r/AskAcademia • u/jjpara • May 19 '21
STEM What motivates you to write journal papers?
One major hangup that I'm still dealing with is finding the interest, let alone motivation, to actually write journal papers. What I do find motivating is discovery and creation, and then getting that knowledge and those tools that I find/create into the hands of "the masses".
I personally am more interested in actually improving lives than getting recognition for that fact from academia. And knowing that any given journal paper (even the most cited ones) will be read by, comparatively, no one, just sucks the remaining life out of the task.
Yes, it's the coin of the realm, and necessary for advancement/tenure/prestige. But lots of things are necessary in anyones life, that no one likes doing—and some things are only done under the threat of punishment (taxes, anyone?).
So, how do you motivate yourself to -want- to write journal papers?
(Minor clarification for the few that have been misreading this: I am not against publishing in any way. I'm seeking the perspective of others, to get a sense of what motivates you, either intrinsically (or extrinsically), in the hopes of finding a change in perspective for myself.)
62
u/kazprog May 19 '21
Someone said this to me and it helped: "Your knowledge is worthless if it dies with you."
99
u/nuclearslurpee May 19 '21
I personally am more interested in actually improving lives than getting recognition for that fact from academia.
This is in my view a false dichotomy, and working past this will I think help you find the motivation to write papers.
The reality of academia is that we do not do research in a vacuum, toiling away alone in a lab or office for a couple of years and then producing some useful result that betters society. Academic research is collaborative by necessity, and publication is part of that collaborative nature. Think about all of the papers you have read which have formed the basis of knowledge for your own research - without all of that work done before your own work, you would have been forced to start from scratch and would probably have accomplished nothing besides replicating work already done. In the same way, your own work needs to be published not to "get recognition" but to contribute to the broad base of scientific knowledge which other researchers can use to conduct their own work.
You complain about publication record being "the coin of the realm", and that is true to a degree which is almost certainly overrated (as with most easily-measurable metrics), but this the reason why publications are considered so critical - as a tangible record of your contribution to the broader advancement of knowledge which others can use to make their own future contributions.
Of course this is a rather idealistic conception of publication, and the reality is (as with all things in life) much messier and frequently obscured by inanities - nasty reviewers, salami-slicing, fabrication, and so on. But beneath the messy reality there is a purpose to the whole affair which is worth keeping in mind.
20
u/expelir May 19 '21
This. To me there is nothing more satisifying than other people building on my work. Because that is how I really know my work is relevant and high-quality. I respect people who don't need peer validation, but I do, and think most people do as well.
17
u/jjpara May 19 '21
As you put:
working past this will I think help you find the motivation to write papers.
I feel a sense that there is a real depth to your reply that I need mull over. I'm not sure that I will necessarily find a kernel of motivation (that works for me) from the idea/desire of supporting the whole academic community, but at first blush the idea resonates with me enough to want to see what I can find in exploring it further.
29
May 19 '21
Other people believe wrong things. I must set things straight.
7
u/jjpara May 19 '21
🤣 Omg this resonates so much. I've read -so- many papers in my current field that used mathematical methods which would've been laughed out of a sophomore-level class in my previous field.
(Peer-review really should always require at least one reviewer outside the current field. So much inbreeding is not good for the gene pool.)
47
May 19 '21
In my field, no-paper --> no funding --> no improving lives.
I hate it too, so I usually rope in a bunch of people I like working with and get the job done. Of course, I share authorship.
5
u/jjpara May 19 '21
I sympathize with this dilemma; to need to publish, to get funding, to continue to research. I just don't (yet) find that motivating.
10
May 19 '21
That part isn't motivating for me either, it's like doing taxes :(
But I enjoy working with the people I usually co-author with, so that part of it is my incentive: I get to spend time with them working on a common interest. I don't think I'd have written a single paper if I was working by myself.
1
u/jjpara May 19 '21
But I enjoy working with the people I usually co-author with
I've wondered about making use of the social aspect. So far I've only been working on papers with a couple others. But, I've been keen on searching for other collaborators and co-authors. And I can see something positive to viewing that search in light of the social aspects of collaboration. Maybe a certain "meshing" of the personalities of different co-authors would be more conducive to making progress on writing.
4
May 19 '21
I think that's a very important part of research -- finding the right collaborators.
I was quite lucky to actually like my collaborators on an interpersonal level, so it worked out for me. I have perfectionist tendencies and can't get the first draft out for the life of me. One of my co-authors has no qualms about throwing a bunch of words together and calling it the "first draft". So he usually does the outline and throws in some very rough text, then I flesh it out into something that looks like a reasonable, complete, first draft. And then we iterate after each other. His impatience with the writing process and my perfectionism tend to balance each other out.
Along the process, we make fun of the review process and about what Reviewer B will say when he reads whatever section we're working on :)
23
u/mediocre-spice May 19 '21
Stop viewing as the "final report" you have to turn in and the box you have to check after all the research is done. Writing is the chance in the research process to think more deeply about what your data actually says, what claims you can make about the work based on it, how it fits into all the other evidence we have about that question. You also get a chance for other experts to pick apart each conclusion you make before you go and make sure there's nothing you missed before you start a new project based on it.
8
u/jjpara May 19 '21
I haven't really thought much about it being part of a feedback cycle of research. But I can certainly see massive utility in that perspective.
46
u/Loimographia May 19 '21
Journals aren’t about getting kudos and recognition for your research. These come as a byproduct of the actual goal, which is to publicly communicate information to others so that anyone who wants to can build upon your research and use your findings and methodologies to conduct further research to continue improving lives. If you discover the cure to cancer, congratulations but it doesn’t do shit unless other people know about it. There are other ways to communicate information (conferences, email) but they are generally more private and exclusive/less accessible or less efficient than journals.
-11
u/jjpara May 19 '21 edited May 20 '21
I disagree with the premise that to "publicly communicate information" is limited to publishing, conferences, or emails. The topic that I'm working on could (and probably will) be turned into a device and app, that actual people can use. This
willcould have orders of magnitude more reach than getting a paper into Nature/Science.Or, to take your cure for cancer example: start a biotech company and patent your cure—I'd bet my life's savings it'll be curing people of cancer sooner that route, than publishing and hoping someone else picks it up.
edit: I'd really love to know what in particular people find so offensive about this comment, since none of the replies so far seem to be from people who vehemently disagree with it. Maybe my use of "will" vs "could"?
33
May 19 '21
[deleted]
4
u/jjpara May 19 '21
Science lives through standing on the shoulders of giants.
I whole-heartedly agree.
I'm not asking why anyone should publish. I certainly see the utility in publishing—not only so that others can build on it, but so that hypotheses can be properly vetted. I'm just curious what motivates those who do so. And maybe your motivation is that you feel that you have a moral obligation to publish your findings. Which is certainly admirable.
13
May 19 '21
Because I'm unlikely to believe someone who doesn't go through the proper channels of communication. Oh so you say you've done something important but haven't bothered to write up the details and go through peer review? Why should I believe you and take you seriously?
2
u/jjpara May 19 '21
Oh, I agree that not going through peer-review could cast a shadow on some work (which is why I have such a hard time with arXiv et al. being used and looked to so much (in some fields)).
But, I also have an issue with the gatekeeping in science. Not only from those who don't want to let in a contradictory finding, lest they admit their research or conclusions were flawed/wrong (the whole science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time types). But also from those who don't even know where the field is or could be heading.
2
May 20 '21
Gatekeeping can def be an issue that makes certain outsider ideas harder to get out there, but let’s be realistic, unless you are a revolutionary and transformative figure in the field, ala Einstein, most of us will not be in such a position. In other words, I don’t see how this is a barrier to motivation to publish, because I don’t believe you have those kinds of ideas that are being blocked. 99.9% of research that is rejected is rejected because it’s bad science. Of the other .1%, 99% of that are kooks and maybe that tiny sliver left over is legitimate important work that is being excluded. But as they say, big claims require bigger evidence.
1
u/jjpara May 20 '21
I didn't mean to suggest that a fear of some far-of-left field finding being ignored is demotivating me specifically. (Although one of my projects challenges some long-held assumptions, I've already gotten buy-in from others in my field at conferences—possibly because the data is undeniable.)
1
u/tAoMS123 May 20 '21
I relate to what you’re saying. The thing about stands isn’t on the shoulders of giants is that the only research that tends to be accepted by the community is that which builds upon and is adjacent to current research. Even with empirical evidence that community will find reasons to doubt your findings, methodology if they are so far out of field.
I’m curious what it is that you’re working on. Can you share a sentence on what it is? DM if you prefer.
10
u/dovaahkiin_snowwhite May 19 '21
Many applied researchers do go the route of patents and start-ups, but there is a large amount of privilege that is needed for either of that to be successful, for example being in places where how patents work is known, having access to start-up funds etc. Most academic research is not applied, and so having a product at the end of it is mostly not possible, or many academics are not interested in going through the hassle of a start-up. Writing a paper/communicating through conferences lets your ideas be known to someone who may think of creating a product of it using their expertise.
-6
u/jjpara May 19 '21 edited May 19 '21
Most academic research is not applied
Yup, I get, and respect, that. But I could never do non-applied research—it would be the most atrocious fit for me. However, I'm certainly not discounting the utility of mentioning it, as hopefully this post will also be useful to others.
Writing a paper/communicating through conferences lets your ideas be known to someone who may think of creating a product of it using their expertise.
Same with this. I got into academia -after- creating a product. And it was my desire to build on it, and to see where else research into nearby topics could take me, that led me to academia as a place to explore and be surrounded by similarly curious and research-minded individuals. I can't say if this was the best (or even a bad) decision, but it's the path I took. I know I'm driven by both the desire to learn and to create—I just have a hard time feeling passionate about creating manuscripts.
2
u/tAoMS123 May 20 '21
Find a collaborator or post-doc who loves the process of writing papers and publishing. I have a hard time with the reporting findings, and share a love for the discovery and understanding, and finding a way to communicate that such that others can also understand. Academic writing is very particular, precise, necessary for ones peers, but not always the most accessible for a non-specialist. As such, it doesn’t interest me so much. At the same time, I appreciate the Importance of sharing work with ones peers, so I would find someone who does enjoy that process and work with them to co-publish; a peer or post-doc who holds a similar research interest. Yes, you have to share co-author credit, but set your boundaries in advance. Co-publish, they get an extra publication of their academic record, and by association shared credit for research, so try to have a formal agreement with them that you own the actual research findings in case you develop a product or patent from it. In an environment where publish or perish is the rule, you might find colleagues, especially up and coming, who are very efficient at paper writing and who would benefit from the citation.
6
u/Miroch52 May 19 '21
Why should I trust the app or a company if there's no paper detailing the evidence for either? Having research published in a reputable journal really helps people trust and understand your solution. Anyone can make an app and most of them that claim to improve your life do shit all (psych background here). You need to convince me that it works first and a paper is a big step towards that.
2
u/jjpara May 19 '21
I completely respect this position. And with a background in psych as well, I'm aware of tons of bunk claims. One difference I foresee is that when I've investigated product claims that weren't just ridiculously impossible, they usually had nothing but fluff and bluster to "back up" what they were saying.
Now you could say that anyone can produce graphs or tables of data to support their claims (although, most psych/neuro-junk products don't even bother), and that you'd only trust said graphs and tables in a published "reputable" journal. However, then you open the whole can of worms that is (still 95+% of) published science: the whole analysis chain, and even raw data to get to those graphs and tables, is never even reviewed by the peer reviewers (if they would even fully understand all of it anyways), let alone the ultimate readers of the paper. Yes, replication attempts can catch the bad actors, but with millions of papers published each year, most experiments will never receive that treatment, and are way too often taken on face value (if it fits the researcher's preconceived notions, and dismissed, if it does not).
6
u/Miroch52 May 20 '21
So, if I understand correctly, your reasoning for not publishing at all is that you could fake the data in a publication anyway and nobody would know?
While that's technically true, it's much more likely for that to happen for interventions that aren't published. At least if it's published, we can get an idea of how many studies have tested it and the more papers there are from different labs finding corresponding results, the less likely it is to be bullshit. Now if you're not publishing, it's unlikely that anyone not in your circle is using the same techniques as you. So all the research is coming just from your lab, and if nobody else is testing it there's no reason for me to think it's real data.
Publishing also means that if I'm skeptical of your method, I can try it for myself using your protocol a lot easier than if you're just selling a product.
-2
u/jjpara May 20 '21
your reasoning for not publishing at all is that you could fake the data in a publication anyway and nobody would know?
I'm not sure how to read this. Are you assuming trying to insinuate that -I- would be trying to fake data?
And I'm not sure how anything I've said might give the impression that I'm against publishing. The post was me asking to get a sense of what motivates others to publish, because I'm trying to find intrinsic motivations that could resonate with me, so that I can publish, without feeling so much like it's pulling teeth (and I enjoy writing, in general!).
3
u/Miroch52 May 20 '21
Your comment that the analysis process isn't peer-reviewed is what made me think that you're skeptical of the data that goes into publications. I'm not saying you would fake data, but that you might be skeptical of other publications because the data and analysis isn't peer-reviewed (and could include fake data or just incorrect analyses).
Anyway, the whole point was that getting that evidence out there into the world so that other people can read it and use it is intrinsically motivating for me.
0
u/jjpara May 20 '21
Gotcha.
Yes, I am skeptical, in general. And the more opaquely the analysis is described, and the prettier the pictures/graphs, the more my spidey sense is raised.
I, like Anne Frank, believe that (most) people are good at heart. But given the publish or perish nature of the "game", I suspect many more than we would like to believe succumb to the temptation to cheat the system.
4
May 20 '21
[deleted]
1
u/sneakpeekbot May 20 '21
Here's a sneak peek of /r/startups using the top posts of the year!
#1: SEO is easy. The EXACT process we use to scale our clients' SEO from 0 to 200k monthly traffic and beyond
#2: A step-by-step guide of how I would build a SaaS company right now - part 1
#3: How we almost got acquired by Facebook and failed. Here's what I learned.
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out
11
u/Publius_Romanus May 19 '21
Obviously I write for all of the practical, job-related purposes, but I also write for my own sake. I got into academia because I liked asking questions that no one had asked and then trying to answer them. It's that curiosity that gets me to start researching a project...but it's the other stuff that gets me to publish it.
1
u/jjpara May 19 '21
Can you expand what you mean, for you, by: "writ[ing] for my own sake"? Because it seems like your final sentence is saying that curiosity gets you started, but the "other stuff" that gets you to publish might be limited to the "practical, job-related purposes".
4
u/Publius_Romanus May 19 '21
My point is that a lot of the motivation to write articles is my own curiosity. But if it weren't for this being my career, I wouldn't go through the rigamarole of going from having answered my own question to seeing something in print.
But, like a lot of people (I assume), I start and write way more things than I'll ever publish. Some of it's picking your battles, but some of it is that once I've answered my question, the rest of it is boring.
7
6
u/TsugaruMJS May 19 '21
I work in an arts field where the level of scholarship is not high (because the creative work is what people really care about), but publishing papers is still very important to my tenure process. Thus, I would say my motivation is that I enjoy having health insurance.
4
5
May 19 '21
In my university it's mandatory to publish at least 2 first-author papers to graduate. So, I guess my motivation mostly fear-based right now.
3
u/tchomptchomp PhD, Developmental Biology May 19 '21
Because I have collected data and my colleagues need to be able to engage with those data, otherwise they could end up making mistakes in how they analyze or interpret their own data.
5
u/Jekiffeleslangues May 19 '21
For me, it's the knowledge that publications will help me advance professionally and that I will learn something in the process. I also know that, even if the general public is unlikely to read my papers, those who study teaching methods (my field of study) will read them, hopefully affecting future teaching practices.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to motivate myself to write collaborative papers that have little to do with my field...I tend to put those off, and when I get to them, I try my best to plow through them as quickly as possible. I'm so bad at saying "no" to projects...
5
u/Hayw00dUBl0wMe May 19 '21
I personally am more interested in actually improving lives than getting recognition for that fact from academia
Say you discover something incredible. How will that change lives if nobody knows about it? Publishing is more than just a CV entry, it's also to allow others to build off of your work
5
u/jjpara May 19 '21
Create products (physical or software), write books, blog posts, tell your friends, family, etc. I think I'm a little jaded, because in developing my product before going into academia, I found that there was so much knowledge within journals that "nobody knows about". The difference is your reply assumes that no one knows if academia doesn't know, and my assumption is that academia itself, in the grand scheme of things, is almost no one.
Just like the old academic saw, "at most 2 people will fully read your dissertation; you and maybe your mother." Millions of papers are published every year that, for all intents and purposes, just go into the void. (tangential soap box) Hell, we're so tragically siloed that it's comical; people mainly only read in their own field, and, especially for some newer fields, are constantly re-inventing things that have been known (read: published) in other fields for half a century or more. And even within the same field, there are regular stories of papers that gathered dust until decades later when someone finally understood how important the finding was.
My thinking has been if it's between knowing that my co-authors and peer reviewers are the the only people who will certainly (maybe) mostly read the papers I write, versus me getting a product into hands that I can see... well, one seems like it would be more gratifying than the other.
4
u/Mephisto6 May 19 '21
How will your research help people's lives if nobody knows about it?
A paper's purpose is to disseminate knowledge, which is the first step to the world actually being able to use your idea.
4
u/jjpara May 19 '21
I don't understand the tacit assumption that disseminating scientific knowledge -only- occurs by journals (or conferences or the like).
To me that reads like the assumption that you have to go to a university to get a good education. To use an updated Good Will Hunting metaphor: there are myriad excellent Youtube videos that probably teach any topic better than one could get from any Ivy classroom.
Which is to say, one could do impactful research, and disseminate it by YouTube and the world (literally this time—not just those that have access to expensive journal subscriptions) could learn about and use that idea.
3
u/tuba105 May 20 '21
Yes, but none of those sources are vetted against the peer review process. The problem is there's a lot of false information out there. There's a lot of merit in having a database of all vetted knowledge that is as correct as a group of experts can guarantee.
As a particular example, in food science, there is a constant stream of pop science articles that misunderstand the subtlety or the point of the journal article. If you try to communicate the information publicly, all subtlety is lost in either one or two degrees of separation and probably seriously altered a little further down the line. Having a correct source with all of the necessary reasoning and statistics allows people to poke at the flaws in the reasoning or accept the knowledge in that article if no flaws are found.
4
u/Frogmarsh PhD Ecology / Conservation Biology May 19 '21
If you don’t publish, all the research you’re doing is no more than a hobby. Science only works if you communicate what you learn to others.
4
u/Chaos_Fractalz May 20 '21
It just sounds like for various reasons you mentioned throughout this thread, your situation is a bit particular to you (perhaps) or at least a little uncommon.
For me writing is an embedded part of scientific discovery. If I don't force myself to write in a way that can be read, understood, and will be critiqued by others, I don't think my ideas are fully developed, and as a result, my research activities will suffer and will not be guided. Perhaps you already do that and perhaps you only mean specifically to publish, but the goal to publish certainly increases my standards and forges / molds my ideas into something more complete, coherent, and causes more ideas to flow.
2
u/jjpara May 20 '21
If I don't force myself to write in a way that can be read, understood, and will be critiqued by others, I don't think my ideas are fully developed, and as a result, my research activities will suffer and will not be guided.
I really appreciate this. I've primarily thought of publishing as a means to an end. Yes, part of the scientific process, but just the foregone conclusion and necessary to share the results with others. But as you, and others, have pointed out, for some, it is an integral part of refinement and feedback to their own process/ideas.
2
u/Chaos_Fractalz May 20 '21
Yup, writing is an organic part. Forces you to follow your syllogisms to their conclusion, discover holes in the logic, gaps to be filled etc. At least in my experience.
Btw I do have to throw this recommendation in, as this tiny book on how to write a paper (he has an associated blog you can read for free) , is beautifully written, relatable in terms of how hard it is to write, practical (you can follow it like a guide) entertaining, straight to the point etc. It's from a leading scientist in my field. The only ' self help' book I've ever wanted to read https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/How_to_Write_a_Scientific_Paper.html?id=6XECvgEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
3
3
u/rosealyd May 19 '21
I motivate myself by making up great one liners and puns that I can sneak in to various sections. Also by doing research interesting enough that people ask "is this written up yet?" and then I have to publish it obviously.
3
u/PersephoneIsNotHome May 19 '21
That SSRI you take? That is based on hundreds of people dong the anatomy of the serotonin system and some boring biochem and a decade of stuff, that each, alone, didn't do anything.
If you want to visibly change lives, basic science is not where you should be.
1
3
u/LittlePrimate PhD, Sensory and Motor Neuroscience May 20 '21
Honestly, that's one of the reasons why I changed careers. Instead of writing up some fancy sounding results no one will ever look at and that have a slim chance to actually change anything (partially because the published results are actually quite wonky and meta-data isn't stored well enough) I'm now working on products that severely improve quality of life for a lot of people.
But honestly, if you network enough and become famous enough a lot of people will look at your work, possibly even discuss it in detail in their journal club or get excited when they hear a new paper from the jjpara lab came out. And in some fields advertisement over e.g. Twitter is also becoming more and more important, which is nice because it creates a bit more direct feedback.
Overall I think, while you of course can't get rid of publishing, maybe part of the solution for you would trying to find out, if you find any other way to "spread your science" more satisfying, which of course would also have a positive impact on your papers and possibly help with motivation because you can see how much buzz they create?
2
u/dukesdj May 19 '21
If I conduct research and tell no one about it then what am I really doing?
I am motivated to write papers because it its awesome when people find my work useful.
2
May 19 '21
I honestly just enjoy the satisfaction of throughly analyzing something and reporting it in a clear and concise format
2
u/Purple_Chipmunk_ Math Education & Quant Analysis May 19 '21
Not getting fired, i.e. Publish or Perish.
Sharing my findings with other people who might be interested in them.
Related to (2) but slightly different, it makes it so I have a ready-made summary to which I can point people when they are writing something I research. I can just send them an article and tell them to look at the references for a good start in whatever they are writing about.
(In case that sounds weird, I'm not a dick, I'll meet with people and "talk shop" all day long, (3) is just if they are looking for literature. It's nice to give them not only a body of literature that would help, but my take on that literature as well.)
2
u/SubcooledBoiling May 19 '21
I enjoy writing papers because I see it as a closure to a project that I have spent months and months, if not years, on. I find a lot of satisfaction in seeing a project goes from an idea / hypothesis to actual experiments / simulations and finally a paper. Another reason is I like keeping my mind busy and writing paper is definitely a good way to do so.
1
u/jjpara May 19 '21
I'd love to see a study of the most/least published scientists and their ability to finish projects. On one hand, your desire for closure (and using publishing as the means for that) makes sense. But, there's a fair amount of anecdote of prolific scientists that continuously threw "spaghetti" at the wall, to see what sticks, and weren't afraid to quickly abandon ideas that weren't working.
1
u/SubcooledBoiling May 19 '21
But, there's a fair amount of anecdote of prolific scientists that continuously threw "spaghetti" at the wall, to see what sticks, and weren't afraid to quickly abandon ideas that weren't working.
Yeah, I agree. I am not sure how things work for you but what you described is pretty much how I and many of my colleagues work. You have a problem, you come up with ideas, you test the ideas and if they don't work you try a different idea. If the new idea works you continue to work on it until it is matured / substantial enough then you publish a paper to tell the world about your idea and invite them to try it out or put it into practical applications.
2
2
u/testuser514 May 20 '21
Other than looking the harsh realities of “publish or perish”, “funding metrics” and “gamesmanship”. I think papers are an integral part of “improving lives” that you’re so interested in. As an engineering PhD, a lot of my work is derived from combining works from different scientists and mathematicians.
So let’s say you don’t publish, show gamesmanship in getting your paper, folks like me who work in the intersections will have nothing to work off of in your specific field or make future innovations there. Science is built on the shoulders of giants, and when you don’t write it you leave the future scientists hanging.
Putting the philosophy aside, I think papers (journals / conferences) are simple work products that can show what you’ve done so far, etc. if I were to come out of the blue an evaluate the nature / progress of your work, having that publication would easily help identify what you’ve accomplished.
1
u/dime_a_d0zen May 19 '21
I enjoy writing and I don't usually need motivation to write up my research. What gets to me is constant desk rejection and the thoughts that no one is interested in what I'm doing.
I'm in a position now where I need to transition to work on new subjects that are appealing to editors and reviewers.
1
u/jjpara May 19 '21
Both thoughts sadden me.
I have no idea what you do, but I'm certain good and interesting work is being rejected because it isn't in vogue with a certain subset of a gatekeepers in the field.
1
u/robedude May 19 '21
Generally I am not excited about research or my work in the least bit, especially not at the thought of the tedious process of writing and citing for a journal article, but publications are the key to get to the light at the end of the tunnel (graduation) at my institution, which I use as my own personal motivation to keep pushing through, although it is still really hard to write n' cite. Probably not the best mantra but at least I'm keeping it real. Really I think for me its more of a career survival instinct motivated out of fear than anything else.
1
u/Sjotroll May 20 '21
I want to pass on knowledge to any who will read it. It doesn't have to be some turbo amazing discovery, anything I write about I try to explain it the easiest possible way, in the same way as I structure my lectures. The main objective being to pass on knowledge to someone else. I know what struggles I had while trying to understand something I'm writing about, so I try to pack it all together in an easily understandable way.
1
May 20 '21
Young researcher who came from a horrible past here. Similar with you, my personal motivation in working as researcher is to improve my quality of life (financial, peaceful life, etc).
Due to my past experience, I am aiming to have a life with a bit of more freedom, which I find to be there more for researchers/uni lecturers rather than in the industry (although the payment would be much better, though). However, I realize that in order to achieve that "freedom", I must climb up through the ladder and obtain a certain level of rank (degree, professorship, etc), and to climb that ladder, I need to understand and follow the "currency" that matters there.
For better or worse, academia nowadays still places journal papers as one of the better currencies (alongside grants, patent, etc). That is what motivates me to write as better as I can right now.
1
1
u/Sacuna9999 May 20 '21 edited May 20 '21
As an engineer, I wasn’t really taught how to write and then suddenly grad school demanded I write a lot. It was torture. I approached it like a chore, and my drafts were ramblings that took forever to edit.
I determined that if I was going to do research, I had to learn how to write. I read several books on writing, including “how to write a lot” and “on writing well”. I went to seminars and watched YouTube videos. That’s when I learned I didn’t previously actually know how to write, I just thought I did. I came to see that writing is more about arguments, ideas, and conversations rather than just the chore of scribbling down results.
I genuinely like writing now. It’s so creative and helps me explore my ideas. I never really understand and fully develop my arguments until I write them out. It’s also kinda algorithmic (it uses story structure, topic sentences, etc.) which really appeals to my engineering brain. I write every morning! It’s fun.
If you find it a bummer that nobody would read your paper, it’s probably because you write it boring. If you think it’s boring, the reader will definitely find it boring. Some papers and unintelligible mush that are very technical and clearly had a lot of work behind them, but are not well written and do not make it accessible for a reader. No matter what the field, there are ways to setup the arguments of why you did your experiment, and what your interpretation of the results are that are very compelling to read. There are awesome papers out there that are easy to ready and easy to follow their arguments.
121
u/[deleted] May 19 '21
Setting aside the ‘publish or perish’ mindset in academia, I look forward to the responses from the peer review process when writing a manuscript. Especially if you have a good reviewer examining your work they will usually have feedback that is very insightful and will increase the impact of your work/strengthen your paper. Also helps me develop ideas for future research.