Abstract
This chapter debunks the publication process, alongside exploring parts of research that may add additional stress, from struggling with perfectionism to being exposed to research misconduct.
(Trigger Warnings: bullying)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I know I found this particularly difficult, as I constantly worried that if I didn’t “keep up” then future me would be somehow hamstringed when trying to get future positions. I now realise that focusing on future me without giving any care for current me is not sustainable.
- 2.
I remember a scientific talk I went to where the professor presenting was asked how they did it all, as they had an established research career as well as six children. Not once did they mention their wife working as a full-time mother, despite this being the case, enabling them to do their research.
- 3.
I personally do not see these as “soft skills” at all, but essential skills needed for true people leaders.
- 4.
I found knowing where to stop running experiments very difficult as there is always more work to be done, and more detailed conclusions to be made with more data. But at some point you have to draw the line.
- 5.
Work by Bik is based largely on image forensics, detecting when an image has been manipulated, so this means that there is likely a whole host of other data manipulation out there where edits have been made to raw data sets that may never be uncovered.
References
Jones A, Kemp A (2016) Why is so much research dodgy? Blame the Research Excellence Framework. The Guardian
Cech EA (2022) The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM. Sci Adv 8(24):eabo1558
Institute of Physics (2018) Diversity and inclusion in peer review at IOP publishing. IOP, London, UK
Watling C, Ginsburg S, Lingard L (2021) Don’t be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments. Perspect Med Educ 10(5):299–303
Dunleavy P (2003) Authoring a PhD: how to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. Bloomsbury, London
Jenn NC (2006) Common ethical issues in research and publication. Malays Fam Phys 1(2-3):74–76
Wager E (2012) The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): objectives and achievements 1997–2012. La Presse Medicale 41(9):861–866
Shen H (2020) Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers. Nature 581(7807):132–136
Marcovitch H (2007) Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gac Sanit 21(6):492–499
Wager E (2011) Coping with scientific misconduct. BMJ 343:d6586
Vie KJ (2020) How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing. Life Sci Soc Policy 16(6)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ayres, Z.J. (2022). Publish or Perish: On the Myth of Meritocracy. In: Managing your Mental Health during your PhD. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14193-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14194-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)