Complete your online RCR training today!

How to protect research ideas as a junior scientist

Ijeoma Opara learnt some hard lessons after getting scooped in a grant application

November 17, 2022

Nature

By Ijeoma Opara

"I use community-based participatory research methods to work with youth Black children and their families on issues such as substance use and HIV prevention. When I was applying for my first grant in 2019, I spoke to many mentors, community members and non-academic friends — and basically anyone else who would listen to my ideas. I took two months to write the proposal, much improved by their advice and feedback, and received funding the following year.

In 2020, I planned to apply for another grant, in response to a request from a federal funding agency for proposals investigating protective factors against substance use in young people in minority ethnic groups. As in my previous grant-writing journey, I shared my idea with anyone who would listen, but after realizing that I didn’t have the capacity to take on the project, I had decided to wait a couple of months before applying. I thought I had time because the closing date for grant applications was a few years later."



To fix peer review, break it into stages

All data should get checked, but not every article needs an expert.

November 23, 2022

Nature

By Olavo B. Amaral

"Peer review is not the best way to detect errors and problematic data. Expert reviewers are few, their tasks are myriad and it’s not feasible for them to check data thoroughly for every article, especially when the data are not shared. Scandals such as the 2020 retractions of high-profile COVID-19 papers by researchers at US company Surgisphere show how easily papers with unverified results can slip through the cracks.

As a metaresearcher studying peer review, I am struck by how vague the concept is. It conflates the evaluation of rigour with the curation of what deserves space in a journal. Whereas the first is key to keeping the scientific record straight, the second was shaped in an era when printed space was limited.

For most papers, checking whether the data are valid is more important than evaluating whether their claims are warranted. It is the data, not the conclusions, that will become the evidence base for a given subject. Undetected errors or fabricated results will permanently damage the scientific record."