AR_LAB
  • Home
  • The Team
    • Team Leader
    • Darwin Hickman
    • Magdalena Cobo Medina
    • Findimila Ishaya
    • Simon Muff Laporte
    • Alex Owens
    • Past members >
      • Olivia Cousins
      • Daisy Dobrijevic
      • Erica Porter
      • Marianna Daidone
      • Visiting Post-doc - Richard Brackin
  • Research
    • Functional difference in root types
    • Urban Aerial Roots
    • Cutting propagation
    • Publications
  • Teaching
    • Coursework teaching
    • Undergraduate research projects
    • Teaching Teams >
      • Teaching with Microsoft Teams
      • Teamwork skills
    • Education Research
    • Science Communication
  • Gallery
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • The adventures of Eca
    • Part 1: setting the scene
    • Part 2: setting the scene

Publishing results that go against the flow

22/6/2017

0 Comments

 

One giant step for a researcher, one small leap for the research field​

​In a research world more and more obsessed with publish or perish, submitting research manuscripts can be a daunting hill to climb as a new researcher. That hill turns into a mountain when those results go against an existing paradigm.
 
This second blog is also inspired by the Rooting 2017 meeting in Umea in May (see the last blog here) and some amazing conversations I had with several PhD students and postdocs who have convincing results that go against different ideas in the root world.  Despite discouragement from supervisors who thought the experiments wouldn't work, these researchers often did experiments anyway to produce truly interesting results!
 
This brings me to my first point: CONGRATULATIONS! YOU ARE NOW A BONIFIED RESEARCHER!
This really excites me - seeing the next cohort of research leaders thinking, testing and following their instinct and logic to do amazing science.
 
What worries me, however, is the consistent feeling of dread amongst these fantastic people regarding publishing these potentially controversial results and their impression that they won't be believed because they 'are nobody'. 
 
My next point then: You are not nobody.  Those big names were unknowns once!
And they typically built their careers on making some big findings that went against those before them. This is how science works (often in small steps, sometimes in paradigm shifts!). And often it's not that they were wrong (although sometimes…) but rather understanding has progressed to better tease out the science underneath, or new techniques have become available that weren't possible before, shedding light on the topic.
 
Ok so that's all good and well and I'm sure none of that makes any of you amazing new scientists feel any better about the challenge ahead of you! So I contacted a range of editors from several journals (from ecology and plant science fields) to get their take on how to publish something that goes against existing ideas.
 
One quote that should immediately cheer you:
 "‘Something not in line with existing understanding’: isn’t the simple answer that this is what we’re all looking for – scientists and journals?" 

Here's another:
"I think that giving a field a new direction with results that contradict the current model is as exciting as new discoveries. Science is not written in stone, it is constantly evolving. A published peer-reviewed scientific paper is not a definite and absolute truth, it is more like a temporary working hypothesis waiting to be confirmed by other labs, or to be used to go even further."
 
The following four points were made by each editor and I've paraphrased to incorporate all of their points.
  1. It often takes time to make a paradigm shift - so don't give up!
  2. Journals are not faceless computer programs (which is how I felt until very recently) but they are in fact run by actual real live people - so you can talk to them about your manuscript. And you can do this at any stage. They will tell you what they are after. "You might get in touch with one of the editors or the journal office and see whether there are options for getting your ideas out there – many journals do have outlets for more speculative ideas."
  3. You need to build the case for your results thoroughly. Starting from the methods you used and demonstrate the results from different angles. "the only advice I have is the one from Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence”. We don’t have a problem with claims that are not in line with what is currently known, but they will need very robust data (like any claim of course)."
  4. Different journals have different ways of sending out for review. For example some offer double blind reviewing (and others name the reviewers) instead of only reviewers being anonymous. Some also have editors who are full time employees of the journal (with no dog in the fight) while others are time-strapped researchers at universities who may have been involved in some of the original research (who may still be just as excited by your findings!).
 
 
So go for it! I'm looking forward to seeing these bright sparks light up the hidden half!
 I'm going to end with a quote which sums up things I've said in previous blogs:
 
"And if at first it doesn’t progress, use the advice provided and don’t give up.”


Thanks to the editors who took the time to comment and provide these inspirational quotes!
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Amanda Rasmussen

    RSS Feed

    Picture

    Archives

    May 2020
    March 2020
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    March 2019
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015

    Categories

    All

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • The Team
    • Team Leader
    • Darwin Hickman
    • Magdalena Cobo Medina
    • Findimila Ishaya
    • Simon Muff Laporte
    • Alex Owens
    • Past members >
      • Olivia Cousins
      • Daisy Dobrijevic
      • Erica Porter
      • Marianna Daidone
      • Visiting Post-doc - Richard Brackin
  • Research
    • Functional difference in root types
    • Urban Aerial Roots
    • Cutting propagation
    • Publications
  • Teaching
    • Coursework teaching
    • Undergraduate research projects
    • Teaching Teams >
      • Teaching with Microsoft Teams
      • Teamwork skills
    • Education Research
    • Science Communication
  • Gallery
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • The adventures of Eca
    • Part 1: setting the scene
    • Part 2: setting the scene