...be able to distinguish science from pseudoscience
The argument of having a large number of supporters for a viewpoint
does not equal the truth, whether scientific or not. Most often,
laypeople conveniently seek out only those segments from various
sources that confirm their own hypothesis, and validation invariably
comes from the same category of people. Even though the truth is not
infallible, the self-regulating mechanisms in science are clear and
have been standardized for a long time. In the publishing process,
the prestige of a scientific journal is measured by the number of
citations it manages to gather in a given time unit compared to the
number of papers published in the same interval, and this is called
the Impact Factor. Thus, we understand that the interest of any
journal to rank as high as possible in the global hierarchy is to
accumulate as many citations as possible. At the same time,
citations are proof of the quality of the works they publish,
evidence that other authors refer to previous studies. Quality is
therefore mandatory to access high positions in the ranking, and an
inflation of low-quality papers actually leads to the dilution of
the Impact Factor.
...be prepared to give up self-satisfaction through
self-assessment
Self-sufficiency is one of the most inappropriate attributes of a
potential researcher. Even the most experienced researchers do not
resort to such habits, and most often skepticism, not necessarily
modesty, is the hallmark of a successful career. Science is a field
based on criticism (nota bene, not to be understood as
censorship), the fundamental process by which the finished product
of science is born being peer-review, that is, the anonymous,
impartial, and specialized evaluation of your work by at least two
distinct entities. From my experience, analyzing the works that
reviewers initially "tore apart" I find them much better today
because I managed to address their criticisms at the right time. If
you still feel that everyone is tearing your work apart so much and
you see every time that everything is "destroyed" you might want to
consider a career in another field.
...accept criticisms as a step forward
Since once known, errors can be avoided, it is important not to look
with disdain at the work of other experts who evaluate your paper,
but rather to allow yourself to see it as help. Calmly, after going
through an episode that may resemble depression, you will understand
that in fact, you have just had the opportunity to correct certain
mistakes before your work becomes final. It's frustrating to
sometimes see your dream shattered, a dream in which you thought you
put everything, and someone "without a soul" literally "destroys"
it. I challenge you to imagine something. If you have the feeling
that at least one of these reviewers has identified something
critical in your work, can you imagine how many other readers will
have similar opinions after the product becomes public?
Consequently, it is much better for your writing to be criticized
when you can still make corrections than when it is too late.
Recently, it has almost become a practice to publish manuscripts as
preprints before sending them to reviewers, precisely with the idea
that as many readers as possible can see and criticize (i.e.,
improve) the scientist's work. Remember and guide yourself by the
truism that the work does not end once an idea is published, but
only begins there because you have just created a precedent, a piece
of the immense puzzle called science, a piece that if not solid
enough will fail over time, thus collapsing your entire
construction.
...distinguish novelty from routine
Sometimes novelty is hidden in routine. Innovation does not
necessarily involve radical changes in paradigm or already
well-trodden concepts, but small details can sometimes make a
difference. We hear too often the expression "it was so simple, I
didn't even think of that...". Allow yourself to see the simple as
just as valuable as innovation, routine as just as offering as
novelty, and do not let either dominate you.
...be concerned with how to demonstrate rather than what to
demonstrate
Certain studies tend to captivate the researcher through the
spectacular nature of the anticipated result. It is important to set
high goals, but much more important is the path through which we aim
to demonstrate them. Any discovery, no matter how spectacular it is,
does not demonstrate itself simply by being... spectacular. It needs
investigations just as meticulous as a routine study. There is a
risk that the "charm of imminent success" leads to major negligence
and thus denotes low professionalism. Lack of professionalism can
lead to misinterpretation of results, ignoring crucial clues, and
thus a spectacularly poor final result.
...allow oneself the luxury of working a little
Every time you do what you love, benchmarks such as time or effort
almost disappear. How do you do what you love? Nothing simpler, do
what you love! But make sure there is at least someone relevant
interested in what you do. Or, if you have the courage, "invest
riskily" in your time, ideas, and resources until you produce
something so relevant that even the most skeptical persons will be
finally attracted by your innovation. But consider that this
scenario happens extremely rarely and please read again the first
two principles listed above. Then try to mentally and financially
assume the potential failure even before it happens.
If after reading this section you still among those who want a
career in research, it is time to move on to the next step, so I
invite you to consult the
selector for the doctoral path.
Don't forget to visit the
PhD Students or
Alumnus
pages to learn from those already ongoing or completed research.
Then, if you have decided, check the
Doctoral School page for
bureaucratic aspects.
And if you already see the PhD diploma coming, I suggest you not
wait for a job as a gift but to offer it to yourself through what is
called a postdoc.