Archives

Your paper will be assimilated into the PubMed Central database.

Biosketches, progress reports, and other materials that go to NIH need these digits. Here’s what you need to do.

Does My Paper Need a PMCID?

Your paper falls under the public access policy and requires a PMCID if all of the following are true:

• The work reported in the paper was supported by federal funds, including NIH, DOD, CDC, VA, and AHRQ. (This includes if you did the work while on a fellowship, training, or career development grant. These grants fund you, not specific projects, so any research you do should cite your grant.)
• The manuscript was peer reviewed. Case studies, reviews, editorials, and similar items do not require PMCIDs.
• It was accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008.
• It was published in English.

NIH takes this so seriously that your annual progress report will be rejected if you try to include papers that should have a PMCID but don’t. You also can’t include non-compliant papers on biosketches for grant applications.

Possible statuses for a publication in My Bibliography.

How Do I Associate Funding with My Manuscript?

1. Visit NCBI’s My Bibliography. If not already listed, add the citation to your bibliography on the site. You can do this by searching for the PMID or other citation information, uploading a file, or adding the citation manually.
2. Once the citation is in your bibliography, you should see a green, blue, or red box to the side of it. (We’ll get to the colors later.) To add grant support, click either “Add Award” or “[Number] Awards.”
3. A popup will appear allowing you to choose which of your linked awards belong with this manuscript.

How Do I Get a PMCID?

Once your bibliography is complete, you may notice that some citations have a red box next to them. This means you need to either get a PMCID for the paper or tell NCBI that it doesn’t need one.

If the citation is a review, case study, or other non-peer reviewed work, click “Edit Status” and answer that NIH did not support the work in whole or in part.

For papers in need of a PMCID, there are four potential methods to get one.

• Method A: Journal deposits the article in PubMed Central without author involvement. Hooray! You’re off the hook. List of journals that use Method A.
• Method B: Author asks publisher to deposit the specific article in PubMed Central. This typically means you have paid an open access fee. List of journals and publishers that use Method B.
• Method C: Author deposits final peer-reviewed manuscript in PubMed Central via the NIHMS. The work is all on you. Any journal or publisher not listed in the other methods uses Method C.
• Method D: Author completes submission of final peer-reviewed manuscript the publisher deposits in the NIHMS. List of publishers that use Method D.

If you need to submit the manuscript, you, a co-author, or anyone else on your behalf, such as a research or admin assistant, can do this. Whoever submits will need the final peer-reviewed manuscript (you may need to ask the journal for this), the figure/image files (if separate), which grants funded the work, and the embargo period (default is 12 months). Designate yourself as the reviewer unless your co-authors or PI specify otherwise.

NIH’s excellent guides (with screen caps) to submitting and approving a manuscript in NIHMS

Visit NIHMS

Cite Your Shiny New PMCIDs

When citing your papers, always include the PMCID. If you’ve taken the appropriate actions for your paper based on the methods above but still don’t have a PMCID, do this instead:

• Add “PMC Journal – In Process” to the end of the citation. This is correct if your journal or publisher uses Method A, B, or D and has not yet finished the process.
• Cite the NIHMSID instead of the PMCID. Find this in NIHMS by visiting your home page and selecting the appropriate category from the sidebar, then viewing the specific paper’s Manuscript Information page. This should only be done for three months after publication; after that, you need to have a PMCID.

No, not death or marriage or parenthood. Or joining the military, converting to a new religion, moving country or finally accepting that His Dark Materials is a better fantasy epic than Harry Potter. These are all momentous life, events but what I want to talk to you about now is something no less epic in its own way.

I’m talking about cleaning the bench, signing off on the lab book and gifting your pipettes to the next generation. I’m talking about leaving academia.

(I’m a biologist, so anyone in a different academic field can substitute their own way of wrapping up a career).

Five years ago (or so) I joined @NatureComms from my postdoc to begin my new life as an editor. There are two equally true stories I tell to explain my decision to leave academia. In one, I had realized I didn’t want to run my own group and looked at careers outside of academia that would keep me as close as possible to the science I was interested in. In the other, my contract ran out and I had to make a choice about doing another postdoc or making a leap into something different. Both are true – the former is the one I often tell PhD students so they think about what motivates them; the latter is shared with postdocs who have been through the system. Academic war stories, if you will. Take home message is I knew where I wanted to land, but there was a pretty big nudge to make me leap.

So I became an editor. Odd word, “editor,” as I don’t actually do much editing. I evaluate, contextualise, mediate, synthesize, arbitrate, and decide, but rarely ever edit the actual writing of a manuscript. I still move in a world of science and I still call myself a scientist even if I no longer actively research.

I’ve tried to stick to a few guiding principles in this role that keeps you both as part of a scientific community and removed from it at the same time. Foremost among them is that everything depends on the science. I play no favourites and while there are, of course, authors who I’m friends with it is on the understanding that I’ll reject their work just like anyone else’s. (I have. We had a chat about the science, what options were available, and then got a beer.)

And I acknowledge I’m human and am will take the time to discuss my decisions. I can be wrong, I’ve changed my mind following conversations with authors. Just come to debate, not tell me I’m wrong. I’d like to think after a PhD, two postdocs, five years of being an editor, dozens of conferences and reading a truly staggeringly large number of papers I am able to make reasonably coherent decisions.

Like any role, it requires its own skill set, and that’s one that I’ve been able to grow and develop. I’ve learnt I’m pretty good at taking often divergent opinions and critiques (including my own!) and synthesizing an analysis from them. I’ve been able to do it handling areas that engage me intellectually every day – synthetic biology, genome engineering and DNA computing – and in doing so, I’ve had amazing opportunities I probably wouldn’t have had as a postdoc, from giving talks to being interviewed for a book. I’m still chuffed people ask me for my opinion on stuff.

Was leaving academia scary? Oh my, yes. After all, working in a lab was something I had wanted to do since 1993 when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time. Understanding that it perhaps wasn’t for me long-term was scary. A lot of my identity had been interwoven with the idea that I was a scientist and now I had to seriously think about what not being a researcher meant.

Like I said, it was a pretty big adventure starting a new career. A pretty great adventure so far.

You know the Sunday evening dread when thoughts turn to work on Monday? I don’t get that. Oh, I’m busy and the job can be stressful and is often exhausting but I can’t deny I genuinely enjoy it. I look forward to the next exciting paper. And the one after that. And the one after that.

Work-in-progress groups (WIPs) convene members on a regular schedule for supportive critique of scholarly materials, including presentations, posters, manuscripts, cover letters, grant applications, and responses to reviews.  WIPs are accepted as a career development best practice for enhancing productivity and professional polish.

Though groups are often organized around lab teams or with similar level trainees, I’m an advocate for WIPs that aim to build the “multidisciplinary tribe” by creating a community of scholars across disciplines, who are using varied research approaches, and who are at different career stages.

For three years we have hosted WIPs as a proactive means to connect pre-docs, post-docs, and early career faculty.  Our rationale is that facilitating familiarity in intentionally-formed, near-peer groupings will:

• Inculcate low-threat approaches for giving and receiving review and critique,
• Foster greater scientific fluency,
• Allow members to find new intellectual common ground,
• Encourage participants’ embracing larger scientific territories in their research,
• Promote peer mentoring as a norm,
• Enlarge the professional networks of all participants,
• Create a group of individuals invested in each others’ success, and
• Lay the foundations for genuine community among researchers.

These results are being achieved. Interest in forming new WIP sessions is out-stripping our ability to make groups available.

How to Cook Up Your Own WIP

To get started you’ll need:

One or more experienced researchers who are effective mentors in group settings.* Ideally this would include scientists who span the types of research of the intended group as well a statistician or study design methodologist.  Four mentor-level faculty on the WIP roster allows for travel and competing commitments so that you can typically achieve two or three in attendance.

Group of scholars to invite who are actively working on academic materials and can dedicate time to the group. We have hand selected members for light adjacency but not overlap of research areas (e.g. basic neuroscience, imaging, movement disorders, Alzheimer’s, age discrimination, and de-prescribing) and have also formed inclusive groups based solely on personalities we assessed would fit well together.  Either approach can work well, and behind-the-scenes shaping of the group to be invited is helpful.

Ideal members are typically graduate students far enough into dissertation work that they are writing papers and preparing for talks, post-docs, and early career faculty, dedicated to research careers who do not have a heavy clinical or teaching load. Ideal group size is achieved by overshooting on invites and membership.  If you want eight scholars and two mentor-level faculty present at most meetings, inviting 18 to 24 people to a predetermined time and place will get about 12 to 14 members joining the group on an ongoing basis.  With travel, parental leaves, and other competing demands, this will result in 8-10 in attendance at most sessions.  Sample invitation.

Recurring time and place to meet. We suggest weekly or biweekly for 1.5 hours to assure members have opportunities for almost all of their materials to have group review. Plan to take a summer hiatus and a shorter winter break.

Format. Once the group has a routine, they typically use the first 5-10 minutes for updates, to celebrate wins, and to share accountability items like SMART Goals. Then five to 25 minutes for review of the key portions of written materials or to present a practice talk. The balance of the time is used for discussion and suggestions. Repeat as needed to accommodate multiple presenters. To structure discussion time, we’ve used a Zoom In Review method in which feedback is structured from highest conceptual critique to fine detail as time and scholar readiness allows.

Shared calendar for members to book into to reserve slots for reviews and to commit to having materials ready. This promotes accountability to the group and to their professional timelines, as well as helping prevent procrastination. You’ll want some general conventions for which items can fit together in a single session and which can schedule for the full session. For instance, one abstract and a cover letter can both be reviewed in a single meeting. New grant aims or the results section and tables for a manuscript would each reserve a whole session.

Projection system and white board or flip chart to facilitate review of a range of items. The usefulness of the projector extends past rehearsal of talks into live group editing of documents projected on the screen.  A place to write or draw is used by visual thinkers to show what they mean with regard to outline of a section or improvement of a figure, while at other times it serves as a site to make a “parking lot” of issues to be discussed about the work in subsequent sessions or for addressing with mentors when time is running short.

Provide paper copies of items to the group at the meeting for written mark-up and notes. This is essential since materials are reviewed in real time (requiring prework for WIPs consistently fails and adds to burden of participating). Even with effective moderation not all comments will be able to be made in the time allotted. Some edits, such as typos, can easily be passed along on paper and the author/presenter will have more ability to concentrate on feedback if not focused on note taking. For posters, print out in large format like 11×14, for slides print the 3-slides per page version with space for notes.  For review of manuscripts, to constrain the time the group will often need to focus on a single section, but it is helpful to print the whole draft for context.  For response to reviewers, print the reviewers’ comments or grant summary statements and provide any key supporting documents such as the aims page or concerning parts of a manuscript (or be prepared to project the manuscript).

Icing on the Cake

A Coordinator is ideal. If available, they will spend up to two hours a week to send reminders, circulate materials, bring printed items to the meeting location, have projection set up, and coordinate refreshments if possible. In DIY groups without a coordinator, participants are responsible for bringing printed materials and setting up projection.

Funds to pay for snacks, beverages or meals with rotating responsibility for set-up or help of a coordinator. Some of our group leaders and groups have created this perk by contributing to a discretionary fund through the development office so that donated funds can be directed to having lunches together during the WIP.

Getting Started and Building Group Culture

A printer-ready sample of our WIP Table Tent can be printed as tent cards and placed on tables in the room and the information can also be circulated in email as members agree to join the group.

In the first session the rationale for multidisciplinary, near-peer groups should be introduced by the faculty mentors or scholars who formed the group. Emphasis on the WIP being for review and critique of materials but also for encouragement, for accountability, and for seeking ideas and assistance is key.

In the first meeting, and often the initial few, introductions will be needed. To help people connect, we often ask participants to share:

• How long they have been at the institution
• Where their office or lab is located
• Who their mentors are
• What the most pressing project is that they are currently working on

We also ask one or two ice-breaker question to accelerate connections between members. Items that work include:  What was the most fun you had last month?  What’s your favorite pastime that’s not related to work?  What’s the dullest trip you’ve ever taken? (Avoid asking about most interesting or exotic trips or adventures because this can stratify the room based on personality, financial means, or family structure.)

Connections form quickly around details the answers reveal like having children, looking for a new home, hobbies, or partners with details in common that are embedded in answers. Groups will start to share resources and life tips if you reintroduce such questions at the start of subsequent sessions and allow discussion to continue for a short time when members bring a trouble-shooting need into the conversation at the start of meetings.

Faculty mentors or other group leaders* should moderate use of time and infuse comments about the value of the group and thank participants for what they bring to the table. Discussion leaders must ensure commitment to gentle but direct comments. They will need to summarize, encourage brevity, or remind members to write down key items to give to the presenter in order to gather input from all in the room. Group leaders need to be prepared to restate or reframe commentary that could be or is being poorly delivered or received. At times this will extend to discussions with the group member outside the WIP to help them absorb and interpret the observations and advice.

To accommodate different levels of comfort and familiarity with critiquing the work of others, we’ve promoted use of the Zoom In Review in which comments are structured from highest conceptual critique to fine detail as time and readiness allows. See sample instruction cards to project before groups start or to laminate and put on the table each session.

If a group meeting finishes review early, employ the remaining time talking about logistics of academic life such as:

• Common formatting problems in CVs
• How to write contributions to science for biosketch when you are new in science
• Tips on networking at national conferences
• Ideas for reducing costs on conference travel
• How to access campus resources of high relevance

Sharing solutions across levels of participants enhances trust among members and prevents situations like fatigue or an uncomfortable amount of critique to be channeled leading to the group ending and leaving early. Goal is to reinforce using the time well and not unwittingly incentivizing cutting meetings short.

Testimonials are what keep us multiplying groups.

“Multidisciplinary WIP participation improved my ability to distill my science into clear, compelling language that peers outside my field could understand. I expected to sharpen my aims pages and other grant components when it was my turn to be critiqued, and I did. What I did not anticipate was how much my science would improve from watching my peers in the ‘hot seat.”  – RB, PhD, laboratory-based faculty

“The group have been so much more than reviewing my work in progress. You have invested in my career wholeheartedly and I am grateful for holistic feedback and attention to my career success”. – LR, MD, clinical translational faculty

“I have been exposed to grant writing styles and presentation formats that differ from what I’m used to within my department. This pushes me to think critically about the purpose and audience for each piece of my work and choose the most appropriate style or format rather than using the same template.” – GK, PhD, imaging post-doc fellow

If you’re not WIPing, it’s time to get started!

*Committed groups of early career scholars are capable of forming independent groups, but it can be more difficult. The likelihood of success is related to experience in prior effective groups. If you are an early career scholar and want to be part of a WIP group but haven’t been in one, asking a mentor to assist in forming and moderating until routines are well-established can be helpful. Self-governance with simple written and agreed principles about how the group will run can provide a firm foundation. Be sure to include how new members are invited and what the plan is when the group gets too large for effective participation of all members.

I am scientist trained in sociology, social work and public health (behavioral sciences, to be exact), who did a postdoc in a Pharmacy department and is now a tenure-track Assistant Professor in a College of Nursing. There are pros, cons and lessons learned from my interdisciplinary and inter-professional journey worth sharing as you consider your next job or career move. 

Pros

My training gives me an incredibly unique and holistic perspective that I bring to my research. My field of research is complex and multifactorial. Because I live between disciplines, I can borrow from a variety of disciplinary frameworks and approaches to address issues and collaborate with others.

I have developed broad professional networks across institutions, departments and disciplines. These scientific and professional networks have introduced me to numerous colleagues across the country who work in my field, and helped me secure professional development opportunities, such as conference travel awards (American Association for Cancer Research Travel Grants) and sponsored research training opportunities. These networks also allow me to be a resource to the students I mentor and to other faculty looking for various career and professional development resources.

My background also opens up new possibilities for funding and publishing. As a postdoc, I applied for and secured a fellowship that commonly targets pharmacy faculty. I am also able to frame my research findings for audiences across a broad variety of discipline specific journals.  

Cons

Sometimes I feel like I don’t have a home. Many academic and research funding institutions are siloed by disciplines, diseases, or health professions. I have not pledged my devotion to a single discipline (although I do get very excited when I meet other social workers!).

In line with this, I have found it hard to find a professional society or organization that can best support my career and professional development. I have been a member of a number of organizations, but often don’t feel that they are meeting my needs or giving me service opportunities needed for tenure and promotion. Stay tuned because I will be attending a new conference in a few weeks that I think may be my unicorn!

Lessons Learned

Be open to the guidance of others. At every major turning point in my scientific training and career, there were colleagues and mentors who suggested I consider opportunities I would have never imagined. Ironically, I was not a good fit for some faculty positions I applied for in social work and public health departments. Yet I ended up in Nursing because a colleague urged me to apply and it’s been a perfect fit for me in so many ways.

Be more concerned with solving problems than with your disciplinary approach. My obsession with creating solutions to reduce health disparities has guided my research and career. The problems we face as scientists are increasingly more complex to understand and solve. I think it’s safe to say that most of these problems cannot be solved by a single discipline. By working with other scientists from different disciplines, we are more likely to reach new solutions. For example, I am currently working with a team of mentors (e.g., behavioral scientist, nurse scientist, epidemiologist) to address the age-old problem of “medication adherence” by developing a multi-level intervention to improve adherence to endocrine therapy among breast cancer survivors. We believe this new approach to an old problem is promising.   

More Resources

It’s All About Teamwork: William Wester

How to PhD: 10 Tips from Hindsight

Resilience as a Common Trait in Researchers