How to choose a supervisor/mentor

from an interview of Dr David Edelman, a neuroscientist, by Mike Lisiesky:

Interviews on Consciousness – David Edelman

Being a student, I’m interested in the process of becoming a scientist. Do you have any comments or advice for people who might what to pursue research in the area of animal cognition and/or consciousness?

Most of my advice is very practical. Research the graduate program you decide on really well, and talk to the faculty and some students from the program. Following from that, pursue somebody who’s a strong mentor, both in an intellectual and a practical sense. My graduate advisor at Penn was a very smart guy, he was very personable, and I liked him a lot, but he wasn’t an activist advisor. I saw around me, people outside of anthropology, people in biology, their mentor took it upon themselves to help shepherd that person out into the world, beyond simply reading the dissertation and suggesting things, really figuring out how to get that person ensconced or active in the career. This is very important and this is not necessarily that easy to get at, but you can sort of look at people’s track records and see who their graduate students were and what they have done with themselves, and that’s probably a fairly good indication of how active the mentor was in getting them out there. That seems like sort of far down the pipe for any potential graduate student to consider, but the more and more I think about it, the more I believe that that’s an important area to bone up on before you take the plunge.

How to overcome perfectionism when writing scientific papers

from Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy by David D. Burns, p 379:

Another method for overcoming perfectionism is the ”greed technique.” This is based on the simple fact that most of us try to be perfect so we can get ahead in life. It may not have occurred to you that you might end up much more successful if your standards were lower. For example, when I started my academic career, I spent over two years writing the first research paper I published. It was an excellent product, and I’m still quite proud of it. But I noticed that in the same time period, many of my peers who were of equal intelligence wrote and published numerous papers. So I asked myself—am I better off with one publication that contains ninety-eight “units of excellence” or ten papers that are each worth 80 “units of excellence”? In the latter case, I would actually end up with 800 “excellence units,” and I would be way ahead of the game. This realization was a strong personal persuader, and I decided to lower my standards a bit. My productivity then became dramatically enhanced, as well as my levels of satisfaction.

How can this work for you? Suppose you have a task and you notice you’re moving slowly. You may find that you’ve already reached the point of diminishing returns, and you’d do better by moving on to the next task. I’m not advocating that you slough off, but you may find that you as well as others will be equally if not more pleased with many good, solid performances than with one stress-producing masterpiece.

How to handle getting a paper rejected the growth-mindset way

from Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck, p 224:

The other day one of my former grad students told me a story. But first some background. In my field, when you submit a research paper for publication, that paper often represents years of work. Some months later you receive your reviews: ten or so pages of criticism—single-spaced. If the editor still thinks the paper has potential, you will be invited to revise it and resubmit it provided you can address every criticism.

My student reminded me of the time she had sent her thesis research to the top journal in our field. When the reviews came back, she was devastated. She had been judged—the work was flawed and, by extension, so was she. Time passed, but she couldn’t bring herself to go near the reviews again or work on the paper.

Then I told her to change her mindset. “Look,” I said, “it’s not about you. That’s their job. Their job is to find every possible flaw. Your job is to learn from the critique and make your paper even better.” Within hours she was revising her paper, which was warmly accepted. She tells me: “I never felt judged again.  Never. Every time I get that critique, I tell myself ‘Oh, that’s their job,’ and I get to work immediately on my job.”

How to present a scientific paper at a conference

How to present a paper at an academic conference: very practical and entertaining

.

More good ideas: