GeoLog

Early Career Scientists

What are science-policy placements and are they for you?

What are science-policy placements and are they for you?

This month’s GeoPolicy blog will examine science-policy internships, fellowships, secondments and pairing-schemes in closer detail – highlighting the reasons for undertaking a placement and interviewing Dr Michelle Cain, an EGU member who participated in NERC’Policy Placement Fellowship Scheme

Science-policy placements provide scientists with the opportunity to use their knowledge within a policy-orientated organisation. This could include working with a local government, supporting an NGO or undertaking a project within a larger political body such as the UN or the EU.

There are many reasons that you may decide to take a temporary sidestep from your current career path to a science-policy placement. Undertaking a placement gives you a chance to try something new. Even if you are completely satisfied with your current position, working in a different sector is likely to expand your skill set, illuminate research topics you may not have considered and open up new networks and opportunities to share your research. Taking a step away from your research for a limited period of time may also allow you to look at it with fresh eyes or from a different perspective. Furthermore, it can prepare you for contributing to the policymaking process directly through processes such as the Register of Commission Expert Groups.

On a metalevel, science-policy placements can help integrate science and policy by creating channels for communication and generating a shared understanding about how both academic and policy sectors function.Science-policy placements come in many different forms. They can be as short as one week or as long as four years with variants suitable for researchers at all career levels. The four, primary science-policy placement categories are outlined below:

  1. Internships are normally aimed at students or early career scientists and are typically for a period of between three and six months. Science-policy internships can be found in a plethora of organisations and sectors. Despite not always being paid, internships are a great way to gain an understanding of the science-policy interface and the different roles that exist.
  2. Fellowships are aimed at early to mid-level career professionals who are able to contribute their knowledge and skills to the organisation that they join while allowing them to simultaneously learn new skills to enhance their own expertise. It should be noted that the term ‘fellowship’ is used very broadly and as a result fellowships schemes can range from a paid internship to a secondment in both functionality and fellow responsibilities.
  3. Secondments allow employees to temporarily change roles within the same institute or with a partner organisation. Secondments are believed to expand both the skillsets and interests of the employee, thereby increasing their motivation and ability. Secondments can last from a couple of months to four years and can be on a full time or part-time basis. The employer generally continues to pay the researchers’ wages although the hosting organisation may also supplement their income. This is an excellent option for researchers who are happy with their current position but would like to try something new.
  4. Pairing Schemes involve researchers and policymakers sharing their experiences by spending one week to a few months at each other’s place of employment.

 

Traineeships at the Parliament © European Union 2016 – European Parliament

Despite working as the EGU Policy Officer and with policymakers for the last couple of years, I have never undertaken a science-policy placement. So, I decided to interview Dr Michelle Cain, an EGU member who participated in NERC’s Policy Placement Fellowship Scheme, to get a first-hand insight into the benefits and challenges of being involved with a science-policy placement.

During her 18 month NERC Policy Placement, Michelle worked two days per week advising the UK’s Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on air quality modelling while continuing her own research. Although she was taken on as the expert within the Department, Michelle was “[…] surprised by how knowledgeable the policy staff were on specific air quality models and the science behind the policy”.

I was surprised by how knowledgeable the policy staff were on specific air quality models and the science behind the policy.

Michelle noted that working in the government department was a “very different world to that of a Post Doc” with “very quick deadlines” and with research topics “determined by the upcoming needs of policymakers” rather than her personal interest. Michelle believed that many scientists may also struggle with the concise nature of the policy briefs as, “most research needs to be summarised in 1-2 pages”.

Despite some of the challenges, Michelle believed her experience with Defra improved her “ability to communicate to a wider audience and pinpoint the most critical pieces of information”. She believes this not only helps her to “communicate research more thoroughly to policymakers but also to the general public as well as friends and family”. The experience also connected her with people working in policy who she would not have known otherwise and who she feels that she can still communicate her research with even though the placement has ended.

The [NERC Policy Placement] improved my ability to communicate to a wider audience and pinpoint the most critical pieces of information.

Michelle believes “the process behind getting science into decision-making is usually too opaque” but by undertaking the placement she was able to “gain an insight into the potential opportunities and avenues that do exist to share my research”. Although it might not be for everyone, Michelle said she would “recommend a similar placement to anyone who was interested in the policy realm or who was thinking about moving in that direction”.

What else should you consider before applying for a science-policy placement?

A few other things you may want to consider before applying for a science-policy placement include: the location (e.g. whether you would like to stay in your current city or perhaps go to an area geographically relevant to your research), the type of organisation (e.g. local government, a regional level institution or a private but politically-orientated organisation) and the skills or knowledge that you would like to gain (e.g. how to present your research to policymakers, how science is used in policymaking or event organisation).

See the EGU Geoscience Policy Internship, Fellowship and Secondment Opportunities to learn more about specific science-policy placements in Europe and around the world. You can also email policy@egu.eu for more information or sign up to the EGU Database of Expertise for regular science-policy updates.

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

May GeoRoundUp: the best of the Earth sciences from around the web

May GeoRoundUp: the best of the Earth sciences from around the web

Drawing inspiration from popular stories on our social media channels, as well as  unique and quirky research news, this monthly column aims to bring you the best of the Earth and planetary sciences from around the web.

Major Story

In the last couple of weeks of May, the news world was abuzz with the possibility of Donald Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Though the announcement actually came on June 1st, we’ve chosen to feature it in this round-up as it’s so timely and has dominated headlines throughout May and June.

In withdrawing from the agreement, the United States becomes only one of three countries in rejecting the accord, as this map shows. The implications of the U.S joining Syria and Nicaragua (though, to be clear, their reasons for not signing are hugely different to those which have motivated the U.S withdrawal) in dismissing the landmark agreement have been widely covered in the media.

President Trump’s announcement has drawn widespread condemnation across the financial, political and environmental sectors. Elon Musk, Tesla and SpaceX CEO, was one of many in the business sector to express their criticism of the President’s decision. In response to the announcement, Musk tweeted he was standing down from his duties as adviser to a number of White House councils. While in early May, thirty business CEOs  wrote an open letter published in the Wall Street Journal to express their “strong support for the U.S. remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement.”

In a defiant move, U.S. States (including California, New York and Vermont), cities and business plan to come together to continue to work towards meeting the targets and plans set out by the Paris Agreement. The group, coordinated by former New York City mayor Mark Bloomberg, aims to negotiate with the United Nations to have its contributions accepted to the Agreement alongside those of signatory nations.

“We’re going to do everything America would have done if it had stayed committed,” Bloomberg, said in an interview.

Scientist and learned societies have also been vocal in expressing their criticism of the White House decision. Both Nature and Science collected reactions from researchers around the globe. The EGU, as well as the American Geophysical Union, and many in the broader research community oppose the U.S. President’s decision.

“The EGU is committed to supporting the integrity of its scientific community and the science that it undertakes,” said the EGU’s President, Jonathan Bamber.

For an in-depth round-up of the global reaction take a look at this resource.

What you might have missed

This month’s links you might have missed take us on a journey through the Earth. Let’s start deep in the planet’s interior.

The core generates the Earth’s magnetic field. Periodically, the magnetic field reverses, but what caused it to do so? Well, there are several, competing, ideas which might explain why. Recently, one of them gained a bit more traction. By studying the seismic signals from powerful earthquakes, researchers at the University of Oxford found that regions on top of the Earth’s core sometimes behave like a giant lava lamp. It turns out that blobs of rock periodically rise and fall deep inside our planet. This could affect the magnetic field and cause it to flip.

Meanwhile, at the planet’s surface, the Earth’s outer solid layer (the crust) and upper layer of the molten mantle,  are broken up into a jigsaw of moving plates which pull apart and collide, generating earthquakes, driving volcanic eruptions and raising mountains. But the jury is still out as to when and how plate tectonics started. The Earth is so efficient at recycling and generating new crustal material, through plate tectonics, that only a limited record of very old rocks remains making it very hard to decipher the mystery. A recently published article explores what we know and what yet remains to be discovered when it comes to plate tectonics.

Tectonic plate boundaries. By Jose F. Vigil. USGS [Public domain], distributed by Wikimedia Commons.

Oil, gas, water, metal ores: these are the resources that spring to mind when thinking of commodities which fuel our daily lives. However, there are many others we use regularly, far more often than we realise or care to admit, but which we take for granted. Sand is one of them. In the industrial world it is know as ‘aggregate’ and it is the second most exploited natural resource after water. It is running out. A 2014 United Nations Environment Programme report highlighted that the “mining of sand and gravel greatly exceeds natural renewal rates”.

Links we liked

  • Earth Art takes a whole new meaning when viewed from space. This collection of photographs of natural parks as seen from above is pretty special.
  • This round-up is usually reserved for non-EGU related news stories, but given these interviews with female geoscientists featured in our second most popular tweet of the month, it is definitely worth a share: Conversations on being a women in geoscience – perspectives on what being a female in the Earth sciences.
  • We’ve shared these previously, but they are so great, we thought we’d highlight them again! Jill Pelto, a scientist studying the Antarctic Ice Sheet and an artist, uses data in her watercolous to communicate information about extreme environmental issues to a broad audience.

The EGU story

Temperatures in the Arctic are increasing twice as fast as in the rest of the globe, while the Antarctic is warming at a much slower rate. A new study published in Earth System Dynamics, an EGU open access journal, shows that land height could be a “game changer” when it comes to explaining why temperatures are rising at such different rates in the two regions. Read the full press release for all the details, or check out the brief explainer video, which you can also watch on our YouTube channel.

 

And don’t forget! To stay abreast of all the EGU’s events and activities, from highlighting papers published in our open access journals to providing news relating to EGU’s scientific divisions and meetings, including the General Assembly, subscribe to receive our monthly newsletter.

Follow

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

Join other followers: