GeoLog

Open Access

The publication issue: the opinions of EGU early career scientists!

The publication issue: the opinions of EGU early career scientists!

The EGU’s General Assemblies have a long tradition of Great Debates – sessions of Union-wide interest which aim to discuss some of the greatest challenges faced by our discipline. Past topics have included exploitation of mineral resources at the sea bed, water security given an ever growing population and climate geoengineering, to name but a few.  This year’s meeting saw the first Great Debate aimed, specifically, at an Early Career Scientist (ECS) audience which boasted an innovative format too: Should early career scientists be judged by their publication record? A set of group debates. Today’s post, written by Mathew Stiller-Reeve, a convener of the session, summarises some of the main outcomes of the discussion.

We, early career scientists, are told that we need to become expert writers, presenters, and teachers if we are going to make it in the world of research. Many of us agree such transferrable skills are extremely important. But if we invest time in developing these skills, it sometimes feels like time wasted. All said and done, we only seem to be judged on our publication record and our h-index. How many papers have we published in high impact journals, and how often have they been cited?

Early career scientists seem very clued up on transferrable skills. They want to invest in these skills. Therefore, we wanted to hear from them about whether ‘early career scientists [should] be judged mainly on their publication record?’ And so we put this question to them (and others) at a Great Debate at the EGU’s 2017 General Assembly. We also wanted to test out a new format where the audience had the opportunity to voice their opinions about important issues concerning modern academia. The publication issue affects us all, so we should have a say.

With only 8 people at each table and over 40 minutes to debate, everyone had an opportunity to speak their mind and contribute to developing solutions. The room was buzzing with over 100 early career and more established scientists discussing, agreeing, disagreeing, and finding compromises.

In the end, each table was tasked to debate and boil their thoughts down to one or two policy-type statements. These statements will be presented to the EGU Council to inform them of where EGU early career scientists stand on this matter.

So without further ado, here are the conclusions of the tables:

– We need more criteria. Quality is most important, measured by prizes, PhD results and the incorporation of the community via new media.

-More activities need to be taken into account in a measurable way, but according to scaled categories #notjustanumber.

-The current system is cheap, easy and fast. A person should be judged on the broader contributions to society, to their colleagues, to their disciplines. We should move beyond metrics.

-Because scientists are more than a list of publications, assess them individually. Talk to them and read their output, including publications, blogs and chapter/book contributions.

-We should not be judged on publication record alone. We need a multi-variant set of criteria for assessment for judgment of impact beyond just academic publications.

-One suggestion is a weighted metric depending on the position you’re applying for which considers other factors such as teaching, outreach, conference participation etc.

-No, the h-index should not be the sole number, even though it is not a totally useless number.

-Quality should be judged on more than quantity and the large number of authors on publications devaluates the contributions of early career scientists.

-Publications are the accepted way of communication in science, but there is not any one number describing the quality of the early career scientist, whom in our humble opinion should not only be judged on the quantity of papers but also on their quality as a part of a complete set of research skills, including other contributions such as project development.

-We acknowledge the publication record as a reliable metric, but we suggest an additional step for assessing applications, based on video or audio presentations to emphasize your other outstanding qualities.

-We doubt that we are mainly judged on our publication record and we think that publications should be part of what we are judged on.

-When hiring, follow the example of the Medical Department at Utrecht University: only ask for the 3 papers, teaching or outreach experiences you think are important for the position you are applying for: we are more than numbers.

Should they be adopted? Do you agree? How can we adopt them?

The message in many of the statements from the Early Career Scientists at the European Geosciences Union is quite clear: We are more than numbers! Several suggestions arose from the debate: new metrics, video presentations, and even new application processes. Now the statements from the debate are recorded. This will hopefully inspire us (and others) to find better solutions. At the very least, the discussion has begun. Solutions are impossible if we don’t talk!

By Mathew Stiller-Reeve, co-founder of ClimateSnack and researcher at Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Norway

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author and those who participated at the Great Debate during the General Assembly, whose views may differ from those of the European Geosciences Union. We hope the post can serve to generate discussion and a civilised debate amongst our readers.

Announcing the winners of the EGU Photo Contest 2017!

The selection committee received over 300 photos for this year’s EGU Photo Contest, covering fields across the geosciences. Participants at the 2017 General Assembly have been voting for their favourites throughout the week  of the conference and there are three clear winners. Congratulations to 2017’s fantastic photographers!

Penitentes in the Andes by Christoph Schmidt (distributed by imaggeo.egu.eu). This photo was taken in the Bolivian Andes at an altitude of around 4400 m. The climatic conditions favour the formation of so-called penitents, i.e. long and pointed remains of a formerly comprehensive snow field.

Symbiosis of fire, ice and water by Michael Grund (distributed by imaggeo.egu.eu). This picture was taken at Storforsen, an impressive rapid in the Pite River in northern Sweden.

Movement of the ancient sand by Elizaveta Kovaleva (distributed by imaggeo.egu.eu). In the Zion National Park you can literally touch and see the dynamic of the ancient sand dunes.

Imaggeo is the EGU’s online open access geosciences image repository. All geoscientists (and others) can submit their photographs and videos to this repository and, since it is open access, these images can be used for free by scientists for their presentations or publications, by educators and the general public, and some images can even be used freely for commercial purposes. Photographers also retain full rights of use, as Imaggeo images are licensed and distributed by the EGU under a Creative Commons licence. Submit your photos at http://imaggeo.egu.eu/upload/.

Union-wide events at EGU 2017

Union-wide events at EGU 2017

Wondering what to expect at the General Assembly this year? Here are some of the highlights:

Union Symposia (US)

For events which will have general appeal, regardless of your field of research, look no further than the Union Symposia.  In particular, if you want to stand up for science at a time when (some) politics seems at odds with science, come along to Union Symposia 3, Make Facts Great Again. An impressive panel composed of Christine McEntee (AGU Executive Director), Sir David King (Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government 2000–2007), Christiana Figueres (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2010–2016) and Heike Langenberg (Nature Geoscience Chief Editor) will discuss what can scientists do to further the progress of scientific research and ensure mainstream scientific views are accepted and taken seriously by policymakers and the public.

The very first of the Union Symposia, organized in collaboration with the European and maerica space agencies (ESA and NASA) will highlight Earth observation missions and there will be talks on ESA’s and NASA’s planetary and space programmers. On Wednesday, scientists from different fields will come together to explore the key role plants play in the climate system in Union Symposia 1: Vegetation-climate interactions across time scales Finally, there’s the EGU Awards Ceremony – set to celebrate excellent research and achievement in the Earth, planetary and space sciences.

Great Debates (GDB)
This year we’re holding not one, not two, but six Great Debates! The topics covered this year are varied, from: Arctic environmental change: global opportunities and threats (organized with AGU), through to whether 2 degrees is possible without relying on carbon storage and capture? Scientific publishing is also hot on the Great Debate agenda, with two debates dedicated to the subject, including the very first early career scientist (ECS) specific Great Debate: Should early career scientists be judged by their publication record? A set of group debates.  Discussions also explore the Earth’s deep past (Great Debate on Great Extinctions) and the planet’s future (transition to next generation cities and planet Earth future).  Whether you are in Vienna or elsewhere, be sure to follow and join in the debates using #EGU17GDB on twitter.

Educational & Outreach Symposia (EOS)
Educational and Outreach Symposia are sessions dedicated to all things education and outreach, and include the Geosciences Information for Teachers (GIFT) workshop, a long-running event for high school teachers that helps shorten the time between discovery and textbook.

Medal Lectures and Lectures organized by related scientific societies (ML, LRS)
There will be five Lectures organized by related scientific societies as well as a grand total of 45 Medal Lectures this year!

Meet EGU (EGU)
Meet EGU does exactly what it says on the tin – these sessions are a great opportunity to get to know your division president and early career representative, put faces to names and find out what’s going on in the Union.

Townhall Meetings (TM)
Townhall Meetings allow participants to take part in a lot of open discussion. This year’s meetings cover a huge variety of topics, from a discussion, moderated by ESA’s Director of Earth Observation Programmes, on how space data impacts EGU participants, through to questioning the formalizatin of the “Anthropocene” and how the interconnection between Open Access, Open Data and Free Open Source Software can be improved to develop the Open Science movement.

Splinter Meetings (SPM)
Like Townhall Meetings, Splinter Meetings are organised by participants, but they are typically smaller and can be either public or by invitation only.

The EGU General Assembly is taking place in Vienna, Austria from 23 to 28 April. Check out the full session programme on the General Assembly website.

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: