Heather Doran

I was lucky enough to attend the Scottish University Life Sciences Alliance Young Scientists' Event in Edinburgh on the 19th and 20th of March. There really were some excellent and useful talks, from presentation skills (including how to use pauses and silence correctly) to possible new therapies for inherited skin diseases. On the second day there was a debate about open access publishing. I tweeted the debate and have collated them using storify. [&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;<span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: yellow; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">lt</span>;a <span class="goog-spellcheck-word" style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color

Post-doctoral researchers in Medical Sciences at the University of Aberdeen were told this week that they need to be publishing, on average, 3.25 papers per year in order to have a competitive chance of getting a research fellowship. I always get worried when I hear exact numbers being quoted as 'what you NEED to have'. The number, apparently was determined by asking research councils that give fellowship grants what they look for. A good idea in theory, the ones that answered the request said they want (on average) 3.25 papers per year. But do the people that receive fellowships really have that record? That isn't clear. With a decrease in research council funding is more research being funded by industry? I don't know, as I don't have the numbers. I'm just speculating, but, if you are industry funded my experience has been so far that you are likely to publish less as your results will go towards things like patents and be kept internally for the company.