Postdoc X-ray in Europe 2017 Work conditions, productivity, institutional support and career outlooks, bioRxiv, 2019-01-24
1.Executive SummaryThis survey and data analysis were conducted by the European Network of Postdoctoral Associations (ENPA) with the aim of assessing the current research and work conditions, aspirations and support received by postdoctoral researchers working in Europe.The Results section is structured into three main parts. The first one describes the study sample of European postdoctoral researchers, including participants’ demographics, funding sources and income, research outputs, and teaching opportunities. The second section focuses on their professional aspirations and institutional support provided. The third part describes the level of engagement of postdoctoral researchers and their institutions in working towards better research conditions and career development, and what initiatives are emerging within this community.Our Conclusions section pulls together this comprehensive analysis, highlighting some of the most concerning issues currently affecting postdoctoral researchers in Europe. We also make a number of recommendations that would significantly improve the career expectations and aspirations of postdoctoral researchers. These are listed below.Conclusions and recommendations<jatslist list-type=order><jatslist-item>Longer postdoctoral periods in Southern Europe despite higher publication metricsRecommendation Institutions in Southern Europe should develop clear criteria to support postdoctoral researchers’ career progression.<jatslist-item><jatslist-item>Southern and Eastern Europe pay the lowest salaries and have the lowest number of foreign postdoctoral researchersRecommendation The salary differences across European countries should be addressed as this could be a barrier to mobility and knowledge exchange from higher to lower pay regions.<jatslist-item><jatslist-item>Lack of access to funding is a significant concern of postdoctoral researchersRecommendation Discrepancies in access to funding should be minimized across the different European areas.<jatslist-item><jatslist-item>Postdoctoral researchers in Europe work longer hours than required by contractRecommendation The culture of overwork in the research environment should be addressed in order to protect researchers against the risks associated with long hours at work.<jatslist-item><jatslist-item>The majority of full-time postdoctoral work contracts includes an exclusivity clauseRecommendation Inclusion of exclusivity clauses in contracts for postdoctoral researchers should be optional in order to allow them to enhance their employability outside academia.<jatslist-item><jatslist-item>Postdoctoral researchers’ career development is poorly supported by their institutionsRecommendation Postdoctoral researchers’ career prospects and career management should be much more supported by institutions in coordination with postdoctoral associations.<jatslist-item><jatslist-item>Lack of postdoctoral representation in governance is linked to unclear institutional duties and rightsRecommendation Institutional governance bodies should include postdoctoral researcher representatives. This would ensure that the views of this vital staff group are heard, as well as making postdoctoral researchers feel more engaged with their own institutions. A flexible and proactive communication strategy at the institution and research group level should be developed, taking into account the sometimes transient nature of postdoctoral researchers’ posts.<jatslist-item><jatslist-item>Researchers show higher engagement with their local postdoctoral associations than with workers’ unionsRecommendation Postdoctoral associations are an essential way to advocate for postdoctoral researchers at the governance level. Institutions should engage with, promote and support the work of postdoctoral associations.<jatslist-item>
biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 100-200-users 2019Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints, bioRxiv, 2019-01-13
AbstractResearchers in the life sciences are posting work to preprint servers at an unprecedented and increasing rate, sharing papers online before (or instead of) publication in peer-reviewed journals. Though the increasing acceptance of preprints is driving policy changes for journals and funders, there is little information about their usage. Here, we collected and analyzed data on all 37,648 preprints uploaded to bioRxiv.org, the largest biology-focused preprint server, in its first five years. We find preprints are being downloaded more than ever before (1.1 million tallied in October 2018 alone) and that the rate of preprints being posted has increased to a recent high of 2,100 per month. We also find that two-thirds of preprints posted before 2017 were later published in peer-reviewed journals, and find a relationship between journal impact factor and preprint downloads. Lastly, we developed Rxivist.org, a web application providing multiple ways of interacting with preprint metadata.
biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 500+-users 2019The Case For and Against Double-blind Reviews, bioRxiv, 2018-12-16
To date, the majority of authors on scientific publications have been men. While much of this gender bias can be explained by historic sexism and discrimination, there is concern that women may still be disadvantaged by the peer review process if reviewers' unconscious biases lead them to reject publications with female authors more often. One potential solution to this perceived gender bias in the reviewing process is for journals to adopt double-blind reviews whereby neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities and genders. To test the efficacy of double-blind reviews, we assigned gender to every authorship of every paper published in 5 different journals with different peer review processes (double-blind vs. single blind) and subject matter (birds vs. behavioral ecology) from 2010-2018 (n = 4865 papers). While female authorships comprised only 35% of the total, the double-blind journal Behavioral Ecology did not have more female authorships than its single-blind counterparts. Interestingly, the incidence of female authorship is higher at behavioral ecology journals (Behavioral Ecology and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology) than in the ornithology journals (Auk, Condor, Ibis), for papers on all topics as well as those on birds. These analyses suggest that double-blind review does not currently increase the incidence of female authorship in the journals studied here. We conclude, at least for these journals, that double-blind review does not benefit female authors and may, in the long run, be detrimental.
biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 100-200-users 2018Non-academic employability of life science PhDs the importance of training beyond the bench, bioRxiv, 2018-12-05
ABSTRACTTo better understand how PhD graduates have prepared for the non-academic job market, we surveyed life science PhD and postdoctoral graduates from the University of Toronto who were employed in non-academic sectors. We also surveyed life science PhD and postdoctoral trainees to assess their engagement in career preparation activities. PhD professionals employed in non-academic sectors had engaged in various career preparation activities during their training. Some activities had a higher perceived impact on the path to employment than others. Trainees had also engaged in such activities, but those rated by professionals as having a highly positive impact on their path to employment were engaged in by only a minority of trainees. The proportion of trainees who wished to work in a non-academic sector was higher among those who were closer to program completion. Like professionals, many trainees reported facing barriers to pursuing career development activities. Our findings suggest that PhD trainees seeking to work in non-academic sectors should engage in career preparation activities, particularly those that involve experiential learning. By supporting co-curricular programming and reducing barriers to participation in career development activities, academic administrators and faculty have the opportunity to support trainees’ professional development beyond the laboratory.
biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 0-100-users 2018Talent Identification at the limits of Peer Review an analysis of the EMBO Postdoctoral Fellowships Selection Process, bioRxiv, 2018-12-04
Scientific peer review is still the most common system for fund allocation despite having been shown in multiple instances to lack accuracy in identifying the most meritorious applications among high quality ones. This study evaluates two aspects of the selection process of the top- ranked applicants to the EMBO Long-Term Fellowship program in 2007. First, the accuracy of the system is evaluated by comparing the level of career progression of the candidates in 2017 with the original award decisions made in 2007. The second aspect, explores the relationship of career progression with indicators derived from the information available to evaluators at the time of application. The results obtained suggest that the peer review system is not substantially better than random selection in identifying the best candidates once an initial pre-selection of the most promising ones is performed. Not only that, the analysis of the indicators studied, some of which have not been analyzed in detail in the past, suggests that among other potential sources of uncertainty, the information available at the time of application is not sufficiently predictive of career progression. As previously described, however, we find differences in career progression between men and women. We propose a new mixed model of fellowship evaluation in which peer review is used to select high quality applications, and random allocation of funds is subsequently used to award fellowships among these top ranked candidates.
biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 500+-users 2018PlotsOfData – a web app for visualizing data together with its summaries, bioRxiv, 2018-09-27
AbstractReporting of the actual data in graphs and plots increases transparency and enables independent evaluation. On the other hand, data summaries are often used in graphs since they aid interpretation. State-of-the art data visualizations can be made with the ggplot2 package, which uses the ideas of a ‘grammar of graphics’ to generate a graphic from multiple layers of data. However, ggplot2 requires coding skills and an understanding of the tidy data structure. To democratize state-of-the-art data visualization of raw data with a selection of statistical summaries, a web app was written using Rshiny that uses the ggplot2 package for generating plots. A multilayered approach together with adjustable transparency offers a unique flexibility, enabling users can to choose how to display the data and which of the data summaries to add. Four data summaries are provided, mean, median, boxplot, violinplot, to accommodate several types of data distributions. In addition, 95% confidence intervals can be added for visual inferences. By adjusting the transparency of the layers, the visualization of the raw data together with the summary can be tuned for optimal presentation and interpretation. The app is dubbed PlotsOfData and is available at <jatsext-link xmlnsxlink=httpwww.w3.org1999xlink ext-link-type=uri xlinkhref=httpshuygens.science.uva.nlPlotsOfData>httpshuygens.science.uva.nlPlotsOfData<jatsext-link><jatsfig id=ufig1 position=float orientation=portrait fig-type=figure><jatsgraphic xmlnsxlink=httpwww.w3.org1999xlink xlinkhref=426767v3_ufig1 position=float orientation=portrait >
biorxiv scientific-communication-and-education 0-100-users 2018