring Science Award, one of two offered by Nature Research and the Estée Lauder Companies. The second award, Innovation in Science, goes to Doreen Anene, a PhD student at the University of Nottingham, UK. In 2017 Anene launched The STEM Belle, a non-profile based in Nigeria, her home country. The STEM Belle also works in Ghana and Pakistan. As its website says, The STEM Belle is "focused on levelling up the female representation in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics fields by attracting, retaining and advancing more girls and young women to STEM subjects and fields." For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Two projects aimed at boosting female representation in STEM have won the second Nature Research Awards for Inspiring Science and Innovating Science, in partnership with The Estée Lauder Companies. Jean Fan spent a year volunteering at a science club for high school students during her PhD programme at Harvard University and was struck by how many of them dismissed the idea of becoming scientists themselves. "A lot of my students would make remarks like 'I'm not quite a maths person,' or would not see themselves as future scientists," she tells Julie Gould. "I really wanted to leave them with some type of gift to encourage them to continue developing their interest in science." As a result Fan, who was the sole female graduate student in her PhD bioinformatics programme, launched cuSTEMized, a non-profit that uses personalised educational storybooks (which she writes and illustrates) to inspire girls about scientific careers. This week, at a ceremony in London, she won the 2019 Inspiring Science Award, one of two offered by Nature Research and the Estée Lauder Companies. The second award, Innovation in Science, goes to Doreen Anene, a PhD student at the University of Nottingham, UK. In 2017 Anene launched The STEM Belle, a non-profile based in Nigeria, her home country. The STEM Belle also works in Ghana and Pakistan. As its website says, The STEM Belle is "focused on levelling up the female representation in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics fields by attracting, retaining and advancing more girls and young women to STEM subjects and fields." For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Working Scientist podcast: How to inspire young women to consider scientific careerssode

In the final episode of this six-part podcast series about physics careers, Gaia Donati draws on her contact with fellow physicists in her role as a manuscript editor at&nbsp;Nature,&nbsp;where she oversees research papers in several areas, including quantum information and computing, high-energy physics and plasma physics. She also reflects on her own career experience and how academia in her native Italy compares to the UK, where she gained her PhD in 2015. "Start looking for jobs before you finish your PhD," Donati advises. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

In the final episode of this six-part podcast series about physics careers, Gaia Donati draws on her contact with fellow physicists in her role as a manuscript editor at&nbsp;Nature,&nbsp;where she oversees research papers in several areas, including quantum information and computing, high-energy physics and plasma physics. She also reflects on her own career experience and how academia in her native Italy compares to the UK, where she gained her PhD in 2015. "Start looking for jobs before you finish your PhD," Donati advises. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Start looking for jobs before you finish your PhD

Moving to a new branch of science is scary, but learning new skills and collaborating with different colleagues can be exhilarating, Julie Gould discovers. In the penultimate episode of this six-part series about physics careers, Julie Gould talks to Stuart Higgins, a research associate at Imperial College London, who switched from solid state physics to bioengineering, and Anna Lappala, who moved from biochemistry to physics. How easy were these transitions, and what is their advice to others planning similar moves? Higgins says: "It's important to ask yourself why you want to make the transition. Do you want to apply the same skills or to learn new ones? Give yourself time to understand your motivation." Overall, the transition was "liberating," he adds, allowing him to ask "basic, silly questions" of colleagues, who were very supportive of his situation and the learning curve he faced. Lappala, a postdoctoral fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, describes how she was initially terrified of people discovering she was not a "real physicist" and worked hard to learn about general physics, quantum field theory, and soft matter, among other things. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Moving to a new branch of science is scary, but learning new skills and collaborating with different colleagues can be exhilarating, Julie Gould discovers. In the penultimate episode of this six-part series about physics careers, Julie Gould talks to Stuart Higgins, a research associate at Imperial College London, who switched from solid state physics to bioengineering, and Anna Lappala, who moved from biochemistry to physics. How easy were these transitions, and what is their advice to others planning similar moves? Higgins says: "It's important to ask yourself why you want to make the transition. Do you want to apply the same skills or to learn new ones? Give yourself time to understand your motivation." Overall, the transition was "liberating," he adds, allowing him to ask "basic, silly questions" of colleagues, who were very supportive of his situation and the learning curve he faced. Lappala, a postdoctoral fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, describes how she was initially terrified of people discovering she was not a "real physicist" and worked hard to learn about general physics, quantum field theory, and soft matter, among other things. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Switching scientific disciplines

Media interest in particle physics and the Large Hadron Collider boosted Jon Butterworth's interest in public engagement, reports Julie Gould. Jon Butterworth developed a taste for public engagement after repeated media appearances related to his work on the ATLAS experiment, one of two Large Hadron Collider detectors at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics lab. Butterworth, a physics professor at University College London, describes life at CERN, and how it felt to be one of 5154 authors listed in the 2015 paper that produced the most precise estimate yet of the mass of the Higgs boson. As part of his public engagement activities, Butterworth was persuaded to auction an after-dinner lecture or school talk about the Higgs. The auction "lot" was part of a fundraising effort for his children's primary school in north London. "Someone else at the school was Lady Gaga's designer and they brought along a pair of her boots," he tells Julie Gould. "My talk went for more than Lady Gaga's boots. I'm still doing it now. Interest hasn't died away. "The key thing is you have to be genuinely excited about your project. We've lowered the bar so more physics stories get into the news. "If you tell your mum and dad now that you're doing physics, you get kudos for it in the way you wouldn't have done before," he says. Tom Weller taught physics for eight years at a west London school following his second postdoc at Harvard University, a career change triggered in part by the enjoyment he derived from organising children's science parties. "They made me recognize how much I enjoyed explaining stuff that was fun and engaging," he says in the fourth episode of this six-part podcast series about physics careers. For information regarding your data privacy, visit <a href="https://www.acast.com/privacy">acast.com/privacy</a>

Media interest in particle physics and the Large Hadron Collider boosted Jon Butterworth's interest in public engagement, reports Julie Gould. Jon Butterworth developed a taste for public engagement after repeated media appearances related to his work on the ATLAS experiment, one of two Large Hadron Collider detectors at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics lab. Butterworth, a physics professor at University College London, describes life at CERN, and how it felt to be one of 5154 authors listed in the 2015 paper that produced the most precise estimate yet of the mass of the Higgs boson. As part of his public engagement activities, Butterworth was persuaded to auction an after-dinner lecture or school talk about the Higgs. The auction "lot" was part of a fundraising effort for his children's primary school in north London. "Someone else at the school was Lady Gaga's designer and they brought along a pair of her boots," he tells Julie Gould. "My talk went for more than Lady Gaga's boots. I'm still doing it now. Interest hasn't died away. "The key thing is you have to be genuinely excited about your project. We've lowered the bar so more physics stories get into the news. "If you tell your mum and dad now that you're doing physics, you get kudos for it in the way you wouldn't have done before," he says. Tom Weller taught physics for eight years at a west London school following his second postdoc at Harvard University, a career change triggered in part by the enjoyment he derived from organising children's science parties. "They made me recognize how much I enjoyed explaining stuff that was fun and engaging," he says in the fourth episode of this six-part podcast series about physics careers. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

The school physics talk that proved more popular than Lady Gaga's boots

Naturejobs is the careers resource for the Nature Publishing Group, publishers of the journal Nature. The Naturejobs podcast is a free audio show highlighting career issues for scientists with interviews from industry experts and key information from presentations at Naturejobs career fairs such as the Source Event.

hubhopper

Naturejobs Podcast

hubhopper