Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Comparing the experiences of students at Menzies Institute, PhD student Fan Li reflects on the importance of publications across disciplines, but argues that these should not detract from the benefits of PhD training.
Many PhD students are enthusiastic about robust scientific practices, but afraid that ‘doing good science’ will jeopardize their chances on the job market, argues Felix Schönbrodt, Managing Director of the LMU Open Science Center. Aligning incentives and preparing students for a job market that values contributions to Open Science will be key.
Setting publication targets for students is corrosive for scientific culture and instils the wrong values in PhD students, argues Nick Yeung. A culture shift in PhD student evaluation criteria is needed, away from publications as the key proxy for student success.
Each route to graduation is an individual journey. Friedrich M. Götz, a PhD student in Psychology, argues that there are no ready-made recipes or silver bullets for success. While publications are important, the stress of producing them should not overshadow the joys of the journey.
Deepshikha Chatterjee, an Assistant Professor in Organisational Psychology, argues that noncitizen scientists in the US are structurally disadvantaged in a system that offers them fewer opportunities in training but later measures them against their citizen peers as if both groups had started on a level playing field.
The pressure to outperform others can gradually lead PhD students to believe their academic achievements define who they are, argues PhD student Toby Bartle; he calls on his peers to focus on learning—not achievement—and never lose track of their identities.
Graduate students suffer from publication fever, the all-encompassing feeling that they need to publish at all costs, argues Michel Landgrave. This single-minded focus puts them at risk of exploitation and increases hostility among peers. But great mentorship offers a way out.
The pressure to publish during PhD training is only the beginning of a career in an environment that places intractable expectations on academics, argues Jennifer Lavers, a Lecturer in Marine Science; unrealistic demands to excel in publications, grants and outreach lead even outwardly successful academics to question their career choices.
A culture of publication-worship unwittingly incentivizes questionable scientific practices and gluts the economy of scientific papers, argues Ava Kiai. To protect trust in science, we must focus on methodological rigour, rather than publishability.
Despite advances in the understanding of gender identity, healthcare delivery to transgender or non-binary individuals remains woefully lacking. Joshua Safer discusses how improvements in education of healthcare providers, advancements in electronic medical record systems and efforts to address economic barriers are all integral to the provision of optimal care for transgender individuals.
Despite existing civil rights laws, legal protection for transgender people against discrimination in the USA is inconsistent. Catherine Lhamon discusses the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ findings on how the transgender community is subject to unlawful discrimination in schools, workplaces, healthcare and the military.
Policy measures introduced in the UK to tackle female genital mutilation have led to the first successful prosecution and conviction, but at the cost of criminalisation of affected communities. Without better engagement of communities, argues Naana Otoo-Oyortey, we will fail to safeguard the mental and physical health of girls who are at risk of female genital mutilation.
The term ‘women of colour’ was introduced as a symbol of political solidarity, but its evolution to a biological term encompassing all non-white women has resulted in aggregation of data from diverse ethnic groups. Breaking out statistics by race, ethnicity and gender is therefore crucial for researchers who are committed to inclusion, argues Rhonda V. Sharpe.
Brazil has a long history of important scientific discoveries that have contributed to the overall wealth and well-being of the country. Paulo Boggio argues that these can only be sustained if the government stops cutting the research and education budget and starts investing in human intellect and science.
Populist politicians—a diverse bunch that include business tycoons, academics and even comedians—are winning elections in Europe and beyond. Jan Zielonka discusses the reasons underlying the rise of populism and how liberals must appeal to the younger generation and regain voters’ trust.
Open educational resources enable the effective use and sharing of knowledge with those who have been denied an education due to economic or social circumstances. Sarita Kumar outlines how open educational resources can benefit education systems across the Global South by opening up an entire generation to new ideas, technologies and advancements.
There has been a divide between scientists making recommendations for sustainable natural resource development and the community living around those resources. Masami Nakagawa argues that the community should be considered first, as the successful development of sustainable natural resources requires their cooperation and trust.
Communications technology, such as messaging services and social media, can be used to prevent the dissemination of independent information, and misinformation can be used to spread hatred and incite violence. However, argues John Green Otunga, it is possible to harness the power of information and communications technology to help prevent conflict.
Despite opprobrium from the scientific community, the creation of the first CRISPR babies by germline genome editing has led to a debate more about execution than intent. We need public education, engagement and empowerment to reach ‘broad societal consensus’ on whether, not how, to pursue heritable genome editing, argues Françoise Baylis.