In the 20 ^th century, Tom Clancy’s espionage novels became so popular that his publisher started hiring ghostwriters to respond to the popular demand. But in science, such a thing would be unthinkable, right? No one should contribute to a research paper and not receive their due credit. In peer reviewing, however… Everyone in academia knows it happens, but it’s treated like the problem that-shall-not-be-named.

Just like the anonymous commenter on a reddit thread or a social media post, I think the anonymous reviewer suffers from the “disinhibition effect” that comes with knowing that they cannot be identified. A reviewer “persona” is created and suddenly gives them the option to be especially harsh (sometimes cruel…). Would they have made the same comment face to face, at a conference, for example?

The first time I heard the expression "low hanging fruit" in science, I got excited. Simple projects that seem to be straightforward – seemingly untouched by other scientists. Projects you could pluck right off the tree and bite into, reaping the succulent fruity juice of success. In three months it would be wrapped up. An easy publication.

How to catch a predator in the academic publisher quagmire. Dear esteemed Professor Waltho, I would like to take the privilege to invite you to contribute your research/discoveries to our overly open access journal. Simply email your manuscript as an attachment to below email... This is a typical opening from one of countless spam emails that flood the inboxes of scientists worldwide every day.

Impact factor. The power of this term is unparalleled in academia. The word “impact” by itself is already so profoundly heavy. And second in line to it, would be tenure.

I was recently at a conference – the friends-and-family kind. International, sure, but mostly populated by academically 'related' researchers. A chance to get all together, talk about new projects, showcase current research, see if there is a possibility for interesting collaborations. A nice sense of community, lighthearted and caring.  This conference also had a student track.

At times, critique could be mistaken as criticism, even though it’s not meant to be. Still, even critique is difficult to deal with.  With time, I learned to ask “W hat is the intention behind this comment? ” to avoid unnecessary arguments.  I don’t guarantee that it always works.

Citations are crucial to academia. For me, they’re the literal way of saying, “I stand on the shoulders of giants.” They allow us to build on existing knowledge, floor by floor, forming an ever-growing tower. As a PhD student, I’ve just begun laying my own bricks in this structure. So when my work got cited for the first time, I was thrilled.

Last Friday, thousands of scientists protested against US government cuts on research funding with the Stand up for Science movement.  There were more than 30 demonstrations all over the US, and a handful in other countries (several of them taking place in France). So, what does it mean to “Stand up for Science”?

Publishing Open Access (OA) has always been something important to me. It stems from my utopian belief that science should be for everyone and that the funders (taxpayers) should have access to it. Most of my publications are Open Access, something I was somewhat proud of as a novice researcher.

If you are reading this, you have definitely heard of “Publish or Perish” culture. With the advent of predatory journals and journal hijacking scams, this saying has been modified to “Publish high-impact or Perish” in the last decade. There came a point in my career, around the fourth year of my postdoc, when a PI (whom I respect profoundly) told me that I needed a paper.  “Any paper.”