Science: how to be a qualified scientist

On August 5, 2020, science published an article about some suggestions on how to treat scientific research life – how to become a qualified scientist. The core content of the article is summarized as follows, hoping to help students on the way to scientific research. < / P > < p > real scientific discoveries take time and will encounter many frustrations and even controversies. For example, the news that the Higgs boson was finally observed in 2012 is 48 years after Peter Higgs proposed the theory. The slow development of science helps to ensure the correct completion of research, but because publication depends on research results, it may conflict with the incentive structure of academic progress. Even Higgs is aware of this problem in the modern academic system: “today, if I don’t have an article, I can’t find an academic job. That’s it. Because I don’t have enough. ” < / P > < p > it’s easy to forget the “vision” when faced with immediate pressure. Therefore, in this paper, we will focus on the types of long-term thinking that promote the development of science. For example, do you want to cut corners and cut corners to achieve success, or do you choose to be down-to-earth and methodically strive for success? What should be done if the experiment fails to achieve the expected effect? If we do not consider these deeper issues, we will be entangled in the success or failure of our daily work. Although it is very important, it will affect the long-term goals of scientists, especially young scholars. < / P > < p > thinking about these issues can affect not only your own career, but others as well. Your own decisions and actions can affect people around you, including your colleagues, collaborators, and academic advisors. Our goal is to help you avoid pitfalls and find a way to succeed without compromising long-term scientific goals. < / P > < p > science usually develops through accidental discoveries. The logic is simple: if research always follows your expectations, nothing new will be discovered. Our previous world theory will be as good as ever. That’s why scientific discoveries are often the most meaningful when you come across something new. Isaac Asimov said, “the most exciting phrase heard in academia is not that I found it, I found it, but” it was interesting and meaningful… ” < / P > < p > when you come across an unexpected discovery, your first reaction may be to feel defensive. You may have made a mistake, and if so, it’s important to understand that. But it can also be a real discovery – as your career progresses, it’s important to be willing to change your mind. Indeed, from the discovery of penicillin to Viagra, many of the greatest discoveries in science have surprised us. In another case, physicist Stephen Hawking made his biggest scientific contribution when he proved himself wrong in a debate about black holes. These scientists are not seen as disgraced, but praised for their work. < / P > < p > when designing a study, consider the possibility that your assumptions are wrong. Does empty or conflicting results mean that your findings cannot be published? Or are they still interesting? Can you design studies to test alternative hypotheses? If you take this approach and find that you don’t support a hypothesis, you might find something interesting. For example, Jay recently started a project in his lab, warning team members that “no matter how the data is generated, there will be people who hate us.”. This may sound frightening, but it means that the research team is testing an important, controversial issue that will be of interest no matter how it is found. < / P > < p > most journals are more interested in publishing papers that make great discoveries or overturn traditional ideas. If you can do this honestly, it’s a great way to build a reputation and even help you get a job or a grant. However, there are risks if you exaggerate your research. The Higgs boson is a typical example: after the word “Higgs boson” was created in the famous book, it was called “God particle”. But most physicists hate the word. Even Higgs said, “it sends all the wrong messages. It exaggerates the case. It makes us look arrogant. It’s rubbish. ” < / P > < p > although you may want to announce your own God particle, we strongly recommend that you do not exaggerate your results. If you focus on breakthrough discoveries, it can lead you to over analyze the data, intentionally ignoring findings that are contrary to your assumptions, or ignoring other explanations. In the process, you may mislead the reader or yourself. < / P > < p > if you fail to provide an impartial explanation and you publish a large number of publications, you may benefit in the short term. But in the long run, you may be subject to more scrutiny. In fact, high impact journals have a higher withdrawal rate than low impact journals. Withdrawal can be a devastating blow to early professional researchers. It’s best to remember that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”. If you really want to make a breakthrough, make sure you have enough data. Otherwise, acknowledge the limitations of your work, which will help you build an honest academic reputation in academia. < / P > < p > when submitting a paper for publication, knowing who to recommend as reviewers is an important part of the process. It may be tempting to suggest that members of your academic community act as reviewers, but please think twice. It is immoral to suggest that someone with a clear positive conflict of interest, and you may not be able to get the critical feedback you need to improve your paper. < / P > < p > each of us has experienced a difficult and thorough reviewer who forced us to reconsider some of our research results and eventually publish more influential articles. For example, Leah and her doctoral students. Academic papers have been subjected to a series of difficult reviews and rejected by journals. After the initial disappointment subsided, they re wrote the paper and incorporated the constructive feedback provided in the comments. These improvements reshaped the paper so much that they decided to submit it to a more influential journal and accept it. < / P > < p > in fact, studies have shown that papers that are rejected at least once are cited more often than papers that are accepted when they are first submitted. So when you think about reviewers, ask yourself, who is qualified for careful review. Receive their key feedback and you will do a better job. < / P > < p > an important way for you to build trust in research is to be transparent with other scientists. Depending on the specifications in your field, you may need to pre register assumptions before you start working. When you’re done, you can also share papers, materials, data, and analysis code, for example, using platforms such as the open science framework and GitHub. Naturally, this will take extra time and effort, and you may be dedicated to another project. But the trouble with making their research open access scientists found that their work was more cited. Transparency shows others that you are committed to the scientific process and that science moves forward faster than ever. < / P > < p > of course, this is just a question you can carefully consider when you have established yourself in the academic world. We think it would be useful to step out of your narrow work from time to time and consider the role of your work in the wider scientific ecosystem. Think about the big picture. Are you doing what you like? Is it likely to have a lasting impact? Or do you feel like a rat on a roller coaster just struggling for the next piece of cheese? Putting your eyes on a larger perspective also ensures that your work is more meaningful and satisfying. Yueshang group has become the third social e-commerce service platform listed in China after being gathered in pinduoduo