research and phd guide success classes

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 06 November 2018

Twenty things I wish I’d known when I started my PhD

• Lucy A. Taylor 0

Lucy A. Taylor earned her zoology PhD from the University of Oxford, UK. She is now a postdoctoral researcher at Save the Elephants in Nairobi, Kenya, and a visiting researcher in the Department of Zoology at Oxford.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Starting a PhD can be tough. Looking back, there are many things I wish I’d known at the beginning. Here, I have curated a list of advice from current PhD students and postdoctoral researchers from the Department of Zoology at my institution, the University of Oxford, UK, to aid new graduate students.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07332-x

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged. You can get in touch with the editor at [email protected].

Related Articles

What makes a good PhD student?

Make the most of PhDs

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Hunger on campus: why US PhD students are fighting over food

Career Feature 03 MAY 24

How to stop students cramming for exams? Send them to sea

News & Views 30 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

Spotlight 17 APR 24

Ready or not, AI is coming to science education — and students have opinions

Career Feature 08 APR 24

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

PhD/master's Candidate

PhD/master's Candidate    Graduate School of Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University is seeking candidates for PhD and master's students i...

Kanazawa University

Senior Research Assistant in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Senior Research Scientist in Human Immunology, high-dimensional (40+) cytometry, ICS and automated robotic platforms.

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston University Atomic Lab

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

Alison l. antes.

1 Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-6006

Leonard B. Maggi, Jr.

2 Department of Medicine, Division of Molecular Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-4102

Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This “how-to” guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. The article begins with an overview of the responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions and that researchers receive fair credit.

INTRODUCTION

Doing research is stimulating and fulfilling work. Scientists make discoveries to build knowledge and solve problems, and they work with other dedicated researchers. Research is a highly complex activity, so it takes years for beginning researchers to learn everything they need to know to do science well. Part of this large body of knowledge is learning how to do research responsibly. Our purpose in this article is to provide graduate students a guide for how to perform responsible research. Our advice is also relevant to undergraduate researchers and for principal investigators (PIs), postdocs, or other researchers who mentor beginning researchers and wish to share our advice.

We begin by introducing some fundamentals about the responsible conduct of research (RCR), research misconduct, and ethical behavior. We focus on how to do reproducible science and be a responsible author. We provide practical advice for these topics and present scenarios to practice thinking through challenges in research. Our article concludes with decision-making strategies for addressing complex problems.

What is the responsible conduct of research?

To be committed to RCR means upholding the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity ( Steneck, 2007 ). Each day, RCR requires engaging in research in a conscientious, intentional fashion that yields the best science possible ( “Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct,” 2019 ). We adopt a practical, “how-to” approach, discussing the behaviors and habits that yield responsible research. However, some background knowledge about RCR is helpful to frame our discussion.

The scientific community uses many terms to refer to ethical and responsible behavior in research: responsible conduct of research, research integrity, scientific integrity, and research ethics ( National Academies of Science, 2009 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ; Steneck, 2007 ). A helpful way to think about these concepts is “doing good science in a good manner” ( DuBois & Antes, 2018 ). This means that the way researchers do their work, from experimental procedures to data analysis and interpretation, research reporting, and so on, leads to trustworthy research findings and conclusions. It also includes respectful interactions among researchers both within research teams (e.g., between peers, mentors and trainees, and collaborators) and with researchers external to the team (e.g., peer reviewers). We expand on trainee-mentor relationships and interpersonal dynamics with labmates in a companion article ( Antes & Maggi, 2021 ). When research involves human or animal research subjects, RCR includes protecting the well-being of research subjects.

We do not cover all potential RCR topics but focus on what we consider fundamentals for graduate students. Common topics covered in texts and courses on RCR include the following: authorship and publication; collaboration; conflicts of interest; data management, sharing, and ownership; intellectual property; mentor and trainee responsibilities; peer review; protecting human subjects; protecting animal subjects; research misconduct; the role of researchers in society; and laboratory safety. A number of topics prominently discussed among the scientific community in recent years are also relevant to RCR. These include the reproducibility of research ( Baker, 2016 ; Barba, 2016 ; Winchester, 2018 ), diversity and inclusion in science ( Asplund & Welle, 2018 ; Hofstra et al., 2020 ; Meyers, Brown, Moneta-Koehler, & Chalkley, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018a ; Roper, 2019 ), harassment and bullying ( Else, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018b ; “ No Place for Bullies in Science,” 2018 ), healthy research work environments ( Norris, Dirnagl, Zigmond, Thompson-Peer, & Chow, 2018 ; “ Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First,” 2018 ), and the mental health of graduate students ( Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss, & Vanderford, 2018 ).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) ( National Institutes of Health, 2009 ) and the National Science Foundation ( National Science Foundation, 2017 ) have formal policies indicating research trainees must receive education in RCR. Researchers are accountable to these funding agencies and the public which supports research through billions in tax dollars annually. The public stands to benefit from, or be harmed by, research. For example, the public may be harmed if medical treatments or social policies are based on untrustworthy research findings. Funding for research, participation in research, and utilization of the fruits of research all rely on public trust ( Resnik, 2011 ). Trustworthy findings are also essential for good stewardship of scarce resources ( Emanuel, Wendler, & Grady, 2000 ). Researchers are further accountable to their peers, colleagues, and scientists more broadly. Trust in the work of other researchers is essential for science to advance. Finally, researchers are accountable for complying with the rules and policies of their universities or research institutions, such as rules about laboratory safety, bullying and harassment, and the treatment of animal research subjects.

What is research misconduct?

When researchers intentionally misrepresent or manipulate their results, these cases of scientific fraud often make the news headlines ( Chappell, 2019 ; O’Connor, 2018 ; Park, 2012 ), and they can seriously undermine public trust in research. These cases also harm trust within the scientific community.

The U.S. defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) ( Department of Health and Human Services, 2005 ). FFP violate the fundamental ethical principle of honesty. Fabrication is making up data, and falsification is manipulating or changing data or results so they are no longer truthful. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty because it includes using someone’s words or ideas and portraying them as your own. When brought to light, misconduct involves lengthy investigations and serious consequences, such as ineligibility to receive federal research funding, loss of employment, paper retractions, and, for students, withdrawal of graduate degrees.

One aspect of responsible behavior includes addressing misconduct if you observe it. We suggest a guide titled “Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide” that provides advice for thinking about your options if you think you have observed misconduct ( Keith-Spiegel, Sieber, & Koocher, 2010 ). Your university will have written policies and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct. Making an allegation is very serious. As Keith-Spiegel et al.’s guide indicates, it is important to know the evidence that supports your claim, and what to expect in the process. We encourage, if possible, talking to the persons involved first. For example, one of us knew of a graduate student who reported to a journal editor their suspicion of falsified data in a manuscript. It turned out that the student was incorrect. Going above the PI directly to the editor ultimately led to the PI leaving the university, and the student had a difficult time finding a new lab to complete their degree. If the student had first spoken to the PI and lab members, they could have learned that their assumptions about the data in the paper were wrong. In turn, they could have avoided accusing the PI of a serious form of scientific misconduct—making up data—and harming everyone’s scientific career.

What shapes ethical behavior in the scientific workplace?

Responsible conduct of research and research misconduct are two sides of a continuum of behavior—RCR upholds the ideals of research and research misconduct violates them. Problematic practices that fall in the middle but are not defined formally as research misconduct have been labeled as detrimental research practices ( National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ). Researchers conducting misleading statistical analyses or PIs providing inadequate supervision are examples of the latter. Research suggests that characteristics of individual researchers and research environments explain (un)ethical behavior in the scientific workplace ( Antes et al., 2007 ; Antes, English, Baldwin, & DuBois, 2018 ; Davis, Riske-Morris, & Diaz, 2007 ; DuBois et al., 2013 ).

These two influences on ethical behavior are helpful to keep in mind when thinking about your behavior. When people think about their ethical behavior, they think about their personal values and integrity and tend to overlook the influence of their environment. While “being a good person” and having the right intentions are essential to ethical behavior, the environment also has an influence. In addition, knowledge of standards for ethical research is important for ethical behavior, and graduate students new to research do not yet know everything they need to. They also have not fully refined their ethical decision-making skills for solving professional problems. We discuss strategies for ethical decision-making in the final section of this article ( McIntosh, Antes, & DuBois, 2020 ).

The research environment influences ethical behavior in a number of ways. For example, if a research group explicitly discusses high standards for research, people will be more likely to prioritize these ideals in their behavior ( Plemmons et al., 2020 ). A mentor who sets a good example is another important factor ( Anderson et al., 2007 ). Research labs must also provide individuals with adequate training, supervision and feedback, opportunities to discuss data, and the psychological safety to feel comfortable communicating about problems, including mistakes ( Antes, Kuykendall, & DuBois, 2019a , 2019b ). On the other hand, unfair research environments, inadequate supervision, poor communication, and severe stress and anxiety may undermine ethical decision-making and behavior; particularly when many of these factors exist together. Thus, (un)ethical behavior is a complex interplay of individual factors (e.g., personality, stress, decision-making skills) and the environment.

For graduate students, it is important to attend to what you are learning and how the environment around you might influence your behavior. You do not know what you do not know, and you necessarily rely on others to teach you responsible practices. So, it is important to be aware. Ultimately, you are accountable for your behavior. You cannot just say “I didn’t know.” Rather, just like you are curious about your scientific questions, maintain a curiosity about responsible behavior as a researcher. If you feel uncomfortable with something, pay attention to that feeling, speak to someone you trust, and seek out information about how to handle the situation. In what follows, we cover key tips for responsible behavior in the areas of reproducibility and authorship that we hope will help you as you begin.

HOW TO DO REPRODUCIBLE SCIENCE

The foremost responsibility of scientists is to ensure they conduct research in such a manner that the findings are trustworthy. Reproducibility is the ability to duplicate results ( Goodman, Fanelli, & Ioannidis, 2016 ). The scientific community has called for greater openness, transparency, and rigor as key remedies for lack of reproducibility ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). As a graduate student, essential to fostering reproducibility is the rigor of your approach to doing experiments and handling data. We discuss how to utilize research protocols, document experiments in a lab notebook, and handle data responsibly.

Utilize research protocols

1. learn and utilize the lab’s protocols.

Research protocols describe the step-by-step procedures for doing an experiment. They are critical for the quality and reproducibility of experiments. Lab members must learn and follow the lab’s protocols with the understanding that they may need to make adjustments based on the requirements of a specific experiment.

Also, it is important to distinguish between the experiment you are performing and analyzing the data from that experiment. For example, the experiment you want to perform might be to determine if loss of a gene blocks cell growth. Several protocols, each with pros and cons, will allow you to examine “cell growth.” Using the wrong experimental protocol can produce data that leads to muddled conclusions. In this example, the gene does block cell growth, but the experiment used to produce the data that you analyze to understand cell growth is wrong, thus giving a result that is a false negative.

When first joining a lab, it is essential to commit to learning the protocols necessary for your assigned research project. Researchers must ensure they are proficient in executing a protocol and can perform their experiments reliably. If you do not feel confident with a protocol, you should do practice runs if possible. Repetition is the best way to work through difficulties with protocols. Often it takes several attempts to work through the steps of a protocol before you will be comfortable performing it. Asking to watch another lab member perform the protocol is also helpful. Be sure to watch closely how steps are performed, as often there are minor steps taken that are not written down. Also, experienced lab members may do things as second nature and not think to explicitly mention them when working through the protocol. Ask questions of other lab members so that you can improve your knowledge and gain confidence with a protocol. It is better to ask a question than potentially ruin a valuable or hard-to-get sample.

Be cautious of differences in the standing protocols in the lab and how you actually perform the experiment. Even the most minor deviations can seriously impact the results and reproducibility of an experiment. As mentioned above, often there are minor things that are done that might not be listed in the protocol. Paying attention and asking questions are the best ways to learn, in addition to adding notes to the protocol if you find minor details are missing.

2. Develop your own protocols

Often you will find that a project requires a protocol that has not been performed in the lab. If performing a new experiment in the lab and no protocol exists, find a protocol and try it. Protocols can be obtained from many different sources. A great source is other labs on campus, as you can speak directly to the person who performs the experiment. There are many journal sources as well, such as Current Protocols, Nature Protocols, Nature Methods, and Cell STAR Methods . These methods journals provide the most detailed protocols for experiments often with troubleshooting tips. Scientific papers are the most common source of protocols. However, keep in mind that due to the common brevity of methods sections, they often omit crucial details or reference other papers that may not contain a complete description of the protocol.

3. Handle mistakes or problems promptly

At some point, everyone encounters problems with a protocol, or realizes they made a mistake. You should be prepared to handle this situation by being able to detail exactly how you performed the experiment. Did you skip a step? Shorten or lengthen a time point? Did you have to make a new buffer or borrow a labmate’s buffer? There are too many ways an experiment can go wrong to list here but being able to recount all the steps you performed in detail will help you work through the problem. Keep in mind that often the best way to understand how to perform an experiment is learning from when something goes wrong. This situation requires you to critically think through what was done and understand the steps taken. When everything works perfectly, it is easy to pay less attention to the details, which can lead to problems down the line.

It is up to you to be attentive and meticulous in the lab. Paying attention to the details may feel like a pain at first, or even seem overwhelming. Practice and repetition will help this focus on details become a natural part of your lab work. Ultimately, this skill will be essential to being a responsible scientist.

Document experiments in a lab notebook

1. recognize the importance of a lab notebook.

Maintaining detailed documentation in a lab notebook allows researchers to keep track of their experiments and generation of data. This detailed documentation helps you communicate about your research with others in the lab, and serves as a basis for preparing publications. It also provides a lasting record for the lab that exists beyond your time in the lab. After graduate students leave the lab, sometimes it is necessary to go back to the results of older experiments. A complete and detailed notebook is essential, or all of the time, effort, and resources are lost.

2. Learn the note-keeping practices in your lab

When you enter a new lab, it is important to understand how the lab keeps notebooks and the expectations for documentation. Being conscientious about documentation will make you a better scientist. In some labs, the PI might routinely examine your notebook, while in other labs you may be expected to maintain a notebook, but it may not be regularly viewed by others. It is tempting to become relaxed in documentation if you think your notebook may not be reviewed. Avoid this temptation; documentation of your ideas and process will improve your ability to think critically about research. Further, even if the PI or lab members do not physically view your notebook, you will need to communicate with them about your experiments. This documentation is necessary to communicate effectively about your work.

3. Organize your lab notebook

Different labs use different formats; some use electronic notebooks while others handwritten notebooks. The contents of a good notebook include the purpose of the experiment, the details of the experimental procedure, the data, and thoughts about the results. To effectively document your experiment, there are 5 critical questions that the information you record should be able to answer.

• Why I am doing this experiment? (purpose)
• What did I do to perform the experiment? (protocol)
• What are the results of what I did? (data, graphs)
• What do I think about the results?
• What do I think are the next steps?

We also recommend a table of contents. It will make the information more useful to you and the lab in the future. The table of contents should list the title of the experiment, the date(s) it was performed, and the page numbers on which it is recorded. Also, make sure that you write clearly and provide a legend or explanation of any shorthand or non-standard abbreviation you use. Often labs will have a combination of written lab notebooks and electronic data. It is important to reference where electronic data are located that go with each experiment. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to understand what you did and where to find all the data (electronic and hard copy) that accompanies your experiment.

Keeping a lab notebook becomes easier with practice. It can be thought of almost like journaling about your experiment. Sometimes people think of it as just a place to paste their protocol and a graph or data. We strongly encourage you to include your thoughts about why you made the decisions you made when conducting the experiment and to document your thoughts about next steps.

4. Commit to doing it the right way

A common reason to become lax in documentation is feeling rushed for time. Although documentation takes time, it saves time in the long-run and fosters good science. Without good notes, you will waste time trying to recall precisely what you did, reproduce your findings, and remember what you thought would be important next steps. The lab notebook helps you think about your research critically and keep your thoughts together. It can also save you time later when writing up results for publication. Further, well-documented data will help you draft a cogent and rigorous dissertation.

Handle data responsibly

1. keep all data.

Data are the product of research. Data include raw data, processed data, analyzed data, figures, and tables. Many data today are electronic, but not all. Generating data requires a lot of time and resources and researchers must treat data with care. The first essential tip is to keep all data. Do not discard data just because the experiment did not turn out as expected. A lot of experiments do not turn out to yield publishable data, but the results are still important for informing next steps.

Always keep the original, raw data. That is, as you process and analyze data, always maintain an unprocessed version of the original data.

Universities and funding agencies have data retention policies. These policies specify the number of years beyond a grant that data must be kept. Some policies also indicate researchers need to retain original data that served as the basis for a publication for a certain number of years. Therefore, your data will be important well beyond your time in graduate school. Most labs require you to keep samples for reanalysis until a paper is published, then the analyzed data are enough. If you leave a lab before a paper is accepted for publication, you are responsible for ensuring your data and original samples are well documented for others to find and use.

2. Document all data

In addition to keeping all data, data must be well-organized and documented. This means that no matter the way you keep your data (e.g., electronic or in written lab notebooks), there is a clear guide—in your lab notebook, a binder, or on a lab hard drive—to finding the data for a particular experiment. For example, it must be clear which data produced a particular graph. Version control of data is also critical. Your documentation should include “metadata” (data about your data) that tracks versions of the data. For example, as you edit data for a table, you should save separate versions of the tables, name the files sequentially, and note the changes that were made to each version.

3. Backup your data

You should backup electronic data regularly. Ideally, your lab has a shared server or cloud storage to backup data. If you are supposed to put your data there, make sure you do it! When you leave the lab, it must be possible to find your data.

4. Perform data analysis honestly and competently

Inappropriate use of statistics is a major concern in the scientific community, as the results and conclusions will be misleading if done incorrectly ( DeMets, 1999 ). Some practices are clearly an abuse of statistics, while other inappropriate practices stem from lack of knowledge. For example, a practice called “p-hacking” describes when researchers “collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant” ( Head, Holman, Lanfear, Kahn, & Jennions, 2015 ). In addition to avoiding such misbehavior, it is essential to be proficient with statistics to ensure you do statistical procedures appropriately. Learning statistical procedures and analyzing data takes many years of practice, and your statistics courses may only cover the basics. You will need to know when to consult others for help. In addition to consulting members in your lab or your PI, your university may have statistical experts who can provide consultations.

5. Master pressure to obtain favored results

When you conduct an experiment, the results are the results. As a beginning researcher, it is important to be prepared to manage the frustration of experiments not turning out as expected. It is also important to manage the real or perceived pressure to produce favored results. Investigators can become wedded to a hypothesis, and they can have a difficult time accepting the results. Sometimes you may feel this pressure coming from yourself; for example, if you want to please your PI, or if you want to get results for a certain publication. It is important to always follow the data no matter where it leads.

If you do feel pressure, this situation can be uncomfortable and stressful. If you have been meticulous and followed the above recommendations, this can be one great safeguard. You will be better able to confidently communicate your results to the PI because of your detailed documentation, and you will be more confident in your procedures if the possibility of error is suggested. Typically, with enough evidence that the unexpected results are real, the PI will concede. We recommend seeking the support of friends or colleagues to vent and cope with stress. In the rare case that the PI does not relent, you could turn to an advisor outside the lab if you need advice about how to proceed. They can help you look at the data objectively and also help you think about the interpersonal aspects of navigating this situation.

6. Communicate about your data in the lab

A critical element of reproducible research is communication in the lab. Ideally, there are weekly or bi-weekly meetings to discuss data. You need to develop your communication skills for writing and speaking about data. Often you and your labmates will discuss experimental issues and results informally during the course of daily work. This is an excellent way to hone critical thinking and communication skills about data.

Scenario 1 – The Protocol is Not Working

At the beginning of a rotation during their first year, a graduate student is handed a lab notebook and a pen and is told to keep track of their work. There does not appear to be a specific format to follow. There are standard lab protocols that everyone follows, but minor tweaks to the protocols do not seem to be tracked from experiment to experiment in the standard lab protocol nor in other lab notebooks. After two weeks of trying to follow one of the standard lab protocols, the student still cannot get the experiment to work. The student has included the appropriate positive and negative controls which are failing, making the experiment uninterpretable. After asking others in the lab for help, the graduate student learns that no one currently in the lab has performed this particular experiment. The former lab member who had performed the experiment only lists the standard protocol in their lab notebook.

How should the graduate student start to solve the problem?

Speaking to the PI would be the next logical step. As a first-year student in a lab rotation, the PI should expect this type of situation and provide additional troubleshooting guidance. It is possible that the PI may want to see how the new graduate student thinks critically and handles adversity in the lab. Rather than giving an answer, the PI might ask the student to work through the problem. The PI should give guidance, but it may not be an immediate fix for the problem. If the PI’s suggestions fail to correct the problem, asking a labmate or the PI for the contact information of the former lab member who most recently performed the experiment would be a reasonable next step. The graduate student’s conversations with the PI and labmates in this situation will help them learn a lot about how the people in the lab interact.

Most of the answers for these types of problems will require you as a graduate student to take the initiative to answer. They will require your effort and ingenuity to talk to other lab members, other labs at the university, and even scour the literature for alternatives. While labs have standard protocols, there are multiple ways to do many experiments, and working out an alternative will teach you more than when everything works. Having to troubleshoot problems will result in better standard protocols in the lab and better science.

HOW TO BE A RESPONSIBLE AUTHOR

Researchers communicate their findings via peer-reviewed publications, and publications are important for advancing in a research career. Many graduate students will first author or co-author publications in graduate school. For good advice on how to write a research manuscript, consult the Current Protocols article “How to write a research manuscript” ( Frank, 2018 ). We focus on the issues of assigning authors and reporting your findings responsibly. First, we describe some important basics: journal impact factors, predatory journals, and peer review.

What are journal impact factors?

It is helpful to understand journal impact factors. There is criticism about an overemphasis on impact factors for evaluating the quality or importance of researchers’ work ( DePellegrin & Johnston, 2015 ), but they remain common for this purpose. Journal impact factors reflect the average number of times articles in a journal were cited in the last two years. Higher impact factors place journals at a higher rank. Approximately 2% of journals have an impact factor of 10 or higher. For example, Cell, Science, and Nature have impact factors of approximately 39, 42, and 43, respectively. Journals can be great journals but have lower impact factors; often this is because they focus on a smaller specialty field. For example, Journal of Immunology and Oncogene are respected journals, but their impact factors are about 4 and 7, respectively.

Research trainees often want to publish in journals with the highest possible impact factor because they expect this to be viewed favorably when applying to future positions. We encourage you to bear in mind that many different journals publish excellent science and focus on publishing where your work will reach the desired audience. Also, keep in mind that while a high impact factor can direct you to respectable, high-impact science, it does not guarantee that the science in the paper is good or even correct. You must critically evaluate all papers you read no matter the impact factor.

What are predatory journals?

Predatory journals have flourished over the past few years as publishing science has moved online. An international panel defined predatory journals as follows ( Grudniewicz et al., 2019 ):

Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices. (p. 211)

Often young researchers receive emails soliciting them to submit their work to a journal. There are typically small fees (around $99 US) requested but these fees will be much lower than open access fees of reputable journals (often around $2000 US). A warning sign of a predatory journal is outlandish promises, such as 24-hour peer review or immediate publication. You can find a list of predatory journals created by a postdoc in Europe at BeallsList.net ( “Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers,” 2020 ).

What is peer review?

Peer reviewers are other scientists who have the expertise to evaluate a manuscript. Typically 2 or 3 reviewers evaluate a manuscript. First, an editor performs an initial screen of the manuscript to ensure its appropriateness for the journal and that it meets basic quality standards. At this stage, an editor can decide to reject the manuscript and not send it to review. Not sending a paper for peer review is common in the highest impact journals that receive more submissions per year than can be reviewed and published. For average-impact journals and specialty journals, typically your paper will be sent for peer review.

In general, peer review focuses on three aspects of a manuscript: research design and methods, validity of the data and conclusions, and significance. Peer reviewers assess the merit and rigor of the research design and methodology, and they evaluate the overall validity of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. Essentially, reviewers want to ensure that the data support the claims. Additionally, reviewers evaluate the overall significance, or contribution, of the findings, which involves the novelty of the research and the likelihood that the findings will advance the field. Significance standards vary between journals. Some journals are open to publishing findings that are incremental advancements in a field, while others want to publish only what they deem as major advancements. This feature can distinguish the highest impact journals which seek the most significant advancements and other journals that tend to consider a broader range of work as long as it is scientifically sound. It is important to keep in mind that determining at the stage of review and publication whether a paper is “high impact” is quite subjective. In reality, this can only really be determined in retrospect.

The key ethical issues in peer review are fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality ( Shamoo & Resnik, 2015 ). Peer reviewers are to evaluate the manuscript on its merits and not based on biases related to the authors or the science itself. If reviewers have a conflict of interest, this should be disclosed to the editor. Confidentiality of peer review means that the reviewers should keep private the information; they should not share the information with others or use it to their benefit. Reviewers can ultimately recommend that the manuscript is rejected, revised, and resubmitted (major or minor revisions), or accepted. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and makes a judgment about rejecting, accepting, or requesting a revision. Sometimes PIs will ask experienced graduate students to assist with peer reviewing a manuscript. This is a good learning opportunity. The PI should disclose to the editor that they included a trainee in preparing the review.

Assign authorship fairly

Authorship gives credit to the people who contributed to the research. This includes thinking of the ideas, designing and performing experiments, interpreting the results, and writing the paper. Two key questions regarding authorship include: 1 - Who will be an author? 2 - What will be the order in which authors are listed? These seem simple on the surface but can get quite complex.

1. Know authorship guidelines

Authorship guidelines published by journals, professional societies, and universities communicate key principles of authorship and standards for earning authorship. The core ethical principle of assigning authorship is fairness in who receives credit for the work. The people who contributed to the work should get credit for it. This seems simply enough, but determining authorship can (and often does) create conflict.

Many universities have authorship guidelines, and you should know the policies at your university. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides four criteria for determining who should be an author ( International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2020 ). These criteria indicate that an author should do all of the following: 1) make “substantial contributions” to the development of the idea or research design, or to acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting the data, 2) write the manuscript or revise it a substantive way, 3) give approval of the final manuscript (i.e., before it is submitted for review, and after it is revised, if necessary), and 4) agree to be responsible for any questions about the accuracy or integrity of the research.

Several types of authorship violate these guidelines and should be avoided. Guest authorship is when respected researchers are added out of appreciation, or to have the manuscript be perceived more favorably to get it published or increase its impact. Gift authorship is giving authorship to reward an individual, or as a favor. Ghost authorship is when someone made significant contributions to the paper but is not listed as an author. To increase transparency, some journals require authors to indicate how each individual contributed to the research and manuscript.

2. Apply the guidelines

Conflicts often arise from disagreements about how much people contributed to the research and whether those contributions merit authorship. The best approach is an open, honest, and ongoing discussion about authorship, which we discuss in #3 below. To have effective, informed conversations about authorship, you must understand how to apply the guidelines to your specific situation. The following is a simple rule of thumb that indicates there are three components of authorship. We do not list giving final approval of the manuscript and agreeing to be accountable, but we do consider these essentials of authorship.

• Thinking – this means contributing to the ideas leading to the hypothesis of the work, designing experiments to address the hypothesis, and/or analyzing the results in the larger context of the literature in the field.
• Doing – this means performing and analyzing the experiments.
• Writing – this means editing a draft, or writing the entire paper. The first author often writes the entire first draft.

In our experience, a first author would typically do all three. They also usually coordinate the writing and editing process. Co-authors are typically very involved in at least two of the three, and are somewhat involved in the other. The PI, who oversees and contributes to all three, is often the last, or “senior author.” The “senior author” is typically the “corresponding author”—the person listed as the individual to contact about the paper. The other co-authors are listed between the first and senior author either alphabetically, or more commonly, in order from the largest to smallest contribution.

Problems in assigning authorship typically arise due to people’s interpretations of #1 (thinking) and #2 (doing)—what and how much each individual contributed to a project’s design, execution, and analysis. Different fields or PIs may have their own slight variations on these guidelines. The potential conflicts associated with assigning authorship lead to the most common recommendation for responsibly assigning authorship: discuss authorship expectations early and revisit them during the project.

3. Discuss authorship with your collaborators

Publications are important for career advancement, so you can see why people might be worried about fairness in assigning authorship. If the problem arises from a lack of a shared understanding about contributions to the research, the only way to clarify this is an open discussion. This discussion should ideally take place very early at the beginning of a project, and should be ongoing. Hopefully you work in a laboratory that makes these discussions a natural part of the research process; this makes it much easier to understand the expectations upfront.

We encourage you to speak up about your interest in making a contribution that would merit authorship, especially if you want to earn first authorship. Sometimes norms about authoring papers in a lab make it clear you are expected to first and co-author publications, but it is best to communicate your interest in earning authorship. If the project is not yours, but you wish to collaborate, you can inquire what you may be able to contribute that would merit authorship.

If it is not a norm in your lab to discuss authorship throughout the life of projects, then as a graduate student you may feel reluctant to speak up. You could initiate a conversation with a more senior graduate student, a postdoc, or your PI, depending on the dynamics in the group. You could ask generally about how the lab approaches assignment of authorship, but discussing a specific project and paper may be best. It may feel awkward to ask, but asking early is less uncomfortable than waiting until the end of the project. If the group is already drafting a manuscript and you are told that your contribution is insufficient for authorship, this situation is much more discouraging than if you had asked earlier about what is expected to earn authorship.

How to report findings responsibly

The most significant responsibility of authors is to present their research accurately and honestly. Deliberately presenting misleading information is clearly unethical, but there are significant judgment calls about how to present your research findings. For example, an author can mislead by overstating the conclusions given what the data support.

1. Commit to presenting your findings honestly

Any good scientific manuscript writer will tell you that you need to “tell a good story.” This means that your paper is organized and framed to draw the reader into the research and convince them of the importance of the findings. But, this story must be sound and justified by the data. Other authors are presenting their findings in the best, most “publishable” light, so it is a balancing act to be persuasive but also responsible in presenting your findings in a trustworthy manner. To present your findings honestly, you must be conscious of how you interpret your data and present your conclusions so that they are accurate and not overstated.

One misbehavior known as “HARKing,” Hypothesis After the Results are Known, occurs when hypotheses are created after seeing the results of an experiment, but they are presented as if they were defined prior to collecting the data ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). This practice should be avoided. HARKing may be driven, in part, by a concern in scientific publishing known as publication bias. This bias is a preference that reviewers, editors, and researchers have for papers describing positive findings instead of negative findings ( Carroll, Toumpakari, Johnson, & Betts, 2017 ). This preference can lead to manipulating one’s practices, such as by HARKing, so that positive findings can be reported.

It is important to note that in addition to avoiding misbehaviors such as HARKing, all researchers are susceptible to a number of more subtle traps in judgment. Even the most well-intentioned researcher may jump to conclusions, discount alternative explanations, or accept results that seem correct without further scrutiny ( Nuzzo, 2015 ). Therefore, researchers must not only commit to presenting their findings honestly but consider how they can counteract such traps by slowing down and increasing their skepticism towards their findings.

2. Provide an appropriate amount of detail

Providing enough detail in a manuscript can be a challenge with the word limits imposed by most journals. Therefore, you will need to determine what details to include and which to exclude, or potentially include in the supplemental materials. Methods sections can be long and are often the first to be shortened, but complete methods are important for others to evaluate the research and to repeat the methods in other studies. Even more significant is making decisions about what experimental data to include and potentially exclude from the manuscript. Researchers must determine what data is required to create a complete scientific story that supports the central hypothesis of the paper. On the other hand, it is not necessary or helpful to include so much data in the manuscript, or in supplemental material, that the central point of the paper is difficult to discern. It is a tricky balance.

3. Follow proper citation practices

Of course, responsible authorship requires avoiding plagiarism. Many researchers think that plagiarism is not a concern for them because they assume it is always done intentionally by “copying and pasting” someone else’s words and claiming them as your own. Sometimes poor writing practices, such as taking notes from references without distinguishing between direct quotes and paraphrased material, can lead to including material that is not quoted properly. More broadly, proper citation practices include accurately and completely referencing prior studies to provide appropriate context for your manuscript.

4. Attend to the other important details

The journal will require several pieces of additional information, such as disclosure of sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest. Typically, graduate students do not have relationships that constitute conflicts of interest, but a PI who is a co-author may. In submitting a manuscript, also make sure to acknowledge individuals not listed as authors but who contributed to the work.

5. Share data and promote transparency

Data sharing is a key facet of promoting transparency in science ( Nosek et al., 2015 ). It will be important to know the expectations of the journals in which you wish to publish. Many top journals now require data sharing; for example, sharing your data files in an online repository so others have access to the data for secondary use. Funding agencies like NIH also increasingly require data sharing. To further foster transparency and public trust in research, researchers must deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts that report on research funded by NIH to PubMed Central. PubMed makes biomedical and life science research publicly accessible in a free, online database.

Scenario 2 – Authors In Conflict

To prepare a manuscript for publication, a postdoc’s data is added to a graduate student’s thesis project. After working together to combine the data and write the paper, the postdoc requests co-first authorship on the paper. The graduate student balks at this request on the basis that it is their thesis project. In a weekly meeting with the lab’s PI to discuss the status of the paper, the graduate student states that they should divide the data between the authors as a way to prove that the graduate student should be the sole first author. The PI agrees to this attempt to quantify how much data each person contributed to the manuscript. All parties agree the writing and thinking were equally shared between them. After this assessment, the graduate student sees that the postdoc actually contributed more than half of the data presented in the paper. The graduate student and a second graduate student contributed the remaining data; this means the graduate student contributed much less than half of the data in the paper. However, the graduate student is still adamant that they must be the sole first author of the paper because it is their thesis project.

Is the graduate student correct in insisting that it is their project, so they are entitled to be the sole first author?

Co-first authorship became popular about 10 years ago as a way to acknowledge shared contributions to a paper in which authors worked together and contributed equally. If the postdoc contributed half of the data and worked with the graduate student to combine their interpretations and write the first draft of the paper, then the postdoc did make a substantial contribution. If the graduate student wrote much of the first draft of the paper, contributed significantly to the second half of data, and played a major role in the thesis concept and design, this is also a major contribution. We summarized authorship requirements as contributing to thinking, doing, and writing, and we noted that a first author usually contributes to all of these. The graduate student has met all 3 elements to claim first authorship. However, it appears that the postdoc has also met these 3 requirements. Thus, it is at least reasonable for the postdoc to ask about co-first authorship.

The best way to move forward is to discuss their perspectives openly. Both the graduate student and postdoc want first authorship on papers to advance their careers. The postdoc feels they contributed more to the overall concept and design than the graduate student is recognizing, and the postdoc did contribute half of the data. This is likely frustrating and upsetting for the postdoc. On the other hand, perhaps the postdoc is forgetting how much a thesis becomes like “your baby,” so to speak. The work is the graduate student’s thesis, so it is easy to see why the graduate student would feel a sense of ownership of it. Given this fact, it may be hard for the graduate student to accept the idea that they would share first-author recognition for the work. Yet, the graduate student should consider that the manuscript would not be possible without the postdoc’s contribution. Further, if the postdoc was truly being unreasonable, then the postdoc could make the case for sole first authorship based on contributing the most data to the paper, in addition to contributing ideas and writing the paper. The graduate student should consider that the postdoc may be suggesting co-first authorship in good faith.

As with any interpersonal conflict, clear communication is key. While it might be temporarily uncomfortable to voice their views and address this disagreement, it is critical to avoiding permanent damage to their working relationship. The pair should consider each other’s perspectives and potential alternatives. For example, if the graduate student is first author and the postdoc second, at a minimum they could include an author note in the manuscript that describes the contribution of each author. This would make it clear the scope of the postdoc’s contribution, if they decided not to go with co-first authorship. Also, the graduate student should consider their assumptions about co-first authorship. Maybe they assume it makes it appear they contributed less, but instead, perhaps co-first authorship highlights their collaborative approach to science. Collaboration is a desirable quality many (although arguably not all) research organizations look for when they are hiring.

They will also need to speak with others for advice. The pair should definitely speak with the PI who could provide input about how these cases have been handled in the past. Ultimately, if they cannot reach an agreement, the PI, who is likely to be the last or “senior” author, may make the final decision. They should also speak to the other graduate student who is an author.

If either individual is upset with the situation, they will want to discuss it when they have had time to cool down. This might mean taking a day before discussing, or speaking with someone outside of the lab for support. Ideally, all authors on this paper would have initiated this conversation earlier, and the standards in the lab for first authorship would be discussed routinely. Clear communication may have avoided the conflict.

HOW TO USE DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES TO NAVIGATE CHALLENGES

We have provided advice on some specific challenges you might encounter in research. This final section covers our overarching recommendation that you adopt a set of ethical decision-making strategies. These strategies help researchers address challenges by helping them think through a problem and possible alternatives ( McIntosh et al., 2020 ). The strategies encourage you to gather information, examine possible outcomes, consider your assumptions, and address emotional reactions before acting. They are especially helpful when you are uncertain how to proceed, face a new problem, or when the consequences of a decision could negatively impact you or others. The strategies also help people be honest with themselves, such as when they are discounting important factors or have competing goals, by encouraging them to identify outside perspectives and test their motivations. You can remember the strategies using the acronym SMART .

1. S eek Help

Obtain input from others who can be objective and that you trust. They can assist you with assessing the situation, predicting possible outcomes, and identifying potential options. They can also provide you with support. Individuals to consult may be peers, other faculty, or people in your personal life. It is important that you trust the people you talk with, but it is also good when they challenge your perspective, or encourage you to think in a new way about a problem. Keep in mind that people such as program directors and university ombudsmen are often available for confidential, objective advice.

2. M anage Emotions

Consider your emotional reaction to the situation and how it might influence your assessment of the situation, and your potential decisions and actions. In particular, identify negative emotions, like frustration, anxiety, fear, and anger, as they particularly tend to diminish decision-making and the quality of interactions with others. Take time to address these emotions before acting, for example, by exercising, listening to music, or simply taking a day before responding.

3. A nticipate Consequences

Think about how the situation could turn out. This includes for you, for the research team, and anyone else involved. Consider the short, middle-term, and longer-term impacts of the problem and your potential approach to addressing the situation. Ideally, it is possible to identify win-win outcomes. Often, however, in tough professional situations, you may need to select the best option from among several that are not ideal.

4. R ecognize Rules and Context

Determine if any ethical principles, professional policies, or rules apply that might help guide your choices. For instance, if the problem involves an authorship dispute, consider the authorship guidelines that apply. Recognizing the context means considering the situational factors that could impact your options and how you proceed. For example, factors such as the reality that ultimately the PI may have the final decision about authorship.

5. T est Assumptions and Motives

Examine your beliefs about the situation and whether any of your thoughts may not be justified. This includes critically examining the personal motivations and goals that are driving your interpretation of the problem and thoughts about how to resolve it.

These strategies do not have to be engaged in order, and they are interrelated. For example, seeking help can help you manage emotions, test assumptions, and anticipate consequences. Go back to the scenarios and our advice throughout this article, and you will see many of our suggestions align with these strategies. Practice applying SMART strategies when you encounter a problem and they will become more natural.

Learning practices for responsible research will be the foundation for your success in graduate school and your career. We encourage you to be reflective and intentional as you learn and hope that our advice helps you along the way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Antes, K01HG008990) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002345).

LITERATURE CITED

• Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, & Martinson BC (2007). What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists . Academic Medicine , 82 ( 9 ), 853–860. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Brown RP, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Connelly S, & Devenport LD (2007). Personality and Ethical Decision-Making in Research: The Role of Perceptions of Self and Others . Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , 2 ( 4 ), 15–34. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, English T, Baldwin KA, & DuBois JM (2018). The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers’ Perceptions of Rules in Science . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 ( 2 ), 361–391. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019a). The Lab Management Practices of “Research Exemplars” that Foster Research Rigor and Regulatory Compliance: A Qualitative Study of Successful Principal Investigators . PloS One , 14 ( 4 ), e0214595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214595 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019b). Leading for Research Excellence and Integrity: A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationship-Building Practices of Exemplary Principal Investigators . Accountability in Research , 26 ( 3 ), 198–226. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1611429 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, & Maggi LB Jr. (2021). How to Navigate Trainee-Mentor Relationships and Interpersonal Dynamics in the Lab . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asplund M, & Welle CG (2018). Advancing Science: How Bias Holds Us Back . Neuron , 99 ( 4 ), 635–639. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.045 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker M (2016). Is There a Reproducibility Crisis? Nature , 533 , 452–454. doi: 10.1038/533452a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba LA (2016). The Hard Road to Reproducibility . Science , 354 ( 6308 ), 142. doi: 10.1126/science.354.6308.142 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers . (2020). Retrieved from https://beallslist.net/#update [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, & Betts JA (2017). The Perceived Feasibility of Methods to Reduce Publication Bias . PloS One , 12 ( 10 ), e0186472–e0186472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chappell B (2019). Duke Whistleblower Gets More Than $33 Million in Research Fraud Settlement . NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706604033/duke-whistleblower-gets-more-than-33-million-in-research-fraud-settlement [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, & Diaz SR (2007). Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files . Science and Engineering Ethics , 13 ( 4 ), 395–414. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeMets DL (1999). Statistics and Ethics in Medical Research . Science and Engineering Ethics , 5 ( 1 ), 97–117. doi: 10.1007/s11948-999-0059-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• DePellegrin TA, & Johnston M (2015). An Arbitrary Line in the Sand: Rising Scientists Confront the Impact Factor . Genetics , 201 ( 3 ), 811–813. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, & Rubbelke T (2013). Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing . Account Res , 20 ( 5–6 ), 320–338. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, & Antes AL (2018). Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity . Academic Medicine , 93 ( 4 ), 550–555. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Else H (2018). Does Science have a Bullying Problem? Nature , 563 , 616–618. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07532-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, & Grady C (2000). What Makes Clinical Research Ethical ? Journal of the American Medical Association , 283 ( 20 ), 2701–2711. doi:jsc90374 [pii] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, & Vanderford NL (2018). Evidence for a Mental Health Crisis in Graduate Education . Nature Biotechnology , 36 ( 3 ), 282–284. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank DJ (2018). How to Write a Research Manuscript . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques , 16 ( 1 ), e20. doi: 10.1002/cpet.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman SN, Fanelli D, & Ioannidis JPA (2016). What Does Research Reproducibility Mean? Science Translational Medicine , 8 ( 341 ), 341ps312. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, … Lalu MM (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence . Nature , 576 ( 7786 ), 210–212. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, & Jennions MD (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science . PLoS Biology , 13 ( 3 ), e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, & McFarland DA (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 17 ), 9284. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2020). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors . Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
• Keith-Spiegel P, Sieber J, & Koocher GP (2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide . Retrieved from http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/1/4/0/20883041/assets/RRW_11-10.pdf
• McIntosh T, Antes AL, & DuBois JM (2020). Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: A Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making . Journal of Academic Ethics . doi: 10.1007/s10805-020-09369-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers LC, Brown AM, Moneta-Koehler L, & Chalkley R (2018). Survey of Checkpoints along the Pathway to Diverse Biomedical Research Faculty . PloS One , 13 ( 1 ), e0190606–e0190606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190606 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, … Ioannidis JPA (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science . Nature Human Behaviour , 1 ( 1 ), 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Science. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research . Washington DC: National Academics Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018a). An American Crisis: The Growing Absence of Black Men in Medicine and Science: Proceedings of a Joint Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018b). Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine : National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institutes of Health. (2009). Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research . NOT-OD-10-019 . Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html
• National Science Foundation. (2017). Important Notice No. 140 Training in Responsible Conduct of Research – A Reminder of the NSF Requirement . Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/issuances/in140.jsp
• No Place for Bullies in Science. (2018). Nature , 559 ( 7713 ), 151. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05683-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris D, Dirnagl U, Zigmond MJ, Thompson-Peer K, & Chow TT (2018). Health Tips for Research Groups . Nature , 557 , 302–304. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05146-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, … Yarkoni T (2015). Scientific Standards . Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science , 348 ( 6242 ), 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuzzo R (2015). How Scientists Fool Themselves - and How They Can Stop . Nature , 526 , 182–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor A (2018). More Evidence that Nutrition Studies Don’t Always Add Up . The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/sunday-review/cornell-food-scientist-wansink-misconduct.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Park A (2012). Great Science Frauds . Time. Retrieved from https://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/the-baltimore-case/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Plemmons DK, Baranski EN, Harp K, Lo DD, Soderberg CK, Errington TM, … Esterling KM (2020). A Randomized Trial of a Lab-embedded Discourse Intervention to Improve Research Ethics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 3 ), 1389. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917848117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First. (2018). Nature , 557 ( 7705 ), 279–280. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05159-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct . (2019). ( 570 ). doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01727-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnik DB (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust . Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 ( 3 ), 399–409. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roper RL (2019). Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews , 83 ( 3 ), e00018–00019. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00018-19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamoo AE, & Resnik DB (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steneck NH (2007). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (Updated ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winchester C (2018). Give Every Paper a Read for Reproducibility . Nature , 557 , 281. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05140-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Unlocking PhD Success

How to Acquire Crucial PhD Skills

• © 2023
• Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh 0

University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Identifies the crucial Ph.D. skills
• Discusses the related competences for each skill
• Details how to acquire each competence as part of a personal growth process

1326 Accesses

4 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (8 chapters)

Front matter, introduction academic talent development.

• Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh

Research Skills

Collaboration skills, writing skills, presentation skills, time management skills, persistence skills, making it work, back matter.

• PhD project
• PhD students
• Academic skills
• Skills development
• Academic development plan
• Personal growth process
• Personal academic development plan
• Managing Graduate School
• Graduate Student Guide
• Guide for PhD Students
• Planning a PhD Thesis
• Academic Talent Development
• Presentation skills
• Time management
• Organizing PhD Work

About this book

Are you a current or aspiring Ph.D. student determined to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Do not let statistics discourage you, because this comprehensive guide is here to help you defy the odds and reach the pinnacle of academic achievement. With failure rates hovering between 40% and 50%, it is crucial to equip yourself with the right skills to ensure your success.

In this book, you will embark on a transformative journey toward becoming a confident and accomplished scholar. This book takes a meticulous approach, addressing the six essential skills every Ph.D. student must possess: research, writing, presentation, time management, persistence, and collaboration. Each chapter delves into the significance of these skills within the Ph.D. process, explores the necessary competences, and provides practical strategies for their acquisition.

Armed with numerous tips, tricks, and actionable advice, this invaluable resource empowers you to optimize your performancethroughout your Ph.D. journey. Within these pages, you will discover how to assess your current skill set, identify areas for improvement, and develop a personalized academic development plan. With the aid of many informative figures and tables, you will find quick and easy access to expert guidance.

Do not let uncertainty and self-doubt hinder your progress. “Unlocking PhD Success” is your roadmap to triumph, supporting you every step of the way as you conquer the challenges of doctoral studies. Embrace this book as your trusted companion, and unlock your full potential as an exceptional Ph.D. candidate.

Authors and Affiliations

Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh

About the author

Eelko Huizingh is an experienced academic researcher and a trainer. His track record includes over 500 publications, with some articles cited 1,000-2,000+ times. He runs the EDEN seminar  How to design your PhD  (10+ years) and has given 200+ events worldwide on academic publishing and academic talent development. As the scientific affairs director of ISPIM, he regularly participates in Junior Researcher Labs.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Unlocking PhD Success

Book Subtitle : How to Acquire Crucial PhD Skills

Authors : Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40651-5

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance , Economics and Finance (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-031-40650-8 Published: 19 November 2023

eBook ISBN : 978-3-031-40651-5 Published: 18 November 2023

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XI, 181

Number of Illustrations : 3 b/w illustrations, 70 illustrations in colour

Topics : Economics, general , Political Science and International Relations, general , Business and Management, general

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Empowering students to develop research skills

February 8, 2021

This post is republished from   Into Practice ,  a biweekly communication of Harvard’s  Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning

Terence D. Capellini, Richard B Wolf Associate Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology, empowers students to grow as researchers in his Building the Human Body course through a comprehensive, course-long collaborative project that works to understand the changes in the genome that make the human skeleton unique. For instance, of the many types of projects, some focus on the genetic basis of why human beings walk on two legs. This integrative “Evo-Devo” project demands high levels of understanding of biology and genetics that students gain in the first half of class, which is then applied hands-on in the second half of class. Students work in teams of 2-3 to collect their own morphology data by measuring skeletons at the Harvard Museum of Natural History and leverage statistics to understand patterns in their data. They then collect and analyze DNA sequences from humans and other animals to identify the DNA changes that may encode morphology. Throughout this course, students go from sometimes having “limited experience in genetics and/or morphology” to conducting their own independent research. This project culminates in a team presentation and a final research paper.

The benefits: Students develop the methodological skills required to collect and analyze morphological data. Using the UCSC Genome browser  and other tools, students sharpen their analytical skills to visualize genomics data and pinpoint meaningful genetic changes. Conducting this work in teams means students develop collaborative skills that model academic biology labs outside class, and some student projects have contributed to published papers in the field. “Every year, I have one student, if not two, join my lab to work on projects developed from class to try to get them published.”

“The beauty of this class is that the students are asking a question that’s never been asked before and they’re actually collecting data to get at an answer.”

The challenges:  Capellini observes that the most common challenge faced by students in the course is when “they have a really terrific question they want to explore, but the necessary background information is simply lacking. It is simply amazing how little we do know about human development, despite its hundreds of years of study.” Sometimes, for instance, students want to learn about the evolution, development, and genetics of a certain body part, but it is still somewhat a mystery to the field. In these cases, the teaching team (including co-instructor Dr. Neil Roach) tries to find datasets that are maximally relevant to the questions the students want to explore. Capellini also notes that the work in his class is demanding and hard, just by the nature of the work, but students “always step up and perform” and the teaching team does their best to “make it fun” and ensure they nurture students’ curiosities and questions.

Takeaways and best practices

• Incorporate previous students’ work into the course. Capellini intentionally discusses findings from previous student groups in lectures. “They’re developing real findings and we share that when we explain the project for the next groups.” Capellini also invites students to share their own progress and findings as part of class discussion, which helps them participate as independent researchers and receive feedback from their peers.
• Assign groups intentionally.  Maintaining flexibility allows the teaching team to be more responsive to students’ various needs and interests. Capellini will often place graduate students by themselves to enhance their workload and give them training directly relevant to their future thesis work. Undergraduates are able to self-select into groups or can be assigned based on shared interests. “If two people are enthusiastic about examining the knee, for instance, we’ll match them together.”
• Consider using multiple types of assessments.  Capellini notes that exams and quizzes are administered in the first half of the course and scaffolded so that students can practice the skills they need to successfully apply course material in the final project. “Lots of the initial examples are hypothetical,” he explains, even grounded in fiction and pop culture references, “but [students] have to eventually apply the skills they learned in addressing the hypothetical example to their own real example and the data they generate” for the Evo-Devo project. This is coupled with a paper and a presentation treated like a conference talk.

Bottom line:  Capellini’s top advice for professors looking to help their own students grow as researchers is to ensure research projects are designed with intentionality and fully integrated into the syllabus. “You can’t simply tack it on at the end,” he underscores. “If you want this research project to be a substantive learning opportunity, it has to happen from Day 1.” That includes carving out time in class for students to work on it and make the connections they need to conduct research. “Listen to your students and learn about them personally” so you can tap into what they’re excited about. Have some fun in the course, and they’ll be motivated to do the work.

• Crimson Careers
• For Employers
• Harvard College
• Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
• Harvard Extension School
• Premed / Pre-Health
• Families & Supporters
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• First Generation / Low Income
• International Students
• Students of Color
• Students with Disabilities
• Undocumented Students
• Explore Interests & Make Career Decisions
• Create a Resume/CV or Cover Letter
• Expand Your Network
• Engage with Employers
• Search for a Job
• Find an Internship
• January Experiences (College)
• Find & Apply for Summer Opportunities Funding
• Prepare for an Interview
• Negotiate an Offer
• Apply to Graduate or Professional School
• Access Resources
• AI for Professional Development and Exploration
• Arts & Entertainment
• Business & Entrepreneurship
• Climate, Sustainability, Environment, Energy
• Government, Int’l Relations, Education, Law, Nonprofits
• Life Sciences & Health
• Technology & Engineering
• Still Exploring
• Talk to an Advisor

Master’s and PhD Programs

• Share This: Share Master’s and PhD Programs on Facebook Share Master’s and PhD Programs on LinkedIn Share Master’s and PhD Programs on X

The first critical and fundamental step in considering graduate study is to understand why you want to pursue a graduate degree. To set the stage for careful decision making, it is important to clarify your reasons for pursuing a graduate degree, your goals for study and research, and the realities of your intended career path. As you begin to think about this, consider the following questions:

What are your  motivations ?

What are your  goals , what are your  expectations .

For a more in-depth exploration of these questions, see our  Applying to Graduate School Guide .   In this booklet, you will also learn about:

• Timing of Application and Enrollment
• Master’s Degree (e.g. M.A., M.S., M.P.P., M.P.H., M.F.A., Ed.M.)
• Professional Degree (e.g. J.D., M.B.A., M.D.)
• Doctoral Degree (e.g. Ph.D., Ed.D., D.F.A.)
• Researching Graduate Schools and Programs
• Application Essay or Statement of Purpose
• Requesting Letters of Recommendation

Meet with an advisor to discuss your graduate school questions. GSAS advisors work with Harvard College undergraduates and graduate students enrolled in GSAS master’s programs on advanced degree applications. Harvard College undergraduates who are interested in applying for PhD programs should first meet with one of our undergraduate advisors who will then refer the student to a GSAS advisor.

[email protected]

Thinking About What PhD Guides Do ?

Phd research is a difficult and time-consuming task. you may feel the need for direction and expert phd consultation. we recognize this, and with this in mind, we have created a community of phd consultants and industry professionals to guidance and counselling for phd candidates throughout your journey. phdguides offer resources, training, advice, phd guidance and helping hands during every phase of your phd journey in accordance with your needs., resource center.

We are the treasure trove of resources to help you with all aspects of research writing, from finding the right format for your assignment to writing a compelling literature review.

Here you can find:

• University assignment formats for all major disciplines
• Review formats for journals, books, and other publications
• Synopsis formats for research proposals and grant applications
• Thesis formats for different academic levels
• Research writing samples from top universities around the world
• Review article samples
• Guidelines PPTs on research documentation
• Guides, e-books, and tools to help you with your research
• Free downloadable resources, such as templates, checklists, and citation generators

So whether you’re just getting started with your PhD research or you’re a seasoned academic, our website has something to help you improve your research writing skills.

The PhD Research Consultation Bootcamp

Are you interested in finding out more about how our guidance might support your success in your phd now, schedule a time to talk with one of our phd guides in order to help you make a well-informed decision on your academic career, our team of experts is available to answer your questions and walk you through the process..

Our humungous community of PHD Study will help you ask questions related to your topic and get that question solved as quickly as possible.

Read out the detailed story behind completing your PHD. May be this will engage you & help you with the complete knowledge about PHD journey.

We provide the best training to complete your PhD with an ease. These training will help you a lot till completion of your doctorate.

Here you can find university formats, guidelines, samples, PPT’s, Guides, e-books, tools and free downloadable resources to get started with PhD research.

Read out the detailed story behind completing your PHD. May be this will engage you & help you with the complete knowledge about PHD.

Recent Articles for PhD Guidance

9 tips to write your phd thesis, how to fund your phd study in india, how to stand out in your phd interview – 6 important topics you must prepare, tools and software every phd holder must have, access important phd resources, we have a massive sample database, depending on the higher education programme or course, you can find and download appropriate pdf samples., research writing sample s, university formats & guidelines, our contribution to academic research society.

Our exceptional service levels, constant support and extensive relations with the students, built painstakingly has earned us the admiration of people who are assisters of scholars 

UNIVERSITIES

RESEARCH SOCIETIES

Tutorials & Video Lessons

Timeline of phd events.

Eligibility

• A full-time bachelor's degree.
• A full-time master's degree with at least 55% marks.
• The cut-off for SC/ST and OBCs is 50%.
• University/College mandated or national-level entrance examination.
• For a part-time Ph.D., a NOC (No Objection Certificate) is obtained from the educational institute or organization of employment.
• Some colleges/universities require relevant job experience.

Prior to Enrolment:

• Document Verification
• Entrance Exam and Interview
• Issuance of a Selection Letter

Enrolment via the website and the issuance of an Enrolment Letter. For your initial research plan, you will receive a Guide.

Exams for course work and approval of the synopsis

Initial Progress Evaluation

Review of Progress (Second)

Third Progress Review

PhD Thesis Presentation and Provisional Certificate Issuance

The Certificate of Ph.D. Issuance

WE Share Our success

Our activities & awards, we'd love to hear from you, stay connected, are you still confused want to discuss, book a free consultation session with a ph.d. mentor and subject expert for title selection or any other guidance..

Your message (optional)

The PhD can take three to six years to complete. The time limit can differ as per the institute, hence the candidate should inquire about it with the desired university before applying.

A master’s degree or M.phill from any recognised Indian university in the relevant field is required for admission to the PhD programme. To be eligible for admission, you must have at least 55% of the marks or corresponding grades.

If you are pursuing a self-funded PhD or have professional experience in the industry, you can apply with lower grades.

Not all bachelor’s students are eligible for a PhD, but according to the new UGC guidelines, students who obtain a four-year degree in UG can apply for admission to PhD programmes in their desired fields.

Popular Searches

Contact form.

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

• Communications
• Computer Science
• Criminal Justice
• Environmental Management
• Forensic Psychology
• Healthcare Admin
• Human Resources
• Project Management
• Social work
• Special Education
• Sports Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Adult Education
• Business Intelligence
• Early Childhood Education
• Educational Technology
• Homeland Security
• Information Systems Security
• Information Technology
• International Business
• Management Information Systems
• Nonprofit Management
• School Counseling
• Academic Publishing Guide
• Building a Graduate School Resume or CV
• Choosing Between a Thesis or Non-thesis Master's Degree
• Expert Guide to Studying Abroad
• FAQ: Online Master's Degrees
• Grad School Guide Book
• Graduate School for Students with Disabilities
• Green Graduate Degrees
• How to Be a Successful Grad Student
• How to Choose the Right Graduate Program
• How to Get a Master's Degree in an Unrelated Field
• How to Transfer College Credits in Grad School
• How to Write a Winning Personal Statement
• Inside Graduate Admissions
• Ivy League Grad Schools
• Master's Degrees for Veterans
• Master's Degree for Women
• Mental Health in Grad School
• Progressive LGBTQ Graduate Degrees
• Should You Apply for a Graduate School Assistantship?
• Surviving Grad School with a Family
• Taking a Gap Year Before Grad School
• Women in STEM Graduate Resources
• Writing a Successful Statement of Purpose
• Alternative Ways to Pay for School
• The Best Part-Time Jobs During Grad School
• Company Funded Graduate School
• FAFSA For Grad Students
• Financial Aid Resources
• Graduate Student Loans
• Paying for Your Master's Degree
• Paying Off Student Loans
• Paying for Your PhD
• Fellowship Opportunities
• LGBTQ Scholarships
• MBA Scholarships
• Scholarship Resources
• Scholarships for Veterans
• Scholarships for Women
• Crushing the GRE Guidebook
• GMAT Guidebook
• Guide to the LSAT
• MCAT Prep for Medical School
• Study Guide: Exam Resources
• TOEFL Prep for Non-Native English Speakers
•       Resources       15 Tips on Surviving Your PhD Program

15 Tips on Surviving Your PhD Program

15 tips and advice on making it through a phd.

It can be extremely challenging to complete a PhD program while maintaining physical and emotional health. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that 50 percent of all doctoral students drop out of graduate school without completing their degree. Some schools report a 90 percent attrition rate. Common reasons for dropping out include academic shortcomings, students who change their career path, or those who lose interest in their pursuit. Some students have the ability to complete their degree but opt not to. One cause is the discovery of a poor job market for professors or private organizations in their fields. The Chronicle reports that math and science students leave in their third year. Some 25 percent of dropouts in Arts and Humanities occur after three years, potentially leaving candidates with high student debt and despair. This guide offers examples of concrete, accessible, and practical actions that can alleviate many problems that overwhelm doctoral students.

15 Tips on Surviving Your PhD

There is a legion of experts that offer advice on making it through the years of your PhD program. Many agree on the necessities of maintaining a balance of academic pursuits against routine personal outside activities that foster physical and emotional health. Here are 15 suggestions:

1. Establish a routine you can follow.

It’s crucial to stay on track. Your best option to do so and keep peace of mind is to create a schedule that you can follow – and commit to following it. Get up and do your work on schedule, just as you’d report for a job. Devote segments of your routine for research and reading pertinent literature in your field. Add time in your schedule to include sound sleep, good nutrition, exercise, socializing and recreation. Remember you’ll have other obligations such as attending lectures, symposia, commuting, parking, cleaning your living space, shopping for supplies, meeting with study groups and peer collaborators. At the same time, build a realistic schedule so you won’t work yourself into fear frenzy.

2. Start writing from day one.

Your writing practice and research methodology can put you ahead of schedule on your dissertation. That’s because learning to write comfortably in a scholarly fashion should become a second nature. To eliminate last-minute furies, organize your research times, round up and cite sources properly, and create a number of drafts. Writing at least 30 minutes daily can allow you to consolidate your notes and findings, and note discovery of areas that require additional research. Plus, much of what you write goes directly toward your understanding of your subject matter. Because of your other commitments to teaching, collaboration, and outside activities, keep a writing routine and stick to it. At the same time, read smarter, understanding how the literature fits to your purposes. In reading and writing, look for key points, not bulk.

3. Create a positive community.

Decide from the begging that you can’t afford to collaborate or socialize with friends or peers that exude negativity. Braggards or chronic complainers can sap your energy or even cause you to adopt negative thinking or comparisons with the progress of other PhD candidates. Lead your own research, but seek advisement from people that you can trust, who have your best interests at heart. Join groups involved in your major field of study with which you can share academic as well as social issues. A positive community can bring you out of isolation, and isolation can foster fear or despair.

4. Build effective networks.

Along with creating a positive community, get on with networking from the very beginning of your program. You’re going to spend four or five years at the university, giving you ample time to forge and grow partnerships with working professionals, educators, junior faculty, and peers that contribute to your evolving knowledge base. They can offer suggestions to explorer literature, research trends, and potential opportunities for publications, conferences, and workshops. Remember to investigate online tools and communities as part of your networking as a way to make yourself known as a colleague. Create your professional/research profile at places like LinkedIn or join a LinkedIn Discussion Group. Speak with presenters at seminars. Connect with authors you discover in your literature research and participate in career groups outside your usual sphere at the university. Finally, consider taking informational interviews as a means of understanding the workplace, getting your name out there, and connecting with potential employers.

5. Put money woes to rest.

Having ample money to get you through your program can be difficult, even excruciating. But just knowing solid funding resources can give you some comfort and save precious time. Have a financial plan and do the legwork vital to your economic survival. Don’t let finances overwhelm your primary purpose of discovering your interests, focusing on your expertise, and making progress. Financial aid options for doctoral students are available at the U.S. Department of Education . You may need to combine several opportunities to cover your total expenses, including grants, scholarships, loans, fellowships, housing costs, and securing teaching and research assistantships. Some grad students make money tutoring but you’ll have to consider the time against your routine and academic schedule. GoGrad provides detailed PhD cost estimates broken down by professional field, along with scholarship/grant/fellowship search tools.

6. Make sound nutrition your ally.

Rutgers University advises students to find other ways to palliate stress than by overeating – even healthy foods. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables and all your meals at the right portion sizes. Cut out junk food and sugary treats that create the craving to keep eating them. That goes for alcohol, too, which can contribute to a decline in your health and create another source of worry. Student and faculty events often include drinking, so proceed wisely, even if peers call you a wimp. Vary your meals and include a free day for eating what you want without guilt. WebMd suggests that students include berries, oats, milk or yogurt, salmon, dark green veggies, walnuts, beans, and dark chocolate. Coffee is okay in small doses (8 oz) and without lots of sugar. Latte and mocha drinks are satisfying but often contain large amounts of sugar. Green tea can wake you up, if you don’t want to overdo coffee, but eschew energy drinks or other stimulants that make you jittery.

7. Add exercise to your routine.

Exercise, even moderate, can do wonders for both your physical and emotional wellbeing. Among its benefits, regular exercise fights stress, improves memory retention, and boosts your mood (particularly in winter). Researchers at Colorado Tech report that exercise increases “the number of brain cells in the hippocampus, which controls the formation, retention and recall of memories – all essential for student success. In most adults, the hippocampus starts to shrink in the late twenties, leading to memory loss over time.” Exercise can also add to your social bandwidth if you have regular workout partners or participate in intramural team activities. Remember to stretch. Consider taking a yoga class or Pilates workout. Do some running, weight lifting, swimming, or join a rowing group. Hike with friends or colleagues. Get out the mountain bike. For best results, get in a 30-minute workout at least three times a week. Time Magazine reports that cardiovascular exercise can positively affect depression, anxiety and mood disorders. And you’ll sleep better, too.

8. Learn how to deal with rejection.

Rejection in an PhD program is a routine, unwanted emotional downer. But how you react to it is crucial. Unsolicited advice can feel abusive. Competition for internships, fellowships and publications can stress you out to the point of collapse. Coping tools include not taking rejection or undue criticism personally and chalking it up to experience. It can soften the blows as they come. Comparing yourself to other candidates can be toxic. As with athletics, there will always be someone better than you. But you’re not pursuing your colleagues’ goals, dissertations, or even the identical degree – you’re pursuing personalized knowledge and skills for your life after the doctorate. Barbara Robson, an Associate Editor for two academic journals, writes in Quora that most papers (80 percent or more) are rejected and that there’s an element of luck in getting published. If your paper is rejected by a journal, find another suitable place to submit it. If you’re passed over for a conference, don’t sent a hate letter or academic rebuttal. Move on.

9. Choose a qualified graduate advisor and mentor.

Finding the right mentor and dissertation advisor is pivotal to your academic success and survival. The Gradhacker Blog at Inside Higher Ed suggests that you choose an advisor that shares your research interests and career path. Ask about their success rate in graduating students that they mentor. Check out whether they walk the walk by viewing their list of publications, conference presentations, and other research accomplishments. Find out if they’re available for ongoing advising. Explore their aptitude as a mentor and the personal chemistry toward working together. Are they hard to communicate with, abusive or condescending? Are they unable to otherwise maintain a productive and respectful relationship during the time you’ll be in the program? Not all accomplished professors make for good advisors. Some may be too wrapped up in publishing or attending conferences to meet with you. You should leave advising sessions feeling more focused, energetic about your research and dissertation, and armed with strategies for accomplishment.

10. Build in time for family and friends.

There’s an old joke where a friend asks if you can hang out and you say, “I’m in a PhD program so ask me again in five years.” It’s vital to maintain relationships with family and friends. They can sustain you and keep you from deadly isolation. At the same time, they can be distracting. It’s useful to maintain balance by scheduling time with family and friends while sticking to the need to bear down on research and writing. The PhDStudent Forum says when possible to combine family or friend events around studying. For example, take study time for yourself during a longer visit to family to keep your academic momentum. Visit a coffeehouse where you can study along with family and friends that also like reading in public. Be sure to communicate clearly about your schedule and find ways to book in indispensable phone calls and visits. Join friends for exercise or recreation.

11. Set aside time to pursue non-academic interests.

Yeah right, when is that supposed to happen? It happens when you make it happen. To maintain a sane equilibrium, devote some time to routinely indulge in things you like doing. For example, work in the garden, take a massage class, learn photography, play live music, go kayaking, join a cooking class, volunteer in civic or advocacy activities or learn a foreign language. Build something with your hands. Play scrabble. Paint to indulge your playful or creative side. Take a dance class. Learn meditation or improve your ping pong game. Because it can be near impossible to turn off your PhD brain, relegate it to background noise. That way you might have breakthroughs or discoveries that emerge when you return to work.

12. Arrange and maintain a peaceful learning environment.

Living alone may create a peaceful learning atmosphere, but not if you have noisy neighbors above, next door, or below you. Yet you can develop a horrible sense of cabin fever if you isolate at home. Wherever you reside should be comfortable and workable. Clutter can be a source of stress. According to Inside Higher Ed , living with roommates can save on expenses, but comes along with its own set of challenges. Roommates can have other routines and schedules that introduce unwanted noise, emotional drama, unwanted guests, or social habits that can send you off the edge. Research potential housemates carefully, allowing a back-up plan for dealing with inevitable problems. Developing a friendly but direct communication strategy can help. Or, you can create a work zone in your bedroom that lends for privacy. If necessary, you can find a quiet study environment in a library carrel or small café. The same suggestions apply if you’re living with family.

13. Address your emotional health.

According to Inside Higher Ed , there is a mental health crisis in graduate education. Grad students are six times more susceptible to anxiety and depression than in the general population. The study found that “transgender and gender-nonconforming graduate students, along with women, were significantly more likely to experience anxiety and depression” than their straight or male counterparts. A poor work-life balance can be a powerful contributor to burnout and depression. The worst thing you can do when you experience mental health issues is to keep them to yourself or feel like a failure for having them. Seek out the campus counseling center (student health center) or a trusted outside mental health organization for personal counselling. Join their emotional support groups. The National Grad Crisis Line (877 472-3457) provides free intervention services, confidential telephone counseling, suicide prevention assistance, and referral services. Look into NAMI on Campus Clubs which are student-run mental health support organizations.

14. Deal with expectations

Who you are, ultimately, is not a PhD student. Your grad program is what you’re currently pursuing. The Indiana University guide to thriving in graduate school suggests that you shrink overwhelming expectations into bite-size challenges. It’s normal for doctoral students to think that they’re an imposter among experts. Johns Hopkins University found that striving to meet your expectations can cause low self-esteem, procrastination, guilt and depression. You may find yourself unable to meet your expectations for perfectionism, so modify your plans to hit deadlines with your best effort. The guide further advises to straighten out the expectations that others may have for you. This can be especially true with families and people who provide financial or emotional support.

15. Make conferences a part of life.

Opportunities to attend conferences and presentations are richly rewarding. First, you become part of the greater community in your research niche and you can build a lifetime network of colleagues. You can also gain a greater understanding of the professional options available to you. Even attending conferences out of your niche area can stimulate ideas and send you home refreshed. Participating in panels is a great way to network and demonstrate your expertise. Attending job fairs is another way to network while exploring the professional environment. By networking at conferences, you can set up additional meetings with experts by phone, virtually, or before the next conference. It doesn’t hurt to cite conferences and your own presentations on your CV.

From the Expert

What are PhD students afraid to talk about?

The number one thing that PhD students are afraid to talk about is the lack of progress that they are making on their PhD dissertation. This was certainly true in my case and also in the case of many of my classmates whom I spoke with. The dissertation is such a big project with different stages in it and requires such self-discipline over a sustained period of time. When I got past my embarrassment about it and started speaking to others about it helped a lot and I found a way forward.

Another thing that PhD students are afraid to discuss is their ambivalence about being in a doctoral program and whether they've done the right thing and whether they should continue. These are all important questions that such students need to be aware of and speak to others (counsellor, friends, etc.) about.

What was your greatest challenge and how did you succeed?

As mentioned, my greatest challenge in relation to completing my PhD was getting through the dissertation process. Two things really helped me get over the line (and came from speaking to friends and classmates). (1) Since my dissertation was quantitative, I hired a statistics advisor that I met with on a regular (weekly or fortnightly) basis and this helped me make good progress in that it served to provide much needed structure (and assistance with statistical analysis). (2) I fired my dissertation chair and found a new one that I had a much better working relationship with. My new chair was more knowledgeable about my dissertation subject area and also he was much more supportive. I made significant progress with him and thereafter completed my dissertation in a relatively short time frame.

What are good ways to alleviate stress and anxiety?

There are a number of ways that I think will help with stress while working on one's phd. The usual suspects are approaches such as regular exercise, good diet, fun activities (e.g. movies), counselling and/or talking to friends and/or family.

However, I think the best approach that one can take is to get steadily work through each aspect one-by-one of the PhD program towards completing it. A useful way to think about it (with both the dissertation and the PhD program itself), is to not get overwhelmed by the size of this enormous project but instead cut it up into separate pieces and focus on each piece at a time, complete it, and then move on to the next piece.

How did you handle the challenges of extreme competition?

My tip for students who are experiencing high levels of competition is to try put it all into perspective: Do your best to get the finest resources (internships, grades, etc) that you can but know that once you're out in the profession, some of those things might really matter that much in the bigger picture. So, one can be just a 'pass' in your doctoral program but then get out into their profession and make a big splash.

What can you recommend to keep interest or inertia up so you’ll finish the PhD/Dissertation?

‘Cut up the sausage' and focus on/work on it a piece at a time; Locate assistance or supportive individuals and meet with them regularly and ongoing throughout; Create 'deadlines' and milestones for yourself to work towards and have these other (helpful) individuals assist in keeping you accountable.

Find ways that work for you that help to bring structure into this enormous unstructured (or scantily structured) project called a PhD -- and especially its dissertation. At the end of the day, it's really about just getting through it and into the next (and bigger) stage of your profession. Just do your best while you're in it and don't get too caught up in the moment.

Ph.D. in Education: Curriculum and Instruction

This emphasis area is for students interested in developing expertise in teaching and teacher education, curricular development and implementation, subject specific areas (e.g., English, social studies, science, mathematics, and other areas), and/or issues in pre-K through college education.

Develop evidence-based, real-world solutions that will empower your students

Admission deadlines.

Applications and all associated documents must be received by the following dates to be considered. Fall Semester: July 1 | Spring Semester: Oct. 1.

About Our Program

This emphasis area is for students interested in developing expertise in teaching and teacher education, curricular development and implementation in subject and/or grade specific areas (e.g., English, social studies, elementary, secondary), and/or issues that reach across education. Individuals pursuing this degree may go on to pursue careers as researchers and teacher educators, become advanced teachers or instructional coaches within schools, or become curriculum specialists working in a variety of contexts. Courses will be selected from the student’s area of focus and can address any of the following areas:

• Curriculum and assessment theory & development
• Discipline or grade-level specific focus
• Teacher education and leadership
• Advanced pedagogical development
• Cross-categorical courses and special topics courses may also be selected in consultation with your advisor

All questions regarding application and admission may be directed to Dr. Jennifer Mahon, doctoral program coordinator, at [email protected] .

Request More Information

Program information.

The Curriculum & Instruction area of emphasis is guided by the general framework found in the  Doctoral Program in Education Application Handbook . The manual provides general information about doctoral concentrations offered in the College of Education. This page will provide you with specific information that is unique to the C&I Program.

• Undergraduate and Graduate GPA 3.00 (university requirements)
• Preference for applicants who hold a master's degree from a regionally accredited institution in an area appropriately related to education. High achieving applicants who possess only a Bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited institution will be considered. Emphasis of prior degree area(s) should be appropriately related to education.
• Program application form (included in COEHD doctoral application manual)
• Complete vita/resume
• Sample of scholarly writing
• Essay of intent - should include qualifications for completing a doctoral degree and reasons for pursuing the degree
• International Studies: TOEFL score of 550 (unless you have a college degree from a U.S. institution)
• Three letters of recommendation from professionals qualified to judge potential for success in doctoral work
• Preferred: at least three years teaching or commensurate experience

All questions regarding application and admission may be directed to Dr. Jennifer Mahon, at  [email protected] .

Admissions Deadlines: July 1 for Fall and Oct. 1 for Spring

 All materials are submitted through the University's   application portal . Once you create your account, go back to MyNevada to log in and start your application. 

If you miss the application deadline, but would like to enroll in courses prior to an admission decision, you may still apply to take courses through the Graduate School under Graduate Special student status. However, please note, this does not guarantee you acceptance to the program, and the courses may not count towards the Ph.D. unless you have consulted with a C&I faculty member.

Program Structure

The Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) program requires a minimum of 72 credits beyond the baccalaureate degree, which includes a minimum of 12 credits of dissertation. Of the remaining 72 credits, a maximum of 24 credits (with grades of B or better) may be applied from a master's degree program or previous post-baccalaureate graduate studies program toward the doctoral degree. These credits must be approved by your chair, the College of Education Doctoral Director of Graduate Study, and the Dean of the Graduate School. Credit for completion of a thesis or special project may not be included. There is no limit on the number of units transferred when student earns master’s en route to Ph.D.

At least 30 credits of 700-level courses beyond the bachelor's degree, exclusive of dissertation credits, are required for the Ph.D. degree. Degree requirements must be completed within 8 years of admission to the program.

24 credits: Research and required core

• Doctoral Seminar in Education

Required Research Courses:

• One Quantitative research course
• One Qualitative research course
• Program Development and Evaluation
• Survey Research in Education
• Research Applications in Education
• Mixed Methods Research in Education
• Special topics research course such as Single Subject Design
• Others from outside COE (with approval)
• Lower level courses such as EDRS 640 and EDRS 700 or equivalents are prerequisites
• Course names and requirements are subject to change. Please visit the course catalog for the most current information.

36 credits(dependent upon number of dissertation credits carried): Area of emphasis

Coursework is determined by the Advisory/Examining Committee in close consultation with the student. Credits brought in from Master’s degree may apply to area of emphasis.

Minimum of 12 credits: Dissertation

The dissertation is the culminating experience for the doctoral degree. It represents an independent research project that makes a contribution to the field of study.

Coursework earned as part of a master’s degree can count toward the area of emphasis, as well as toward the research or cognate areas, depending on relevance. Decisions about prior coursework are approved by your chair and your Advisory/Examining Committee.

Our program goal is for all students to complete the doctoral degree within 5-6 years. Research has shown that students who work on this trajectory have the highest chance of ultimately completing their doctoral studies. The best way to meet this objective is full-time studies; however, we have students in our program who are part-time students. You will be advised to work closely with your initial advisor and ultimately your chair to develop a timeline and program of study that meets your career goal and is most likely to result in completion.

Looking for a Graduate Assistantship?

The College of Education & Human Development has a limited number of Graduate Assistantships for full-time students admitted to masters or doctoral programs. 

Program Faculty

RIT graduate pursues Ph.D. across time zones

Nastaran Nagshineh, center, defended her Ph.D. thesis at RIT in April. Faculty from RIT’s Rochester and Dubai campuses served on her thesis committee and include, from left to right, Kathleen Lamkin-Kennard, Steven Weinstein, Nathaniel Barlow, and David Kofke (a professor at the University at Buffalo). Mohamed Samaha participated remotely and appears on the video screen behind the group and alongside Nagshineh’s picture.

Nastaran Nagshineh is one of the first Ph.D. candidates to bridge RIT’s Rochester and Dubai campuses. Her accomplishment creates a path for future students at the university’s international campuses.

Nagshineh completed her Ph.D. in mathematical modeling while working full time as a mathematics lecturer at RIT Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, teaching as many as five classes a semester. She described her Ph.D. journey as “an exercise in perseverance” due to competing demands and long days. Rochester is eight hours behind Dubai, and the time difference meant many late-night classes and meetings.

“I saw this collaboration as an opportunity, rather than as a challenge, because my primary adviser, Dr. Steven Weinstein (RIT professor of chemical engineering), and my co-adviser, Dr. Mohamed Samaha (RIT Dubai associate professor of mechanical engineering), both have the same area of research interest,” she said. “They both worked toward my success.”

Nagshineh is one of 67 RIT Ph.D. students who defended their thesis this academic year and who will earn their doctorate. RIT awarded 63 Ph.D. degrees in 2023.

In 2020-2021, RIT’s Graduate School met and surpassed the university’s goal of conferring 50 Ph.D. degrees during an academic year. That number will continue to grow as students cycle through the seven new Ph.D. programs that RIT has added since 2017, said Diane Slusarski , dean of RIT’s Graduate School.

Meeting these goals puts RIT on a path toward achieving an “R1,” or research-intensive designation, from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Learning. RIT is currently ranked as an R2 institution . Many factors go into changing a university’s status, including research investment and maintaining a three-year average of 70 Ph.D. degrees awarded per year, according to Slusarski.

“We have met the goals of the strategic plan, and now we look forward to contributing to the research innovation in the future,” Slusarski said. “We want to help the new programs thrive and win national research awards.”

RIT’s emphasis on high-level research is seen in Nagshineh’s Ph.D. work. She applies mathematical modeling to the field of fluid dynamics. Her research has been published in top-tier journals and has gained notice, said Weinstein, her thesis adviser.

Weinstein describes Nagshineh’s accomplishments as “a testament to a fantastic work ethic and commitment” and is inspirational to younger students at Rochester and Dubai.

“The collaboration between RIT Dubai/Rochester has continued,” he said. “Another paper was submitted a few weeks ago with Mohamed Samaha and Nate Barlow (RIT associate professor in the School of Mathematics and Statistics) as co-authors, as well as Cade Reinberger, a younger Ph.D. student in my research group.”

Mathematical modeling is one of RIT’s newer Ph.D. degree programs, and Nagshineh is among its earliest graduates. The program has doubled in size since it began accepting students in 2017, Slusarski said. This past fall, the mathematical modeling program had 35 students, with two graduating this year.

Altogether, RIT has 13 Ph.D. degree programs currently enrolling 438 students, with computing and information sciences accounting for the largest with 117 students. RIT’s other Ph.D. programs include astrophysical sciences and technology , biomedical and chemical engineering , business administration , color science , electrical and computer engineering, imaging science , mechanical and industrial engineering , microsystems engineering , and sustainability .

New programs in cognitive science and physics will launch in the fall.

The growth in RIT graduate education—with more than 3,000 master’s and doctoral students—reflects a demographic change in the student population, Slusarski said. “We have a higher percentage of women in the graduate programs than we have for RIT undergraduate programs.”

RIT’s graduate programs enroll 42 percent women, according to Christie Leone , assistant dean for the Graduate School.

Nagshineh, who also holds an MS in electrical engineering from RIT Dubai, welcomes her role as a mentor to other women students on both campuses.

“As a young woman in an Arabic country, the power of women is often underestimated and undervalued, and I hope to serve as a role model to female students, especially those that question their path,” Nagshineh said.

She plans to continue in her career as a professor and a researcher. “I would like to pursue a research program where I can advise my own students and teach them more deeply.”

Recommended News

May 16, 2024

Kim Shearer’s passion for planning spans five decades at RIT

Kim Shearer's journey at RIT, marked by strategic planning and dedication, led to pivotal roles in shaping the university's computing college, spearheading expansions, fostering diversity, and leaving behind unique touches like binary code lights and cryptic messages within the campus architecture.

May 15, 2024

RIT student-faculty developed video game ‘That Damn Goat’ now available for purchase on Nintendo Switch console

A video game created by RIT students and faculty has reached a long-awaited milestone. That Damn Goat , developed and published through RIT’s MAGIC Spell Studios, is now available for purchase on the popular Nintendo Switch gaming console.

RIT researchers expect a rise in deepfake use in political campaigns   

Spectrum News interviews Christopher Schwartz, research scientist in the Department of Cybersecurity, and Kelly Wu, computing and information sciences Ph.D. student, about generating and detecting artificial intelligence deepfakes.

RIT and Synapse VP launch immersive LA program training the next generation in cutting-edge virtual production techniques

RIT is offering a groundbreaking partnership with Synapse Virtual Production (Synapse VP) to deliver an exclusive in-person Virtual Production (VP) immersion course in Los Angeles through RIT Certified.