Recently in Academics Category

Michael Eisen:

I want to challenge the key assumption - made by nearly everyone - that choosing not to publish your work in the highest impact factor journal you can convince to accept it is tantamount to career suicide. It is ubiquitously repeated by everyone from the most successful senior scientists to first year graduate students. And, judging by their publishing practices, most of them must believe it to be true. But I don't think it is.

If that seems like heresy, it's because it is heretical. Michael put it more strongly than I would have but I mostly agree.

Since I mostly agree, there's no point in repeating his arguments in favor of that heretical position. I'll focus on a shade of emphasis where we disagree.

In my new position am part of the team that reviews cases for promotion, tenure, and reappointment across all schools and colleges at the University of Connecticut (other than those at the Health Center). A few years ago, I served on the Faculty Review Board, a group of faculty that provides advice to the Provost on promotion, tenure, and reappointment cases where there might be a negative decision.

In those contexts, I've had to judge the credentials of economists, poets, political scientists, artists, sociologists, and philosophers, not to mention the credentials of those in natural science fields well beyond biology. I can't pretend to judge the scholarly qualifications of candidates based on direct reading of publications (for fields where publication is relevant), except in a few fields close to my own research, or the creative contributions of those involved in literature, the visual arts, or performance. I can only judge based on the assessments of experts in those fields and some sense of the quality of the venues in which a  work has appeared.

I know, for example, that it is much more significant for a musician to have presented a solo performance with the New York Philharmonic in its regular concert season than for a musician to have performed the same work with the high school orchestra in my hometown. And it is a much more significant achievement for an evolutionary biologist when she publishes her work in Evolution than when it appears in the Journal of Northeastern Connecticut Evolutionary Biologists.¹

So how have I used that kind of assessment of journal quality in judging promotion and tenure cases? By seeing whether the quality of scholarship suggested by the venues in which it appears is consistent with the evaluations of external evaluators who are expert in the field. It's not, "Oh, this gal has a paper in Evolution. She gets tenure." It's "Oh, this gal has a paper in Evolution. That's a demanding journal, getting a paper or two in there suggests that she is doing very good work, and that's consistent with the high praise that external reviewers are heaping on her. She's someone we want to keep around."²

So on that, Michael and I agree. Choosing not to publish your work in the highest impact factor journal you can convince to accept it is not tantamount to career suicide.

The shade of emphasis on which we disagree is this: You do want to publish your work in high quality journals.³

I've emphasized here the purely practical impact that will have on your prospects for promotion and tenure, but there's an even more basic reason. Your work isn't done until it's communicated. And it's much easier to reach a wide audience of receptive readers when your work appears in high-quality journals than when it appears in obscure journals -- even, I'm afraid, if those obscure journals are open access.⁴

The University of Connecticut Board of Trustees held a special meeting yesterday. At that meeting, the Board not only adopted tuition rates for 2012/2013, it laid out a plan for tuition rates through 2015/2016, with the proviso that "[i]f the State appropriation decreases or the current fiscal climate worsens, the University may revisit the approved tuition increase amounts."¹

For in-state undergraduates that will mean their tuition and fees will climb to $11,290 next fall -- $620 more than this year's charge of $10,670. By 2016, the charge will be $2,676 more than this year, or $13,346.

That's assuming the state does not increase funding to the university; if the state does boost funding by 0.5 percent in each of the next four years, the board approved a slightly scaled-back series of tuition hikes, starting with 5.5 percent next year and ending in 2016 with 6.3 percent. ("UConn trustees approve 6% tuition hike," Kathleen Megan, The Hartford Courant, 19 December 2011)

Under this plan, the University will hire approximately 290 new tenured or tenure track faculty, reducing the student:faculty ratio from 18:1, where it stands now, to 15:1. Not only will the additional faculty help the University ensure that students can enroll in the courses they need, but they will further enhance the University's contributions research, economic development, and creative activities. By laying out a plan for four years, the University can plan its course strategically. Most importantly, students and their families can plan their own finances to ensure that every student who wants to attend the University of Connecticut can afford to do so.

Click through to read the statement I presented at the meeting on behalf of the University Senate Executive Commitee.

We have a new faculty position available in my department. Here is the text of the job advertisement:

University of Connecticut
PLANT ECOLOGICAL OR EVOLUTIONARY GENOMICS

The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut seeks applicants for a 9-month tenure-track position to begin in August 2012. Although targeted at the Assistant Professor rank, an appointment at a higher rank may be possible for a candidate who exceptionally enhances the diversity elements of our academic mission. We seek a creative individual employing genomic approaches to address key questions in the ecology and evolutionary biology of plants. Research on non-model organisms is preferred but appropriate research foci involving model organisms will also be considered. Experience in bioinformatic and statistical analyses is desirable.

The successful applicant will have a Ph.D., preferably with postdoctoral experience. They will be expected to supervise an independent research program that will attract extramural funding, teach at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and provide research training for graduate and undergraduate students. Teaching duties are expected to include participation, on a rotating basis, in a) our introductory biology curriculum, b) an upper-level botany, evolution, or ecology course, and c) a graduate course in the candidate's specialty. Preferred qualifications include the ability to contribute to the diversity and excellence of the learning experience and academic community through research, teaching or service. Submit a curriculum vitae (with links to your top 3 publications), a summary of research accomplishments and future research objectives, a brief description of teaching experience and philosophy to: Husky Hire (http://jobs.uconn.edu).

Please have letters from three referees sent to: (EEB.Search@uconn.edu). Review of applications will begin January 6, 2011. Questions regarding this position may be addressed to kathleen.tebo@uconn.edu

Evaluation of applicants will be made by assessment of: 1) graduate and post-doctoral experience; 2) research accomplishments, productivity and extramural funding; 3) statements of teaching and research objectives; 4) professional references; and 5) expertise in ecological or evolutionary genomics. Information about the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology can be found at http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/eebwww/

The University of Connecticut houses state of the art genomics instrumentation and computational facilities.

The University of Connecticut encourages applications from under-represented groups, including minorities, women, and people with disabilities.

Last January at least 36 highly paid administrators in the University of California system demanded more pension benefits than they were receiving at the time. The outrage that followed led to "a moment of bipartisan joy" when an assemblyman from San Mateo introduced a bill to cap those benefits. About a week after I wrote about those events, Chancellor Robert Birgenau announced that UC Berkeley would lay off nearly 150 employees. In August, I learned that UC San Diego was removing nearly 150,000 books and journals from its collections and closing four campus libraries. The UC system suffered a $650 million cut in state support this year, and tuition has tripled in the last ten years (source).

So why am I disappointed? I'm disappointed because at their meeting on Monday, the Regents of the UC system approved salary increases for a series of high-level administrators. The salaries of three vice chancellors and an interim dean will now range from $247,000-317,000 after raises of 7.5-9.9 percent.

"We consider these retention efforts to be essential," UC President Mark Yudof said during the meeting at which regents approved a budget request asking the state for an 18 percent increase in funding. "I understand it's not a great time, but we can't really close down shop and say we're not going to make any effort to retain our best people." (source)

I don't know the circumstances that brought these salary increases to the regents for approval, but it sounds as if the administrators involved had other offers. Those administrators are clearly within their rights to ask for salary increases, and the regents may be right to grant them.

Still, I am disappointed that these administrators would seek salary increases at a time like this. Granted, the money saved by not granting them these increases is hardly a rounding error in the budget of an institution as large as the UC system, but I find it unseemly that administrators would advance their personal interest at a time when their institution and their students are suffering.

Related articles

• UC regents' meetings disrupted by protesters (sfgate.com)
• UC board approves raises at disrupted meeting (mercurynews.com)

Related articles

• Google Scholar "Citations" Launches & A Look at What Microsoft Is Up To With Academic Search " INFOdocket (infodocket.com)

In early September, Diederik Stapel was suspended from his position at Tilburg University in the Netherlands under suspicion of research fraud. Stapel is a social psychologist, and a preliminary report released a little over a week ago found that more than 30 papers in peer reviewed journals included fake data.

I take two lessons from this incident.

First, that a paper has passed peer review is not a guarantee that it's right. It's a guarantee that the authors have convinced an editor or two and a set of reviewers that the data and conclusions in the paper are sound and interesting, provided that the data on which those reports are based are sound. Peer reviewers can judge whether the experimental or observational design makes sense, whether appropriate protocols have been followed, whether known sources of error or bias have been accounted for, and whether the conclusions reached are consistent with the data. Rarely are they in a position to check that the data are reported truthfully.

Second, even the first tiny step makes a difference. From a commentary by Jennifer Crocker in Thursday's Nature:

To understand fraud in science, the useful lesson is the significance of that first tiny step. Every minor transgression -- dropping an inconvenient data point, or failing to give credit where it is due -- creates a threat to self-image. The perpetrators are forced to ask themselves: am I really that sort of person? Then, to avoid the discomfort of this threat, they rationalize and justify their way out, until their behaviour feels comfortable and right. This makes the next transgression seem not only easier, but even morally correct.

The well-being of science and our society requires that fraud be punished severely. But a heavy focus on fraudsters may also conveniently divert our attention from the fraudster within us all. Who cannot find places where they took a first step, or perhaps several steps, down one slippery slope or another? The road to fraud probably starts out with a step taken because of some egotistical fear or anxiety -- fear of losing someone's respect, for example, or of letting others down, the fear of being seen as a loser, of being a failure, or of not getting the job, the grant or the award that one covets.

Ouch! The fraudster within me. That's hard to admit, and while "fraudster" is harsh, I do have to confess that when writing papers, I often struggle with the paradox that I am looking for something "interesting" and "important" to say. For me and most other scientists, that means reporting strongly supported patterns and ignoring those that aren't. The worry comes that in examining my data thoroughly, I may look at it in hundreds of ways. This worry may not arise for those whose work involves simple, designed experiments.

My work, at least recently, involves detecting patterns in complex observational data sets. I feel pretty comfortable that the patterns my collaborators and I find are real. We don't make up data. But by looking so hard for a story that makes sense, am I imposing my preconceived notions of what's interesting or important on the data. I don't think so, but it's a worry that I always have in the back of my mind.

Related articles

• Dutch psychologist admits he made up research data (reuters.com)
• Dutch social psychologist found to have faked data (telegraph.co.uk)
• Report: Dutch 'Lord of the Data' Forged Dozens of Studies (news.sciencemag.org)

I mentioned yesterday that I do a lousy job of helping my students prepare for non-academic careers. Yesterday I ran across a Conscious career course that sounds pretty good. It's held by conference call, and it costs $179. Since it starts tonight at 7:00pm EDT, it may be too late to register, but if it sounds interesting, head over and take a look at the site. If you contact the course organizers, they may be able to tell you about other opportunities.

Here's a little more about the course they're offering:

This course will give you two things: greater insight into your own skills and preferences and a method of exploring the jobs and careers that might be a good fit.

We aren't promising you a job - Julie teaches another class on how to apply for and get a job once you figure out what you might want to be doing. This course simply opens up the wide world and helps you see all the rich and juicy possibilities before you.

Karen Kelsky is

[a] former tenured professor at a major research university, I am now running an academic-career consulting business. That's right: I am doing graduate advising for pay. I am teaching your Ph.D. students to do things like plan a publishing trajectory, tailor their dissertations for grant agencies, strategize recommendation letters, evaluate a journal's status, judge the relative merits of postdoctoral options, interpret a rejection, follow up on an acceptance, and--above all--get jobs. And business is so good I'm booked ahead for months. (source)

Her recent column in the Chronicle of Higher Education takes Ph.D. advisors (that's me) to task for being part of an "absentee professoriate", not because we neglect the research training of our advisees, but because we neglect their professional development.

Ouch!

I'm afraid I resemble that remark. I do the best I can to help my students prepare for their careers, but I don't think I do it very well. I simply don't know much about the world outside colleges and universities. I have some plausible guesses about what the rest of the world is like, but that's what they are -- plausible guesses. I can give pretty good advice on how to prepare for a job at a university or college, but I'm afraid I'm of little help to students who decide to look for jobs in other places. I can mention things like USAjobs.gov for jobs with the federal government and I can rattle off the names of a variety of NGOs that might hire biologists, but I don't have first-hand experience that tells me what kind of preparation students will need for those sorts of jobs. It's something I need to do better. If anyone reading this has advice for me -- and my students -- please share it with us.

My advice to students: (1) Pester your advisors (that includes me) for advice on how to ensure your success -- the way you define success. (2) Share the good advice you receive with your peers -- and with your advisors (there's a lot that we need to learn, too).

Related articles

• Graduate Students Unprepared for Graduation? (outsidethebeltway.com)

Matt Might has an "Illustrated guide to a Ph.D." That's the cover of the print/PDF version above. If you click on it, you'll go to a page where you can buy the print version (for $6.50) or download the PDF version (for free). All proceeds from sale of the print version "will fund graduate students whose research may impact the discovery, diagnosis or treatment of genetic disorders."

A year and a half ago, three faculty members in the biology department at the University of Alabama Huntsville were shot and killed. Three more were wounded. Amy Bishop had recently been denied tenure, and she was charged with capital murder and with attempt to commit murder.

Last Thursday, Bishop pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to all charges.

In Massachusetts, she has also been charged in the death of her teenage brother. His death in a shooting had originally been ruled an accident.

Related articles

• Biology Professor Pleads Not Guilty in Shootings (wired.com)
• Professor pleads not guilty in Huntsville murders (blogs.nature.com)
• Former professor pleads not guilty in Ala shooting (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Ex-Professor Pleads Not Guilty in Killing (time.com)
• Attorney: Trial in Alabama college shootings set for March (cnn.com)