You see these big science stars who publish in Nature and Science. They have huge grants, a massive machinery of high-class technology, and a big team of highly ambitious postdocs and PhD students who hope to publish in Nature or Science. However, you are not like that. How do you handle feelings of inferiority when you compare yourself to these science stars? And how do you become better anyway?
Social media platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and TicToc are everywhere. Many scientists wonder whether they are missing out on something and ask themselves: “Should I create public LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and TicToc profiles as a scientist?” The surprising answer is “No”!
How to get more funding? Avoid these mistakes! Writing grant proposals in life sciences is tedious, and evaluating grant proposals is even more tedious. Quite often, the reviewers end up with a small number of outstanding proposals and a vast number of excellent proposals, which have to be ranked based on tiny differences in quality.
If you feel like you’re always walking on eggshells, your supervisor may be a narcissist and abuse you emotionally. Narcissists often use manipulation, control, and gaslighting to keep their staff members in line. Characteristic signs include micromanagement, excessive control, constant criticism, and put-downs. What can you do to get over narcissistic abuse?
When discussing success in science, there is a vast number of success parameters that are mostly incompatible with each other. I have listed below – in random order – several success indicators in science that may help characterize a person, a group, or an institution as “successful in science.”
Many young scientists fear that they are not investing enough in their scientific career, however, it is often not clear what exactly they should do and how important different aspects are such as publications, grants, teaching, mobility, technical skills and just being a good scientist. Find some directions here.
Everybody will tell you that going to a famous university is essential for a successful career in science. Important arguments are the network you build (for example, via alum associations), the excellent infrastructure, and the great scientists you might connect with. However, is it real – or is it a myth?
Among the many researchers I know, many people have adopted either a purely cynical attitude toward the scientific establishment or struggle with an intensive love-hate relationship with science (in academia and industry). Several painful dilemmas cannot be solved, and you must learn to handle them.
About 97% of all young researchers find a job *outside* academia. However, most professors focus on academic success and scientific excellence. Some professors are afraid to transform young scientists into “slaves of the market”. Others simply do not feel qualified. Most universities invest a lot of money and efforts to train PhD students and postdocs well for the non-academic job market, but most young researchers do not feel well-prepared.
One of the unspoken rules in research is that a successful career in science is only possible with one or more papers with an impact factor above 10 or higher. This belief creates a lot of peer pressure among young scientists and might even be one of the causes of increasing numbers of scientific fraud cases. However, is it true?