On rejection: or, life in academia

I guess it’s not surprising, given that I’ve written about failure in science, that I would write a post about rejection as well. Actually, I’m not so interested in writing about rejection as I am in hearing how people have learned to deal with it.  

Academia is a strange workplace. It’s stocked with bright people who’ve been successful throughout their previous academic endeavours (with some exceptions*). For the most part, they haven’t faced too much criticism of their intellectual abilities. But in academia you will spend your career being questioned and criticized, in large part by your peers. You will constantly be judged (with every submitted manuscript, grant application, or tenure review). And this is the universal truth about academia: you will be rejected. And for some (many?) people, that's a difficult thing to accept.

Rejection may be so painful in part because it can be hard to interpret. After all, it’s an old trope that rejection is a normal part of academia. But how much rejection is normal, when is it just a numbers game and when is it a sign of professional failing? Let alone the fact that rejection depends on a shifting academic landscape where available funding, journal quotas, and research caliber are always changing. So I’m curious: does the ability to deal with rejection factor into academic success? Are some people, based on personality, more likely to weather rejections successfully, and does this translate into academic success? Or is the development of a thick skin just the inevitable outcome of an academic life?

*A couple of the people I know who are generally unfazed by rejections would say that they deal well with rejection because they weren’t particularly great students and so academic failure isn’t new or frightening to them. 

Google Scholar will track your citations

In case you haven't noticed, Google Scholar is now offering "My citations", which tracks citations and calculates indices for your papers. Setting it up looks straightforward and fast, making it another alternative to ISI Web of Science and other services. Let the h-index one-upmanship begin...

The four types of failure, or how to fail in science

As scientists, we’re all wrong, at least sometimes. The question is, how are we wrong?

The arsenic bacteria saga, which we’ve discussed on this blog before, is turning out to be a very public example of failure in science. First announced by NASA press conference in December 2010, authors lead by Felisa Wolfe-Simon shared their discovery of a bacterium capable of replacing phosphorus in its DNA with arsenic, suggesting the possibility of life in phosphorus-limited conditions. This apparently momentous discovery was published in Science, and met with disbelief and severe criticism. Critics throughout the blogosphere and academic departments began to compile a comprehensive list of failings on the part of the paper—8 technical criticisms were published in Science—and as the result of the intense focus on the paper’s lead author is no longer associated with the lab group where this research was carried out. This is failure at its worst—the science was flawed and it drew immediate and intense censure. This is the kind of failure that most young scientists fear: judgment, intense criticism, career-long repercussions. But it’s also probably the least common type of failure in science.

However, it’s arguable that the saddest form of failure is the opposite of this: when a paper is right—innovative, ahead of its time—but somehow never receives the attention it deserves. There are lots of famous examples of scientific obscurity, with Gregor Mendel being the poster child for scientists who toil for years in anonymity. In ecology, for example, papers that considered species as equivalent (a la neutral theory) to explain coexistence were around in the 1950’s-1960s, but received little attention. Other papers suggesting variation in environment as a possible mechanism for plant coexistence were published prior to Chesson and Huntly's influential paper, yet essentially uncited. Most researchers can name at least one paper that foreshadows the direction the field will take many years later, yet is unacknowledged and poorly cited. There are many reasons that papers could be under recognized—they are written by scientists outside of the dominant geographical areas or social networks, or who lack the ability to champion their ideas, either in writing or in person. In some instances the intellectual climate may not be conducive to an idea that, at a later time, will take off.

If that is the saddest type of failure, then the best type of failure is when being wrong inspires an explosion of new research and new ideas. Rather than causing an implosion, as the arsenic-bacteria paper did, these wrong ideas reinvigorate their field. Great examples in ecology include Steve Hubbell’s Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity, which although criticized rightly for its flaws, produced a high-quality body of literature debating its merits and flaws. When Jared Diamond (1975) proposed drawing conclusions about community assembly processes based on patterns of species co-occurrence, the disagreement, led by Dan Simberloff ultimately led to the current focus on null models. Cam Webb’s hypothesis that there should be a relationship between phylogenetic patterns in communities and the importance of different processes in structuring those communities sparked a decade-long investigation into the link between phylogenetic information and community assembly. Although Webb’s hypothesis proved too simplistic, it still informs current research. This is the kind of failure on which you can build a career, particularly if you are willing to continually revisit and develop your theory as the body of evidence against it grows.

However, the most common form of failure occurs when a paper is published that is wrong, yet no one notices or worse, cares. For every paper that blows up to the proportion of the arsenic bacteria paper, or inspires years of new research, there are hundreds of papers that just fade away, poorly cited and poorly read. Is it better to fail quietly, or to take the chance at public failure, with all its risks and rewards?

The reality of publishing papers

This is in response to my undergrads, who ask me "Have you published any of the stuff we're working on yet?" practically every week. To which my response invariably is "not yet".


(click to make larger)

Another reason why a new publishing model is needed...

The finances and ethics of scientific publishing are complex, and there is an inherent tension between commercial publishers and academics and their institutions. On the one hand, we as scientists are (most often) using public money to carry out research, usually in the public interest, and then we typically publish in for-profit journals that restrict public access to our publications. Authors seldom see any of the financial return from publisher profits. On the other hand, publishers provide a level of distribution and visibility for our work, which individual authors could not match. In previous posts I have discussed Open Access publications, but there is another reason to consider other publication models. Recently Nature Publishing Group notified the University of California system of an impending 400% increase in the cost for their publications. The UC administration has responded with an announced plan to boycott NPG publications. The announcement rightly points out a 400% increase is not feasible given the current plight of library budgets, especially in California, and that scientists in the UC system disproportionately contribute to publishing, reviewing and editing NPG publications and thus are the engine for NPG profits. (See a nice story about the boycott in The Chronicle of Higher Education)

This is just the latest symptom of the growing tension between publishing and academia, and is a stark reminder that other publishing models need to actively supported. Perhaps the UC system could invest in open access publishers in lieu of NPGs outrageous costs? Something has to give, and perhaps the UC boycott will remind libraries that they hold the purse strings and could be the greatest driving force for change.

The successful launch of MEE

Usually, I view the release of a new journal with some skepticism. There are so many journals and it feels like academics are over-parsing fields, isolating researchers that should be communicating. However, sometimes a journal comes along and it is obvious that there is a need and the community responds to its arrival. Such is the case with the British Ecological Society's newest journal, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, started by Rob Freckleton. The idea that a journal would be dedicated to methods papers is a great idea. This era of ecology and evolution is one that is defined by rapid advances in experimental, technological and computational tools and keeping track of these advances is difficult. Having a single journal should make finding such papers easier, but more importantly provides a home for methodological and computational ecologists and evolutionary biologists, which will hopefully spur greater communication and interaction, fostering more rapid development of tools.

Two issues have been published and they have been populated by good, entertaining articles. I especially enjoyed the one by Bob O'Hara and Johan Kotze on why you shouldn't log transform count data. As a researcher, I've done this (instead of using a GLM with proper distribution) and as an editor, I've allowed this, but it has always felt wrong somehow, and this shows that it is.

The early success of the journal is not just the product of the good papers it has already published, but also because of the savvy use of electronic communication. They Tweet on Twitter, link fans through Facebook, blog about recent advances in methods from other journals and post podcast and videocast interviews with authors. These casts give readers access to authors' own explanations of how their methods can be used.

I am excited about this new journal and hope it has a great impact on the publication of methodological papers.

The making of an open era

With the availability of open access (OA) journals, academics now have a choice to make when deciding where to send their manuscripts. The idealistic version of OA journals represents a 'win-win' for researchers. The researchers publishing their work ensure the widest possible audience and research has shown a citation advantage for OA papers. The other side of the 'win-win' scenario is that researchers, no matter where they are, or how rich their institution, get immediate access to high-caliber research papers.

However, not all researchers have completely embraced OA journals. There are two commonly articulated concerns. The first is that many OA journals are not indexed, in most notably Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge, meaning that a paper will not show up in topic searches, nor will citations be tracked. I for one do not like the idea of a company determining which journals deserve inclusion, thus affecting our choice of journals to submit to.

The second concern is that some OA journals are expensive to publish in. This is especially true for the more prestigious OA journals. Even though such OA journals often provide cash-strapped authors the ability to request a cost deferment, the perception is that you generally need to allocate significant funds for publishing in OA journals. While this cost may be justifiable to an author for inclusion in a journal like PLoS Biology, because of the level of readership and visibility. However, there are other, new, profit-driven journals, which see the OA model as a good business model, with little overhead and the opportunity to charge $1000-2000 per article.

I think that, with the rise of Google Scholar, and tools to assess impact factors (e.g., Publish or Perish), assessing difference sources for articles is available. The second concern is a little more serious, and a broad-scale solution is not readily apparent.

Number of Open Access journals

Regardless, OA journals have proliferated in the past decade. Using the directory of biology OA journals, I show above that the majority of OA journals have appeared after 2000. Some of these have not been successful having faltered after a few volumes, such as the World Wide Web Journal of Biology which published nine volumes with the last in 2004. I am fairly confident that not all these journals could possibly be successful, but I hope that enough are. By having real OA options, especially higher-profile journals, research and academia benefit as a whole.

Which journals become higher profile and viewed as an attractive place to submit a paper is a complex process depending on a strong and dedicated editorial staff and emergent property of the articles submitted. I hope that researchers out there really consider OA journals as a venue for some of their papers and become part of the 'win-win' equation.

Letting out your little Monet

I realized, sometime not too long ago, that I really enjoy adding aesthetically pleasing details to my figures in scientific publications. All scientists look at hundreds of boring, monochromatic scatterplots, bar charts and ordination plots every month, so why not make them a little more appealing? If done right, the benefits are that people are more likely to remember your key figures and perhaps results, you can convey more information by incorporating imagery, and you may actually get a little joy out of preparing those figures. The downfalls are, if done poorly, they are distracting and publishing color figures is always costly for print editions.

Here are some examples of artistically augmented publication figures -but if you have other good examples, let me know and I'll add them:
This is from a recent Ecology Letters from Crutsinger, Cadotte (me) and Sanders (2009), 12: 285-292, trying to explain how we partitioned arthropod diversity into spatial components.


This one is from Ellwood et al. (2009) in Ecology Letters 12: 277-284, which shows co-occurrence null histograms for patterns of arthropods at various hight locations on trees.

This one is from Crutsinger et al (2006) Science 313: 966-968 that displays patterns at differing trophic levels by juxtaposing photos of specific tropic members.















Finally, the use of drawings and images to illustrate phylogenetic trends in phenotypic evolution is particularly useful. Above are two examples, on the left is from Carlson et al. 2009 Evolution 63: 767-778, showing patterns of darter evolution; and on the right is from Oakley and Cunningham 2002 PNAS 99: 1426-1430, showing evolutionary pathways of compound eyes.


And here's one from Dolph Schluter (2000) American Naturalist 156: S4-S16, using drawings to illustrate how fish morphology corresponds to an abstracted index on the bottom axis.

Here are two from Joe Baily while working in Tom Whitham's Cottonwood Ecology Group that are effective ways to remind the reader what the treatments or dependent variables were (elk herbivory, leaf shape/genotype) and what the response variables were (bird predation, wood consumption by beavers). The left hand figure is from Baily & Whitham (2003) Oikos 101: 127-134 and the one on the right is from Baily et al. (2004) Ecology 85: 603-608.

Here is a great one posted by Ethan on Jabberwocky Ecology on Hurlbert's Unicorn!

Increased access to science, but who gets to publish?

What role will open access (OA) journals play as science publishing increasingly moves to the internet and involves a more diverse array of participants? In a recent short article in Science, Evans and Reimer tried to answer this using citation rates from 8253 journals and examine trends in citation rate shifts. They found that researchers from wealthier countries were not likely to shift to citing OA journals while researchers from poorer countries did. The authors conclude that the overall shift to citing OA journals has been rather modest, but these journals have increased inclusion for researchers at institutions in poorer countries that cannot afford commercial subscriptions. However, there is an unfortunate flip side to the OA model -paying to publish. Most OA journals recoup the lack of subscription earnings by placing the financial onus on to the publishing scientists. This means that while researchers from poorer countries can now read and cite current articles in OA journals, they still are limited from publishing in them. True, most OA journals allow for deferring costs for researchers lacking funds, there is usually a cap to the frequency in which this can be done.

J. A. Evans, J. Reimer (2009). Open Access and Global Participation in Science Science, 323 (5917), 1025-1025 DOI: 10.1126/science.1154562

Review or publish; the curse of the commons

Need we be concerned about the volume and quality of manuscript reviews for journal submissions? In a recent editorial published in Ecology Letters by Michael Hochberg and colleagues, they answer yes, we should be concerned. They argue that manuscript reviewing is suffering from a tragedy of the commons, where growing submission rates to top journals is overburdening potential reviewers. This overburdening has two causes. First, that researchers tend to send their manuscripts to journals based on impact factors, regardless of the appropriateness of the manuscript for the receiving journal. Second is that authors view negative reviews as stochastic happenstance and in the rush to resubmit do little to improve their manuscript.

While the concerns are real, and the authors do suggest common sense approaches to publishing (i.e., choose appropriate journals and get colleagues to review drafts -something most of my colleagues do), there is little discussion of what incentives could be offered. The curse of the commons is when individual motives do not benefit the greater good, thus incentives could be used to alter motives potentially benefiting the larger community.

A number of journals now offer free access or free color figures in future publications for reviewing or even offering payment. Perhaps the move towards reduced length rapid turn around publications is part of the problem and that we should be valuing longer, more detailed papers (the classic quantity vs. quality problem). Whatever the potential solutions, it is promising to see journals, especially top-ranked ones like Ecology Letters, discussing these issues.

Michael E. Hochberg, Jonathan M. Chase, Nicholas J. Gotelli, Alan Hastings, Shahid Naeem (2009). The tragedy of the reviewer commons* Ecology Letters, 12 (1), 2-4 DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01276.x