...be able to distinguish science from pseudoscience
The fact that many people support a certain point of view does not
make it true—scientifically or otherwise. Most often, laypeople
selectively seek out only those fragments from various sources that
confirm their own hypothesis, and validation invariably comes from
the same category of people. Even though truth is not infallible,
the self-correcting 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 receives over a given period, relative to the number of
papers it publishes—an indicator known as the impact factor. A
journal’s aim in ranking as high as possible globally is to gather
as many citations as it can. At the same time, citations are
evidence of the quality of the published work and proof that other
authors refer to it. Quality is therefore essential for achieving
high rankings, while an inflation of low-quality papers inevitably
dilutes the impact factor.
...be prepared to give up the comfort of self-assessment
Self-sufficiency
is one of the least suitable traits for an aspiring researcher. Even
the most experienced scientists do not rely on self-assessment as
their main validation tool; more often, it is skepticism—not
modesty—that marks a successful career. Science is a field built on
critique (nota bene: not to be confused with censorship), and
the fundamental process through which its final product emerges is
peer review—the anonymous, objective, and expert evaluation
of your work by at least two independent reviewers (read
more).
From my own experience, the papers that reviewers initially “tore
apart” I now consider far better, precisely because I addressed
their criticisms in a reasoned way. If you feel that “everyone is
destroying” your work and you cannot see the value in this process,
it might be worth considering another career path.
...accept criticisms as a step forward
Once errors are known, they can be avoided. That is why you should
not view the observations of other experts evaluating your work with
hostility, but rather as help. With calm—and perhaps after what
feels like a brief depression—you will realize you have been given
the opportunity to correct mistakes before your work becomes public.
If one reviewer has found a serious flaw in your work, imagine how
many other readers might notice the same thing after publication. It
is far better to receive such feedback when you can still make
changes. Increasingly, authors publish their manuscripts as
preprints before submitting them to reviewers, precisely to allow
more readers to see and critique (i.e., improve) their work.
Remember: the work does not end when an idea is published—this is
where it begins. You have created a piece of the vast puzzle called
science; if that piece is not solid, it may eventually fail,
bringing down your entire structure.
...be able to see novelty within routine
Sometimes novelty
hides in routine. Innovation does not necessarily require radical
paradigm shifts; small details can make all the difference. The
phrase “it was so simple, I never thought of it” says it all. Learn
to value simplicity as much as innovation, and routine as much as
novelty—without letting either dominate you.
...care more about how to prove something than what to prove
Some studies captivate researchers
with the anticipated spectacular nature of their results. Ambitious
goals are important, but equally important is the path taken to
demonstrate them. No discovery, however spectacular, proves itself
simply by being spectacular—it requires the same meticulous
investigation as a routine study. The “spell of imminent success”
can lead to major oversights, misinterpretations, or the neglect of
crucial clues—resulting in a spectacularly poor outcome.
...allow themselves the luxury of working less
When you do what you love, time and
effort seem to disappear. How do you do what you love? Quite
simply—do what you love. But make sure there is at least someone
relevant who is interested in your work. Or, if you are bold,
“invest” your time, ideas, and resources in a high-risk way until
you produce something so valuable that even the most skeptical are
convinced. Keep in mind, however, that this scenario is rare, and
revisit the first two principles. Mentally and financially prepare
yourself for possible failure before it happens.
If, after reading
this section, you still want a career in research, move on to the
next step: consult the indicative
selector
for the doctoral path. Don’t forget to visit the
PhD Students
and Alumni
pages to learn from those already engaged in research. And if you
have decided, review the
Doctoral School
page for administrative details.
If you already see
yourself holding your PhD diploma, do not wait for someone to offer
you a job—create one for yourself through a postdoc.
