How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists. Part II: making discoveries

Laboratory of Viral Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology (Impact Factor: 37.81). 07/2008; 9(6):491-4. DOI: 10.1038/nrm2390
Source: PubMed


Making discoveries is the most important part of being a scientist, and also the most fun. Young scientists need to develop the experimental and mental skill sets that enable them to make discoveries, including how to recognize and exploit serendipity when it strikes. Here, I provide practical advice to young scientists on choosing a research topic, designing, performing and interpreting experiments and, last but not least, on maintaining your sanity in the process.

Download full-text


Available from: Jonathan W Yewdell, Feb 16, 2015
19 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biomedical research has never been more intellectually exciting or practically important to society. Ironically, pursuing a career as a biomedical scientist has never been more difficult. Here I provide unvarnished advice for young biomedical scientists on the difficulties that lie ahead and on how to find the right laboratories for training in the skills that you will need to succeed. Although my advice is geared towards succeeding in the United States, many aspects apply to other countries.
    Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 06/2008; 9(5):413-6. DOI:10.1038/nrm2389 · 37.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Circulation 06/2009; 119(18):2526-30. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.752709 · 14.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Good alternatives to the Impact Factor (IF) algorithm are needed. The Thomson IF represents a limited measure of the importance of an individual article because 80% of a journal's IF is determined by only the 20% of the papers published. In the past few years, several new indexes has been created to provide alternatives to the IF algorithm. These include the removal of self citations from the calculation of the IF using the Adjusted IF, Index Copernicus initiative and other modifications such as the Cited Half-Life IF, Median IF, Disciplinary IF, and Prestige Factor. There is also the Euro-Factor, born in Europe to avoid the strong US centrality, and the English language basis of the Thomson database. One possible strategy to avoid "IF supremacy" is to create a new index, the Single Researcher Impact Factor (SRIF), that would move the evaluation from the power of scientific journals to the quality of single researchers. This measure can take into account the number and quality of the traditional publications and other activities usually associated with being a researcher, such as reviewing manuscripts, writing books, and attending scientific meetings. Also, in funding policy, it might be more useful to consider the merits, contributions, and real impact of all the scientific activities of a single researcher instead of adding only the journals' IF numbers. The major aim of this paper is to propose and describe the SRIF index that could represent a novel option to evaluate scientific research and researchers.
    Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health 11/2010; 6(1):109-14. DOI:10.2174/1745017901006010109
Show more