Welcome to the Women in STEM podcast and boy oh boy today we have such an interesting
episode we're going to be covering tips and techniques for early career scientists and
how to navigate the process from research to publication.
Would you like to introduce yourself please?
I'm Dr Brooke Grindlinger, Chief Scientific Officer at the New York Academy of Sciences.
I'm Australian, a microbiologist and the former science editor for the Journal of Clinical
Investigation.
Wow, I can definitely tell from your intro that you are definitely the right person for
this topic.
What are some of the tips and techniques that early career scientists can employ to effectively
navigate the process from research to publication?
Well allow me to begin with an encouraging word for early career scientists who may be
at the beginning of their journey from research to publication.
It's so key to remember that this journey, especially early in your scientific career,
is a learning experience.
While the manuscript preparation and review process may often feel as if you're running
the gauntlet, the end goal of the peer review process is to guide you to the acceptance
and publication of a scientifically rigorous and well-prepared research paper that advances
knowledge in your field of research.
So I encourage authors to embrace feedback from their mentors, reviewers and journal editors,
be persistent and be patient through what can be a time consuming process.
I'll share four specific tips for authors.
My first tip is to start writing early.
It's not uncommon for early career researchers to dread the writing up of a research manuscript,
especially if it's your first attempt to do so.
But you can begin writing draft sections of your manuscript as soon as you start your
research project.
And if you have trouble knowing where to begin, the materials and method section is often
the easiest section to start with, and you can update it as new experiments are started
and completed.
It's like writing out the recipe for the cake that you've just baked.
So create an outline of your experiments and results to help you organize your thoughts
and your data effectively.
And remember that your research paper is really a story that you need to tell logically for
the reader.
My second tip is to collaborate and seek feedback as you write.
Ask your colleagues or mentors to read early drafts of sections or the entire manuscript
and to provide feedback.
This will help you to improve the clarity and the coherence of your writing.
My third tip is to choose the right journal.
While every scientist might aspire to one day be published in the journal's Science
or Nature, consider which journals you read to keep up with your specific research field.
And also ask the advice of well-published colleagues in your field who, through experience,
may have a helpful perspective on which journal is the optimal fit for your manuscript.
And you should also consult a journal's scope statement, which is always made publicly
available and provides further guidance about the scientific scope, the target audience,
and impact of research that each journal prioritizes.
And you can also explore whether journals of interest to you might welcome a pre-submission
inquiry.
That is, a very short letter that provides an overview of your research discoveries and
their impact.
Most of the editorial board may be willing to provide a quick decision in just a matter
of days on whether you should proceed with formal submission of the manuscript to their
journal.
This can save you weeks or even months waiting for the return of reviewer comments through
official review channels.
And you might also consider a journal's impact factor, which is often used as a proxy measure
for the journal's reputation.
You might consider the acceptance or rejection rate if that information is publicly available.
And if you're in a race to publish your findings before another competing research group, consider
the average length of the review period, which is often able to be determined from the dates
of submission, acceptance, and publication that appear as part of the published manuscripts.
The time from acceptance to publication and whether the journal offers swift, advanced
online publication before the paper appears in a print issue, which may not be scheduled
for printing for some months later.
And remember, you can only have your manuscript under consideration at a single journal at
any moment in time.
So choose wisely.
And my fourth tip is to consult the journal's guidelines for manuscript preparation and
follow them meticulously.
Every journal has very specific guidelines for the presentation of figures, the use and
definition of acronyms, the formatting of referencing, and even how you collate and present
any supplementary data.
You should write in simple, direct, and logical sentences, define technical terms, acronyms,
and abbreviations at first use.
Do your best to avoid any unnecessary jargon.
And of course, proofread, proofread, proofread.
Wow, you've made some great points there.
How can an early career scientist overcome common challenges and hurdles that they may
encounter in the publication process?
During my years as a member of the editorial board for the Journal of Clinical Investigation,
I observed several common challenges or mistakes that could prevent further consideration of
a manuscript.
I'll mention four today.
First and foremost is often priority.
Authors should keep in mind that a single journal might receive thousands of manuscript
submissions each year, but only publish a few hundred.
So a common reason for rejection is simply that a study and its findings are just not
of high enough priority and impact compared to other submissions currently under consideration
by the same journal.
A second hurdle is novelty.
Your hypothesis and data must be novel.
It's important to stay abreast of the literature in your field of research to ensure that another
research group has not already published the same or similar findings elsewhere.
A third challenge lies in the experimental design.
Examples of flaws in the experimental design could include lack of appropriate controls
or perhaps the experimental model used in the study is no longer considered to be the
gold standard for modeling or mimicking human disease, for example.
Perhaps your study sample is too small, your data lacks the appropriate statistical analysis,
perhaps you've not provided any in vivo data, only in vitro data, and thus don't meet the
experiment design requirements of the journal.
That's another reason to read the scope statement very carefully.
And a fourth challenge centers on the impact of your findings.
At the Journal of Clinical Investigation, for example, the editors sought studies that revealed
new knowledge about human physiology or disease and ideally provided detailed insight into
the underlying cellular mechanism of disease.
So studies that were purely descriptive, for example, the description of a new knockout
mouse, were very rarely considered further.
And also, studies that reported correlative, not causal relationships were often declined.
So in summary, as you prepare your manuscript, you should carefully reflect on the novelty,
experimental design, and impact of your work to ensure the study is as strong as possible
for the submission as a research article.
I can definitely relate to some of the common hurdles that you just mentioned, even though
I'm not a scientist, but I definitely can see how a lot of the things that you mentioned
are actually quite transferable.
And I would love to know, are there any specific strategies or best practices you would recommend
for an early career scientist to increase their chances of getting their work published
in a reputable journal?
Yes, I'll focus on three specific strategies to increase the chances of getting published
in reputable journals, suggesting and excluding referees in your cover letter at the time
of submission, how best to navigate revision and resubmission, and how to appeal a negative
decision.
Cover first, suggesting and excluding referees.
Many authors think that the cover letter is a superficial obligatory letter that has very
little utility or impact during the submission process.
However, your cover letter can be an invaluable tool for guiding the editors toward the experts
most suited to serve as referees of your manuscript.
Remember, you may be equally or even better suited than the editors to know who in your
field is best positioned to assess your research.
Here is where you can provide the contact information for usually between three and
five candidate referees, established investigators in the field who are well positioned to assess
the rigor of your experimental approach and to appreciate the impact of your findings
for the field.
But keep in mind, you should not suggest researchers in your department, institution or company,
your friends, recent co-authors or collaborators, or any individuals listed in the acknowledgments
section at the end of your manuscript.
Now what is also an often overlooked opportunity for authors in the cover letter is the option
to request to exclude certain individuals from consideration as referees.
And there are very valid reasons for keeping sensitive results confidential.
So authors might consider a request to exclude specific competitors, individuals with a known
bias against you, your research group or your research hypothesis, and anyone with a known
conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.
Now authors do need to be reasonable when exercising this request.
Don't request to exclude more than five people, everyone in your field or entire institutions.
And I recognise that this can be quite awkward to request in your cover letter, but you can
keep the statement simple.
For example, you might write, due to a conflict of interest, we request that Dr Smith be excluded
from reviewing this manuscript.
Or as the group led by Dr Smith are competitors in this area, we request that individuals
from this group be excluded from reviewing this manuscript.
Simple Diplomatic
In sum, don't skip this opportunity to influence the review of your manuscript by external
referees.
The second strategy comes into play when you have received a decision letter and you wish
to revise and resubmit your manuscript.
Remember, very few papers are accepted upon initial submission.
So please don't be discouraged if your manuscript isn't accepted.
Even Nobel laureates get rejection letters.
Don't take a rejection letter personally.
And read the decision letter carefully.
Determine if you can revise and resubmit the paper to the same journal.
However, if you choose to submit your manuscript elsewhere, there are a few things to consider.
First, did you send it to the wrong journal?
Let me consider your second journal choice.
And remember to change your cover letter.
While I was an editor at the Journal of Clinical Investigation, I received many cover letters
that read, We are pleased to submit this paper to Nature Medicine.
Now, immediately the authors revealed to the editors that this paper had been rejected
by a journal that we highly regarded.
So already we were suspicious about what might be wrong with this manuscript.
But before submitting to a new journal, you should recognise and fix any major flaws,
including trying to incorporate any referee suggestions that you received with the decision
letter.
Now, you might ask why?
Why bother revising the manuscript if I'm going to send it to a completely new journal?
Well, the very same expert referees may be asked to review your paper once received by
the new journal, and they will not be impressed to see that you've made no effort to address
their earlier critiques.
Now here are some tips for revising and resubmitting your manuscript to the same journal.
Try to do so within three to six months.
But remember, hasty revisions are likely to be rejected.
You should address the major issues with substantial revisions, conduct all of the requested new
experiments.
But if a newly requested experiment is not possible, or you cannot fulfil a referee
suggestion or request, get in touch with the editors and offer a valid reason about why
the experiment is not possible, and ask for their guidance on the best way forward.
Sometimes newly requested experiments are truly beyond the scope of the current study.
They might require expensive research materials or equipment that's not feasible for your
group to obtain, or perhaps take too long, such as breeding a new line of mice, and therefore
jeopardise the novelty of your current findings.
You should of course revise the text and figures as necessary.
And very importantly, you should check the novelty of your results prior to resubmission.
Have you been scooped in the interim?
And then when submitting your manuscript, you should prepare a point by point response
to all referee comments.
Be very polite and respectful.
And remember to thank the referees for their comments.
Remember they're often donating their time and their intellectual capital for free.
And clearly outline how you've addressed every criticism.
And now the third and final strategy concerns how to appeal a negative decision, a rejection
letter.
So what helps?
First, put that decision letter away for at least 24 hours.
Don't write when you're angry.
Then determine if an appeal is appropriate.
Perhaps the editors and or the referees misunderstood your point.
Or you can easily perform experiments to address the criticisms that they've raised.
Perhaps you've already done these experiments while the manuscript was under review.
Remember editors and referees are only human and they do make mistakes.
And while all journals consider appeals, keep in mind that a few decisions are ultimately
overturned.
And what doesn't help?
Don't try to guess at the identities of the referees.
Or claim that the referees are unfair.
Stay clear of what I like to call celebrity endorsements.
For example, don't write that Albert Einstein told me my paper was fantastic.
Now of course if Albert Einstein told you your paper would be fantastic, that would be a novel
finding worth publication today.
But don't cite celebrity scientists as part of your argument.
Don't brag about your reputation or accuse the editors of publishing an even worse paper.
Don't use inflammatory language.
Call the editors or referee idiots.
Deploy bribes or threats.
And I will say these are all examples I've seen in the past.
And finally, beware of hitting reply instead of forward on the decision letter email.
I've been entertained to receive reply emails from authors that were in fact intended to
be a forward of the decision to their co-authors with some fairly salty language about how
the editors were idiots.
It can be entertaining for the editors to point out the receipt of this email in error,
but ultimately it will not further your appeal.
Are there any key milestones or checkpoints that early career scientists could aim for
as they progress towards publishing their research?
I'm sure many of them would want to know if they're on the right track, if there is anything
that they should be making sure that is really important as a milestone.
I'll recommend four key milestones or checkpoints that early career scientists should keep in
mind on their journey towards publishing their research.
First, and critical, is establishing clear guidelines for authorship from the outset
of the research project.
Today, so much scientific progress is made not by lone geniuses, but by large teams of
scientists.
So for any single research project, there may be many individual contributors over many
years.
Now, there's no universally accepted system for determining authorship on a research
manuscript, so you should openly discuss authorship at the beginning of and throughout
the duration of a project.
Now, according to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, authors
must substantially contribute to project conception and design, critical intellectual content,
the data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, manuscript drafting, review and revision,
and approve the manuscript for submission and publication.
In contrast, acknowledgement, not authorship, is warranted for individuals who have provided
encouragement or advice, research space or reagents, financial or administrative support,
occasional patient material, data collection or analyses, and medical or other ghost writers.
And some journals actually now welcome open specification of each author's contributions
in the manuscript.
So I recommend that authors keep detailed notes about all collaborators on the project
and the scope and scale of their contributions over time to support the fair and equitable
determination of who on the team should be listed as an author on a manuscript.
And remember, authorship equals responsibility.
Yes, you receive the credit when it's published, but you're also subject to the blame should
the results be questioned or retracted at a later date.
And keep in mind that journals will not mediate authorship disputes.
They will tell you to seek institutional oversight and adjudication.
Perhaps I'll also take this moment to mention the use of large language models that power
tools like chat GPT.
Currently, journals can differ somewhat in their respective guidelines on whether and
how these AI driven tools can be used in the preparation of research manuscripts.
What's generally allowed is the use of natural language processing systems.
However, the authors must disclose how they were used in the text.
And the authors must accept full responsibility for factual and citation accuracy.
Some journals require that the full prompt used in the production of the work also be
submitted as part of the supplementary materials.
What's generally not allowed is the listing of chat GPT or similar tools as an author
or co-author on the paper.
No AI generated images or multimedia are allowed without editorial permission.
The authors must ensure there is no plagiarism.
And ultimately, the editors may decline to move forward with manuscripts if AI is used
inappropriately.
And finally, reviewers may not use AI tools in generating or providing their reviews,
as that is considered a breach of confidentiality of the manuscript.
Second, establish a recurring schedule for reading the literature in your field.
It's incredibly important to read widely and to keep abreast of developments in your
field.
You have to ensure that you haven't been scooped by another research group that have
published findings that support the same conclusion as yours while you are working in parallel.
So perhaps commit to devoting one morning or one afternoon a week to taking a deep dive
into the latest relevant publications.
Even consider collaborating with colleagues in your lab to share the reading burden.
Third, take the time to celebrate each step of this process.
From first draft to second draft to final draft and from submission through revision
and acceptance, each is an important milestone that reflects your hard work and progress.
So take a moment to celebrate.
And fourth, talk to journal editors at scientific conferences that you attend.
So journal editors are always on the lookout for exciting, unpublished research to invite
for publication in their journal.
And you can often find editors at publisher booths at major conferences or as speakers
or panellists on the program.
Ask if you can chat with them informally for a few minutes to discuss your findings broadly
and gauge their interest in the study for publication in their journal.
And if you are invited to submit your manuscript, be sure to remind the editors of your prior
discussion in your cover letter.
What are some common mistakes or pitfalls that early career scientists should be aware of
when it comes to publishing their work and how they can avoid or overcome them?
There are some common mistakes that early career scientists should be aware of when
preparing their research manuscript for publication.
The good news is, once you know what to look for, these mistakes are easy to avoid.
Let's start with the manuscript title.
So much hard work, dedication and time goes into completing a single research study and
the writing up of the related research paper that as an author, you can feel compelled
to convey as much information as possible in the title of your paper.
But the best practice is to keep the title at 15 words or less, make it informative,
but do not overinflate the findings.
Be sure to mention the species that you studied, for example, was your study performed in humans
or an animal model, and avoid excessive punctuation or jargon.
In the methods and materials section, you should provide sufficient details of all research
protocols and reagents such that the reader could reproduce your experiment as written.
And be sure to include key details like N values, the magnification for any histological
or other imaging that's included in your figures.
Note the statistical analyses used on your data.
Perhaps you've used the wrong analysis, and if you're not sure, consult a statistician
before finalizing your manuscript for submission.
Be sure to include IRCUC or IRB approval if you've conducted work with human subjects
or animals, and include informed consent for any research involving human subjects.
In the results section, it's critical that you do not manipulate your data.
It can be tempting to utilize tools like Adobe to clean up images and make them look visually
appealing and crisp.
Even if well-intentioned, this is considered data manipulation.
And journal editors now possess very sophisticated visual tools that can detect image manipulation
down to the single pixel, which may warrant rejection of your manuscript.
And please keep your data organized, labeled, and electronically archived at the highest
resolution possible and in multiple locations.
I have seen research papers be accepted, but the images turn out to be of too low a resolution
for printing.
The authors had not kept high resolution archives of their images and were required to redo
the experiment in order to obtain sufficiently high resolution images, ultimately delaying
publication of their paper.
And if you have too much data, use the best representative figure and make use of the
supplementary data section for additional supportive data and figures.
And finally, in the discussion section, if there are inconsistencies or limitations in
your data, don't ignore them.
The reviewers and editors will notice.
So do your best to acknowledge those inconsistencies or limitations and address these gaps in the
discussion section.
In addition to publishing in an academic journal, are there any other avenues or platforms that
early career scientists can explore to share their research and gain visibility in their
perspective fields?
I have four suggestions for early career scientists to explore as they try to gain visibility
in their field.
First, consider creating a profile on research gate and similar platforms that serve as professional
social networking sites for scientists and researchers.
For example, with over 25 million researchers on the research gate platform, each user can
share their work, research publications, ask and answer questions, even find potential
collaborators and expertise.
And people can find you.
And of course, don't forget traditional social media channels, such as LinkedIn, Facebook,
Instagram or X, formerly known as Twitter.
These are channels through which you can network and find collaborators, share updates about
your research, your conference presentations and publications.
You can live tweet new breakthroughs from conferences you've attended.
You can join discussions and groups with similar scientific interests to you.
And even share your expertise and insights, starting to establish a professional online
presence and establish yourself as a skilled contributor to new knowledge and skills in
your field.
Even early in your career, you can be a mentor or role model to the next generation, high
school students and college undergraduates that have an interest in STEM.
Third, submit your research, even early findings, to conferences for consideration as an abstract
poster presentation or a short podium talk.
You'll gain valuable exposure to senior scientists in your field, to people on the lookout for
early career scientists to recruit to positions in their lab, as well as gain public speaking
and science communication skills from having to whittle down your research hypothesis and
discoveries to just a few minutes of a verbal presentation, slides or images.
And conferences often present prizes and awards for the best posters and short talks,
often one of the earliest forms of recognition for early career scientists, aside from traditional
journal publications.
And journal editors are often in the audience, looking for the latest unpublished research
findings that they would like to solicit for publication in their journal.
And lastly, offer to contribute to science communications initiatives like science blogs,
campus or society newsletters, podcasts like this or YouTube channels.
Visibility is extremely important, especially when it comes to academic journals.
So I hope you are all taking notes.
My next question is how can an early career scientist effectively communicate their research
findings to a more broader audience beyond academia while maintaining their scientific
rigor?
I am so glad that you asked this question, as it is very important for scientists to
engage with people beyond their academic peers to help boost the scientific literacy of the
general population, to serve as role models across cultures, borders, genders and ages,
to demonstrate the important contribution of scientific discovery and of scientists
to the well-being of people on our planet and to convey why continued public investment
in science is needed.
So there are a few tips for how to effectively communicate your science to non-expert audiences.
First, know your audience.
Try and understand their background and interests and tailor your message to be accessible without
compromising accuracy.
For a general audience, a good rule of thumb is to aim for the level of a fifth grader.
Second, use plain language and avoid jargon.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between accuracy and precision.
The average consumer doesn't need the same level of detail or precision as a fellow scientist
or journal editor.
So the trick is to hit the level of precision that is meaningful to the public without sacrificing
accuracy.
Third, use visual aids wherever you can.
Create infographics, charts and diagrams that enhance understanding and capture attention.
Fourth, use analogies and metaphors.
They can help to bridge the gap between the unfamiliar and the familiar, making complex
concepts easier to grasp for people with different levels of understanding or background knowledge.
For example, I could describe or even show you an image of the complex crystal structure
of the molecule in our immune system that binds to virus particles during infection.
Or, I can describe that same molecule as being like two open halves of a hot dog bun, where
the viral particle is the sausage that gets stuck in the groove between the two halves
of the bun.
Chances are most people can easily relate to the hot dog description.
And lastly, try to tell a story that conveys relatable real-world impact.
Think of how a scientific discovery might impact your listener's everyday life, or solve
a problem that they have at work or in their home.
If you can relate your research to everyday experiences, you'll make it more relatable.
I love your hot dog analogy.
I think I'm going to remember that forever.
What resources or support networks exist for early career scientists seeking guidance
and mentorship in the research to publication process?
Early career scientists can access a variety of resources and support networks to seek
guidance and mentorship in the research to publication process.
First, ask for guidance from your academic advisors and mentors.
They can share their experience and offer constructive feedback on your work.
They might also consider sharing a manuscript with you that they themselves have been asked
to review, in confidence of course, and invite your feedback as a learning exercise.
Assessing and critiquing the work of other scientists will help you to learn the strengths
and weaknesses of experimental design and of scientific writing for publication.
Second, seek out publishing workshops and trainings.
Many types of organisations in the science ecosystem, from journals to non-profits, scientific
societies, even on-campus postdoctoral associations and funding agencies, often offer a workshop
and trainings on academic publishing.
For example, I encourage you to check out some of the courses offered by the New York
Academy of Sciences.
For example, my lecture, Editors' Guide to Writing and Publishing Your Paper, is freely
available on demand at our website, www.nyas.org.
And in February and March of this year, the Academy is offering our annual four-part online
course titled How to Effectively Communicate Your Science to Any Audience.
Participants in this course engage in really fun exercises, like creating and self-recording
and 90-second video description of their scientific research for review, assessment and final
revision by fellow participants.
And in March and April of this year, we're offering a series of virtual leadership trainings
to amplify beneficial skills like long-term planning in the lab, navigating conflict and
even negotiation, all skills that will help early career scientists on the path to publishing
their research.
To learn more about our upcoming classes or to become an Academy member to gain access
to our complete library of on-demand trainings, visit nyas.org.
I'll also mention that the journal Nature offers on-demand online masterclasses on writing
and publishing a research paper taught by their journal editors.
And major national and international funding agencies like the US National Institutes of
Health, the National Science Foundation and the European Research Council do the same.
And also consider online learning platforms like Coursera and edX, which offer similar
courses for self-directed learning.
And standalone training centres like the Allen Alder Centre for Communicating Science at
Stony Brook University, which offers classes and master's degrees in science communications.
How can an early career scientist balance the demand of publishing their work while also
maintaining a healthy work-life balance and pursuing additional career goals or aspirations?
Well, in this modern society, I don't know how many of us, regardless of our role, career
stage or organisation, could confidently say that we've identified the secret of perfectly
balancing our personal and professional lives.
We're all just doing our best, and we have to acknowledge that we may not be able to
have it all all of the time.
But there are some strategies that can help early career scientists manage the demands
of their career.
First, ask about work-life balance when interviewing for academic positions.
Talk to current or past members of the prospective lab about their schedule, their supervisor's
management style, and what the expectations are for time spent in the lab and the expected
publication output that is deemed satisfactory.
Watch and listen for early warning signs of a work environment that isn't healthy or
sustainable.
Second, prioritise and set realistic goals.
This is the perfect time to set goals for the year to come, both short-term and long-term,
for your research plan, your publication strategy and your personal life.
I'll admit I'm a list-maker, and I'm such a nerd with my to-do list that I build my
goals out for the coming year in Asana, the project management tool.
I identify what I want to experience by the end of the coming year, and then I work week
by week backwards to map out the small weekly tasks that I need to accomplish to move me
forward towards those goals.
For example, write-up manuscript is a task that I will run away from, but write-first
draft of the abstract of manuscript is surmountable.
I also take this approach for mapping out vacation and family time, time on hobbies,
health check-ups and exercise, even concerts and entertainment throughout the year, and
scheduling regular me-days, where I can do whatever I want for a day once a month.
The tool sends me reminders of what tasks are coming up, and it helps me stay accountable
to my larger goals.
Third, celebrate your achievements along the way, and reward yourself by spending time
on hobbies and interests outside of the lab.
Take a moment, often, to celebrate your accomplishments, whether big or small.
Find small ways to reward yourself at each of those milestones.
It might be as simple as, I'm going to set up that experiment this afternoon, and then
reward myself this evening by meeting up with a friend, taking the dog to the dog park, or
relaxing at home watching a few episodes of your favourite TV show.
Also effective time and productivity management is key.
As a graduate student, unlike being in college or high school, you mostly get to set your
own schedule, and that can be a fast track to losing your self-discipline.
So develop a schedule that allocates dedicated time for research, for writing and for personal
activities, and try to capitalise on the times of the day or the week that you know that
you will be most productive at each of those things.
For example, I know that my mind is sharpest in the mornings, and that my attention declines
towards the end of the day, so I often block time on my calendar in the mornings to do
deep work, writing critical thinking where I need to focus for uninterrupted periods
of time to make meaningful progress.
Then establish boundaries.
I clearly communicate to my colleagues when I'm not going to be available for meetings,
to respond to emails or phone calls, in those periods where I'm focused on time-sensitive
tasks that require uninterrupted work.
And that helps them to plan accordingly and allows me to respectively say no to competing
activities, projects or responsibilities.
I have a colleague who only checks work email twice a day at certain times, and she tells
people this in her automatic reply message.
It frees her up to be away from the computer and engage in lab work and sets expectations
for colleagues, but they may have to wait a few hours to hear back from her.
Now I know it can be hard to say no to a supervisor when you are an early career researcher,
so I encourage young scientists to have open conversations with their supervisor about
the responsibilities on their plate, how you would like to help with a new activity well
requested and ask for guidance on what current tasks could be put on hold, maybe delegated
to other colleagues for the short term or as a learning experience, or otherwise shifted
so that you are not over committed or at risk of failing to deliver.
And lastly, embrace flexibility.
Life and work never go 100% to plan.
Sometimes unexpected events will require you to change your schedule, so focus on the outcomes
rather than rigid timelines.
And maybe I'll use this opportunity to reiterate that you have the agency to shape your professional
journey.
It's normal to reevaluate your career path as you gain more experience and exposure to
different opportunities.
Your passions may evolve, your journey is unique, and it's okay to take detours or change
paths to find the right fit, to be happy, to find job satisfaction and wellbeing.
When I decided to leave bench research and move into a career in science communications,
I worry that I would no longer be considered, quote, a real scientist.
But I've been incredibly happy in this non-traditional career path, using and continuing to build
my scientific skills and knowledge, but without having to put on a lab coat every day.
Work-life balance can definitely be a tricky one, and yeah, I'm still working on work-life
balance myself, but I'm really curious to know what projects are you currently working
on.
I'm excited about a number of the scientific conferences that the New York Academy of Sciences
will present in 2024, covering breakthroughs in fields such as cancer immunotherapy, vaccines
for respiratory diseases, and even the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare.
And I'll also mention the incredible portfolio of prize and fellowship programs that we offer
for early career scientists across a multitude of STEM fields and working at institutions
around the world.
We offer unrestricted funding for postdocs and early career faculty up to $250,000.
So check out what awards and fellowships you might be eligible for and mark your calendars
for upcoming application deadlines.
You can learn more at nyas.org.
And last and not least, but where can people find you?
You've given so many grateful insights with all the answers to your questions, and I'm
sure people would love to know any social media, any websites where they'll be able
to find you.
You can contact me via the New York Academy of Sciences website nyas.org and on LinkedIn,
dot com forward slash in forward slash brook grindlinger.
Thank you for listening to this podcast episode with me, your host Kelly.
I hope you came away from this episode feeling inspired and gained so much more knowledge
about women in STEM.
Don't forget to check out all my other podcast episodes as they also have a wealth of knowledge
on different topics.
Please make sure to check out the description link for my social medias at Kelly underscore
engineer on Instagram, as well as there will be links for other podcasts as well as links
to the podcast guests information.
Thanks for listening.