Institute of Postgraduate Studies and Research (IPSR) organised a webinar on 22 July 2021 titled, “Survival Skills for Scientist II”, delivered by Prof Dr Federico Rosei via Microsoft Teams. Prof Rosei is an international reputed scientist from Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS) of Université du Québec, Canada. He currently holds the UNESCO Chair on Materials and Technologies for Energy Conversion, Saving and Storage (MATECSS) and Canada Research Chair in Nanostructured Materials.

The focus of this webinar is on skills of paper writing and research proposal writing. Being the editorial board or referee for a number of prestigious and top-ranked journals, such as Applied Surface Science, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, Science, Nature Chemistry, Nature Materials, Nature Natotechnology, Nature Energy, ACS Nano, Advanced Materials, he provided valuable information on writing research papers. Participants benefited greatly from his experience sharing and advice for young scientists to survive, succeed and even thrive in the field of science.

To excel in research paper writing, participants were guided to the details of the peer review system which includes its purposes, and the difference between good and bad refereeing. “To succeed in this field, I would firstly like to advise everyone to be their own manager, know oneself, plan well ahead, and find and use a mentor. The peer review system is likened to a democracy, which is highly imperfect, but yet it is hard to come up with a better system. The most famous referee report is a paper that is both good and original. As a referee, your participation in this process is voluntary. So be generous with your own time as a reviewer. Refereeing requires necessary resume as it shows your engagement in the community. Refereeing record is considered for Editorial Board candidates. It points to our suspicion of unethical behaviours,” explained Prof Rosei.

He also listed some of the common indicators used on judging scientific impacts, which were citations by others, invitation to talk at conferences and seminars; review committee service; refereed publications list in resume; patents; and high levels of funding. One evident of impactful research, pointed out by Prof Rosei, is when one’s work becomes sufficiently interesting to the broad audience to the extent of having asked to give popular talks.

When writing, he advised not to eye for high number of publications with little value. "When you are a student, each newly published article is perceived as an important addition to your resume, and this temptation is to be avoided. In the longer term, the quality of your published record becomes the most important aspect, rather than the shorter quantity of papers published. What matters to your peers is your overall impact, which eventually will establish your reputation,” explained Prof Rosei.  

He added, “Always write both for expert and interested readers from the neighbouring area. This is also good for grant application and for the highest-impact journals where appear to non-specialists is emphasised. Most readers look at the title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion before committing to look at the main text. So, structure these elements so as to draw the reader in. The paper is just like a store and these elements are advertisements at the store window. The reader is looking for a reason to look into the paper, so you want to provide a suitable seductive answer to attract the reader.”

Participants were also encouraged to start from the scope when choosing the journal. “Make sure your work fits the scope and address the contribution in your cover letter,” explained Prof Rosei. He then proceeded to enlighten participants on writing manuscripts, and his talk included sub-topics on the types of papers, journal selection, ethical guidelines, defining authorship, sections of an article, submission process, and peer review process.

He continued elaborating on the peer review process. “In this process, the initial quality is checked by staff or editor. The editor in chief assigns an appropriate associate of a topical editor, who when handling the manuscript, looks into the contacts of possible referees, waits for reports, makes first decision, makes the final decision, and sometimes sent the manuscript for re-review. The peer reviewer will also recommend if the manuscripts are accepted as it is, or it requires minor or major revision, rejected, referred to more appropriate journals, or even the need to revise and resubmit, but know that the peer review’s comments should help improve your manuscripts,” said Prof Rosei.

He further advised, “When suggesting referees, do make sure that they are not just big names in the field and too closely linked to you. It is alright to ask for reviewers to be excluded but do not go overboard. The fact is, you do not know who the referees are and you cannot have a second guess on them. Also, when dealing with referee comments, know that they are not your enemy, but consider them allies who can help improve your manuscript. So, treat them respectfully, and deal with each concern they raised, even if you do not agree with all of it. It is alright to make changes and be courteous to the referees and editors.”

“When minor or major revision is requested, make sure you address all the issues raised. Be firm yet diplomatic. Remember that you do not know the identity of the reviewers, so there is nothing to be gained in responding aggressively, even if you are confident of being right. If the referees are very negative, you may still pass by convincing the editor. If you did not convince the referee(s), chances are that readers would also misunderstand your work,” said Prof Rosei. Towards the end of the talk, he reminded participants again to identify with referees and readership of the journal to which they are submitting to. When writing manuscripts, he advised participants to write in a simple manner, but concisely and clearly.

The webinar ended with an interactive Q&A session.