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 that confirm their own hypothesis, and validation invariably comes from the same category of people. 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 — the impact factor. Quality is therefore essential for achieving high rankings, while an inflation of low-quality papers inevitably dilutes it.
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.
Once errors are known, they can be avoided. That is why you should not view the observations of other experts 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. 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.
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.
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.
When you do what you love, time and effort seem to disappear. But make sure there is at least someone relevant who is interested in your work. Or, if you are bold, "invest" your time and ideas 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 — 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 already 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.