How to write a review paper…

The first task is to choose a topic that is both interesting and not recently reviewed. This requires some judicious use of Google Scholar. I think it’s also useful to have some demonstrable expertise in the area, although for most senior scientists, they are broad enough in their interests and knowledge to get by with a pretty shallow knowledge base. This first task is arguably the most important since it will drive everything else.

Once the topic is chosen, the next step is to conduct a first cursory review of the most important literature. In other words, you actually have to actively read some papers. This first review of the literature is not meant to be exhaustive. That comes later. Rather, its purpose is to prepare the ground for the next step: the review paper equivalent of a news ‘hook’. This is the notion of an insight that comes from a synthesis of the extant relevant literature. So if we were reviewing explainable AI, the hook might be that biological brains might provide both existence proof and likely explanation. If we were reviewing macrosystems approaches to ecology, the hook might be that robust standardization of measurements at continental-scale is required. The key is that the hook should be non-obvious, but emerges from a rigorous synthesis of the literature.

At this stage, the bibliography construction should begin using appropriate software. I use Zotero, but there are many good choices. The key function we are looking for is the ability to seamlessly grab a citation (and the full pdf) from Google Scholar and store it for later insertion into the manuscript document. This is the most important research stage of writing the review paper and it feeds back onto the prior ‘hook’ step since a full reading of the literature may change the results of the synthesis. That’s fine and is perfectly normal for the proper evolution of an excellent review. When this step is complete manuscript writing can commence.

I tend to write from an outline. This is one method for proceeding. It’s not the only one. If one does use the outline approach, the key is to outline the review so that the hook is never standing alone and obvious as the author’s opinion, but rather naturally emerges from the evidence presented in the paper in the mind of the reader. This is tricky. The reason for this subtlety is that review papers are not hypothesis or position papers.Their proper function is to lay out the evidence in such a way that synthesis emerges organically from the evidence. So the hook has to stay in your ‘mind’s eye’ and hidden from the printed page.

My parents, who were scientists themselves, taught me to use the scientifically formal passive voice for writing. This style was echoed during my training. Both my thesis advisor and post-doc mentor employed such a style. Today, we use a more active voice in our writing–not quite as informal as a blog entry, but certainly using more direct and simple language. Whatever the style, the key is to have citations accompany each claim. In review papers, we usually summarize a set of results in a sentence that contains the relevant paper’s first author as the subject and then the summary of what their scientific RESULTS revealed. So an example would be: “Olds et al (2020) found that soil exposed to fixed nitrogen had reduced bacterial diversity compared to controls.”

For a review paper, I complete the figures after I complete the text (I do the opposite for a regular research publication). Figures for a review paper can be adapted from other figures in the literature with written permission and explicit acknowledgement in the figure legend. The key is to adapt the figure so that it is not identical to the original. I choose figures to assist the reader in their synthesis laid out in the review. Once again, the idea is not to overtly lay out your hook, but rather to schematize the results from the literature in such a way that the reader gleans the hidden gem.

Finally, the bibliography can be built automatically by your software and inserted at the end of the document in the proper format. Congrats, you are ready to submit!

Undergraduate guide to connecting with faculty to advance your career (Blogpost #5)

The scientific training process in graduate school is fundamentally different than the classes and labs at the undergraduate level. A key part of graduate-level training is the active listening that I referred to in Blogpost #4. What this means is a regular spacing of questions (from you) relative to what you’ve just heard from the professor on the other end of the line. A good conversation of this sort can have as many as twenty or so of these talk-question intervals. As you progress in your training, the talk-question intervals regularly reverse: you’ll get the chance eventually to talk with your mentor asking the regular questions. This process works fairly similarly on-line (Zoom or Teams) as it does in person. The key however is that you have to carefully listen to the other person talking in order to ask a question (there is no single correct question) that meets muster.

Undergraduate guide to connecting with faculty to advance your career (Blogpost #4)

So you’ve got yourself a Zoom appointment with a scientist who may be able to help your career. If you are able to, through your college or university (i.e. you can initiate a Zoom call of an hour in length), offer to create the Zoom link yourself. Do be on time (this is critical) and be certain to have a professional appearance for the camera.

As you begin the call, use the words “informational interview” to describe your goal for the conversation. This term conotes that there are no expectations of an offer (job other educational) from the scientist. You will be probably asked to introduce yourself: what this means is to state your name and then to give a short (no longer than 2-3 minute) backgrounder on your undergraduate education to date, your major, what science experiences (including courses and labs) might be relevant. You statement stops with a sentence or two on how you discovered the work of this person (your target) and what papers of hers/his you have read. At this point you get ready to listen.

What is required is active listening. This means engaging visually with the person via the camera. Nodding when appropriate and taking notes so that you can ask intelligent questions. This is really key. The scientist on the other end of the Zoom needs to be able to “feel” your attention. More on this in the next blog post.

Undergraduate guide to connecting with faculty to advance your career (Blogpost #3)

In this blogpost, I describe the most important step: making individual contact with each of your faculty targets. First let me start out with the don’ts:

  • Do not use social media of any kind
  • Do not text
  • Do not even think about using a template

First, use determine the work email of your faculty targets. So this means, the email associated with the place that employs them. For example, in my case, you would want my George Mason University email. I leave it as an exercise on how to get that piece of information, but Google usually works well. Second, you are going to compose a long email to each of your faculty targets in which you will primarily communicate your knowledge of their scholarship/research and your ideas about what you think should be the ‘next experiment’ (Note, for non-bench type professors, this would be the next natural step of scholarly inquiry). Finally, you’ll communicate your interest in carrying out this research while presumably under their guidance as mentor/academic advisor or employer. Also, make clear that you would be overjoyed to do a Zoom informational interview with them at their convenience.

Note, I added nothing about yourself. That’s correct. At this stage, other than a cursory ‘I’m an undergrad at X University majoring in Y’, it’s not about you. Your sole goal in this communication is to convey in the clearest language possible that you are deeply familiar with their research and that you have been thinking about how to add value to their research work flow. When they circle back to you (and if you do this correctly, they surely will), that’s when you can talk about your self and your professional dreams/goals.

In the next blogpost, we’ll talk about your Zoom.

Undergraduate guide to connecting with faculty to advance your career (Blogpost #2)

How to read those papers: very carefully. Start with Discussion section (last part of the paper). Read it to find out what new knowledge is being reported. Note the papers that have been cited to buttress the conclusions and plan to at least read the abstract of those papers. Now go back and read the paper from the beginning (starting with the title and author order/affiliations). For natural science papers (in general), the first author is the trainee who did the work. The last author is the professor/principle investigator (i.e. the person who you want to connect with). The middle authors are listed from left to right in order of the magnitude of their contributions to the work. Often there is a note at the end of the paper that lists who did what work by their initials. Note this also. As you read the paper pay particular attention to each figure and its associated figure legend. Those figures are the heart of the paper. It is particularly important to look at each figure critically. Does it actually support what the legend is purporting? Read the paper in its entirety twice. At the end of the last read, immediately write down for yourself what scientific questions have been ‘opened up’ by the publication of the paper. In other words, what should the next experiment be? You’ll need this for the next steps.

Undergraduate guide to connecting with faculty to advance your career (Blogpost #1)

I learned this from my parents (who were both faculty at Caltech). It has continued to be good advice through the years. Step one is to decide who to connect with. Make sure your horizons are broad enough. Look beyond your major at your university. Look beyond your school. Connections, particularly as mentors, can be global. Realize that a more junior faculty person may have more time for you, but eventually has to actively put their own interests first–they are trying to get tenure. A more senior faculty member, might have less time, but have a more altruistic agenda. Above all, look for faculty members who are doing research/scholarship in areas that you could visualize yourself being passionate about.

Prune your list. It should be no larger than 10 individuals. You can prune your list based on various constraints: information that you’ve gleaned from other students/peers, googling and similar due diligence, interest in their research. Make certain that they are still actively publishing in the field you think you are interested in (people change directions). Then, make an appointment with google scholar or pub med and download the most recent two papers for each person on your list. Read those papers very carefully and make notes.

Stay tuned for the next blogpost.

New funding ecosystems for science

Hat tip Tyler Cowen, the link is here. A couple of thoughts on this:

  • I’m not sure NSF is aware of the crypto-side of this new ecosystem
  • I’m pretty sure that university sponsored program offices aren’t either

So it may be quite challenging for established academic scientists to play in these sandboxes because of reporting/compliance requirements of the legacy funding systems. How do you make a list of your current and pending funding in bitcoin?