GeoLog

early career researchers

Cartooning science at EGU 2017 with Matthew Partridge (a.k.a Errant Science)

Cartooning science at EGU 2017 with Matthew Partridge (a.k.a Errant Science)

Most researchers are regular conference-goers. Tell a geoscientist you are attending the EGU General Assembly and they will most likely picture rooms full of people listening to a miriad of talks, many an hour chatting to colleagues old and new and you desperately trying to find your way around the maze that is the Austria Centre Vienna (where the conference is held). Describing your experiences to others (not so familiar with the conference set-up) can be a lot more tricky.

Cue Matthew Partridge, author of Errant Science, a blog which features (~) weekly cartoons and posts about the world of research.

With the aim to demystify what happens during a week-long conference, Matthew set himself the challenge of keeping a daily diary of his time at the 2017 General Assembly. As if that weren’t a tall enough order, the posts feature not only a witty take on his time in Vienna, but also cartoons! Whilst battling a huge sense of ‘impostor syndrome‘ (Matthew’s words, not ours), Matthew’s daily posts bring the conference to life.

With Errant Science (Matthew’s twitter alter ego is possibly better know) at the conference, we couldn’t pass up the opportunity of speaking to him. Video camera in hand, our press assistant, Kai Boggild, talked with Matthew about his motivations for blogging about the conference and that badger cartoon.

If you didn’t read Matthew’s posts while the conference was taking place in April, grab a coffee and get comfortable, they should be enjoyed repeatedly!

Enmeshed in the gears of publishing – lessons from working as a young editor

Enmeshed in the gears of publishing – lessons from working as a young editor

Editors of scientific journals play an important role in the process research publication. They act as the midpoint between authors and reviewers, and set the direction of a given journal. However, for an early career scientist like me (I only defended my PhD in early December 2016) the intricacies of editorial work remained somewhat mysterious. Many academic journals tend to appoint established, more senior scientists to these roles, and while most scientists interact with editors regularly their role is not commonly taught to more junior researchers. I was fortunate to get the chance to work, short term, as an associate editor at Nature Geoscience in the first 4 months of this year (2017). During that time, I learned a number of lessons about scientific publishing that I felt could be valuable to the community at large.

What does an editor actually do?

The role of the editor is often hidden to readers; in both paywalled and open-access journals the notes and thoughts editors make on submitted manuscripts are generally kept private. One of the first things to appreciate is that editors judge whether a manuscript meets a set of editorial thresholds that would make it appropriate for the journal in question, rather than whether the study is correctly designed or the results are robust. I’d argue most editors are looking for a balance of an advance beyond existing literature and the level of interest a manuscript offers for their audience.

At each step of the publication process, from initial submission, through judging referee comments, to making a final decision, the editor is making a judgement whether the manuscript still meets those editorial thresholds.

The vast majority of the papers I got the chance to read were pretty fascinating, but since the journal I was working for is targeted at the whole Earth science community some of these were a bit too esoteric, and as such didn’t fit the thresholds we set to appeal to the journal audience.

I actually found judging papers on the basis of editorial thresholds refreshing – in our capacity as peer reviewers, most scientists are naturally sceptical of methodology and conclusions in other studies, but as an editor in most cases I was able to take the authors conclusions at face-value, and leave the critical assessment to referees.

That’s where the important difference lies; even though editors are generally scientists by training, since they are naturally not experts in every field that they receive papers from, it’s paramount to find reviewers who have the appropriate expertise and to ask them the right set of questions. In journals with academic editors, the editors may have more leeway to make critical comments, but impartiality is key.

Much of this may be already clear to many readers, but perhaps less so to more junior scientists. Many of the editorial decisions are somewhat subjective, like gauging the level of interest to a journal audience.

In the context of open access research journals, I think it’s worth asking whether the editorial decisions should also be made openly readable by authors and referees – this might aid potential authors in deciding how to pitch their articles to a given journal. This feeds into my next point – what are journals looking for?

By which metrics do journals judge studies?
The second big thing I picked up is that the amount of work does not always equate to a paper being appropriate for a given journal. Invariably, authors have clearly worked hard, and it’s often really tricky to explain to authors that their study is not a good fit for the journal you’re working for.

Speaking somewhat cynically, journals run for profit are interested in articles that can sell more copies or subscriptions. Since the audiences are primarily scientists, “scientific significance” will be a dominant consideration, but Nature and subsidiary journals also directly compare the mainstream media coverage of some of their articles with that of Science – that competition is important to their business.

Many other authors have discussed the relative merits of “prestige” journals (including Nobel prize winners – https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals), and all I’ll add here is what strikes me most is that ‘number of grad student hours worked’ is often not related to those articles that would be of a broader interest to the more mainstream media. The majority of articles don’t attract media attention of course, but I’d also argue that “scientific significance” is not strongly linked to the amount of time that goes into each study.

In the long run, high quality science tends to ensure a strong readership of any journal, but in my experience as an editor the quality of science in submitted manuscripts tends to be universally strong – the scientific method is followed, conclusions are robust, but in some cases they’re just pitched at the wrong audience. I’d argue this is why some studies have found in meta-analysis that in the majority of cases, articles that are initially rejected are later accepted in journals of similar ‘prestige’ (Weller et al. 2001, Moore et al. 2017).

As such, it’s imperative that authors tailor their manuscripts to the appropriate audience. Editors from every journal are picking from the same pool of peer reviewers, and so the quality of reviews should also be consistent, which ultimately determines the robustness of a study; so to meet editorial thresholds, prospective authors should think about who is reading the journal.
It’s certainly a fine line to walk – studies that are confirmatory of prior work tend to attract fewer readers, and as such editors may be less inclined to take an interest, but these are nonetheless important for the scientific canon.

In my short time as an editor I certainly didn’t see a way around these problems, but it was eye-opening to see the gears of the publication system – the machine from within, as it were.

Who gets to review?
One of the most time-consuming jobs of an editor is finding referees for manuscripts. It generally takes as long, if not far longer, than reading the manuscript in detail!

The ideal set of referees should first have the required set of expertise to properly assess the paper in question, and then beyond that be representative of the field at large. Moreover, they need to have no conflict of interest with the authors of the paper. There are an awful lot of scientists working in the world at the moment, but in some sub-fields it can be pretty hard to find individuals who fit all these categories.

For example, some studies in smaller research fields with a large number of senior co-authors often unintentionally rule out vast swathes of their colleagues as referees, simply because they have collaborated extensively.

Ironically, working with everyone in your field leaves no-one left to review your work! I have no doubt that the vast majority of scientists would be able to referee a colleagues work impartially, but striving for truly impartial review should be an aim of an editor.

As mentioned above, finding referees who represent the field is also important. More senior scientists have a greater range of experience, but tend to have less time available to review, while junior researchers can often provide more in-depth reviews of specific aspects. Referees from a range of geographic locations help provide diversity of opinion, as well as a fair balance in terms of gender.

It was certainly informative to compare the diversity of authors with the diversity of the referees they recommended, who in general tend to be more male dominated and more US-centric than the authors themselves.

A positive way of looking at this might be that this represents a diversifying Earth science community; recommended referees tend to be more established scientists, so greater author diversity might represent a changing demographic. On the other hand, it’s certainly worth bearing in mind that since reviewing is increasingly becoming a metric by which scientists themselves are judged, recommending referees who are more diverse is a way of encouraging a more varied and open community.

What’s the job like?
Editorial work is definitely rewarding – I certainly felt part of the scientific process, and providing a service to authors and the readership community is the main remit of the job.

I got to read a lot of interesting science from a range of different places, and worked with some highly motivated people. It’s a steep learning curve, and tends to be consistently busy; papers are always coming in, so there’s always a need to keep working.

Perhaps I’m biased, but I’d also suggest that scientists could work as editors at almost any stage in their careers, and it offers a neat place between the world of academia and science communication, which I found fascinating.

By Robert Emberson, freelance science writer

References

Moore, S., Neylon, C., Eve, M. P., O’Donnell, D. P., and Pattinson, D. 2017. “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 3, 16105

Weller A.C. 2001 Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Information Today: Medford NJ

A young person’s journey through the largest geoscience conference in Europe

A young person’s journey through the largest geoscience conference in Europe

Today we welcome, potentially one of the youngest participants of this year’s General Assembly, Pimnutcha Promduangsri: a 17-year-old science baccalaureate student at Auguste Renoir high school in Cagnes-sur-mer, France, as our guest blogger. With a deep interest in the environment and taking care of the environment, Pimnutcha was a keen participant at the conference and gave an oral presentation in a session on Geoethics. Here she describes her experience as a young person in Vienna.

My first time at the EGU General Assembly, April 2017, was exciting for several reasons:.  Itwas the first time that I had ever been to a conference, let alone a large one like the  General Assembly.

It all started when my stepfather asked me if I would like to go with him.  I immediately jumped at the chance.  As the dates fell in term time, I decided to ask my high school teachers if they would agree to my being absent from school for a week.  Without hesitation, they agreed that it would be a great opportunity for me.

We arrived in Vienna on Sunday, 23 April, where it was colder than my hometown in the south of France, and much colder than my native Thailand.  So began a marvellous week, discovering so much about the Earth, geosciences and geoscientists  I shall tell you about only some of my highlights here.

Probably the most exciting thing for me was helping to present during a session on geoethics.  I did the introduction for a presentation titled ‘The ethics of educational methods to teach geoethics’.

Doing the introduction to the presentation. (Photo by Iain Stewart)

It was also exciting to talk with people who visited our poster, ‘On the necessity of making geoethics a central concern in eduethics world-wide’.

Our main message is that we must make geoethics the core of all education, and make ethics the core of all geo-education.  Indeed: “our planet is in dire need of geoethical behaviour by all its citizens.  That can only be achieved through education, on an intergenerational basis.  Geoethics education needs to tackle real issues, not with a philosopher’s stone, but using ethical practice.  Geoethics happens essentially, not in what we say, but in what we do” (from the abstract for the presentation).

Also “learning to behave ethically needs far more than knowledge about energy imbalance, pollution, acidity, ice melt, etc.  It needs people to learn, and grow up learning, about what is right and wrong in regard to each aspect of our personal Earth citizen lives.  That needs nothing short of a revolution in educational practice for all schools across the globe – a tall order, and an intergenerational process.  The most powerful way to mitigate climate change, pollution, etc is to make geoethics the core of education across the globe.  …  we … emphasize the need to boost strong eduethics, so that the positive effects are passed on from generation to generation”  (from the poster abstract).

At the end of the presentation, someone said to me “you must be the youngest presenter” at EGU’s General Assembly.  Maybe, but we must start young to fight for our planet, and not simply wait for something to happen.  I was proud to be among such a wonderful group of people.

I love drawing.  So for the poster I made three pictures, with help from my sister, Pariphat, to illustrate the message that we want to convey.  I hope that you enjoy them.

I would like to thank everyone I met at the conference for being so kind with me.  I appreciated their patience in explaining things.  I cannot list them all here.  One exciting highlight was to meet with Iain Stewart, well-known for his BBC films.  Another was a hands-on session, where we participated in some practical activities, for example, a demonstration of a volcano, erosion with real water, a model of the uplifting of the Himalayas with a sand box, and earthquakes with shaking platforms.  I was impressed by their positive approach.

I wish to thank Silvia Peppoloni and Giuseppi Di Capua for letting me be part of their session.  I admire the work that they are doing in the IAPG – the International Association for the Promotion of Geoethics -.  I hope to see more young people at the General Assembly next year.  Meanwhile, please tell your whole family and friends about how important it is to fight against climate change.  I have started my LinkedIn profile; please join me there.

Demonstration of an earthquake and building resonance, by high school teachers from France. (Photo by Pimnutcha Promduangsri)

By Pimnutcha Promduangsri, science baccalaureate student at Auguste Renoir high school in Cagnes-sur-mer, France

Conversations on being a woman in Geoscience

Conversations on being a woman in Geoscience

While at this year’s General Assembly in Vienna, Keri McNamara, one of the EGU’s press assistants, spoke to a number of female geoscientists (at different career stages), to get their perspective on what being a female in geosciences is like.

At this year’s EGU General Assembly I decided to construct a blog out of conversations I had with several women in geoscience, to learn about their research and experiences. While I’ve been lucky enough to be supported by many amazing female scientists, I know that this isn’t always the case for others who have felt undervalued or overlooked.

This year at the EGU’s General Assembly year there have been great sessions on addressing gender inequality in the geosciences. Many celebrated the gains made in a generation in terms of female participation in science. Others painted a concerning picture of male dominance especially at the higher levels.

In the EGU for instance, all of the medal awards are named after male geoscientists and only 22% of them were awarded to women in 2017. There is a gender imbalance at all levels in the EGU membership statistics but the early career scientists have the most female input with an encouraging 35% of the share.

In the charming age of ‘grab ‘em by the pussy’ it is more important than ever to ensure that women from all backgrounds feel they can be amazing scientists. It’s about fighting the male smirk when you say you’re learning python, refusing to feel embarrassed squatting behind a bush while on a field trip or demanding not to be pressured to turn down that post-doc because you want to have a kid.

Below you’ll find the interviews with several women in geosciences, from PhD students to CEOs. I hope they are a source of information and inspiration for other female geoscientists. As Dr Véronique Garçon of  Future Earth (an international research platform for the advancement of Global Sustainability Science) said in her EGU talk on promoting equality:

Never give up!


Chris McEntee:  CEO and Executive director of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

AGU is a 60,000-person earth and space science membership organisation with 40% of its members from 136 countries outside the United States. She has been the first woman CEO of three different membership organisations including AGU.

If you want to take on a leadership position get training to be an effective leader, says Chris McEntee. (Credit: EGU/Kerri McNamara).

What are your experiences of being a woman in a leadership position?

I think things have improved over time. It’s much better in the US than other countries.  At the same time I still think there’s a lot of problems. AGU has delved into sexual harassment, bias and discrimination and the stories are pretty alarming. There’s some unique things in geosciences because of field and ship experiences that can make women more vulnerable in certain situations.

What are you doing to address this?

In the past couple of years AGU has been trying to increase awareness through town halls and our sessions at our general meeting. Last year we received some funding from the National Science Foundation to bring together leaders in science societies and expert individuals on the treatment of women. Out of that has come a new AGU initiative on ethics and harassment. It will have tools, resources, bystander training, and workshops.

We want to continue the research too. The data is pretty compelling – a very substantial number of women have experienced sexual harassment in some way. We’ve also learned that meeting the legal standard for harassment and discrimination is difficult- it’s a very high bar. So there is a lot that occurs that might not meet the legal definition. We really have to stop it at the beginning by changing this culture.

We also need to provide a space so that if a woman is feeling something is inappropriate, but it’s not too serious, they have somewhere they can talk about it. Last year at the AGU Fall Meeting we had a ‘safe AGU’ campaign where staff and volunteers had buttons and said ‘if you feel unsafe, come to one of us and we can help you’. We are updating our code of ethics for our members to include harassment and discrimination as behaviors that are inappropriate.

What would you say to young women in science who hope to take leadership positions?

Get training to be effective leaders. It can be hard to find the time to add this type of training as the work of science is so demanding. Also find peer support groups and mentors who share your experience and can provide advice, counsel and support.

There are some great options available such as the Association for Women Geoscientists and the Earth Science Women’s Network. You are not alone and there are people who want to help. If you feel something’s not right, don’t think it’s you. Find someone that can help you think it through- there are a lot of men who are also supportive!


Dr Claudia Alves de Jesus-Rydin: Research Programme Officer at the European Research Council (ERC).

Claudia is also the coordinator of the gender activity group in the scientific department at ERC and an active member of the working group on gender balance in the scientific council of the ERC.

Claudia Alves de Jesus-Rydin feels women can find self-promotion harder. (Credit: EGU/Keri McNamara)

What are your experiences of being a woman in Geoscience?

I have to refer to the data that I observe at the ERC. We see that there is a change from the starting grant through to the advanced grant. What is really amazing is that systemically, in the Earth Systems Sciences, female applicants have higher success rates than male applicants at the starting grant and consolidated grant level: The female applicants are pretty competitive. The biggest issue I observe is the submission rate.

Of course there is the risk that once you increase the submission rate, maybe there will be a drop of the success rate.  The community is filtering themselves before they submit, perhaps they only submit if they are very strong? At the moment the key thing is encouraging more women to apply.

Why aren’t more women applying?

Often the problem is that women find the prospect of rejection harder.

There is this joke: ‘there is this guy in a bar and he walks up to a woman and he tries to buy her a drink. Eventually she gets really fed up and she says “Look, you have a one in a million chance with me” and the man replies “Yes! I knew I had a chance!”. If a woman got a reply like that they would just grab their things and move but a guy thinks ‘yes I have a chance’.

Also, self-promotion can be harder for women; the profile of car salesman is a very male one. I’ve heard woman say ‘ I don’t want to write a proposal saying how good I am.’ We really need women to push harder.

What about early career scientists?

I think early career scientists are doing well, but later on in their careers there is always the issue of the family. I think that’s when most support is needed; from colleagues, institutions, supervisors and partners at home.

I think role models are a great way to address this; to show it is possible. You don’t have to sacrifice your personal life, you can still have a good balance being a good Mom, a good woman and a good scientist; a scientist that has achieved really great things.


Credit: EGU/Keri McNamara

Helena Łoś: PhD student at Warsaw University, Poland.

Can you tell us about your research?

My background is Geodesy and I specialise in photogrammetry and remote sensing. I work with satellite SAR (synthetic aperture radar) data. I compare data with different parameters to check how the values influence the possibility of the detection of river ice.

What about your experiences as a woman in Geosciences?

I don’t find there’s a big difference in terms of gender in geosciences. I think it’s most difficult in the future; often a post-doc is short-term, perhaps 3 years. If you want to have a family you might want to have a year off for maternity leave and that could become problematic.


Dr Nolwenn Le Gall: a post-doc at the University of Manchester.

Nolwenn completed a PhD at Université d’Orléans, CNRS, France

Credit: EGU/Keri McNamara

What is your research area?

I am an experimental volcanologist working on the degassing of basaltic melts. I’m trying to reproduce natural processes. My PhD was on bubble nucleation. Now I work on the same things but looking at crystallisation instead. It’s still basaltic melts and the conduit so similar experiments. But now I will have to do some experiments in-situ too.

It’s really nice that my post-doc is three years, I don’t have to apply for new position. I have some technique development that will take time so it’s useful to have a longer post-doc.

How do you feel as a woman in geosciences?

I feel fine. I don’t really see differences. You see more problems higher up- there are more men. But that was before and I think now, during conferences we see that there are a lot of women giving talks and posters. It seems to be almost a 50:50 gender balance. I’ve never had any problems with men treating me differently because of my gender.

What advice would you give to other women who want to become geoscientists?

Do what you like. Just enjoy it- if you enjoy your work, that’s always better.


Dr. Grace Shephard: researcher at the University of Oslo.

She completed her PhD at the University of Sydney and is now well into her second post-doc. She is also received the Arne Richter Award for Outstanding Young Scientists at EGU in 2016.

“If, professionally, something positive happens to you I think you should try to bring up the other women you work with,” says Grace Shephard. (Credit: EGU/Kai Boggild)

What are you research interests?

I have a few different avenues of research. I’m primarily working with plate tectonics in the Arctic region so I research how the Arctic Ocean opened and how the surrounding continents and oceanic plates have shifted about. To investigate how and when an ocean subducted deep into the mantle, I try to integrate lots of different datasets, including on global scales. I completed a three year post-doc at the University of Oslo and then I was lucky enough to get my own funding to continue.

What are your experiences of being a woman in geosciences?

I’ve been following with interest the recent article in Nature about molehills building up against women in geoscientists specifically. I can only speak from my own experience- but I’ve never found it a big issue. I’ve been lucky that I’ve had very supportive supervisors and environment to work in. I have experienced isolated throw-away comments at conferences but I don’t let it define the geosciences and my experiences, so I just move on.

What would you recommend to young geoscientists?

Identify researchers you are interested in, and will enjoy working with, and don’t be shy to approach them with an idea and see how it goes. I think you have to be quite proactive and that’s something that you have to go through with the transition of when you become your own independent researcher.

Also, you should support people- it goes both ways. If, professionally, something positive happens to you I think you should try to bring up the other women you work with. I guess in the context of EGU- I was very fortunate to receive an award last year. I was nominated by two senior female researchers so I feel the need to give back to the community even more so.

 

Interviews by Keri McNamara, a volcanology PhD student at the University of Bristol who worked at the EGU meeting as a press assistant.

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author and those who participated in the interviews, 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.

Follow

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

Join other followers: