Andrew Akbashev

Wow. Your microwave = a bacterial ecosystem.
Extremophiles can naturally appear in it too.


📍A new study:

Alba Iglesias and colleagues studied 30 microwaves.

Using Petri dishes, they could see a significant growth of bacteria from the microwave swabs.

Interestingly, DNA sequencing showed 101 bacterial strains. The bacterial population was dominated by Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes. Bacteria that can cause food-borne decease were also found in some cases.

In ‘lab microwaves’ (used in the labs), they also found extremophiles.

These are the bacteria that can withstand extreme environment such as high temperatures and radiation.

Most likely, they appeared because a microwave is cycled to high temperatures and strong radiation.


📍Two interesting points from my side:

1. This study is a good example of the ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking.

Normally, extreme environments are found in hydrothermal vents, deserts, etc.

But the authors decided to search in microwaves (which many assume should kill bacteria).

The study is much easier to do and replicate.

It’s also much more relevant to all of us than hydrothermal vents. :)


2. The paper was published in Frontiers in Microbiology, a journal under the Frontiers Publisher, which is viewed negatively by many.

But still, the study was found. People discuss it.

It’s another example of how important the content of your paper is.

The visibility of your study strongly depends on its quality, uniqueness and relevance to others.

If your study is great, people will find it.


#research #biochemistry #science

A few well-mentored students make a bigger impact than a lot of abandoned scholars.


Many students come with passion and excitement. When PhD is a new chapter in your life, you a would be excited too!


But then demotivation kicks in.

Too many failures. Too much work. Too little outcome.

As a result, disappointment and regrets lead the student’s mind till the graduation.


BUT there are also many students who are super happy.

Who grow.

Whose initial excitement transitions into a matured and strategizing mindset.


What makes this difference?

The advisor’s:
- Encouragement
- Mentoring
- Constant support


Basically… In 95% of the cases, disappointment with a PhD comes from the disappointment with the advisor.

For a PI, it’s very easy to stop looking after a student. Too busy, too many students, too hard to get funded. Or too much focus on self-promotion.


My message is:

Fewer well-mentored students make a bigger impact than a lot of abandoned ones.

Focus on each. Help them grow. Keep them encouraged.

Get that initial excitement going and growing.


#PhD #science #research #chemicalengineering #chemistry

An important message to students who started their #PhD last month:

I often see both undergrad and PhD students misidentifying the main purpose of a PhD and overlooking its #mentoring component. This can have adverse consequences, especially if you want to pursue a career in academia, R&D or entrepreneurship.


What is the key purpose of a PhD in #STEM?
- It’s NOT to learn how to use certain cool instruments (although it might be handy, it is of little help in a long term)
- It’s NOT to write a thesis (very few people will read it)
- It’s NOT to make your advisor happy by contributing to their lab
- It’s even NOT about listening to new courses that are part of the PhD program!


PhD is about #personaldevelopment, creativity and problem solving in a highly dynamic research environment and getting the most out of it.


Specifically, it is about:

- Becoming a highly critical and creative thinker
- Learning how to think independently (against the local or global mainstream)
- Publishing important studies and making discoveries (especially if you plan to stay in academia)
- Learning how to choose and “jump-start” a project and bring it to perfection
- Discovering your strengths while succeeding in a highly competitive environment 
- Trying new things and learning from inevitable mistakes without big consequences
- Learning how to accept failures that real (but do not bear catastrophic consequences)
- Understanding the value of teamwork and collaboration


Of course, there are some “perks” that can be important too, such as:
1. Getting a good expertise in some field
2. Getting some idea about the world of academia and how things work there
3. Learning how to use fancy tools (microscopes, spectrometers, etc)
4. Learning how to prepare nice publications
5. Etc, etc, etc.

However, these are only “perks” and they should not be the main goal of your PhD time.


My message is:

As a prospective PhD student, you should be looking for a good mentor and advisor who can provide a proper research environment and be a source of inspiration in pursuing your dreams, and NOT a person who will be simply assigning tasks to you and supervising your resulting efforts.


[This is one of my older posts that should be repeated again and again]

#research #students #university #engineering

John Hopfield is a rare generalist in science.

He started with solid state physics in 1950s, shifted to the chemistry of haemoglobin in the late 1960s, and worked on DNA synthesis in 1970s.

In 1982, he devised a brain-like network, where interacting particles formed some sort of memory.

It became known as ‘Hopfield network’.

For this, he received a Nobel prize this year.


Nature published an interview with John Hopfield.
So, I want to highlight few points:

1. “My definition of physics is that physics is not what you’re working on, but how you’re working on it. If you have the attitude of someone who comes from physics, it’s a physics problem.”

- This is why a Nobel Prize in Physics can be awarded for machine learning models.

Science is NOT about strictly defined boundaries between fields.

Science does not care!

To a physicist, physics is everywhere.


2. “[In solid-state physics], it was getting harder and harder to find a good problem. I had a friend, Bob Shulman at Bell Laboratories, who’d gone recently from chemistry into biology. I had the idea that maybe the time had come to use the way we studied solid state on big molecules.”

- Being fearless is vital in science!!!

Most professors are afraid to pivot. Even with internal funding and big groups, they keep digging the same field, doing rather mundane research. I think it’s a human nature.

This why I find people like John Hopfield so inspiring.
They are unicorns.
They are deeply hungry for new ideas and challenges.
And so they pivot hugely!
Many times!


3. Advice for PhD students:

“Where two fields are driven apart, see if there is anything interesting in the crack between them. I’ve always found the interfaces interesting because they contain interesting people with different motivations, and listening to them bicker is quite instructive. It tells you what they really value and how they’re trying to solve a problem. If they don’t have the tools to solve the problem, there may be space for me.”

- This is why it's so important to do postdoc in a different field.

This is why it's so important to join the department that supports collaborations (and does not say “you should avoid topics that other faculties work on“).

This is why interacting with good thinkers from other fields can be SO productive.


#science #research #physics #PhD #students

Some professors ≠ Great Advisors

Some supervisors: Cynical, productivity-centered

Great Advisors: Inspiring, mentoring, wellbeing-centered


Some supervisors focus on productivity & publications.

Great Advisors focus on the learning process of students through scientific exploration.


Some supervisors make students miserable when they fail.

Great Advisors inspire students to learn from mistakes.


Some supervisors push students to compete with each other.

Great Advisors push students to work with each other.


Some supervisors impose their projects on students.

Great Advisors encourage students to nucleate their own research ideas and nurture curiousity.


Some supervisors simply don’t care.

Great Advisors are empathetic and strive to support students.


Need I continue?


❗️ My point is:

Your advisor is the person who can make or break your PhD and career.

It’s far better to NOT get a PhD than to enter “the lab of hell”.

Pick the advisors carefully.

Interview them after you get an offer.

Talk to alumni. Explore your future opportunities.

Because it’s YOUR future.


___

📍 If you want to starting a PhD, check out my podcast episode on how to find the right advisor & mentor (or at least be ready for what you may expect). I give various tips on how to check for red flags and how to find the right fit:

https://lnkd.in/d9rp6hki

Enjoy!

How to pick the right lab for a postdoc:


1. Think of how far you want to deviate from your PhD topic:

- IF you have a strong (!) profile as a PhD graduate, you may gain from doing a postdoc in a different field.

- IF your profile is not strong and IF your postdoc is short (1-2 years) but you aim for a faculty position, your chances are higher in your initial field.

- Diverse expertise can help you stand out during faculty interviews. It will also help you establish a more diverse lab.


2. Identify possible groups in advance. Meet them at conferences. Get external opinions from the faculties in your department.


3. BUT don't trust others' opinions blindly. You may accidentally skip a great group just because you were misled by a colleague.


When emailing possible groups:

4. Prepare a perfect email that describes you, your experience and future interests. Attach a CV. Don't make it too long. NO misspellings, NO “Hi Prof”!

5. Shortly describe WHY you want to do a postdoc in their lab (how will it help you?).

5. Add a short paragraph describing the possible research direction you envision. BUT avoid discussing the details until you get to an interview.

6. TAILOR your email to each specific lab. You must sound as if you have already visited their lab.


Two very important pieces of advice:

7. Avoid being too pushy or blunt about your interests, especially if you don't know the group.

Some applicants don't ask to be interviewed but rather ask for an opportunity to give an in-group SEMINAR about their work. I heard of cases where candidates paid for the visits and eventually ended up with an offer (yes, it’s not supposed to be like this, but this is how it works sometimes).

8. Ask your PhD advisor to send a recommendation letter directly to those faculties. This can help tremendously!!!


During and after the interview:

9. Prepare a perfect talk. Tailor it to the group’s interests.

10. Discuss their interests. Explore how your expertise can help them improve or expand. Make them feel you CARE about their progress as much as you care about your own.

11. Explain your interests and how being postdoc in this group can help your career.

12. Talk to the lab members one-on-one and listen carefully to their experiences & hurdles.

13. Reach out to lab alumni on LinkedIn or by email and ask to have calls with you. Ask about their experiences. Look for red flags.


Keep in mind that a good advisor will be supportive of you exploring and examining different aspects of the postdoc position and the group.


#PhD #science #research #students #chemistry #chemicalengineering

❗ BREAKING ❗
2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to David Baker “for computational protein design” and Demis Hassabis and John Jumper “for protein structure prediction.”

From the Nobel Committee:

“The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024 is about proteins, life’s ingenious chemical tools. David Baker has succeeded with the almost impossible feat of building entirely new kinds of proteins. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper have developed an AI model to solve a 50-year-old problem: predicting proteins’ complex structures. These discoveries hold enormous potential.“


This is the SECOND Nobel Prize for AI-related research this year!


By the way, Demis Hassabis & John M. Jumper are from Google DeepMind.

You don't have to be from an academic institution to win a Nobel Prize.


#chemistry #AI #science #research #biotechnology

Tuitions at MIT are eliminated for students from families with low income.
❤️ BRAVO, MIT!!! ❤️

Education should be accessible regardless of the background.

Overpublishing puts enormous stress on #students and PIs.

And brings tons of money to publishers in #STEM.

A new study shows that the number of papers is increasing FASTER than the number of #PhD graduates.

It’s an amazing work with very useful statistics. Huge kudos to the authors!


Main outcomes:

1️⃣ In 2022 the number of articles is 47% higher than in 2016. The amount of writing, reviewing and editing workload per scientist is increased enormously.

2️⃣ “Special issues” is a strategy for publishing lots of papers with reduced review time. This is possible due to the “publish or perish” pressure and clearly benefits the publishers.

3️⃣ The publishing time varies widely!
MDPI = 37 days. Frontiers = 72 days. Elsevier = 134 days. Springer = 157 days. Nature = 185 days.

4️⃣ The article rejection rates do not seem to correlate with publisher growth. However, rejection rates decline with increased use of special issue publishing.

5️⃣ Certain for-profit gold-open-access publishers create an increasing number of special issues, with uniquely reduced turnaround times, and in specific cases, high impact inflation and reduced rejection rates.

6️⃣ The authors suggest a new metric - Impact Inflation, which is reflected in self-citation within the same journal. For example, MDPI has a high impact inflation due to excessive self-citation compared to other publishers.


Conclusions and my opinion:

- Scientists have to spend a lot more time on reviewing and writing than before (on average).

- The more papers are published, the more the quality is compromised.

- Scientific progress has become partially bound to the business models of publishers and their revenue (a sad reality today).

- There is a huge lack of transparency. Much of these data had to be ‘web-scraped’ from numerous sources in order to get a full picture. We clearly need regulators to mandate open access to publisher’s statistics.

- Reduce the number of special issues! Those typically have low standards.
 

#Science, #publishing and #funding make a trio that is very hard to disentangle.
 
However, research quality is controlled by the community.

This is why preprint + community review can make a big difference.


[the link is in the comment]

#research #chemistry

In 1995, Elon Musk became a #PhD student in Materials Science at Stanford.

After 2 days, he dropped out… Now, imagine that he would have stayed.

As a PhD student, he would be working in a lab, publish papers, go to conferences…

Maybe one day he could even become a professor.

Would he be able to change the world?


❗ PhD is not the only way to become successful.

❗ Aspire to the career you deeply desire.

❗ Take that risk. Even if you fail, it is a very valuable experience.


#research #students #engineering #semiconductor #leadershipdevelopment

📍To all PhD students who write research papers:

Below are 7 quotes from the Editors of ACS Physical Chemistry Au, plus my comments:

1. “Write the kind of papers you LOVE to read. All readers will be grateful for every effort you make to explain your ideas in a clear and informative fashion.“

- Reading should be enjoyable. Ask your colleagues - did they enjoy your article? What is missing? Where do they lose attention?


2. “... keep the writing concise! You want to provide the clearest presentation of your science in the simplest style.“

- Long article ≠ Good article. Conciseness is your biggest friend. Polishing the text means removing unnecessary details and sentences. Move all secondary information to the Supplementary Material if possible.


3. “You might be in the fortunate situation of having a mentor who is training you in this process or even formal courses as part of your studies. But even if you do not, there is nothing to worry about ─ there are MANY resources available to help you get started.“

- Yes, mentors are great to have. BUT many great scientists learned to write papers on their own. You can also do it. Just focus. Find 10 excellent papers online and see WHAT makes them excellent.


4. “You might read for 3 h to write one sentence. You might plot your data three different ways before you understand the clearest, most EFFECTIVE way to show your results. You might take a whole day to make a single figure or 20 min to write a figure caption.“

- Great masterpieces take time.


5. “... write the paper your results support, not the paper you hoped to write at the start of the project.“

- This is central to scientific writing. You must ensure the logic is clear. Don’t seek the outcome you hope to find. Your interpretations should be similar to the conclusions that your peers in the field would also draw based on your results.


6. “You need to manage your coauthors’ expectations and make sure you work in a way that minimizes the chances that you end up with a big job rewriting the paper because your coauthors are not satisfied.“

- First, discuss results and the story. When all agree, THEN proceed to writing. Start with “Results”, then proceed to “Discussion & Conclusion”. Do not write “Introduction” until your central story & conclusions are clear.


7. “Write a paper you are proud of. This paper is the lasting mark of your research in the world.“

- Perfect your work until you feel happy & proud. Great masterpieces stand the test of time.


📍 My ultimate message:

Don't publish a lot of papers that no one will care about.

Don’t publish papers that are hard to read & understand.

Don’t publish for the sake of publishing.

Instead, publish a few that are thorough and deep.

Be proud of your masterpieces!

Make sure they stand the test of time.


[The link to the article is in the comment below]

Funding is becoming a lottery. Scientists can’t focus on science and are demotivated. That’s the new academic world on the brink of insanity.


In academia, research money comes from external sources. Everything - from PhD students to infrastructure - depends on that funding.

The problem is - this funding is VERY competitive.


📍 Now, Nature describes how a new spike in the number of applications in 2025 pushes the competition to a new incredible level.

I'm a scientist myself. My proposals were also rejected on many 'curious' grounds - small publishing output, "too young" (yes, that was incredible), science being too fundamental, etc. But when only 10% of proposals are accepted, this becomes the norm!


📍 I call it "over-competition".

It's awful because:

1. It drains us. We put a LOT of energy into grants. Most of this energy is wasted.

2. It demotivates us. Constant rejections of your best ideas are NOT fun.

3. It tells us that our science is not important. When luck determines our research directions, it makes NO sense.

4. It focuses our attention on building a CV. Plus, on how to “flatter & schmooze people”.

5. We can't do long-term deep research that requires sustainable funding.


❗️My point is:

40% success rate is healthy competition.
10% success rate is over-competition.

It traumatizes scientists who want to focus on deep research and NOT on becoming self-advertising, paper-producing machines.

We need more internal funding.
We need fewer ultra-large groups.
We need less obsession with publishing.
We need to stop believing that “PhD is only for academia”.

We need more predictability in our careers.

_____

‘Give us your research money,
And we will not threaten you with legal action.’

‘Give us your research money,
And your students will not go to conferences.’

‘Give us your research money,
And you can put our Impact Factor in your CV.’


The story of Alicia Kowaltowski (Univ. of São Paul) in Science:

They submitted to Molecular Metabolism (Open Access). 
Its IF = 8.5. OA fee = $3810. 
They expected a discount (due to ‘less affluent country’).
They emailed the journal 12 times.
The journal said - NO.
Then, the paper was published.
Now, Elsevier has threatened Kowaltowski with legal action if she didn’t pay the quoted fee. (The issue is still not resolved)

“If you end up paying, then you’re losing funds for other things, like laboratory chemicals” - Kowaltowski.


📍Critical points:

1. Open Access revenue has tripled since 2019.
Half of all publications are OA today.
However, subscription revenues have NOT gone down (according to Science).

Does it mean ‘double income’? We need clarity here.

2. With Open Access, publishers can earn more $$$ than with the ‘old’ way - subscriptions. At least to me this seems to be the case.

3. Scientists from low-income counties have issues with ‘discounts’. This creates inequality in publishing.

4. Premium journals charge premium fees. Nature has become the Lamborghini for the scientific world. 
Want to ride it? Pay $12,290. Just for publishing.

5. Your career depends on where you publish. This is the reality at many institutions. 
So... 
IF you skip Nature because you cannot pay... 
Even though your study is outstanding... 
Your chances of getting a faculty position DROP.


📍My point is:

Open access is great.

But for the price of a car? I don’t think so.


#research #science #publishing #scienceandtechnology

A common misconception: 
‘To get a PhD, I need to be really smart.’

Unfortunately, many undergrads are afraid of PhD because they feel they’re ‘not good enough' for it.

In my experience is, you don’t need extraordinary skills to earn a PhD. You also don’t need to be a ‘walking encyclopedia’. You don’t even need to be a straight-A student!

In fact, being a genius may hurt. 
PhD is the time when you’re learning through research, NOT lectures. Failures and unpredictability become part of your daily routine. If your confidence stems from your success in lectures/exams, it won’t help you during PhD.


❗ You just need deep curiosity.

The kind of curiosity that brings joy in exploring the depths of your field, technical details and crazy ideas.

Hard work is a by-product of curiosity. Deep reading is a by-product of curiosity. Even your own vision for the field stems from your curiosity.


Of course, all students are different: some PhD students are fast thinkers, others are fast learners or deep thinkers. Some prefer working alone and others need proper guidance.

But there is NO fundamental flaws that should prevent 95% of students from getting a PhD.

As long as you are ready to invest yourself into research, find the direction that keeps you excited and curious for years - you should be good to go. Or at least to try.


PhD is just a degree. 
You don’t have to be crazy smart for it.
Nor will you become crazy-smart after PhD.

Deep curiosity is often enough. It keeps you excited through the ups and downs.

The kind of curiosity that makes you humble. The one that grounds you and helps you appreciate how much you don’t understand about the world.

Not every expert will see the novelty in your work.

This is why resilience is everything in academia.

It takes forever to develop it.
But it helps you stay afloat in a storm.


#PhD #science #research

We miss out on the best talents when we do not invest into your current PhD students & postdocs.


Our team members have opinions.

And those opinions hugely influence WHO will be applying to our group next time.

Strong candidates seek great advisors.


Instead of spending months on looking for the perfect candidate, you can help those candidates find YOU.


📍 Just ask your current lab members:

“What can I do to help you grow professionally?”

“How can I ensure you get enough rest outside of work?”

“Do you want to go to one more conference?”


❗ Group happiness = great reputation.

Yes, it takes time to build.

But then, it will pay off for years.


#research #PhD  #university #students

Some PhD applicants have more papers than postdocs. This is ridicules.

I saw an increasing number of applicants with 5-10 publications. Including first-author reviews!

And the research quality was awful.

Looks like students assume they must collect as many papers as possible during their undergrad/MS.

Please - research papers are not stamps. You don’t collect them.

You get them through sweat and tears. Through failed experiments, challenging ideas and complex thinking process. They should take years, not weeks.


❗️You do NOT need publications to get into PhD.

I know many PhD students without papers at all.

If you’ve made a meaningful contribution to a research project, this is amazing. If you’ve published an insightful study - COOL!

Describe your research journey in your personal statement. Show how you went from a hypothesis to experiments and data analysis. Show you’ve developed a vision for this direction (as a result of this research).

But please don’t list 20 papers thinking that it’s all it takes to get into a PhD.

If you have 20 papers, you should be applying for a professor position!

Not a PhD.


____

❗️ With Prof. Darren Lipomi, we discuss how PhD committees view publications of the applicants. Check it out!

Link is in the comment below.
____

This is why:

1. Funding decisions for PIs must take into account recommendation letters from former #PhD graduates and postdocs. Because funding is used to pay for more students and postdocs, it should be allocated only if the PI knows how to manage people correctly.

2. Universities should hire senior professors only after collecting 5-10 recomm. letters from their former graduates, randomly selected.

3. #Students should get university-level (or country-level) training in how to select advisors and avoid toxic PIs.

4. Universities should create internal funds and programs for the students who need to switch groups or get financial security while they’re trying to find a new employer. It should be mandatory if the #university wants to receive funding from the government (that comes from taxes).

5. Private funders should stop funding “hot #research topics” as much as they do these days. Instead, if they start helping students who are already in crisis (by offering fellowships or other support), they will make A LOT bigger impact on the academic community and entire society.

6. In any department, fellow professors should HELP students who got into toxic groups and need support. Not avoid them.

7. At department meetings, the topics of toxicity and mismanagement must be discussed as often as possible. Believe me, your students don’t care about the “strategic plans for the department”, “teaching rotations”, etc that you keep discussing there. All they care about is wellbeing. Everything else comes second. Ensure you are raising awareness and making the right emphasis on what is truly important for the students.

8. Finally, reduce tenure requirements. A lot of issues stem from the load the young PIs have to withstand. Reduce the load on PIs and you will reduce the load on students and postdocs.


Don’t ignore mismanagement. Don’t ignore toxicity.

Even if it doesn’t happen in your lab.


#science #engineering #chemistry #chemicalengineering #materialsscience

Pressure to publish jumps. And researchers have no time to do science.
(New survey from Elsevier)

Survey of 3200 researchers:

1. Only 45% of scientists have sufficient time for actual research.

2. For 68%, the pressure to publish today is greater than 2-3 years ago.

3. 29% of researchers are considering relocating to another country (for better funding, work‐life balance, or greater research freedom).

4. 58% of researchers use AI tools in their work.

5. Reported benefits from AI: saving time (58%), helping with literature summaries (61%), literature reviews (51%), data analysis (38%), drafting proposals (41%), and drafting papers (38%).


Globally, life in academia is getting worse.

For students & postdocs - it’s especially hard to decide on an academic career.


❗️ A few days ago, I gave a lecture on this topic.

“PhD: Dreams, Reality and Consequences”

Watch it here: https://lnkd.in/dA_GhYwd

(I’ll appreciate if you ‘like’ this video - you will GREATLY help it reach more students.)

Your PhD is about the evolution of your mindset.

It progresses through personal research experience, mentorship and the development of key skills.


This is why a PhD in STEM:

- is NOT about your thesis (very few people will read it)
- is NOT about finishing your advisor’s project
- is NOT about taking new courses
- is NOT about learning new cool instruments (although it might be handy, it’s hardly helpful in the long run)

Yes, some of it may help you get hired.

BUT a PhD should not be about this.


PhD is about personal development, creativity and problem solving in a highly dynamic research environment.


First of all, a PhD should be about:

- Becoming a highly critical and creative thinker
- Learning how to think independently (against the local or global mainstream)
- Learning how to “jump-start” a project and bring it to perfection
- Discovering your strengths and weaknesses as a future leader 
- Learning from a massive number of mistakes without big consequences
- Learning how to accept failures and move on
- Understanding the value of teamwork and collaboration
- Publishing important studies and making discoveries (especially if you plan to stay in academia)


As a prospective PhD student, do NOT look for a supervisor who will only assign tasks to you.

Also, do NOT look for an advisors who’s barely available. You won’t learn much in such labs.

Look for a good mentor and advisor who can help you develop YOUR leadership skills.


Remember:

A great PhD is fueled by inspiration to pursue your dreams and it’s built in the right research environment.


___

📍 If you want to starting a PhD, check out my podcast episode on how to find the right advisor & mentor (or at least be ready for what you may expect). I give various tips on how to check for red flags and how to find the right fit.

The link is in the comment below.

The more papers, the better. Keep publishing.

Science needs papers.

Your advisor needs papers.

Your university needs papers.

Quantity wins.


It’s the only way to make your profile stand out.

The only way to make an impact.

The only way to impress everyone.


If you can’t be a printing machine, you’re a useless scientist.

Maximize the number of papers.

Make others jealous.

Make them sweat.

Win the race!


p.s.
And don’t be surprised when your applications for the PhD/postdoc/faculty positions are rejected because of ‘too many papers’.

____

“How to survive in today’s academic environment” - a podcast episode exploring the complex challenges faced by young scientists and practical ways to overcome them:

https://lnkd.in/dsFZMhax

____

Yes, as a PI, you can publish more by pushing your team really hard. But NO, those extra papers will not improve your life.

They will only make everyone unhappier:

- Your team will feel burned out and depressed.

- Journal editors will receive another manuscript that nobody wants to review (until someone reluctantly agrees).

- Reviewers will have to review another manuscript they don’t care about.

- More researchers will unfollow your research as its quality & depth decline.

- Finally, YOUR OWN wellbeing will suffer, as stress and health issues outweigh the benefits of your 'extra push’.


Extra papers are not how we do science.

Instead of becoming a paper generator:

- Focus on quality and depth in each research project. High-quality data has immense value and depth is what turns it into real impact.

- Let your students lead their projects. Push their curiosity and passion for science, not papers.

- Publish less, so your readers stay interested in EACH of your papers.


📍Robert Solow, the Nobel laureate in economics, once said:

"I estimate that if I had neglected the students, I could have written 25 percent more scientific papers. The choice was easy to make and I do not regret it."


When students are neglected, science loses its foundation.

Community and discoveries are inseparable. 
And well-being sits at the heart of it.

❗ Scientific progress is NOT about mixing smart words with sloppy data.

It is about discoveries.
It is about quality data.
It is about original ideas.
It is about deep thinking.


Over-publishing destroys science.

Finding a good study in tons of nonsense is HARD.

Getting a big picture perspective on a field is becoming impossible.

We're drowning in low-quality papers.

Science = ‘Less is More’.
But unfortunately, academia is still about numbers.

(This is why science ≠ academia.)


So, "Should We Publish Fewer Papers?"

Yes. Qe should publish less. Much less

Even if it means going against the mainstream.

We must stop over-publishing.

__

arXiv has banned reviews in computer science.

Should research journals do the same?


📍For arXiv, the reason is obvious:

1. Citations = money, funding, awards.

Unethical scientists want more citations. Some of them ‘order’ citations from the paper mills that produce reviews with those citations. The reviews become ‘vehicles’ for targeted citation inflation and are then uploaded to arXiv (or even published in journals).

 “Many surveys that are just annotated bibliographies without analysis, synthesis or road mapping, the citations often include papers on completely unrelated subjects. We suspect there may be markets where such citations can be purchased.” [Thomas Dietterich, the chair arXiv’s computer-science section]


2. LLMs are becoming too good to be detected.

According to arXiv’s programme director, such LLM-prepared reviews can escape simple plagiarism checks, whether performed by people or software.


📍 For me, there are more reasons to move away from reviews:

3. Today, most reviews are useless. They represent bibliographic overviews. No original thoughts, no vision. In my field, many reviews look the same. They cite low-quality research and often are hard to read.

The main reason why they exist is because journals love reviews (they increase their impact factor).


4. LLMs can already summarize literature very well. They insert correct citations, they describe the content in understandable language, they can generate reviews in any niche (!). What’s the point in human-made reviews that cite the wrong literature and low-quality research?


5. There are TOO many reviews. No one reads most of them anyway. They exist to rack up citations for authors and impact factors for journals.


📍 I think:

1. We need fewer reviews.

2. We need HIGH-quality reviews.

3. We need more bold vision in reviews, not LLM-style summarization.


❗️ It’s great to see that arXiv starts moving in this direction.

Now - what about major journals?
Will they be next? Or am I too naive?

The dark side of academia. Thoughts on ”Should I stay in science”. And the principle of “science & students first”.


When you look these insane numbers, you feel bad about academia.

For example, in the field of capacitors, 2128 reviews published in 2 years, which is ~ 13% of the total number of paper. Basically, every 8th paper is a review!

Or maybe you can read 4342 reviews in Li-ion batteries...? Or 827 reviews in LED?

What’s going on?


1. Many academic chase citations, not science itself. Instead of spending time on research, some PIs ask PhD students and postdocs to write reviews (or spend their own precious time on it).

2. Journals love reviews. Reviews bring citations and boost impact factors.


📍 And this environment has consequences:

It burns out the very people who should be doing the best science.

Excellent and science-motivated students & postdocs today say: “I am leaving. I don’t want to work in this academic environment.”


❗️ So, “Should I stay in science?”

My response is:

You're right - the dark side of academia exists.
There, citations = promotions, funding, awards.

But not all academia looks like this.

There are a LOT of scientists and professors who push for quality and depth, and who emphasize students’ wellbeing over ‘publish and perish’.

I do it myself (learned from my advisors). And I know many others who follow the “science & students first” principle as well. Such scientists and advisors are not hard to find.


You have a chance to change the system.

No one forces you to prioritize papers over students. 
No one pushes you to be a printing machine.

Yes, it feels like a hamster’s wheel.

But even before tenure, you still have choices: which projects to push, how you treat your students, or whether to say 'yes' or 'no'.


Do deep science. Be an example for those around you.

Prioritize students. Mentor them. Send them to conferences. Let them grow. Make them happy.

Academia gets brighter when more people go against the mainstream.

For me personally that would be a big motivation.

Not only because I can do good science, but also because I can change the system for the better.

Postdoc is still very popular in science & engineering. Perhaps, that’s why it doesn’t get much better.

2004: 49.2%
2014: 47.9%
2019: 45.5%
2024: 45.8%

This is the Postdoc Rate according to the NSF SED reports.

Despite low salary, under-appreciation, anxiety and uncertainty.

Despite challenging career prospects.

I may be wrong, but…

I think it might be the reason WHY so little is changing for postdocs

There is simply no incentive to improve the life of postdocs if the postdoc rate doesn’t drop.


📍 What I learned in my academic career:

- Only few postdoc get faculty positions.

- Postdoc does NOT give advantage when applying to industry (only for specific niches, primarily in biotech).

- Postdoc pushes you into an academic track. People don’t see you as an industry person.

- Salaries are often low. Supporting a family during postdoc requires real survival skills.


So - unless you have an outstanding PhD profile and can land a faculty position later (or if you have immigration status to solve), postdoc position is hard to justify. Especially when high-tech industry is booming.

____

For PhD students - if you’re considering a postdoc, you can check out a Q&A session that I recorded during an academic workshop in Swiss Alps:

“Postdocs: Competition, Faculty Positions & Industry”

Watch it on here: https://lnkd.in/dpEjkfFC

____

Postdoc time is often harder than PhD.
You have little time. Competition is higher. And you MUST stand out.

+ Your contract may end any moment.

+ Your salary is often low (for your age/education).

+ You’ve just relocated and prepare to relocate again.


No wonder that Max Planck Society survey showed that depression and anxiety of postdocs is rising.

Interestingly, Max Planck Institutes have substantial internal funding. So, in theory there should be less pressure to apply for grants, and everyone should be enjoying science. And yet the pressure on postdocs is immense.


📍 Many postdocs want to stay in academia.

They want to apply for faculty positions or become senior scientists.

Some of them achieve it. Others don’t.


❗️Why things don’t work out:

In a recent workshop Q&A session, I discussed various scenarios and behind-the-scenes processes that PhD students should keep in mind if they’re considering a postdoc:

“Postdocs: Competition, Hardship and Faculty Positions”

Watch it on here: https://lnkd.in/dpEjkfFC


(I’ll appreciate if you ‘like’ this video - you will GREATLY help it reach more students.)

LAB-1:

- Students whisper behind their supervisor’s back and share their bad experiences with others

- Students are not enthusiastic and roll their eyes when given instructions

- Postdocs act like little bosses toward students

- Everyone competes with each other

 
LAB-2:

- Students encourage and help each other

- Students are enthusiastic and grow their projects as their own “babies”

- Postdocs genuinely train students and help them succeed

- Everyone praises each other for their achievements



❗If the advisor from LAB-1 and LAB-2 switch:

Then the LAB-1 becomes highly productive and happy.
The LAB-2 falls apart.


What is the fundamental principle behind it?
Social reciprocity.

We often mimic our supervisors’ mindset.
This is a big factor in what labs look like.


This is why in certain groups you learn to blame yourself because your advisor blames you. Postdocs learn to be harsh with students. And, most importantly, enthusiasm is replaced by competition and insecurity.

People read signals from the superiors.
Unintentionally. Subconsciously.
It’s fundamental to humans.


📍 Be aware of this social reciprocity:

1. As an advisor, use it to your advantage. 
Be positive, enable opportunities and let students grow. The effect will TRIPLE when students reciprocate and spread the positivity around.

2. If you’re a student / postdoc in a bad lab:
Stay consciously aware of the reciprocity. Don’t let your mind mirror your advisor’s mindset. If possible, help others stay on the bright side - they may reciprocate your actions and become your friends. Even when everyone is competing in a lab, subconsciously they don’t want it and look for ways to escape.


___

📍 If you're looking for a PhD advisor & mentor, I recorded this podcast episode specifically for you (tips, tricks and explanations):

https://lnkd.in/enRzxePG

___

Below is a private story from a PhD student (shared with consent):

"I am a second year PhD student in the quantum/nanophysics sciences with a junior professor. I am his first PhD student.

The first warning sign was a month into my PhD. He said “I expect you to listen unconditionally to my words for a year…”, saying that I would become an amazing researcher. Hearing this made me uneasy.

The second warning sign was when I needed to pass courses. My PhD program requires it, and while I was studying for exams, he could say something like “Why are you studying during working hours? You’re here to do research. School related stuff should be done after working hours”.

Then, he started giving me tasks outside of the scope of my assigned project, saying that “he knows better” than the project head. The first semester ended with him shouting at me while drunk for 4 hours at midnight after a work party. Insults and threats were made toward my PhD position and also to me physically. Later, he apologized and promised to improve. A year later the improvement is marginal.

On top of this, he was unprofessional and reckless. He didn’t take lab safety seriously, acted recklessly with dangerous acids, done unauthorized things such as handled samples in projects he was not involved in. He created a stressful and unsafe work environment.
 
Any criticism from my side is either not taken seriously or is interpreted as a personal attack on him. So, I can’t help him change as a supervisor. The project head (a separate person) and the research team have not taken any meaningful action even though they’re aware of his actions and behavior.

As a result, I am sick and tired of my work. At this point, I have zero interest in my PhD. The quality of my work does not concern me anymore. I don’t care if I publish because it’s so stressful.

I don’t want to leave academia because pursuing a PhD has been something I wanted to do. But not like this. I am not willing to work anymore under a person like this or in an environment that does not care for the general well-being of their employees or students."


📍 A PhD offer ≠ great PhD experience.

Students, please - develop your own vision for a PhD!

And look for the lab that fits that vision!

Do you want a close guidance or do you want independence? Do you want to work on collaborative projects or on your own? What does this project mean to your supervisor? Etc, etc.

Don't assume PhD is all about technical skills. It's not!

Don’t join labs blindly.


❗️ In my recent lecture, I discuss exactly this.

“PhD: Dreams, Reality and Consequences”

If you missed it, watch it on here: 
https://lnkd.in/dA_GhYwd

_____

Non-trivial ways to use AI in your application for a PhD (or postdoc) that I suggest as an advisor (PI):

(I’m going to use GPT as an example)


1. Search for the best-fitting labs

Prompt: Your research interests (3-4 sentences per interest, 3-4 interests in total) and CV.

Ask AI to:
- screen for the most suitable labs across a given department. 
- return a list of 20 labs with website links
- explain why they may be a good fit

WHY: You may find amazing labs that you’ve never heard of.


2. Dig into the professor’s work

Prompt: Analysis of the lab.

Ask AI to:
- analyze the lab’s publications in the past 5-7 years
- explain their topics, methodologies and future vision

WHY: Often, you don’t have enough expertise to assess the depth of research. This way, you can educate yourself about their topics and see if they truly fit your interests.


3. Tailor your cover letter (or personal statement)

Prompt: Your research interests, why you’re into these topics, and your CV.

Ask AI to:
- write a 4,000-character text that bridges your interests, your past experience (CV) and the professor’s research.

Then cut it down to 2000-3000 characters YOURSELF, without AI. 
Also - you must ensure the resulting text is based on your real CV and interests.

WHY: Tailoring your application takes hours. And you don’t even know if there’s an opening in the lab! Getting in touch with more professors is better than with less (as long as your applications don’t lower in quality).


4. Prepare for the interview

Prompt: The lab of a professor and your CV.

Ask AI to:
- screen their publications and website.
- help you dive deeply into these topics
- ask you interview questions based on your CV
- ask questions that bridge your CV and the lab
- help you come up with answers for the questions you don’t know what to say.


📍 Together with Prof. Darren Lipomi, we discuss a hypothetical use of GPT for preparation of PhD applications. Check it out!

Link is in the comment below.

____

High-impact papers are crucial in academia. 
Like it or not.


PhD students quickly learn that such papers are cool. They make advisors happy. Everyone admires you.

During a postdoc, high-IF papers are not just cool. They are mandatory for a PI job. They give you awards and interviews.

During the tenure track, they often become your ticket to a permanent position. Many young PIs are fighting to get their papers published in Nature/Science/Cell. It’s like getting a micro-Nobel prize. Many feel relaxed only when they publish in Nature (their tenure is finally safe!).


But:

Because such papers require a lot of time (often years), you live in constant uncertainty.

You HOPE you will get it. You spend evenings at work, you look for stronger results, and you’re battling through a battalion of failed experiments.

Then you submit it…

Then:

Stage 1. Editors reject 9/10 papers. Yours might be among them.

Stage 2. The paper goes to reviewers but they are brutal. For some reason (and you know why!) they just don’t want to see your paper in Nature. Many papers get rejected in the first round.

Stage 3. If reviewers can’t come up with reasons to kick you out immediately, they will request a lot of new experiments and changes to your work. Obviously, that will take months (if not years). Of course, some reviewers are great and genuinely help improve your work. But they are not as common as you might hope.

Stage 4. After addressing all problems and submitting it again, you will likely see some reviewers still resisting. They can simply reject your paper because they didn’t like how you addressed their requests. Or they will find new flaws and will get you to do another round of revision. (If you’re lucky, they will accept the paper.)

Stage 5. If reviewers are divided between “accept” and “reject”, the editors may send your paper to additional reviewers. That will start another cycle of hell with a likely negative outcome.

Stage 6. If you are rejected, congratulations - you’ve just wasted months on nothing. But because you need that paper, you resubmit it to another high-IF journal, and it all starts with Stage 1.


So, it’s like gambling.

You gamble your career on such publications.

During those 6–24 months of fighting with reviewers and editors, someone else may publish the same work. Then you’re screwed.

Or your paper is likely not accepted in any high-IF journal. After loosing a year or more on trying to push it through, you will have to publish it in a low-IF journal.


Is it a healthy game?

No. You get exhausted. Anxiety skyrockets.

But unfortunately that’s how academia works. I’ve been through this myself. Most of my colleagues have the same experience. We definitely despise it.

And the worst part of it? 
We’ve started to see it as completely normal.

Describing your results as absolutely groundbreaking is a well-known way to publish in Nature journals.

We all know it.

And we know why it’s important. Because Nature papers open doors - to funding, to faculty positions, to fellowships, visibility and other perks of academia.

When I was a PhD/postdoc, getting a paper in Nature/Science was key to a further career in academia, especially in the US. The majority of students and postdocs were doing their best to accomplish this Mission Impossible.

As a result, there were plenty of “misfires”.

I saw groups retracting their studies due to wrong results (fabricated data) and wrong interpretations.

I also saw papers that shouldn’t have been published but remained online. Perhaps, because no one had enough courage to challenge them openly.

In any case, the lure of Nature is extraordinary. Especially for early-career researchers and those aiming to expand their groups.


Now, C&EN says that the Nature paper in materials science published by the Berkeley teams “got corrected”.

Why? Because it was heavily criticized by Robert Palgrave, Leslie Schoop and their colleagues who work in the solid-state chemistry and couldn’t accept the premise of that work.

The paper claimed “an accelerated synthesis of novel materials”. It was all fine except one issue - there seemed to be no truly new materials discovered.

Research was not flawed. But the message was overstated.

“This paper generated a lot of press, a lot of interest, and a lot of citations,” she says. “But in the end, the advancement that it did for humanity is very incremental.” - Leslie Schoop (professor at Princeton Univ.)

“If you have a known material and you dope a little bit of a different element into one side, basically you make a solid solution. Or [if] you alloy the material, of course you might have made a material with a composition that has never been made,” Schoop says. “But do we care?”

(No comments were given by the PI of the study, which is actually very sad.)


❗️ My point is:

We do a lot of great science. But we often get into the mood of “let’s push it into Nature”, which pushes us into looking at the study from the wrong angle.

As a result, we can easily miss the right angle. Almost every study has something great in it. But many researchers mis-focus their narrative.

That study from Berkeley initially focused on discovering new materials via autonomous lab + ML. I work in this field - I can see the massive shift in mindset that such work can bring. But… sugarcoating it with “novel” and “discovery” would make many scientists skeptical.


Please, don’t sugarcoat your study for Nature.
Don’t rush. Be thorough. 
It’s better to be accurate and true in a ‘regular’ journal.


p.s. I know it can cut down career opportunities for your group members. And, honestly, I don’t know what to do. We need a collective shift in mindset.

Index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index, index.

h-index = Largest number of papers with ≥ h citations each.

g-index = when the top g papers have at least g^2 citations in total.

i10-index = number of papers with at least 10 citations each.

A-index = total citations of h-core papers div. by h.

R-index = sq. root of total citations in the h-core

e-index = sq. root [(total citations in h-core) - h^2]

hw-index = sq. root of total citations of a selected weighted subset of top papers


Kardashian index = Ratio of a scientist’s followers to the number expected from their citation count (social-media prominence relative to scholarly impact).



📍 Metric addiction is a real issue.

Scientists compulsively check their indexes and citations. Some choose collaborators based on “added visibility value”. Others break a study into three papers because “the number of papers should be high”.

Our obsession with metrics is being passed on to the next generation. Many PhD students and postdocs now see metrics as their goal. They barely started doing science and are already looking forward to a high h-index!

The fear of missing out and not publishing another paper is very real for them.


❗️Let’s not forget:

1. Groundbreaking discoveries were mostly made by young scientists who had very small “indexes”.

2. Deep science takes time, and each paper requires that time.

3. Science without responsibility = burning taxpayer money.


Less papers = better science.

Yes, this “Fewer Papers Strategy” contradicts the h-index game.

But it’s actually the best way to stand out amid the flood of fast-track publications today.

Spend more time on each study. Dive deep.

Publish only when it’s truly ready to soar.

__