By Alexandra Ramirez
This is the sixth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.
Communicating science takes many forms and is practiced by those in all stages of their scientific career. Likely the most common and most recognizable type of science communication is publishing research articles in scientific journals. These articles can be accessed by audiences around the world, both in and outside of the scientific field (though all are not always available through open-access sources). Publications are also increasingly becoming the currency needed for career growth and success in academic research. However, going from project conception to publication of a research article takes years. For those just starting out in research, publishing is a goal that is highly sought after but cannot be immediately accomplished.
If one cannot publish quickly, how can early career scientists share their research? For the purpose of this blog post, early career scientists are defined as those who are actively engaging in scientific research but do not hold a doctoral degree. For example, graduate students, undergraduate research assistants, and masters students all are early career scientists. These scientists are actively working through research projects and producing and/or analyzing data.
Early career scientists may not have published as much as their senior scientist counterparts, but they are still communicating their science. For the purpose of this blog post, science communication will refer to formal modes of communication, such as posters or talks given at a symposium or conference, theses, and peer-reviewed research articles. Poster presentations are quick verbal presentations that overview a project’s background, methods, results (including preliminary results), and potential future directions accompanied by a poster as a visual aid. At poster sessions, many people may walk up to see the poster, hear the presentation, and ask questions. Research talks are more formal than posters, as they are given at a set time with a set audience. These talks vary in length, but are usually at least ten to fifteen minutes long. Talks also generate questions and feedback. Both posters and talks are a great way for early career scientists to practice verbal and visual communication of their science. A thesis, whether at the undergraduate or graduate level, involves the completion of an independent project and a written description of the background, methods, results, and a discussion of their results’ significance and future directions. Graduate students also need to present their thesis in an oral, public defense. These take months to years to complete, and for doctoral and masters students, are the major requirement for graduation. Additionally, many graduate programs also require students to have at least one publication in order to graduate.
How are early career scientists engaging in science communication?
As an early career and first-generation scientist, I am still learning the various ways in which I can share my research and how others at my career stage are communicating theirs. When looking into ways in which early career scientists communicate their research and what “typical” students have done to communicate their science, I was surprised to find that there is no formal data available on these topics. Most searches for “how do early career scientists communicate science” garner articles on the efficacy and importance of workshops designed to improve science communication skills or how early career scientists can engage in public-facing science communication, such as science journalism, which is different from the formal science communication discussed in this post.
I wanted to hear from early career scientists on how they are communicating their research and their opinions on the accessibility to and importance of various types of science communication. I sent a survey out to PSPDG’s email listserv, the University of Pennsylvania Psychology department’s email listserv, the University of Colorado Denver’s MARC-U scholars, and the University of Colorado Denver’s Office of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities email listserv to generate a population of responses from early career scientists. The survey documented fifty-three respondents with a fairly well-distributed population (34% doctoral graduate students year 3+, 24.5% doctoral graduate students years 1-2, 1.9% (1) masters student, 24.5% postbaccalaureate scholars, and 15.1% undergraduates). Of those not currently in a doctoral program, 88% plan on applying or have applied to doctoral programs. All of the respondents had communicated their research in at least one way.
Figure 1
Almost all respondents (96% had presented a poster, and the majority (68%) are a co-author on a peer-reviewed research article. Three methods had only one respondent: department seminar, one-pager research summary, and “Other.” A surprising 24.5% of respondents have a 1st author peer-reviewed publication; although, all of them are doctoral graduate students, and most upper-class doctoral candidates (12 of 13) (Fig. 1).
Perceptions of science communication by early career scientists
Figure 2
Now that we know how early career scientists are communicating their research, I was curious about their perceptions of these communication modes. Respondents were asked to “Please rank the following modes of formal science communication from what you believe to be MOST important to LEAST important in early career science” with the options being poster, talk, thesis or equivalent, co-author peer-reviewed publication, and 1st author peer-reviewed publication. As expected, 1st author peer-reviewed publications were believed by most respondents to be the most important (45.3%), followed by talks (30.2%). The majority-agreed least important modes for early career scientists are a thesis or equivalent (41.5%) followed by posters (30.2%) (Fig. 2.).
Respondents were also asked to explain why they chose their top two selections (Fig. 2). The overall themes that emerged were the ability to reach a large audience, audience comprehensibility, and verbal communication. However, themes varied across career levels. Year 3+ doctoral students and masters students focused heavily on career growth and graduation requirements. Doctoral students of all years also focused on the potential for questions and critical analysis of their work by others as a reason of importance. Postbaccalaureate scholars heavily emphasized the time and effort being put into the work and the depth of understanding that the communication form displays. Undergraduates shared postbacs’ want for recognition of effort, but they were also more interested in what they could learn from sharing their research.
These themes may be due to differences in the mode of communication that was considered most important by career level. Year 3+ doctoral students were polarized heavily to 1st author publications (55.6%) and talks (33.3%), while year 1-2 doctoral students were more concerned with posters (54.5%); only one year 1-2 doctoral student believed 1st author publications to be the most important. Postbacs responded with a larger variety of communication forms to be most important, although 1st author publications won the relative majority (38.5%). Undergraduates were also more variable, but their relative majority too sided with 1st author publications (37.5%). This highlights the different perceived expectations and significance of science communication as early career scientists move through their career. It may also reflect doctoral admissions expectations, as 95% of postbac and undergraduate respondents plan on or have applied to doctoral programs.
Figure 3
Although data on the most current PhD cycles’ admissions are not yet provided by doctoral programs, those in and who have applied to doctoral programs know that their admissions are increasingly competitive. As an applicant for neuroscience PhD programs myself this cycle, schools where I interviewed told us that they had record numbers of applicants, yet they would be admitting the same number of students as they had the year before. Doctoral admission competition has been increasing, with an average 3.5% increase in applicants from Fall 2016 to Fall 2021. From Fall 2020 to Fall 2021 alone there was an 8.9% increase in doctoral program applicants which was matched with an 8.9% total enrollment increase. However, enrollment of US citizens and permanent residents declined 4% in the same time period, suggesting that international student enrollment is the cause for the increase in total enrollment. Because of this increased domestic competition, postbacs and undergraduates are feeling the pressure to be more impressive in their application, including in how they communicate their research. The majority of respondents who are planning to apply or who have applied but are not yet admitted into doctoral programs believe that at least one mode of science communication is necessary for doctoral admissions (only one said that none were necessary), with 44% agreeing that at least one form of publication is necessary (Fig. 3)
Figure 4
To see whether the communication modes perceived to be necessary matched the communication experiences of those who had previously been admitted to doctoral programs, we asked how admitted respondents had communicated their science at the time they applied (if any) (Fig. 4). As most perceived posters to be necessary, most of the admitted students had presented a poster by the time they were admitted (94.1%, 91.2% respectively). Most of the perceptions of the unadmitted followed closely to the experiences of the admitted students, except for having completed a thesis or equivalent. Of those not admitted, only 18% believed a thesis to be necessary for doctoral program admission, but 59% of doctoral admits had completed a thesis or equivalent by the time of their admission. Additionally, a surprising number of admits had at least one publication (or soon-to-be publication) at the time of their admittance (67.6%). This high number reflects the current level of competition required for doctoral program admittance and, subsequently, early career scientists’ career advancement. (This high percentage may be skewed by the fact that most doctoral program admit-respondents are current University of Pennsylvania graduate students.) Despite all admits having communicated their research in at least one format, many graduate programs do not include science communication experience in their admissions requirements (for example, Yale, Penn, Villanova, and UC Berkeley). This may reflect a gap in the expectations of admissions committees compared to the expectations they convey to those applying to their programs.
Micropublication: A new answer to academic demands of early career scientists?
Though the current “publish or perish” climate (where researchers are expected to publish often to continue onto next career steps or acquire grants) breeds a less-than-healthy environment for early career scientists (in my opinion), its pressure is still felt. Academic journals that specifically publish student work (such as the Journal of Student Research and The Graduate Student Journal of Psychology) are an option for students looking to produce publications; however, they lack the prestige and recognition that a publication in a larger journal publishing work from all levels of research will produce[1][2]. Additionally, these journals are often peer-reviewed and edited by students as well, raising concerns among senior scientists about the rigor and quality of the published research[2].
MicroPublications may offer a solution. microPublication Biology is a fairly recent (est. 2018) open-access journal that publishes “microPublications.” These are “single, validated findings that may be novel, reproduced, negative, lack a broader scientific narrative, or [are] perceived to lack high impact.” All data must be high-quality, and all submissions are peer-reviewed by field experts prior to publication. microPublication.org was created to incentivize researchers to share data that does not fit into a full-length research article, that produced null results, or would otherwise sit in a databank unpublished. The ultimate goal of microPublication.org is to “[improve] reproducibility and accountability of publicly funded research and in turn [accelerate] both basic and translational discovery.” The publications are single-figure, keeping them short enough to be peer-reviewed and published quickly for citation.
microPublication is open to researchers of all levels, including early career scientists. In the “What Should You microPublish?” section of their website, they list “Experimental findings derived from small projects, for example undergraduate summer research projects, graduate rotation projects, that stand alone and are not necessarily part of a larger effort.” Despite the accessibility to early career scientists in the life sciences, 98.1% of survey respondents had never heard of microPublication.org. After learning the mission of microPublication Biology, 84.9% of respondents believed that microPublications would benefit early career scientists in the biological and biomedical sciences. That number rose to 96.2% when the following survey question revealed that small projects are encouraged for microPublication, and that microPublications can be put on one’s curriculum vitae. Of those in the biological and/or biomedical sciences, 85% of early career scientists wanted to learn more about microPublications. Clearly, this new mode of science communication is of interest to early career scientists, and it may be a way for them to quickly put out their research findings that may otherwise go unpublished.
Conclusion
As we are entering a world where scientific communication is becoming increasingly important, it is paramount for us to look to those who are the future of scientific research. Early career scientists are already engaging in science communication. Many are beginning to publish their research, and many believe that they are expected to publish to move forward in their careers, including to be admitted into doctoral programs. microPublication may be a new way for early career scientists to publish their findings that may otherwise go unpublished and meet the rising standards for early career scientists.
Additional references
[1] Siegel, V. (2004). Points of view: Should students be encouraged to publish their research in student-run publications? Cell Biology Education, 3(1), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-01-0021
[2] Gilbert, S. F. (2004). Points of view: Should students be encouraged to publish their research in student-run publications?: A case against undergraduate-only journal publications. Cell biology education. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3197276/