Thriving in the modern scientific world: perspectives from early career electrochemists

Mamta Dagar Mamta Dagar is a third-year PhD candidate in Prof. Ellen M. Matson’s laboratory at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on understanding the chemical interactions between multimetallic metal-oxide charge carriers with different components of the electrolyte system for emergent redox flow battery technologies. Outside of the lab, she is an avid reader and DEI advocate in STEM.

Miracle Amechi Miracle Amechi is a fourth-year PhD candidate at the University of Louisville, working under the mentorship of Dr Frank Zamborini. Her research is focused on investigating the limit of detection of gold nanoparticles and metal ions using electrochemical amplification strategies: electrophoretic deposition (EPD) and electrochemical deposition (ECD).

Jenelle Fortunato Jenelle Fortunato is an adjunct professor of chemistry in the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department at Virginia Wesleyan University. Her research focuses on electrochemical energy storage processes, including cation insertion mechanisms and proton-coupled electron transfer reactions in transition metal oxides.

Sonal Maroo Sonal Maroo is a third-year PhD candidate in Prof. Kwabena D. Bediako’s group at the University of California, Berkeley. Her thesis work is focused on designing atomically-thin, precisely tailored two-dimensional (2D) materials-based devices to control the collective behavior of electrons and leverage them to investigate the electron transfer across solid–liquid interfaces.

Taylor Teitsworth Taylor Teitsworth is a postdoctoral research associate in Prof. Matthew Lockett’s lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As a member of the Center for Hybrid Approaches in Solar Energy to Liquid Fuels, she develops strategies for the tunable deposition of molecular catalyst films onto silicon surfaces to enable the efficient photocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide.

Christopher P. Woodley Christopher Woodley is a third-year chemistry PhD candidate in Prof. Bart M. Bartlett’s group at the University of Michigan. His thesis work is focused on exploring the mechanistic role of dopant ions on structure and electrochemical characteristics of oxide battery materials through utilizing material synthesis and characterization techniques.

Introduction

Modern day academia is undergoing a paradigm shift as a result of societal and technological changes. First, there is a pressing need to broaden participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. Despite many people across the United States identifying as underrepresented minorities, diversity and inclusion in STEM remains a prevailing challenge.¹ And second, there is extensive incorporation of new technological tools to stay at the forefront of scientific research. The modern scientific world is imbued with tremendous opportunities due to the experimental and computational tools that give scientists unprecedented ability to solve pressing global challenges. Due to these changes in the academic workforce and the methods by which scientists perform research, there is a need to re-evaluate the ethos of academia and incorporate new practices that reflect our modern scientific world. An equitable culture that promotes the inclusion of underrepresented groups and women is vital to improve the implementation of scientific results and the development of science-oriented policies.²

Within this exciting climate lie new challenges for early career scientists: balancing new work and family dynamics, managing increased connectivity due to digital communication, handling increased information coupled with artificial intelligence tools, and navigating changes in science dissemination and measurement of scientific impact. It is important to have conversations around the structural barriers that stand in the way of success in scientific research to help scientists navigate a more technologically connected scientific world and promote diversity and inclusion. These discussions can help identify issues, find strategies to address the existing challenges, and promote systemic changes to support the professional growth of all scientists throughout their careers. One such forum is the Power Hour organized during Gordon Research Conferences (GRCs), which aims to foster conversations about the barriers to inclusivity within its 400 communities. The Power Hour associated with the 2024 Electrochemistry GRC focused on brainstorming ideas and tools to thrive in the modern scientific enterprise by electrochemists at different stages of their research careers. This perspective is an amalgamation of the thoughtful discussions that were held by the electrochemistry community in attendance on topics related to mental health, work–life balance, clarity and focus in an ever-demanding scientific world, and effective dissemination of science. This summary is divided into three discussion topics: (1) career–personal life management, (2) clarity in a busy scientific world, and (3) science dissemination. By sharing these viewpoints, we hope to motivate the broader scientific community to have open discussions on challenges faced by early career scientists. We also use this as an opportunity to share resources for budding scientists to thrive as individuals.

Career–personal life management

In a demanding scientific world, the lines between work and life can often become blurred. The pressure to publish, secure funding, and achieve results creates a constant pull on our time and energy, potentially leaving personal life feeling squeezed out or neglected. For example, 24 hours accessibility via work emails and Slack channels can create a myriad of never-ending tasks from which it is difficult to escape. While finding the right balance will be unique to each individual and may require constant adjustments, we propose some strategies that may help in achieving a healthy balance in an individual’s scientific journey.

Minimizing unsaid expectations

Students, and in many circumstances professors, are often found carrying the burden of unsaid expectations, which can lead to frequent burnout.³ Unsaid expectations often manifest as “cultural rules” in an organization, such as working long days and weekends, standards on publications and grant awards, or responsibilities outside of one’s research and classroom obligations. As such, clear and open communication of expectations is important. Lab handbooks are valuable resources to not only document the ethos of a research group, but also to clearly state the work culture and guiding beliefs of a lab. Such a document fosters transparency, enables accountability, and promotes overall well-being of all stakeholders in a research lab (undergraduates, graduate students, postdocs, and principal investigators (PIs)).⁴ For example, setting realistic personal goals for research can help graduate students in the long run and prevent them from getting swallowed in the back and forth of experimental success and failures. The “publish or perish” mentality and competitiveness can foster a culture where overwork is seen as normal or even expected, and where being busy is confused with being productive. This makes setting boundaries and taking breaks seem counterproductive. A lab handbook can prevent such scenarios by clearly stating what “productivity” means for individual research groups. Moreover, they can help PIs minimize frustration by reassuring trainees to celebrate the small wins and make everyone’s scientific journey enjoyable by lifting off the weight of unsaid expectations. The concept of laboratory handbooks is also useful for prospective lab members as it circumvents the problem of assumptions and inconsistencies borne from what is preached versus what is actually practiced.

Project management

In the competitive world of academia, burnout is a pervasive issue. A Nature survey revealed alarming statistics: 70% of graduate students work over 40 hours weekly (Fig. 1), and 45% of scientists report signs of burnout.⁵ As such, prioritizing tasks and learning effective time management skills is imperative. Techniques such as the Pomodoro method are becoming increasingly popular to stay focused and efficient during work hours. In this time management technique, work is broken into small, manageable intervals (say, 25 minutes), followed by a short break allowing for a more focused and productive work environment.⁶ Moreover, learning to identify and prioritize the most critical tasks and letting go of the less urgent ones is key. Towards this, Chris Woolston has proposed a thoughtful approach guided by the principles of Cal Newport’s bestseller book, Deep Work.⁷ This methodology unfolds across three crucial levels – (1) big-picture planning to establish long-term goals through Gantt charts, providing a visual guide for experiments, conferences, and milestones; (2) academic term planning, utilizing Kanban boards, to align short-term tasks with overarching objectives; and (3) daily or weekly planning, featuring time blocking or to-do lists, to ensure a realistic workload.

Fig. 1 Average number of hours graduate students typically spend on their graduate degrees per week (adapted from ref. 5).

Allocating dedicated time in your daily or weekly schedule for specific tasks can enhance workflow efficiency. It is helpful to introspect and reflect on one’s own productivity and schedule in order to find a routine that maximizes one’s best work. For example, a person who is more alert or focused in the morning may choose to schedule “deep thinking” tasks like writing, reading, or data analysis for the morning and block out time for lab work in the afternoon. Breaking up the day into “blocks” of specified times can also prevent overcommitting to a single task or can make an overwhelming task feel more manageable. Another way to streamline workflow is to use Dr Jason Selk and Tom Bartow’s strategy outlined in Organize Tomorrow Today to daily identify the three most important tasks and one must-do task.⁸ These tasks are items that will advance one’s goals a step forward. Aim for achieving at least these four priorities – if nothing else gets done, the day is still a success!

Finding the right tone

The balance between work and life will not look the same for everyone due to varying personal needs, desires, and external obligations (for instance, caretaking for children or other family members). Some researchers may work best in short bursts of high-intensity work hours called sprints, and others thrive best at a consistent, moderate pace. Similarly, different PIs have different expectations around work hours based on their own experiences, philosophies, and academic pressures, such as obtaining tenure. Unlike typical 9–5 jobs, academia can offer the benefit of flexible working hours, albeit often accompanied by a constant pressure to work more and more hours. Early career researchers are encouraged to investigate the culture around work–life balance prior to joining a lab to ensure that it aligns with their values and needs. Structure, no matter how unique, is important and extremely necessary for all groups in academia.⁹

Institutional changes

Improving work–life balance and diversity in science requires a multi-pronged approach at the institutional level. In response to the work culture and often poor compensation of academia, an increasing number of graduate student bodies are choosing to unionize.¹⁰ These unions can bargain for better benefits related to work hours and time off for personal, medical, and parental reasons. Families are routinely juggling the responsibilities of raising young children while navigating the demands of pre-tenure. As a result, it is becoming more important for universities to accommodate family needs, including university-level benefits such as maternal and paternal leave, to departmental-level accommodations such as scheduling meetings around the needs of families. Some institutions even offer grants specific to conference travel for graduate students with children, allowing extra funding to travel with their offsprings and, thus, helping ease the burden of being a parent and student. These changes are largely driven by “consumer choice”, as early-career scientists are now more often choosing to work at institutions that are amenable to family life,¹¹ or are negotiating non-salary benefits for better maternity leave, child care, or health benefits.

While great strides are being made to render academia an inclusive environment, it is in some ways a double-edged sword for faculty who carry the burden of this service. Recent data shows that women and underrepresented minority faculty make up only 34.6% and 10.1% of STEM faculty at 4 year institutions, respectively, which often translates to one or two people per department. This leads to women and minorities serving on a disproportionately higher number of service committees, resulting in time being diverted away from scientific or teaching endeavors.¹² Until a truly diverse department is achieved, universities should consider ways to make service commitments more equitable among faculty.¹³

Clarity in a busy scientific world

The 21st century has seen a renaissance in interdisciplinary science and collaboration, while scientific education has become much more specialized. The immense information network that we have at the ends of our fingerprints exacerbates this problem further as it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up even with the literature in one’s own field (Fig. 2). Our introspections on achieving clarity in this information overload era can be summed up in the following reflections.

Fig. 2 Clarity in a busy scientific world necessitates perpetual adjustment of one’s perspective.

Staying “on top” of the literature

The pace of scientific understanding is evolving quickly, leading to outdated information and the need for constant adjustments in perspective (Fig. 3). One of the simplest ways of staying updated on current information is by subscribing to journals that have been tested and trusted personally by oneself to serve their research needs. Exploring classic papers and tracing up to the latest research is a methodical approach to gaining a deeper understanding of a particular field. Another beneficial way to manage the large burden of literature review is by using a chemical research database such as SciFinder to narrow down the multitude of research that is of interest to one's field and work. Additionally, closely following research from specific groups is particularly useful for graduate students and early-career scientists starting their academic careers. While the latter may sound limiting, it aids in filtering the noise of loosely related studies. Online search engines and citation indices (Google Scholar, Web of Science, etc.) have tools for creating alerts for authors or specific topics, allowing curated papers to be sent directly to the researcher’s inbox. For more advanced researchers, RSS feeders such as Inoreader, Feedly, NewsBlur, Feedbin, and the Vivaldi web browser offer diverse options catering to different preferences and needs.

Fig. 3 The never-ending quest for researchers to “stay-on-top” of the scientific literature [source: Sonal Maroo/Adobe Firefly/Photoshop].

While identifying the right set of scientific advances in the constant influx of new research is important, using the right set of tools to organize information is equally crucial. Reference managers like Zotero, Mendeley, and Endnote not only simplify the creation of reference lists but also provide robust organization capabilities, allowing the categorization of papers into folders with keywords and tags.¹⁴ For a more targeted exploration of specific topics, literature-mapping tools like ResearchRabbit, Inciteful, Litmaps, and Connected Papers become invaluable. These websites track citation networks and facilitate the discovery of groundbreaking papers within a specific area of interest.

Finding the time to gather, organize, and actually read papers is an additional challenge. Using the project management tools described above, researchers are encouraged to set attainable reading goals that support their research needs and then set aside appropriate time necessary to meet those goals. In scenarios when the goal is to incorporate more reading into one’s schedule, it is advisable to schedule a 1 hour reading block every day. Physically scheduling this time on a calendar helps hold the scholar accountable, and keeping the time interval short makes an overwhelming task feel more manageable.

A sense of community

Feeling part of the broader scientific community is much more crucial now than ever before. This feeling of belonging can facilitate communication, and give scientists the confidence of leveraging diverse scientific perspectives to implement in their own research. Moreover, engaging with colleagues from different backgrounds can help gain different viewpoints to expand one’s outlook. One of us recalls an incident that especially helped in setting the trajectory of their first research project in the lab – “I was asked by my supervisor to present my research to a visiting professor. I was hesitant at first because not a lot of progress had been made on my project and the visiting professor was not an “electrochemist”. Looking back, I naively thought that other students in the group would be more suited for this interaction. However, the visiting professor gave a fresh perspective on the research problem at hand and their valuable suggestions served as the theme for my first publication.” Thus, while it is easy to confine our scientific interactions with the people whose research is alike to us, diverse voices and experiences fuel innovation and creativity, leading to more nuanced and comprehensive scientific understanding.

Another key aspect to consider is that being an integral part of the broader scientific community is not just about networking; it’s a key driver for effective communication that can overcome roadblocks and foster the generation of new ideas. This sense of belonging becomes particularly valuable when extending the conversation beyond the confines of one’s field. Sharing one’s scientific work, especially with those outside the field, holds immense value. It not only provides an opportunity to gather diverse perspectives but also serves as invaluable practice in promoting and articulating one’s research. Platforms like Google Scholar, Feedly, and X (formerly Twitter), along with engaging in group literature discussions and collaborative paper reading sessions contribute significantly to this open exchange of ideas. By working together, we can make scientific knowledge more accessible, understandable, and impactful for everyone.

Science dissemination

The landscape of science dissemination is undergoing a dramatic transformation, driven by the rise of new technologies, the growing public interest in science, and the increasing need for evidence-based decision-making. The internet and social media have revolutionized the way science is communicated in the modern world. Scientists are now using a wider range of channels to share their work, including blogs, podcasts, videos, and social media platforms. This has made science more accessible to the public than ever before, albeit there are certain caveats that need to be tackled, such as handling negative criticism, responsible and respectable online discussions, and embracing negative results.

Advent of preprint repositories

Science dissemination has historically taken place exclusively in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The peer-review process has been difficult to scale with the rapidly increasing number of published papers per year, estimated to have tripled since 1990.¹⁵ Furthermore, the high cost of journal subscriptions limits the ability for scientists at underfunded institutions to have equitable access to scientific information. Although many journals now give authors the option to publish their articles as open-access, the current policy at most journals often requires the authors to foot the bill, which introduces new inequities to the publishing process. It is increasingly clear that our current publication system needs to undergo reform in order to better serve everyone in the scientific community. Open science is a key stepping stone to foster accessibility and ensure that the benefits of science are shared more widely. In the meantime, scientists may need to reach outside of the traditional publishing sphere. Preprint repositories, such as arXiv, can be a useful way to both get feedback on research findings outside of peer review and disseminate one’s research to a wider audience. They not only allow authors to solicit valuable viewpoints on their work before official reviews are back but also foster cross-disciplinary collaboration. While such avenues are great resources to find the frontiers in a field due to their early access, responsible authorship and proper version control are crucial to maintain ethics and scientific integrity.

Self-advocacy through social media outlets

Social media has also emerged as a venue for discussing and broadcasting scientific findings. It is an excellent resource to network and get meaningful feedback from people who ordinarily might not be in the same room as us. Utilizing professional websites such as LinkedIn to market one’s accomplishments such as publications, grants, and fellowships can serve as an online resume during job searches. The ability to market oneself on social media has many added benefits, such as expanding one’s network, increasing exposure to research, and advertising oneself for the job market. The option of getting recommendations from coworkers on LinkedIn is a bonus as prospective employers can quickly access one’s information and accelerate the job hunt process. Furthermore, the advent of “academic twitter” has opened doors to have (in)formal conversations with academics, industrialists and policymakers across the world.¹⁶ It is a good place to get the latest and most relevant gist in almost every scientific field.¹⁷ The need for using social media has never been more prevalent as the majority of Americans get their news from social media. If one can successfully utilize social media platforms, they can reach a much larger audience and have significant influence over societal views. For instance, PIs are using their laboratory’s social media accounts to help brand their students and share their group accomplishments. This allows people to see the humans behind their scientific achievements.

Embracing negative results

Giving equal weight to non-conforming findings as positive results can aid in carving a transparent route to unabridged science (Fig. 4). Positive results paint only part of the story. Negative results refine our understanding by delimiting what does not work, saving others from pursuing fruitless avenues. We anticipate that the role of supporting information will transform from not just supplementing the central hypotheses but also as a means to share non-conforming results. Most times negative results are encouraged for discussion during subgroup(s) or group meetings in individual research laboratories as they can potentially benefit other members working on the same project. However, the current publication scenario is plagued by an inherent bias that predominantly celebrates positive results. This perpetuates the wrong notion of acknowledging success when, in reality, most scientific advances stem from failure. Negative findings are invaluable for the next-generation of scientists to learn, save time and public funds, and make informed hypotheses for their research.¹⁸ In a nutshell, publishing all results, regardless of outcome, promotes transparency and builds trust in science by showcasing its iterative and nuanced nature.

Fig. 4 Positive results paint only part of the story; negative results refine our understanding to see the scientific journey as a whole.

Concluding remarks

The modern scientific world offers exciting opportunities but comes with challenges such as managing career–personal life balance, handling information overload, and navigating science communication. Institutions can create a more supportive and inclusive environment for all scientists, leading to improved work–life balance, increased diversity, and ultimately, enhanced scientific progress. Diversity and inclusivity are not mere ornaments, but key driving forces in the modern scientific world. When people from different backgrounds, experiences, and disciplines come together, they view the problem at hand from different angles, leading to more creative and impactful solutions. In addition, by including individuals from diverse communities, science becomes more relevant and impactful to society as a whole. This cultivates trust and engagement with a broader audience. By overcoming the existing challenges and recognizing their advantages, we can cultivate a more holistic and accurate understanding of science, ultimately accelerating progress and fostering trust in the scientific endeavor.

Acknowledgements

Edited by Veronica Augustyn.†

References

1. O. Palid, S. Cashdollar, S. Deangelo, C. Chu and M. Bates, Inclusion in practice: a systematic review of diversity-focused STEM programming in the United States, Int. J. Stem Educ., 2023, 10 DOI:10.1186/s40594-022-00387-3.
2. J. A. Olzmann, Diversity through equity and inclusion: The responsibility belongs to all of us, Mol. Biol. Cell, 2020, 31, 2757–2760,  DOI:10.1091/mbc.E20-09-0575.
3. C. Woolston, How burnout and imposter syndrome blight scientific careers, Nature, 2021, 599, 703–705,  DOI:10.1038/d41586-021-03042-z.
4. B. C. Tendler, M. Welland and K. L. Miller, Why every lab needs a handbook, eLife, 2023, 12 DOI:10.7554/eLife.88853.
5. C. Woolston, Stress and uncertainty drag down graduate students’ satisfaction, Nature, 2022, 610, 805–808,  DOI:10.1038/d41586-022-03394-0.
6. F. Cirillo, The Pomodoro Technique: The Acclaimed Time-Management System That Has Transformed How We Work, Crown, 2018.
7. C. Newport, Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World, Grand Central Publishing, New York, 1st edn, 2016.
8. J. Selk and T. Bartow, Organize Tomorrow Today: 8 Ways to Retrain Your Mind to Optimize Performance at Work and in Life, Da Capo Press, Boston, MA, 1st edn, 2015.
9. D. E. Guest, Perspectives on the study of work-life balance, Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 2002, 41, 255–279,  DOI:10.1177/0539018402041002005.
10. M. T. Loconto, Labor and Employment Relations Association: Adjunct/Part-time Faculty Unions in Private Higher Education & Graduate Student Organizing following the NLRB Decision in the NYU Case, Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, 2013 DOI:10.58188/1941-8043.1301.
11. B. M. Kuehn, Looking for the best of both worlds Research institutions could do more to support scientists who are pregnant or have young children, eLife, 2018, 7 DOI:10.7554/eLife.36366.
12. J. Trejo, The burden of service for faculty of color to achieve diversity and inclusion: the minority tax, Mol. Biol. Cell, 2020, 31, 2752–2754,  DOI:10.1091/mbc.E20-08-0567.
13. V. Gewin, The time tax put on scientists of colour, Nature, 2020, 583, 479,  DOI:10.1038/d41586-020-01920-6.
14. M. Gosztyla, How to find, read and organize papers, Nature, 2022 DOI:10.1038/d41586-022-01878-7.
15. A. Dance, PEER REVIEW NEEDS A RADICAL RETHINK, Nature, 2023, 614, 581–583,  DOI:10.1038/d41586-023-00403-8.
16. J. M. Heemstra, A Scientist’s Guide to Social Media, ACS Cent. Sci., 2020, 6, 1–5,  DOI:10.1021/acscentsci.9b01273.
17. Social media for scientists, Nat. Cell Biol., 2018, 20, 1329,  DOI:10.1038/s41556-018-0253-6.
18. N. Matosin, E. Frank, M. Engel, J. S. Lum and K. A. Newell, Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture, Dis. Models Mech., 2014, 7, 171–173,  DOI:10.1242/dmm.015123.

Footnote

† Department of Materials Science & Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA, vaugust@ncsu.edu.

---