This week’s comic made me think about meeting attendance and engagement. I’ve seen lots of people who attend meetings but who aren’t really there. They’re checking their phones or working on their computers. And I’ve been one of those people on a fair number of times. However, I’ve started to make changes around this. The idea is that I’m at the meeting for a reason, or sometimes several reasons. I need to present myself well and to get the most out of the meeting as I can. Otherwise I probably shouldn’t be showing up. There are required meetings, meetings you initiate, and meetings where you have no idea why you’re there- so there’s certainly a continuum, and my thoughts here probably don’t apply in every situation.
It’s important to be engaged and present yourself that way. I depend a lot on other people to accomplish my work, feed me data, and provide funding for me. People who may want to work with you, give you opportunities, fund you, etc. are tuned in to your level of engagement. They’re also not impressed with how you’re so busy that you have to be working on your computer during the entire meeting.
Part of engagement is about appearances- you should be presenting yourself in a way that doesn’t make people think you are ignoring them or tuning them out. Even making notes in a notebook (like, the paper kind. You know, with a pen.) is better than being behind your laptop. Cellphones are marginally better since they are less intrusive and obvious than a laptop, but still send the message that you’re not paying attention. And you probably aren’t. But this can be very important.
What you get out of a meeting is also important. Clearly, if you’re not paying attention you won’t get much out of the meeting. And some meetings just aren’t set up for you to get anything out of. But often times if you’re paying attention you can get a lot out of meetings. Not just in terms of what’s actually being presented or discussed, but also how people interact with each other, how they present their work, and how engaged they are.
So next time you’re sitting down in a meeting think about WHY you’re there and how you want to present yourself.
I came up with an interesting idea today based on someone’s joke at a meeting. I’m paraphrasing here but the joke was “let’s just get all the proteins Facebook accounts and let their graph algorithms sort everything out”. Which isn’t as nutty as it sounds- at least using some of FBs algorithms, if they’re available, to figure out interesting biology from
The Cellular Social Network Can be a tough place
protein networks. But it got me thinking about social media and computational biology.
Scientists use Twitter for a lot of different purposes. One of these is to keep abreast of the scientific literature. This is generally done by following other scientists in disciplines that are relevant to your work, journals and preprint archives that post their newest papers as they’re published, and other aggregators like professional societies and special interest groups.
Many biologists have broad interests, but even journals for your sub-sub-sub field publish papers that you might not be that interested in. Many biologists also have specific genes, proteins, complexes, or pathways that are of interest to them.
My thought was simple. Spawn a bunch of Tweetbots (each with their own Twitter account) that would be tied to a specific gene/protein, complex, or pathway. These Tweetbots would search PubMed (and possibly other sources) and post links to ‘relevant’ new publications – probably simply containing the name of the protein or an alias. I think that you could probably set some kind of popularity bar for actually having a Tweetbot (e.g. BRCA1 would certainly have one, but a protein like SLC10A4 might not).
Sure there are other ways you can do this- for example you can set up automatic notifications on PubMed that email you new publications with keywords- and there might already be specific apps that try to do something like this- but they’re not Twitter. One potential roadblock would be the process of opening so many Twitter accounts- which I’m thinking you can’t do automatically (but don’t know that for sure). To make it useful you’d probably have to start out with at least 1000 of them, maybe more, but wouldn’t need to do all proteins (!) or even all ~30K human proteins.
I’m interested in getting feedback about this idea. I’m not likely to implement it myself (though could probably)- but would other biologists see this as useful? Interesting? Could you see any other applications or twists to make it better?
Last week an actual, real-life, if-pretty-satirical paper was published by Neil Hall in Genome Biology (really? really) ‘The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists’, in which he proposed a metric of impact that relates the number of Twitter followers to the number of citations of papers in scientific journals. The idea being that there are scientists who are “overvalued” because they Tweet more than they are cited- and drawing a parallel with the career of a Kardashian, who are famous, but not for having done anything truly important (you know like throwing a ball real good, or looking chiseled and handsome on a movie screen).
For those not in the sciences or not obsessed with publication metrics this is a reaction to the commonly used h-index, a measure of scientific productivity. Here ‘productivity’ is traditionally viewed as being publications in scientific journals, and the number of times your work gets cited (referenced) in other published papers is seen as a measure of your ‘impact’. The h-index is calculated as the number of papers you’ve published with citations equal to or greater than that number. So if I’ve published 10 papers I rank these by number of citations and find that only 5 of those papers have 5 or more citations and thus my h-index is 5. There is A LOT of debate about this metric and it’s uses which include making decisions for tenure/promotion and hiring.
Well, the paper itself has drawn quite a bit of well-placed criticism and prompted a brilliant correction from Red Ink. Though I sympathize with Neil Hall and think he actually did a good thing to prompt all the discussion and it was really satire (his paper is mostly a journal-based troll)- the criticism is really spot on. First off for the idea that Twitter activity is less impactful than publishing in scientific journals, a concept that seems positively quaint, outdated, and wrong-headed about scientific communication (a good post here about that). This idea also prompted a blog post from Keith Bradnam who suggested that we could look at the Kardashian Index much more productively if we flipped it on it’s head and proposed the Tesla index, or a measure of scientific isolation. Possibly this is what Dr. Hall had in mind when he wrote it. Second, that Kim Kardashian has “not achieved anything consequential in science, politics or the arts” and “is one of the most followed people on twitter” and this is a bad thing. Also that the joke “punches down” and thus isn’t really funny- as put here. I have numerous thoughts on this one from many aspects of pop culture but won’t go in to those here.
So the paper spawned a hashtag, #AlternateScienceMetrics#AlternateScienceMetrics, where scientists and others suggested other funny (and sometimes celebrity-named) metrics for evaluating scientific impact or other things. These are really funny and you can check out summaries here and here and a storify here. I tweeted one of these (see below) that has now become my most retweeted Tweet (quite modest by most standards, but hey over 100 RTs!). This got me thinking, how many of these ideas would actually work? That is, how many #AlternateScienceMetrics could be reasonably and objectively calculated and what useful information would these tell us? I combed through the suggestions to highlight some of these here- and I note that there is some sarcasm/satire hiding here and there too. You’ve been warned.
Name: The Kanye Index
What it is: Number of self citations/number of total citations
What it tells you: How much does an author cite their own work.
The good: High index means that the authors value their own work and are likely building on their previous work
The bad: The authors are blowing their own horn and trying to inflate their own h-indices.
This is actually something that people think about seriously as pointed out in this discussion (h/t PLoS Labs). Essentially from this analysis it looks like self-citations in life science papers are low relative to other disciplines: 21% of all citations in life science papers are self-citations, but this is *double* in engineering where 42% of citations are self citations. The point is that self-citations aren’t a bad thing- they allow important promotion of visibility and artificially suppressing self-citation may not be a good thing. I use self citations since a lot of times my current work (that’s being described) builds on the previous work, which is the most relevant to cite (generally along with other papers that are not from my group too). Ironically, this the first entry in my list of potentially useful #AlternateScienceMetrics is a self reference.
The Kanye Index = number of self-citations / number of citations #AlternateScienceMetrics (this one could actually work)
What it is: Number of Twitter followers/number of total citations
What it tells you: Balance of social media presence with traditional scientific publications.
The good: High index means you value social media for scientific outreach
The bad: The authors spend more time on the social media than doing ‘real’ scientific work.
I personally like Keith Bradnam’sTesla Index to measure scientific isolation (essentially the number of citations you have divided by the number of Twitter followers). I see that the importance of traditional scientific journals as THE way to disseminate your science is waning. They are still important and lend an air of confidence to the conclusions stated there, which may or may not be well-founded, but there is a lot of very important scientific discussion that is happening elsewhere. Even in terms of how we find out about scientific studies published in traditional journals outlets like Twitter are playing increasingly important roles. So, increasingly, a measure of scientific isolation might be important.
Name: The Bechdel Index
What it is: Number of papers with two or more women coauthors
High: You’re helping to effect a positive change.
Low: You’re not paying attention to the gender disparities in the sciences.
The Bechdel Index is a great suggestion and has a body of work behind it. I’ve posted about some of these issues here and here. Essentially looking at issues of gender discrepancies in science and the scientific literature. There are some starter overviews of these problems here and here, but it’s a really big issue. As an example one of these studies shows that the number of times a work is cited is correlated with the gender of its first author- which is pretty staggering if you think about it.
What it is: Some kind of similarity measure in the papers you’ve published
What it tells you: How much you recycle very similar text and work.
The good: Low index would indicate a diversity and novelty in your work and writing.
The bad: High index indicates that you plagiarize from yourself and/or that you tend to try to milk a project for as much as it’s worth.
Interestingly I actually found a great example of this and blogged about it here. The group I found (all sharing the surname of Katoh) have an h-index of over 50 achieved by publishing a whole bunch of essentially identical papers (which are essentially useless).
What it is: Percentage of papers you’ve had published relative to rejected. I would amend to make it published/all papers so it’d be a percentage (see second Tweet below).
What it tells you: How hard you’re trying?
High: You are rocking it and very rarely get papers rejected. Alternatively you are extremely cautious and probably don’t publish a lot. Could be an indication of a perfectionist.
Low: Trying really hard and getting shot down a lot. Or you have a lot of irons in the fire and not too concerned with how individual papers fare.
Like the previous metric this one would be hard to track and would require self reporting from individual authors. Although you could probably get some of this information (at a broad level) from journals who report their percentage of accepted papers- that doesn’t tell you about individual authors though.
What it is: Maybe hours spent teaching divided by hours in research
What it tells you: How much of your effort is devoted to activity that should result in papers.
This is a good idea and points out something that I think a lot of professors with teaching duties have to balance (I’m not one of them, but pretty sure this is true). I’d bet they sometimes feel that their teaching load is something that is expected, but not taken into account when the publication metrics are looked evaluated.
What it is: Score of your paper divided by the impact factor of the journal where it was published
What it tells you: If your papers are being targeted at appropriate journals.
High: Indicates that your paper is more impactful than the average paper published in the journal.
Low: Indicates your paper is less impactful than the average paper published in the journal.
I’ve done this kind of analysis on my own publications (read about it here) and stratified my publications by career stage (graduate student, post-doc, PI). This showed that my impact (by this measure) has continued to increase- which is good!
The MENDEL index – the altmetric score of your paper(s)/impact factor of journal(s) where published originally #AlternateScienceMetrics — EduardoMorenoLampaya (@emorenolampaya) July 31, 2014
Name: The Two-Body Factor
What it is: Number of citations you have versus number of citations your spouse has.
What it tells you: For two career scientists this could indicate who might be the ‘trailing’ spouse (though see below).
High: You’re more impactful than your spouse.
Low: Your spouse is more impactful than you.
This is an interesting idea for a metric for an important problem. But it’s not likely that it would really address any specific problem- I mean if you’re in this relationship you probably already know what’s up, right? And if you’re not in the same sub-sub-sub discipline as your spouse it’s unlikely that the comparison would really be fair. If you’re looking for jobs it is perfectly reasonable that the spouse with a lower number of citations could be more highly sought after because they fit what the job is looking for very well. My wife, who is now a nurse, and I could calculate this factor, but the only papers she has her name on my name is on as well.
What it is: Percentage of papers published in a single journal.
What it tells you: Not sure. Could be an indicator that you are in such a specific sub-sub-sub-sub-field that you can only publish in that one journal. Or that you really like that one journal. Or that the chief editor of that one journal is your mom.
What it is: Citations divided by number of years the paper has been published. I suggest adding in a weighting factor for years since publication to increase the utility of this metric.
What it tells you: How much long-term impact are you having on the field?
High: Your paper(s) has a long term impact and it’s still being cited even years later.
Low: Your paper was a flash in the pan or it never was very impactful (in terms of other people reading it and citing it). Or you’re an under-recognized genius. Spend more time self-citing and promoting your work on Twitter!
My reformulation would look something like this: sum(Cy*(y*w)), where Cy is the citations for year y (where 1 is first year of publication) and w is a weighting factor. You could have w be a nonlinear function of some kind if you wanted to get fancy.
So if you’ve made it to this point here’s my summary. There are a lot of potentially useful metrics that evaluate different aspects of scientific productivity and/or weight for and against particular confounding factors. As humans we LOVE to have one single metric to look at and summarize everything. This is not how the world works. At all. But there we are. There are some very good efforts to try to change the ways that we, as scientists, evaluate our impact including ImpactStory and there’ve been many suggestions of much more complicated metrics than what I’ve described here if you’re interested.
Following on my previous post about methods to deal with the inevitable, frequent, and necessary instances of academic rejection you’ll face in your career I drew this comic to provide some helpful advice on ways to train for proposal writing. Since the review process generally takes months (well, the delay from the time of submission to the time that you find out is months- not the actual review itself) it’s good to work yourself up to this level slowly. You don’t want to sprain anything in the long haul getting to the proposal rejection stage.