There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

@kristine_willis@mstdn.science cover
@kristine_willis@mstdn.science avatar

kristine_willis

@[email protected]

Scientist. Policy wonk. Pilates junkie. Runner. She/her. alum, DNA damage; current, cancer metabolism; always, sociology of science. My opinions only.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

maartjeoostdijk , to academicchatter
@maartjeoostdijk@mstdn.social avatar

How to respond to a reviewer who thinks using 'we' consistently throughout a manuscript (in methods and a little in discussion 'we found' etc) sounds unscientific? @academicchatter

kristine_willis ,
@kristine_willis@mstdn.science avatar

@cazencott @maartjeoostdijk @academicchatter Agree 1000%. Check with the editor, survey recent papers in the journal. Passive voice is awkward, generally wordier, and despite what you may have been told, it does not make the work “more objective”, just … harder to read.

Great summary here:

https://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/what-is-the-passive-voice-3?hs_amp=true

kristine_willis ,
@kristine_willis@mstdn.science avatar

@rspfau @cazencott @maartjeoostdijk @academicchatter Possibly; but I would argue a lot of scientific prose written in passive voice is itself highly repetitive.

And as Evan’s points out in the above-linked piece for Cell, it is possible to write in the active voice without using we (or I) at all!

I might hypothesize that the trick is writing more as you would speak. Most of us wouldn’t say “we” in every sentence of a plenary talk.

cyrilpedia , to random
@cyrilpedia@qoto.org avatar

"The main and interesting conclusion in the abstract is that of the 45% of alumni not continuing in academic research, one third does industry research and one third is in a science-related profession."

https://elifesciences.org/articles/78706#sa1

kristine_willis ,
@kristine_willis@mstdn.science avatar

@IanSudbery @copdeb @cyclotopie @cyrilpedia @academicchatter as I understand it, the NIH DP5 program is intended to transition early career scientists to independence without a postdoctoral period https://commonfund.nih.gov/earlyindependence

kristine_willis ,
@kristine_willis@mstdn.science avatar

@IanSudbery @copdeb @cyclotopie @cyrilpedia @academicchatter yes, the program supports a very small number of people. The vast majority of PIs will do at least one post-doc.
Re: stability, applicants are required to provide quite a long list of information about the position they will hold if awarded, including whether or not it is permanent/TT; and institutional commitment is an explicit review criteria.

kristine_willis ,
@kristine_willis@mstdn.science avatar

@IanSudbery @copdeb @cyclotopie @cyrilpedia @academicchatter of course, that doesn’t guarantee awardees will land in a secure position, and it would be good to have an analysis, but - I would be surprised if most DP5 awardees aren’t in stable, even TT jobs.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •