Am I doing enough for my scientific career?

Am I doing enough for my scientific career?

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.

Good reasons to have a love-hate relationship with science

Good reasons to have a love-hate relationship with science

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.

Do I need Nature or Science papers for a successful career in science?

Do I need Nature or Science papers for a successful career in science?

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?

Should I publish negative results, or does this ruin my career?

Should I publish negative results, or does this ruin my career?

Scientists often produce negative results. All experiments were done correctly – but there was no difference between test and control. They get conflicting advice from supervisors and ethicists. Some say that publishing negative results is a waste of resources and ruins their scientific careers. Others say that ‘not publishing negative results is unethical’. What should young scientists do in such a situation?

What is a substantial contribution to a paper?

What is a substantial contribution to a paper?

To become an author on a scientific publication, you need to contribute substantially – but what does that mean? Are there clear criteria, or can this be debated? What about collaborators who only provide data or samples or medical writers who improve the English of the paper? What about ChatGPT and other text generators?