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?
Being a professor is amazing: a lot of academic freedom to investigate and teach exciting subjects and a secure salary until retirement. However, obtaining this position can be pretty strenuous, and many young scientists do not know the requirements to qualify for such a position. In this article, I give you 10 essential parameters a selection committee will evaluate when selecting a new professor.
A huge body of scientific evidence shows that happy team members produce better results. However, most PhD students and postdocs are stressed by peer pressure, high demands from their supervisors, potentially insufficient supervision, and a high degree of uncertainty about their future careers. Is it better to make them all happy?
Attending a scientific meeting can be very inspiring. It may broaden your network and help you to make yourself and your research visible to a broad audience. Nevertheless, it is also often time-consuming and expensive. How do you choose the right meetings to attend?
Postdocs often struggle with their publication list. They become the famous “second author”. However, if you strive for a successful academic career, you may have to negotiate better with your supervisor to get first and last authorships to build your career.