1. Recommendation letters promote elitism.
“You are not from a famous advisor’s group..? Sorry, you don’t belong here.”
2. When poorly written, a recommendation letter devaluates the candidate.
“This student has such a dull reference… It’s clearly not for us.”
3. Recommendation letters is a way to indirectly control and even intimidate students and postdocs.
“You don’t want to spend 15 hours a day on your research? But then how can I write a good recommendation letter for you?”
1. The editor for Frontiers in Health Services sent out 150 (!) invitations to potential reviewers before he could receive 4 reviews. Only 1 was of sufficient quality. That is = 1/150!
2. The pool of reviewers is too small while the number of journals is exploding. This is because the editors often favor well-known scientists from countries with established science infrastructures.
1. Scientists have a new mode of activity: “being online”
- Constant distractions and external stimulation inhibit creativity and deep thinking
- “Thinking out of the box” has become rare because the Internet is itself a box.
2. Scientists communicate way too much:
- Easy travel, lots of meetings, tons of emails cause an epidemic of communication. As a result, everyone seems to work in the same direction (within a given field): mass migration to deep learning in AI, to BiFeO3 in ferroelectrics, etc
- A disruptive paper is defined here by the likelihood that this paper (and not the references inside it) will be cited by subsequent studies.
- In contrast, a consolidating paper is the one that is less likely to be cited than its predecessors. It consolidates the discovery.
Importantly, when only articles published in Nature, PNAS and Science or to Nobel-winning discoveries are considered, the downward trend STILL persists.
What explanation do authors suggest for the drop of disruptiveness?
They will just make everyone unhappier:
- Your team members will feel burned out and depressed
- Journal editors will feel like there’s another manuscript that no one is willing to review
- The poor reviewers will feel like they have to review a manuscript they don’t care about
- More researchers will feel like they don’t want to get updated about so many papers from your group, especially when their quality gets worse
Advice for #PhD students who want to become postdocs and stay in #academia:
- How to choose a lab for a postdoc
- How to prepare for an interview
- What to be careful about
1. Decide on how far you want to move away from your PhD topic. Keep in mind:
- If your #postdoc research is distant, you will need more time to gain expertise and do competitive work
- Diverse and strong(!) expertise can make you stand out during faculty interviews and help you establish unique research directions
- BUT: gaining a bit of expertise here and there will hardly give you any advantage in the end