Publish (by the rules) or Perish!

Planning to write a research paper? Make sure you read the journal rules first!

So says Margaret Cargill, whose workshop on ‘Publishing your research’ I attended in November as part of the Society for Experimental Biology’s career masterclass series. Even before you start writing you need to consider which journal you plan to target. This will determine the structure and style of the paper, it will influence the way in which your data are presented, and even the format of your references. So, to avoid a lot of re-working of your paper, or instant rejection by the editor, you can save time and avoid disappointment by paying attention to the aims and scope of the journal, as well as adhering closely to the author guidelines. Choosing a journal may depend on a number of factors, including the importance of your paper’s contribution to the field, the journal’s impact factor and scope. If you aim too high you could be rejected, which will delay publication, so make sure you target your paper well. Reading the ‘Instructions to Authors’ guidelines, usually readily available on the journal website, is highly recommended!

Margaret’s workshop, in which we deconstructed and analysed a variety of journal papers, was a real eye-opener. Did you know there are four main journal structures? See the Figure opposite. Take a look at journals where you’re considering submitting a paper and see which structure they adhere to.

Ø  AIMRaD – the one most commonly used in bioscience journal papers. The paper starts with an Abstract, followed by Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The width of the each section indicates where you should focus on the breadth of the field and where you should focus on specifics. For example, the Introduction should start with a broad review of the current knowledge of this research field, focussing down towards the end to introduce the aim of your study and the significance of its contribution to the field.
Ø  AIRDaM – this is more commonly used in molecular and chemistry journals.
Ø  AIM[RaD]xC – with a combined Results and Discussion section.
Ø  AIBC – commonly used in mathematical/theoretical journals. The paper starts with the Abstract and Introduction followed by the Body of the paper containing subheadings you choose based on the content of the paper and a Conclusion section at the end. 
Another excellent piece of advice for preparing your paper for publication is to consider the journal referee review form. How will they assess its suitability for publication? For example:
Ø  Is the contribution new?
Ø  Is it significant?
Ø  Do the results support the conclusions drawn?
Ø  Is the paper too lengthy?
Ø  Are all the tables and figures necessary?
Ø  Are the references up to date?
Not all editors and reviewers will read a paper from start to finish in the first instance. They are more likely to skim read it to start with until they decide it is worth a closer look. Margaret presented the results of a recent survey which showed that only 50% of journal editors read the Methods section ‘in place’, with 21% reading it earlier and 29% reading it later. Therefore, this section must be understandable in its own right, without the presumption that the Introduction has already been read. There should be clear links between sections to cater for readers reading in many different orders.
Further Information
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to impart all the invaluable insights and advice Margaret provided during her one-day workshop. This included further detail on effective ways to write each of the sections of the paper, how to write a covering letter, nominating referees, how to deal with reviewers comments and to respond to the editor’s decision letter. However, if you scroll down to ‘Further Reading – Communication’ on my Career Resources website you will find book references to help you find out more, as well as a link to Margaret’s website.
Good luck with your writing and, remember, nothing can beat experience. Read published papers and pay careful attention to the way they’ve been written. Find a good mentor (maybe your supervisor or a more experienced colleague) to help you to learn and hone your academic writing skills in this quite unique and critical area of your research experience.

Blogging: the long and the short of it

The following article first appeared in Funding Insight on December 3, 2013 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this visit www.researchprofessional.com.

I’m always slightly incredulous when I run career workshops for researchers and discover that only 5 per cent of the participants are using social media. Having been around when email came into common use in the early 1990s, it would have been hard to find a single PhD student or postdoc, five years on, avoiding this new communication revolution in favour of posting letters and phoning.

Access to a global network of information, opinion and jobs relevant to a huge range of disciplines, personal interests and careers is just one of the reasons to sign up to social media. More significantly for researchers, I recently heard a professor say in a practice interview session that he wouldn’t consider researchers seriously if they weren’t on ResearchGate or a similar social network such as Mendeley. 

So you can see how potentially detrimental it could be to your career if you continue to avoid getting on with social media.Career-minded
The Society for Experimental Biology’s recent career master class series included a one-day workshop entitled Social media – communicating your way to a successful career. Well known for her social-media expertise, tutor Anne Osterrieder delivered a highly interactive and engaging workshop aimed at showing researchers the value of social media.
During her workshop, Anne described the wide variety of social-media platforms available, reassuring participants that they need not engage in everything, since this would be overwhelming and too time-consuming. Instead, she walked us through the social media ‘building blocks’, demonstrating which types might suit particular interests and purposes.
Tuned in
This is where I discovered social media sites for specific purposes such as Soundcloudfor audio, Vimeofor video and Imgurfor photos. The nature of your research will determine the social media that you choose to engage with. For example, does it generate lots of interesting images? Does the discipline lend itself well to public interest?
Equally, factors such as how confident you are to write about your research or express an opinion to a global audience, how often you will realistically be able to update your site, and whether you are looking to promote yourself to potential new employers will all (and more) determine how best to take part in social media to your advantage.
There are four things to take into consideration before you decide what to do.

 

· Breadth vs depth: Do you want to write about your discipline, your research area or a specific project?
· Focus: Will you present concepts or actual data?
· Access: Will you present published or unpublished research?
· Issues: Intellectual property, copyright, collaborative research, peer review.

Commit yourself
After the morning’s introductory session on the range of social media out there – while acknowledging that within a few years some of them may have disappeared, supplanted by as yet unimagined new ones – Anne moved on to blogging. This social medium has been around since the late 1990s and is usually a commentary on a particular topic by a single author, or sometimes multi-authored. Anne’s own blog, Plant Cell Biology, is a great example of a bright and informative site, and there are many more covering all sorts of topics from policy and careers to personal diaries.

Commitment is required if you decide to set up a blog. Questions to ask yourself include
· Do I have enough to say over a sustained period of time?
· Do I feel confident to talk about this subject?
· Do I have enough time to write 700-1,000 words every few weeks?
· Who is my audience?
However, if you don’t feel ready to devote the time and effort required, you may prefer to try your hand at micro-blogging.
Blog “light”
Micro-blogging will take up much less of your time and in many cases, you can be relatively passive and still benefit from an online presence. This is when I discovered that Tweeting could be considered to be ‘micro-blogging’. Anne believes Twitter is the best example of micro-blogging, allowing you to blog in just 140 characters, amplifying your message with links to other sites or images.
Tweeting also allows you to hear what others have to say on subjects that are of interest to you, as well as linking you to people with whom you would never normally be able to communicate. You can use Twitter and other people’s Facebook sites to make sure as many people as possible see your messages, especially if you have spent time writing a great blog.
Another micro-blog, LinkedIn,connects you with professionals and employers in readiness for your next career transition. These networks are highly diplomatic enabling you to access organisations and personalities that previously would have been outside of your sphere of influence.
Virtual you
As you engage with social media you will find yourself building an online identity. This needs to be consistent and portray you professionally. Whichever platform you are using, make sure that you have completed the majority of the ‘profile requirements’. For example, always use a picture of yourself which shows you at your best (especially on the professional LinkedIn site) and always add an informative profile— you can look around at others to get ideas.
Social media is a great way for you to communicate your way to a successful career. Just bear in mind Anne’s parting warning: Whatever you put on social media can be seen by your boss, your family and your competitors.
Anne Osterrieder is a research and science communication fellow at Oxford Brookes University and tweets on @AnneOsterrieder.

 

What’s the point of a postdoc?

Recent statistics supplied by the Royal Society (see Figure opposite) show that nearly 50% of PhD graduates in the UK choose to go down the postdoc career route, even if it is only for a few years, before opting to transfer into industry or other sectors (this figure is likely to be similar in most countries, but please correct me if you think I’m wrong about this). ‘Postdoc-ing’ in the short-term can be a great experience and really boost expertise and skills, not to mention providing lots of opportunities to travel and collaborate with interesting people. Those who continue further and secure fellowships followed by the much-coveted tenured position benefit from the opportunity to pursue a research topic they love, relative autonomy, as well as working in a stimulating environment.
 
However, recent career interviews and informal conversations I’ve had with long-serving postdoctoral researchers show another less positive side to the postdoctoral ‘coin’. Usually it is when a researcher is faced with the prospect of having to give up on a long hoped-for academic research career. This may be due to any number of reasons, but primarily it’s because they have not managed to secure independence and publish enough ‘quality’ research papers to compete for a tenured or group leadership post.  Words such as ‘failure’, ‘second-rate’ and  ‘wasted years’ come up frequently, accompanied by a sense of dejection and even depression. Many postdocs who come to see me for advice have been employed on temporary academic research contracts for eight years or more, and have become increasingly aware of their vulnerability and impending loss of income as funding starts to dry up. This is usually due to higher salaries associated with senior postdocs preventing progression, or the ability of a group leader to justify to funders continuing to employ someone at a higher grade. In this event, some postdocs opt to take a pay cut with a new contract so that they may remain on a project and extend their employment a few more years. The latter decision is usually influenced by personal circumstances, especially for those (usually women) with young families, who are willing to make the compromise to their career in favour of a stable location.
Those of you who work in a university or research institution may know older researchers in their department who are in such a position, or you may be one yourself. Far from trying to pigeonhole those in this position, and fully acknowledging each person’s individual circumstances, I would like to share some thoughts from my perspective as a careers professional, whose aim is to help and guide researchers in their career decisions.
First, I think it’s important that you are aware that only a tiny minority of science PhD graduates achieve a full professorship. This means that your supervisor and/or mentor are in a miniscule minority of people who have ‘made it’. Even those who achieved a permanent academic position represent less than 10% of those who initially embarked on a postdoctoral career path. This means that around 90% of postdocs eventually leave academia. I don’t need to tell you that this is pretty significant! The figures are worse than in the past – say, 30 years ago – when your supervisor may have been a young postdoc. However, it seems to me that this is not due to a decreased number of tenured academic posts, rather it’s a burgeoning postdoctoral community. You see, there was a time (before the 1990s) when science departments were full of technicians, who were the backbone of the institution, providing stability and continuity to research programmes. Over the years, these posts drastically diminished, whilst postdoctoral research posts increased almost as dramatically. The difference is, of course, that far from being funded relatively permanently and securely by the university, they are short-term and rely on external insecure ‘soft’ money. On top of this, the metrics of publishing impact (which, believe it or not, also did not exist before the 1990s) introduced huge pressures on academics to keep writing papers derived from quality data, notably produced from experiments conducted by postdocs and PhD students in their research group. Thus, the pressures are felt keenly by early career researchers who have their own careers to consider and who know they too will be measured by their publishing impact.
So, you can see that many research policies generally conspire against the majority of contract researchers ever achieving a permanent academic position. And even those who do make their way to the top of the academic tree find themselves with unending pressures to publish, secure funding, build and maintain an international reputation, teach, administrate, employ, manage and so on. So perhaps, on reflection, long-serving postdocs will see that the words ‘failure’, ‘second-rate’, ‘wasted years’ do not apply to them, and even the prospect of an ‘alternative career’ ought to be viewed more positively as a ‘new career’.  
Hopefully, knowledge of the statistics and realistic facts about the academic research career culture will also instil a level of confidence into those who feel a sense of failure or of letting others, and even themselves, down by leaving academia. You are certainly not alone amongst your peers! And there are other careers where this happens, e.g. the majority of sports professionals and military personnel will need to start a new career at around 40; lawyers and architects who don’t achieve a partnership in their firm will probably have to leave at a similar age. Although a daunting prospect, rather than looking at your exit in a negative light, it could be seen as a new beginning. You can consider a range of options depending on factors such as your skills, interests and personal situation. The sooner you take a proactive approach to your career the better equipped you’ll be to face this challenge. Many research staff associations have been set up in universities and research institutions to help support postdocs with their careers and even personal issues, as well as organising networking activities.
You may not feel very talented and valued inside your department, however everything is relative and on the ‘outside’ you will be seen by employers as a highly skilled, motivated and intelligent professional with much to offer a variety of sectors and organisations. A positive attitude coupled with the confidence to promote yourself relevantly and enthusiastically to new employers should help you to move on to a different career path, where you have new opportunities to realise a successful career and even to make it to the ‘top’!

 

 

 

 

Getting to Professor

In my book, Career planning for research bioscientists, I include twenty career stories, one of which is from a US professor. Here is the account of her career including some useful advice:  

IN THE PROFESSOR’S OWN WORDS
In my role as full professor, I have been privileged to be involved in cutting edge research, to have seen many of my research ideas tested and to have worked with many interesting and highly talented individuals. All of this has taken place within a stimulating, autonomous and open-minded working environment with the flexibility and freedom to be creative, to inspire (and be inspired by) young people, and to be challenged intellectually. After 25 years of running an active well-funded research lab, I am seeking new challenges in order to let the next generation of researchers come through. I can look back now and relate my experiences, which have brought me to this point in a career that I have thoroughly enjoyed and still love.
Background
I did my PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology in Michigan after which I went to Seattle to undertake a postdoctoral position for four and a half years. At the age of 32, I then secured an Assistant professorship at my current university in Minnesota. This is an unusually young age to get a faculty position, but that was in the late 80’s. Nowadays, late 30’s is a more normal age: most researchers do one long or two postdoctoral training fellowships before they are hired in as an Assistant professor. Assistant professors are not tenured, and it is during the next several years that they establish their credentials for tenure by securing significant research funding and publishing scholarly research articles. Then, at the end of the fourth/beginning of the fifth year they need to submit a dossier for review by several committees, the dean of their college, the President of the university, and ultimately the Board of Regents for the university. This review takes about a year. If their scholarship is deemed satisfactory, they get promoted to Associate professor with Tenure. If the scholarship is considered unsatisfactory, then the annual contract is terminated after one year, and the unsuccessful faculty member will have to leave the university and look for a post at another university or leave academia altogether. Even if one does secure the position, however, it takes between 6 – 10 years (or longer) to reach full professor. However, the success rate is quite high (95%) at most universities as those unlikely to make it often opt not to go through the promotion process.
A fundamental difference between being employed as an Assistant professor and Associate professor is, apart from other aspects, the teaching and mentoring load. As an Assistant professor, you are given practically no teaching duties during the first couple of years, leaving you free to pursue your research with vigour. This increases during the next two years as teaching credentials are one of the criteria for promotion. In contrast, an Associate professor may be given up to 25 hours per year, which is a heavy commitment considering they are also trying to develop their research career towards a full professorship. (I should add that this load is typical for faculty in a medical school, faculty in other colleges usually has a much heavier load).
For career advancement to full professor, one will also need to be considering important career factors such as gaining an international reputation, getting onto journal refereeing or editorial boards, as well as departmental commitments such as mentoring students, committee work and administration. For my part, I was on the Promotions and Tenure committee for the Medical School, serving as the chair for five years. I was also on the Faculty Senate and Medical School Curriculum boards, as well as national committees, e.g. grant review committees, so-called study sections. Administration and committee work is less appealing to me personally than research-related roles, but I learned a lot from my involvement in these services. As all faculty are required to provide ‘service’ to the university in addition to research and teaching, it is important to select committee work that is either of interest to you and/or that is of value to you. For example, I chose to serve extensively on grant review committees both locally and nationally because I found it interesting to read about the latest ideas and techniques, because it helped me keep my research program at the forefront of the field, and because it has a measurable and important outcome. Learn to say yes only if you think the activity will be useful to you or is of personal interest, otherwise you will be quickly swamped with too much work (and no motivation to do much of it).
The Career Factors
You have to be strategic if you are planning on an academic career. You need to choose an area of research which interests you but is also receiving plenty of government funding. In this way, you will be publishing regularly and will have the opportunity to move around easily to work in other labs – mobility is very important at the early stages of your career. Moreover, other aspects are important such as setting up your laboratory. For my first tenured post, I moved into a pre-existing lab with plenty of equipment and so only had to order a small amount of additional items to start getting my experiments up and running. However, if you are faced with a completely empty room with an equipment fund of only $800,000 you are going to have to start applying for grants in the first couple of years, especially if you want personnel such as a technician. You can make use of graduate students to help with your research, but you will need to start eyeing up the ‘big money’ if you are going to make progress in your research. You can gain experience with writing grants while you are still a postdoctoral fellow by writing for fellowships – developing this skill early on in your career is vital. Even once you have started to employ students/researchers, you are still the most trained person in the lab so you may need to spend time at the bench for much of the first five years. Another consideration is the selection of a mentor to provide guidance to you. Too often, it is tempting to go it alone, thinking you know what is needed; however, the advice of someone intimately familiar with the politics and the writing of grants is invaluable.
In the beginning, you will likely employ the services of a doctoral student and one to two undergraduate students (e.g. work study students). This is realistically the most you can supervise and still do research yourself. Then, by your third year you will start to bring in a postdoctoral researcher so you will have four people in the group. After this, it is advisable to hire slowly – one person per year so that you can reasonably manage the group’s growth. Different labs have different management styles according to those who are leading them. I had never managed anyone when I started up my own lab – I was good at having ideas, doing experiments and making presentations. Even hiring good people is difficult when you have no experience. Again, a mentor can be valuable in making these decisions and selections.
Once you are established you can relax (a little) and concentrate on doing more peripheral activities whilst managing your lab, such as focusing on teaching and mentoring activities. At a university, teaching is a primary mission and your reputation is also dependent on how well you teach. Of course, if you want to make policy decisions and guide the growth of a department or college or do editorial or national committee service, then you can also divert time into those activities after reaching the associate and/or full professor levels.

How satisfied are doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers?

Two surveys were published in the UK last week reporting on the research experiences of PhD students (PRES) and research staff (CROS). You can read the publications on line, but I thought I’d highlight a few key findings here which may be of interest.

PhD student experience
The PhD student survey showed that the overall rate of satisfaction is generally high, with supervision and research skills development topping the bill at 84% and 85% satisfaction. On the other hand, the research culture, progress and assessment and professional development fared worse at 64%, 78% and 76%, respectively. The research culture figures were brought down mainly by the lack of opportunities for students to discuss their work with others as well as the general research ambience of the department. Having said that, the vast majority of students said their supervisor had the skills and knowledge to support their research and provided useful feedback.
In terms of personal and professional career development, the results were not as favourable, with less than 30% of bioscience PhD students saying they received advice and information on career options. Considering almost 50% of science postgraduates are likely to leave academia when they graduate – see Royal Society (2010) The Scientific Century- securing our future prosperity, I see this as a serious concern and may be one reason why some PhD students decide to undertake a postdoctoral post; with little knowledge of ‘alternative careers’ they are more likely to choose a career more familiar to them. You may or may not agree with this!
Postdoctoral researcher experience
Moving on to the research staff (postdoctoral researcher) survey (CROS), the lines of enquiry were different and sought to find out more about opportunities for researchers to get involved in activities such as collaboration, knowledge exchange, supervision, teaching and mentoring. The responses showed that over 65% of researchers have had experience of collaborating with colleagues outside of the UK and with external organisations. However, only around 50% had experience of mentoring, teaching or writing a funding proposal – although a more recent survey (data to be published Oct/Nov 2013) shows that research publications still tend to override many of these research-related activities in the biosciences. The most startling figures in the survey related to the perceptions of fairness in the treatment of contract research staff compared with other types of staff, with around 50% of both males and females believing they were not treated fairly. This figure rose to 64% when the same question was posed to researchers who had been on five or more contracts.
With regard to the career ambitions of researchers the survey reported a clear disparity between the aspirations vs realistic expectations of researchers. Although three quarters would like to have a research and/or teaching career in academia, only two-thirds believed this was likely to happen in reality. In fact, this part of the survey was reported in the Times Higher Education Supplement, THES (12/09/2013) including perspectives from a professional careers advisory body, which said that this lack of opportunities is true of other intellectually stimulating professions.
So what does this say about the PhD student and postdoctoral researcher experience? What’s your experience? Do these results mirror the situation in your institution or your country, or do you think your circumstances are more/less favourable? Maybe they are in some ways, but not in others?
What is clear is that there is a lack of engagement with careers support at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels, either out of choice or because such support does not exist. If you have any comments to make on any points made in this blog or from the two surveys, or would like to get in touch to find out how to get careers support for yourself please get in touch.

 

 

 

 

Getting noticed – when and how to use personal profiles in CVs

With increasing numbers of applicants (sometimes up to 100 or more) per job advertisement nowadays, even for academic positions, how do you ensure that your CV gets you noticed and selected for interview? Obviously you need to have the majority of requisite experience, skills and qualifications required for the job but, with many employers having only a few seconds to skim-read applications, how can you make sure they notice all the relevant content in your CV at a glance?

This is where the personal profile can help you out. Rather than relying on the employer finding all the really relevant information spread out around your CV in various sections, by highlighting 3 – 4 key pieces of information right at the top of the CV on page 1, you will ensure s/he sees them immediately, on first glance. The idea is that this will prompt them to read on.
If used, the personal profile (sometimes known as ‘Career objective’ or ‘Personal statement’) must be relevant, targeted and meaningful! During the selection process, when there are a large number of applicants, more than likely, the employer will be scanning for keywords and phrases which match their job requirements. For an academic job it will be evidence of academic-related experience such as disciplinary expertise, journal publications, awards, teaching, growing research independence, etc. For a job in industry it may be particular technical knowledge and abilities, or interpersonal skills such as team working and communication. The personal profile must contain evidence of these ‘essential’ requirements otherwise it won’t be effective. Saying something like, “Experienced, reliable postdoctoral researcher in the field of human nutrition seeking to secure an academic post within a highly respected university. Good publication record, supervision and teaching experience” or “Experienced, reliable postdoctoral researcher in the field of human nutrition seeking to move into industry. Brings a wealth of technical expertise as well as being a good communicator and team player” are both too wishy washy and unsubstantiated. What is required for an effective personal profile are short targeted quantitative statements so that they stand up in their own right. For example, imagine a researcher applying for the following post:

Lecturer in Nutrition/Nutritional Biochemistry, University of Reading
Key requirements: To develop an independent research group in an area of Nutrition or Nutritional Biochemistry/Metabolism that complements our existing research strengths; To seek funding from to support research activities; To develop research links with other researchers.
Expertise in an area of nutrition or related area aligned to our current research activities; Proven and continuing ability to publish in leading scientific journals; Excellent presentation and communication skills as required for teaching; Excellent research skills.
The personal profile should highlight these key requirements as far as possible. For example:
Personal profile
Postdoctoral researcher with 8 years’ experience in the field of human nutrition, rapidly gaining an independent research profile in nutrient-gene interactions related to food security. Key capabilities and achievements:
Ø  Excellent and consistent publication record, with six peer reviewed primary papers and one review article published in previous five years.
Ø  Proactive collaborator with internal research groups in the fields of Food Security and Plant nutrient signalling, also externally as part of a major European Framework project: NUTRAID.
Ø  Teaching and supervision of Master’s and undergraduate students; 1st year module (taught over 8 weeks), including involvement in assessment and exam setting.
Ø  Presentation of research at international meetings (2 invited); session organiser at the Nutrition Society Congress 2012; responsibility for the departmental monthly seminar series.

As you can see, the profile reflects the key requirements set out in the job specification and provides compelling evidence of an ideal candidate to be selected for interview. More supporting information will be in the body of the CV and may also be repeated in the covering letter. You may or may not agree with the details of the content of this example profile, but it shows the kind of informative statements which ought to exist in a personal profile if it is to take up valuable space at the top of your CV.

Personal profiles are not compulsory – you need to decide when it’s appropriate to use them. If attending a careers fair where it may not be possible to attach a covering letter to your CV, the personal profile will serve to introduce employers to your key attributes. At less senior levels where competition for positions is not so fierce, a covering letter may suffice to bring the employer’s attention to your CV and its contents.
For examples of CVs including those with and without personal profiles go to: http://biosciencecareers.org/p/cvs.html

So you want to get into Pharma ?

It’s always useful to hear personal stories from people who have left research to work in other career sectors. John is employed as the Scientific Team Leader in Drug Metabolism and Phamacokinetics (DMPK) at a Global Contract Research Organisation:

Job Description
Contract research organisations (CROs) conduct research work outsourced by pharmaceutical and medical companies. This includes screening, non-clinical testing, toxicology studies, safety pharmacology and metabolism, right through to clinical studies in man with supporting regulatory affairs and final approval.
As the scientific team leader, I work in a ‘matrix environment’. That is, we operate in pools of expertise from which we source people internally who will fulfil roles along the drug pipeline. Amongst other roles, I act as the Project Manager on early development Metabolism and Clinical studies, and lead the matrix pool of other Study Directors within the company. For my own DMPK study group, I design and manage the non-clinical and clinical studies associated with the metabolism aspects of the drug development pipeline. I will meet with the client to agree the work required, after which the study is designed including an outline budget and time-frame. The Study Director then drafts the protocol which is carried through by the operational staff (usually graduate bioscientists). We trace the radio-labelled form of the compound of interest (e.g. potential anti-HIV, anti-cancer, diabetes drugs, etc.) in animal and human subjects, following its fate. Excreta samples are analysed to determine routes and rates of excretion, as well as blood and plasma samples for pharmacokinetic studies. The structural identities of metabolites are elucidated through metabolite profiling including mass spectrometry.
As well as running my own research study group, my role is focussed on business development with my primary responsibility being to look after our clients (new, old, current, lapsed, etc.). I need to generate new business and identify new clients primarily in Europe but also further afield in the US and Japan. This involves visiting and hosting clients, liaising with heads of department and commercial groups. In addition, we organise scientific symposia and make presentations at conferences, and are at the forefront of driving new regulatory guidance for the work we conduct.
Background
Following my PhD in Cell Biology I progressed to a three-year postdoctoral position at the same university looking at the effect of statins on cholesterol homeostasis which led me into the field of drug metabolism. However, looking ahead I could see that the metabolism department was moving in a different direction so that within 5 – 8 years I would need to move on. Therefore, I decided it would be better to move sooner rather than later so that I could secure more stable employment early in my career. I was not relishing the prospect of having to move on every three years in academia and I knew that tenured positions were few and far between. I applied for quite a lot of jobs in the first instance. Big pharma was booming at this time, but I was more interested in working for a CRO as I considered them to be more flexible and adaptable to changes.
I was offered my first job in a large CRO where I worked as a senior scientist for 5 years. During the last 18 months of this job I learned the responsibilities of a Study Director which enabled me to apply for a Senior Study Director post at a small CRO, where I ended up as Head of the Laboratory and Study Director Group. From there I moved into my current employment within a large global company which, although a lower position than my previous one, I considered it would place me in a more secure position. I have since moved through grades at my current company and now head the Study Director group responsible for all in vivo pre-clinical and clinical Metabolism studies.
Advice to researchers considering a career in industry
Match up your personal preferences
My decision to move into industry was not easy at the beginning. I knew that the working environment would be very different to that of a university; I would be more accountable and be working in a bigger group, I would probably have to start at a lower level and would not know anyone. However, my desire for stability and a more secure employment structure prompted me to move out of academia after my first postdoc, as I envisaged this would probably be inevitable in the long-run anyway.
Skills and attitude
The interview process for getting into industry is quite different than for postdoctoral posts so you need to be well prepared. Don’t be concerned about ‘commercial awareness’ as employers will be more interested in your laboratory and personal skills. Every pharma company operates Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) adhering to legal codes of practice. Therefore you will need to demonstrate accurate recording of data and excellent chain of custody practices (the chronological documentation of information). In addition, your ability to work in a team and to be flexible will be tested. Most pharma and other large companies operate a ‘targeted selection’ process which means they will be looking for your ability to apply your skills and knowledge into particular situations. They don’t want people who are rigid and wedded to one specific aspect of research. They need senior scientists who have a positive can-do attitude who can adapt and have the potential for leadership. Interview questions will test applicants’ initiative and positive outlook.

This blog was extracted from ‘Career planning for Research Bioscientists’ – for more career stories see Career Narratives (Appendix 1 of the book).
To look for job advertisements use my career resources page

 

Strike your PhD from your CV?

A recent discussion on the LinkedIn group, PhD Careers Outside of Academia asked this question:

“I recently completed a PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology. I’ve been looking for a job in industry for a few months. I’m using every resource I can find – friends and acquaintances, LinkedIn, staffing agencies, Monster, company websites. I’ve had very few calls and no interviews for research positions whatsoever – only interviews in high turnover positions, like sales. Often I find a position that doesn’t ask for a PhD, but sounds like it would be a really good fit for me (and vice versa). From speaking to a few people, it seems like, other than assuming I may be expecting a higher salary, employers don’t want to consider someone who is “over qualified” (or over educated) because they fear the job seeker is just taking a stop-gap position and won’t take the position seriously, quitting the moment something better comes along. Is it reasonable to account for this by removing my PhD from my resume ….? All of my references are from my PhD program, so if granted an interview, I would probably have to disclose to the interviewer that I have a PhD – otherwise they will probably learn as much from my references. Any advice / suggestions / anecdotes are welcome!!”
Amongst the many responses was some very sound advice, some of which I’ve summarised annonymously below (but you can see the whole discussion by joining the LinkedIn group).
“There was a significant discussion on this a year or so ago. In North America, concealing your PhD is a big no-no. When recruiting for a high level position over there, every aspect of you record can be checked and absolute honesty is expected from current and prospective employees of any reputable organisation. The likelihood is you will be found out if there’s any hint of anything that doesn’t add up…… To sum up, don’t try it and instead focus on your skills that are applicable to the job you are chasing. You could place your qualifications on the second page of your two page CV or resume to downplay it, but don’t even think of trying to remove it. If someone looks for you on the internet, there’s a good chance you’ll be found.”
 “it’s almost always easier to land a job if you have a technical/research-related gig going already. So, for instance, if you’re looking to get into a career path in industry, you might consider landing a postdoc research job first. Of course, you might get a great job before finishing your PhD.”
“It’s not enough just to say you have a PhD – make sure your resume and cover letter explain why your PhD will help you do that job better.”
“I will make just two short suggestions: first, as recommended earlier, make your CV a “functional” CV. Highlight what you can do for your employer. Skills rather than education. Second, along the same lines, perhaps you can de-emphasize your PhD. Keep it on the CV, but not front and center as with an academic CV.”
“The cover letter is a powerful instrument to not only introduce yourself in a more compelling way then your resume allows, but also to layout specific information regarding your professional expectations for a position. It is a great place to discuss why you are a great fit for a position regardless of whether or not a PhD is required. … Don’t pigeonhole your skill set to the bench. Communication, teamwork, teaching and mentoring, management, problem solving, and critical thinking are all highly-desirable skills that can be applied broadly in any position. Demonstrating that you can leverage these skills at and beyond the bench shows that you can contribute more than just your scientific prowess to an organization. … Consider getting some help from either a headhunter and/or a professional CV or resume writer. Depending on where you are looking, there may be up to a hundred (sometimes more!) applicants for a single position.”
“One thing I took from asking about how I was selected for an interview was that both my cover letter and CV directly spoke to my relevant experience and specifically answered the question of why I wanted THIS job. Put the most important things you have done first. Highlight the parts of your experience that have been the most rewarding and explain why this makes you a good candidate in the cover letter. Whether you are overqualified or under-qualified, it comes down to making HR see that you are unique and providing them with a valid reason to bring you in.”
Ironically, amidst this discussion a report was published in the UK by Vitae which compared the employment statistics of PhD graduates with masters and degree graduates. The findings show that PhD graduates had the best rates and levels of employment over those with other academic qualifications concluding that a PhD is a definite asset in these times of recession. See the full report here: http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/What-do-researchers-do-Early-career-progression-2013.pdf
Finally, I think this piece of advice from one of the contributors of the LinkedIn discussion sums things up very well:
“I don’t think omitting “PhD” from our resumes is the answer – maybe de-emphasizing it by putting relevant skills and work experience at the top, with a section called “Education and Research Experience” at the bottom with PhD under that. But in the end, we all want positions that require (or at least  prefer) a PhD, because if not, it really de-values the PhD and the countless hours of challenging work we put into it.”

Interviews: When coming 2nd is no consolation

Unlike some competitions where prizes are handed out for coming 2nd or 3rd, or in particular sports such as professional golf and tennis, where even 20thplace reaps some monetary rewards, job interviews are not so forgiving. In most cases, if you don’t come first, there is little reward other than knowing that you made the ‘final cut’. If anything, being ‘pipped at the post’ is more frustrating than coming further down the field. This has been born out recently with a postdoctoral researcher whom I’ve been coaching. Applying for tenured positions, she has succeeded in being short-listed for interview from as many as 65 – 80 initial applicants. However, as yet she still hasn’t managed to achieve first place at interview. Feedback from the interview panel has been extremely positive, encouraging her to press on as she has the potential to succeed, only that she was not the most convincing candidate on the day.

Perhaps this chimes with other researchers reading this blog, who may have found themselves in a similar position. So what can you do about it? Well, first of all you need to remain confident and positive. Your CV/resume is obviously doing its job by getting you to interview. You are clearly demonstrating ‘on paper’ that you have the expertise required in the job specification. What you need to do is extend the process one step further to demonstrate in person that you are the best person for the job. However, comparing the feelings and attitude you may experience when writing your application with those associated with the prospect of an interview are quite different. Applications are completed alone, from a distance and with time to think, re-write and perfect your words. On the contrary, interviews are up close and personal with little time to organise your thoughts and project yourself to the best of your ability. You only get one chance to give your optimum performance, so you need to be well prepared, word perfect(ish) and convincing. You have marketed yourself in your application but do you match up in person to your promotional material?

Hiring people is a risky business for employers. In the main, they put a lot of time and money into the process to try to ensure they select the right person – someone who can do the job, who can develop the project further, whilst fitting into the team and culture of the organisation.  So how can you perform well at interview to achieve the star prize of being chosen for the position? Here are some useful tips:

1.    Believe in yourself. If you don’t feel confident in yourself, how can the employer? Remember, you have been selected for interview so the employer will want you to do well so that he/she can select someone from the pool of candidates.

2.    Present yourself positively to the interviewer(s). Don’t dwell on anything negative – always end on a positive note.

3.    Body language can work in your favour and against you. Good eye contact, a firm handshake, upbeat language and tone of voice is as important (if not more so) than the content of what you say.

4.    First impressions count significantly so ensure you begin well by dressing appropriately.

5.    Prepare and practice. As with an exam or your PhD defence, you can predict many of the questions which are likely to come up. E.g. Why do you want this job? What can you bring to the organisation or research project? What has been your greatest challenge? How did you deal with it? Etc. Academic leadership interviews will ask you about your research vision and ambitions.

6.    Support your answers with evidence and examples to add weight to your testimony.

7.    Make your answers relevant to the employer or research department – try to refer to what they do and match your responses to their needs.

8.    Prepare some questions to ask at the end of the interview; although you can always say they have been answered during the interview. This is your opportunity to find out more about the employer/ research/ business so that you can also gauge if it is right for you.

Related blog: Success at interview: 7 Ps to the prize

Related blog: How to be a STAR performer

PhD currency outside of academia

Recently I’ve been following a very interesting discussion on the LinkedIn Group PhD Careers Outside of Academia about the currency of PhDs and their value to their owners in terms of getting a job outside of academia. The discussion was provoked by an article entitled, The road to the structured PhD, which questions the value of PhD training for forging a career in business. The resulting comments from members of the LinkedIn group have been rich in individual experiences and personal stories and includes gems of wisdom and advice to peers. I have summarised some of the comments here (anonymously since the group is members only) to relate some of the shared insights from the discussion (you can see them all if you join the LinkedIn group):

“PhD recipients are full of potential. Yet many of them struggle to find jobs in industry. I don’t think it’s the fault of the job candidates or their training. I think it’s mainly because 1. There’s way too many of them, competing for too few jobs, and 2. Employers have little imagination when it comes to hiring. They so often play it short-term safe, refuse to do any training, and miss out on the longer-term prize.”

“I think it all goes back to the fact that PhDs are not trained for the reality of the job market they’re facing these days. PhD training is structured to serve the academic world. Very few PIs have the experience and/or feel comfortable to give advice and encourage for a career outside of the ivory tower. Therefore, few graduate students are prepared to enter the life science industry and what they’re prepared for is mainly a career in the research department. So what is left for a recent PhD? Many try to get into industry but have not learned how to “sell” themselves to those employers, so if they don’t hear back from job applications, the alternative is a Postdoc in academia, more technical training again tailored to stay in academia….. Our institution has taken a radical approach by designing a program that takes PhD scientists and engineers and teaches them general management skills focused solely on the life science industry, specific career path skills (like regulatory affairs, bioprocessing, medical devices design etc) and, crucial in our program, every student participates in a 2 semester industry sponsored team project. This exposes students not only to more strategic thinking but also provides situations that ask for team conflict management, time management and many more.”

“Consider what someone does to earn a PhD. They study their field until they are at the leading edge. Then they establish and conduct a research project that creates and documents something unique and significant. Along the way they have to demonstrate that they can form and lead a team, manage funding and budgets, and manage a project. They also have to pass many tests of themselves that stress their personality and dedication. These are all valuable traits to a company if the graduate can transition their learning to industrial reality.”

“During your PhD, you acquire new technical skills, but also soft skills that you can transfer in an industrial context. You manage your thesis project, you decide (with your thesis supervisor) of the guidelines, you manage people (trainee, technician), you interact with a lot of people and you present data in an efficient way.”

“I recall a conversation I had with my soon-to-be manager in my first job post PhD. He said “I am going to give you a chance, because someone also gave me a chance when I was a new PhD. You may be a brilliant addition to the organization, or you may fail miserably, but I will take that risk.” His words hold a lot of truth – some PhD folks are not well adapted to life outside of the tower. Others have little or no trouble. Whether you use your dissertation topic to further your career (I did not) or just leverage the vast amount of specialized training you received you must convince a potential employer that your skills translate – and to do so you must believe that yourself.”

So what can you do to increase the currency of your PhD to employers outside of academia?

1. Be aware of your skills and competences (such as project and financial management, teamworking and communication) beyond the subject of your research project, and understand their value to other career areas.
2. Identify gaps in your skills and experience relevant to your preferred career and try to address them by taking on additional work or courses during your PhD or postdoc.
3. Be able to communicate and market yourself to employers in an application form or CV.

Related blogs, pages and articles:
http://chronicle.com/article/From-Academe-to-Market/137965/
http://biosciencecareers.org/?p=36
http://biosciencecareers.org/?p=49
http://biosciencecareers.org/p/new-book-career-planning-for-research_12.html