Dataset Information

A survey of early-career researchers in Australia.

ABSTRACT: Early-career researchers (ECRs) make up a large portion of the academic workforce and their experiences often reflect the wider culture of the research system. Here we surveyed 658 ECRs working in Australia to better understand the needs and challenges faced by this community. Although most respondents indicated a 'love of science', many also expressed an intention to leave their research position. The responses highlight how job insecurity, workplace culture, mentorship and 'questionable research practices' are impacting the job satisfaction of ECRs and potentially compromising science in Australia. We also make recommendations for addressing some of these concerns.

SUBMITTER: Christian K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7800379 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A survey of early-career researchers in Australia.

Christian Katherine K Johnstone Carolyn C Larkins Jo-Ann JA Wright Wendy W Doran Michael R MR

eLife 20210111

Early-career researchers (ECRs) make up a large portion of the academic workforce and their experiences often reflect the wider culture of the research system. Here we surveyed 658 ECRs working in Australia to better understand the needs and challenges faced by this community. Although most respondents indicated a 'love of science', many also expressed an intention to leave their research position. The responses highlight how job insecurity, workplace culture, mentorship and 'questionable resear ...[more]

PMID: 33423739

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe World Health Organization recognizes dementia as a public health priority and highlights research as an action to respond to the consequences, with early career dementia researchers (ECDRs) representing the key driving force. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, biomedical and psychosocial dementia research was strained worldwide. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of the pandemic on ECDRs.MethodsIn autumn 2021, the Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART) Professional Interest Area to Elevate Early Career Researchers (PEERs) and University College London conducted an online survey querying ECDRs' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was shared through the ISTAART network, social media, podcasts, and emailing lists. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsSurvey data from n = 321 ECDRs from 34 countries were analyzed (67.6% women; 78.8% working in academia). Overall, 77.8% of ECDRs surveyed indicated research delays, 53.9% made project adjustments, 37.9% required additional or extended funding, and 41.8% reported a negative impact on career progression. Moreover, 19.9% felt unsupported by their institutions and employers (33% felt well supported, 42.7% somewhat supported). ECDR's conference attendance remained the same (26.5%) or increased (More: 28.6%; a lot more: 5.6%) since the start of the pandemic. Continental differences were visible, while the impact of the pandemic did not differ greatly based on ECDRs' sociodemographic characteristics.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on ECDRs worldwide and institutions, employers, and funding bodies are urged to consider the implications and lessons-learned when working with, managing, and promoting ECDRs. Strategies related to the pandemic and general career support to improve ECDRs career progression are discussed, including social media training, digital networking, and benefits of hybrid events. Global resources specific for ECDRs are highlighted.

Project description:Open science (OS) is of paramount importance for the improvement of science worldwide and across research fields. Recent years have witnessed a transition toward open and transparent scientific practices, but there is still a long way to go. Early career researchers (ECRs) are of crucial relevance in the process of steering toward the standardization of OS practices, as they will become the future decision makers of the institutional change that necessarily accompanies this transition. Thus, it is imperative to gain insight into where ECRs stand on OS practices. Under this premise, the Open Science group of the Max Planck PhDnet designed and conducted an online survey to assess the stance toward OS practices of doctoral candidates from the Max Planck Society. As one of the leading scientific institutions for basic research worldwide, the Max Planck Society provides a considerable population of researchers from multiple scientific fields, englobed into three sections: biomedical sciences, chemistry, physics and technology, and human and social sciences. From an approximate total population of 5,100 doctoral candidates affiliated with the Max Planck Society, the survey collected responses from 568 doctoral candidates. The survey assessed self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and implementation of different OS practices, namely, open access publications, open data, preregistrations, registered reports, and replication studies. ECRs seemed to hold a generally positive view toward these different practices and to be interested in learning more about them. Furthermore, we found that ECRs' knowledge and positive attitudes predicted the extent to which they implemented these OS practices, although levels of implementation were rather low in the past. We observed differences and similarities between scientific sections. We discuss these differences in terms of need and feasibility to apply these OS practices in specific scientific fields, but additionally in relation to the incentive systems that shape scientific communities. Lastly, we discuss the implications that these results can have for the training and career advancement of ECRs, and ultimately, for the consolidation of OS practices.

Project description:BackgroundEarly career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group's recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission.Methods and findingsFirst-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000-2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications-for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82-3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22-2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications.ConclusionsEncouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2-4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

Dataset Information

A survey of early-career researchers in Australia.

Publications

A survey of early-career researchers in Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets