Postgraduate students who are confused can take a look (reposted)

Thread Content

When I first started doing experiments, I did whatever others said, working by the lab bench until late at night, thinking that this was what research entailed. Two months passed, and suddenly I found that I was still stuck in the same place. That feeling can only be described as “disappointed”. I began to question my own actions and beliefs. It feels like some kind of *inherent force is holding me back. *Accustomed to following others, *accustomed to acting on orders, *accustomed to being busy. I’m by no means a graduate student; I’m just an inexpensive and hardworking technician. Later, seeing graduate students around me making the same mistakes, I was surprised by how widespread these problems were. So I decided to summarize my experience in research and discuss it with everyone. Hoping to use this to get closer to true scientific research ； It is hoped that, after going through numerous trials, these experiences will become part of the knowledge base of graduate students, allowing future generations to build on them, avoid unnecessary detours, and reach the essence of the issues directly. This is a preface. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Some insights from my research work (1) Some insights from my research work: 1. Spend half the time doing experiments and half the time reading literature. One must never spend all one’s time at the laboratory bench. Read literature, books, observe how others operate, listen to their experiences, study their approaches, and think while doing. Learn to make comparisons; don’t follow blindly. Otherwise, one will be troubled by small problems for a long time. 2. The better the preparation, the smoother the experiment will go. The ancients said that sharpening a knife doesn’t delay the task of chopping wood. Having prior knowledge, a sufficient amount of literature, proper preparation of materials and methods can help avoid chaos, and thorough preliminary experiments will give you confidence. By taking things step by step, there’s no need to “start over from scratch”. What is most intolerable is slacking off in the first few steps, which leads to various insurmountable obstacles later on. 3. The records should be accurate and detailed. People always have a bit of vanity. It is common for many people to only record the successful steps or good results in the experiment notes. Little do you know, many valuable experiences and unexpected discoveries pass by you just like that. An objective, accurate, and detailed record is a valuable asset. 4. Don’t save money for the boss. Efficiency first. Spending the whole day trying to save money only results in wasting time and suffering setbacks when using unreliable products; in the end, no money is actually saved. 5. Seize the psychological advantage. Those who have conducted experiments have all experienced failure and setbacks. Some failures should occur during the preliminary experiments, and you can accept them calmly at that time. If you don’t conduct preliminary experiments, you will experience significant frustration when encountering issues in the actual experiments. If you make a mistake due to rushing, you will feel frustrated. If you can firmly put aside your current restlessness, you can avoid a tragedy from occurring. If you don’t know what you need to do today before entering the laboratory in the morning, it’s best to think it through first. The biggest mistake is to repeat the same error. Remember, those who refuse to learn from repeated warnings are not suitable for conducting experiments. Some of my experiences in research (II) 1. Start with review articles before moving on to original research papers; use review articles to understand concepts and original research papers to master methods. 2. First, read the articles published by your supervisor, and then look at the theses defended by senior students – the former will help you understand the general direction (in fact, this should be done before applying to be his/her graduate student), while the latter will show you what can be used as a reference. 3. Get started early – learn the key techniques before the senior students leave. 4. If you continue their work, be sure to examine their experimental records; the results of previous researchers may not necessarily be reliable! 5. Be prepared for both scenarios: The research topic should be designed to clarify the issue, so that a paper can be written regardless of whether the result is positive or negative. What do positive results indicate, and what do negative results indicate? If the project requires a positive result, you may need to design several components in advance; in case the first component does not yield the desired results, the other components can be used to make up for it. Some insights from my research work (III) 1. Read the abstracts of most articles, and only the full texts of a few. Having learned some techniques for obtaining full texts, I often take pleasure in getting them, to the point where I have no time to read the actual content of the articles, let alone their abstracts. There isn’t much truly useful text in its entirety; pursuing the full text to an extreme is a waste, and one should avoid such extremes. Of course, it’s also wrong to rely only on the abstract. 2. Set aside dedicated time to read literature; one always forgets what has been read. The more scattered the time spent reading literature, the more time is wasted. Focusing time allows for easier connections and the formation of an overall impression. 3. Keep good records and make markings: For documents that are copied or printed, use a pen to make direct markings or annotations on them. For documents in PDF or HTML format, it is possible to highlight or change the text color using an editor. This is another important means to avoid wasting time. Otherwise it’s as if you didn’t read it. 4. The articles to be cited must be read in person. The errors resulting from citation are countless. 5. Pay attention to the reference value of the article. The impact factor of a journal and the number of citations a paper receives can reflect its reference value. But it is important to note how other articles that cite this one evaluate it: in support or opposition, as a supplement or to correct errors. Some of my insights from doing research (IV) 1. One cannot learn how to conduct experiments in lab classes. Before the lab session, the teacher completes all the previous steps and resolves all issues, allowing everyone to see a flawless demonstration of the final step during the class. Is this a real experiment? Back then, we naively asked the teacher: Can we go now? When is the lab report due? For most people, experimental skills can only be developed by spending time in the laboratory. 2. Communication is the best teacher. Running into difficulties in experiments is something that happens all the time. What was your first reaction? Try again and again? Give up? Read books? All these approaches make sense, but communication should be the first thing to consider. When consulting someone of status in private, it shows your respect for them ； For those with the same seniority, open discussions allow everyone to speak freely while being cautious in their words. One must never work in isolation. Spending half a year on an experiment, only to be told later that it’s a dead end – wouldn’t that be a waste of time? 3. The highest level of ability is the ability to express oneself; no matter how good a job is, it ultimately depends on recognition from others. Expressive ability, manifested in writing and speaking skills, is a quality that requires long-term development. For example, when a rare case is identified, a research paper is written and published ； If I can’t write well, I can only publish a case report. For example, work on a research project and publish one or several papers after completing it ； If one can’t write well, they can only submit an abstract of a research paper or be rejected. A picture, a table – each is an expression of expressive ability. A bid document of just a few hundred or thousand words can secure substantial funding ； Although relationships are important, it’s not okay if they’re written poorly. Some people say that I don’t need to learn PCR or SPSS; just mastering PowerPoint is enough. There is some truth to this; after all, lab bosses rely on piles of PPTs to get by in their work. Graduate students are often admired for their quick thinking and clear reasoning. Graduate students often wonder too, \"Why did I do most of the work, yet the boss had someone who didn’t do much at all write the paper?\" Let him give a speech at the conference? ”Don’t you see that they have the ability to speak right away? 4. Master English well; don’t learn a second foreign language. These days, whether going to Japan or Europe, academic exchanges are entirely dominated by English. You needn’t feel sorry for not understanding a French article; the person who wrote it is worried about not having mastered English well. If you are not yet proficient in English, refrain from learning a second foreign language for now. 5. SCI is a trap. Luck! Someone published an SCI paper without putting in any effort. Don’t be envious of him. As far as I know, the research topic was designed by someone else, the experiments were carried out under the guidance of another person, and the paper was revised by foreigners helped find by his supervisor; he is not good at conducting research. But because of one SCI paper, he already thought he could make a name for himself in the field of research. So I need to go abroad, conduct experiments, continue to publish in SCI journals, and earn dollars. From then on, he embarked on a path that was not his own. (Maybe there’s a element of sour grapes.) But look at the people around you, and look at yourself – are you really suited for doing research? Is it really not suitable for engaging in research? My insights into doing research (5): I don’t know to what extent research can tolerate fraud – are research and fraud twins? But everyone on stage is saying – never fake it. 1. Moderate falsification: It’s insignificant, with little deviation. The paper used DNA samples from normal adults matched by age and gender as controls; in practice, umbilical cord blood DNA was used as the control ； In the paper, 200 cases were planned as normal controls, but actually 150 cases were used ； There is a significant difference in the paper, and there is also a significant difference in reality, but the difference in means is not as large as that shown in the paper ； In the paper, random grouping is actually done arbitrarily ； The paper describes performing aseptic surgery on animals, but in reality only some of the instruments were dipped in a disinfectant. 2. Passive fraud: Enduring humiliation and suffering in silence. The senior student’s paper was published, and the supervisor asked Yi to continue the work. Yi was unable to replicate the results, but he couldn’t say that there were problems with the senior student’s paper; instead, he carried out more \"in-depth\" research while hiding the facts ； Whatever result the mentor wants, Yi is able to achieve it ； In the months before graduation, many people’s experiments went exceptionally smoothly, and everything that was supposed to come out did so. 3. Objective fraud: unintentional, due to a lack of common sense. A new deletion mutation is reported in the paper; it is said that only one clone was sequenced ； An experiment that should have been repeated several times was submitted for publication without being repeated. 4. Deliberate fraud: driven by a desire for quick success, regardless of obstacles. One of the electrophoresis photos in the paper couldn’t be redone in time, so a similar photo from someone else was used as a substitute ； During enzyme digestion, one band should be completely cut off, but it couldn’t be removed completely; so she used PHOTOSHOP to erase it ； The amount of PCR work in the paper is substantial, but there is only one entry in the PCR instrument usage log ； In the paper, p=0.041, while the actual value is 0.055; removing one positive observation from the control group results in a value of 0.041. 5. Active fraud: The pursuit of fame and fortune to an almost insane degree; Yi published 50 papers under his own name in one year ； The paper came first, followed by the experimental records. Some insights from my research work (VI): Writing in English articles 1. Read 10 papers and summarize 100 common sentence patterns and phrases. Frequently re*ed. Note that the authors of the references must be native English speakers, and the content of the references should be related to your field of study. This is a byproduct of regularly reading literature. 2. Find 3-5 articles on technical approaches and statistical methods that are similar to your research topic, and read them carefully. Write a draft of the paper. It should be written in a uniform format for title, author, abstract, background, objectives, materials, methods, results, discussion, acknowledgments, references, legends, figures, tables, photographs, and captions. The advantage of doing this is that it can be easily adjusted to the format of any magazine. 3. For each section of the paper, especially regarding a specific method or a particular aspect to be discussed, find 5–8 articles to read in order to enrich and improve it. What is discussed here relates only to English expressions, and it is recommended only for those with little experience in writing in English. 4. Find the submission guidelines for the magazine you want to submit to, then locate 2-3 articles from that magazine and rewrite them in accordance with its format. Note that each time you rewrite something, you should save it under a different file name to avoid losing the work in case of problems. 5. Have an expert in English revise it. If you can’t find the right person, look for companies that offer services for editing English papers (English correction and improvement, not translation). I highly recommend this option to those who have money but no time. Some of my experiences in conducting research (VII) – Document management: 1. When downloading electronic versions of documents (CAJ, PDF, HTML), use the article title as the file name. Note that file names cannot contain special characters; symbols such as \ / : * ? < > | and line breaks must be removed. Using the same *default filename each time can prevent repeated downloads. 2. Different topics are stored in different folders. The folder titles should be brief, such as: PD, LTP, PKC, NO. 3. Put the reviewed literature into subfolders; at the very least, separate the useful from the useless ones. 4. For important documents, numbers such as 001, 002, 003 are added before the file name based on their importance, and the icons are arranged in order of name, with the most important documents appearing first. 5. For copied or printed documents, punch holes in them using a hole-puncher (￥10-15) and place them in a hard folder (￥10-20 per folder). Some of my insights from doing research (8): We often try to be clever when citing references, not realizing that such tactics reduce the quality of the paper. 1. Knowing but not citing: Clearly drawing on similar work by peers, yet deliberately failing to cite it in order to make one’s own work appear “innovative” and “cutting-edge”. In fact, the reviewers are likely to be peers. 2. Taking things out of context – deliberately selecting the parts that the author tries to refute in order to support one’s own views. 3. Inaccurate quotations: The original text was not read carefully, resulting in errors and omissions in the quotes. 4. Unreliable sources: Some phrases and statements come from unreliable sources (such as informal or non-academic publications), and the sources are not indicated. It is commonly seen in some statistical figures. 5. Blind self-citation is not done to illustrate the relationship between one’s own work and previous research, but merely to increase the number of citations for one’s own article. Some of my insights from doing research (9): Reasons for the low quality of domestic articles: 1. Outdated knowledge among reviewers. Older reviewers have quite limited abilities to search for literature and use the Internet; as a result, they are unable to determine whether a study is meaningful, what its innovative aspects are, whether the methods used are reliable, and whether the results are credible. But strangely, the common review comment they make is that the references are not recent enough. 2. Choosing the wrong reviewers: Although generally two reviewers are assigned, the editorial board often assigns people who do not understand molecular biology to review articles on that subject, and those who do not know statistics to review articles with complex statistical analyses. Out of a sense of pride, few people say, “I’m not suitable to review this article.” 3. Related articles: With relationships in place, everything becomes simpler. 4. Failure to acknowledge negative results: Honest negative results are considered meaningless. No wonder some people are shouting, “I want to create a feminist magazine.” 5. Fraud – No one wants to become a victim of the system. If the expected results cannot be achieved, it’s impossible to meet the requirements. For survival, for graduating on time, build it. Some insights from my research work (X): Dynamic research 1. Research relies on accumulation. Opportunities to win a Nobel Prize based on a single simple observation, like when Röntgen discovered X-rays, are becoming increasingly rare. More scientific research achievements stem from the long-term accumulation in the laboratory. In the end, it got what it deserved. When doing research, don’t expect to achieve success overnight. Don’t set overly ambitious goals for the design project. Fund evaluation is the same. Without prior experience, the chances of obtaining funding are low. When choosing a mentor, think carefully: do you want to start from scratch, or work for someone else? 2. The literature must be tracked. What is learned from literature review at the start of a project can be very different by the time it is completed. Pay attention to tracking during the experiment. If you're lucky, you can get more clues ； Unfortunately, I found that someone else had beaten me to it. Adjust your experiment accordingly. Be sure to review the literature again before writing the paper. 3. The record to be restored*. The previous experiment records need to be reviewed frequently. As you gain more experience and improve your understanding, you will find that your initial judgments are not necessarily correct. 4. The material will deteriorate. Over time, some reagents degrade and some equipment ages, which results in you not obtaining the same results as before even when following the original methods. PCR is a devil! Many people feel this way. This is just a simple example. If a reagent only reduces the amount by an effective level, you need to increase its dosage. If harmful substances are produced as a result of degradation, it’s likely time to replace the reagent. If the device readings drift, they need to be corrected. In short, when a problem occurs, one must find the cause; every step must be “exact”! Otherwise, it’s like trying to find a sword by marking the spot where it fell. 5. The boss needs to see clearly. The boss is also trying things out as he goes. His ideas keep changing all the time. When he feels things are not going well, he turns away. You need to keep your eyes sharp and spot the early signs, otherwise you’ll be confused. It can be guided appropriately. Interaction, right? Some of my insights from doing research (XI): I once asked some people more experienced than me what research is, and they didn’t answer me directly; instead, they gave me five analogies. 1. Scientific research is like pop music: use what is popular, do what is popular. Open-mouth biochips, closed-mouth nanotechnology. The boss is a fan of trends; what’s popular is the best. 2. Is scientific research about creating projects by transplanting ideas? How are research topics designed? It’s spelled out. Material of A, method of B, indicator of C, significance of D. 3. Scientific research is like a point-and-shoot camera – can’t understand the principle? Pardon my age; I don’t have time to look into the principles. I can keep trying; the solution will come out after a few more attempts. Why take this step? It’s enough if the boss understands in his heart! I still can’t finish the work he assigns me every week. 4. Scientific research is just copying what exists; don’t know how to write a review? Copy it. Can’t write a paper? Put it on. Anyway, no one will hold anyone accountable. The ignorant are fearless! 5. Scientific research is garbage: the experiment is completed, the paper is published, and the defense is passed. The boss said earnestly, “After you leave, all of this will be trash.” Dizzy! Down! Struggle! Pour again! They didn’t deceive me; pragmatism has its own logic. But I no longer criticize the domestic level of scientific research casually, because at times I too repeat the same story. Some of my experiences in research (XII): Writing a graduation thesis 1. First, create an outline. Starting to write without an outline is a bad habit. A few hundred words is no problem, a few thousand is barely possible, while tens of thousands is very difficult. A writing outline must be prepared first, followed by further development, to ensure coherence in the thinking and a balanced word count. 2. Write more regularly, summarize periodic work in a timely manner, and write and submit more articles. In the final stage, organizing these texts together in an organic way results in a great graduation thesis. 3. Do not list all the data. To give their graduation thesis more weight, graduate students tend to observe a large number of indicators. However, for a graduation thesis, more data is not necessarily better. Be sure to discard those data points that are not relevant to the main theme. Otherwise, it will either appear cumbersome and loose or become a flaw. 4. Print and modify: Making changes directly on the computer can result in many errors being overlooked. To minimize any errors as much as possible, it is essential to print it out and make corrections. 5. Having others point out mistakes and making corrections oneself still remains limited by personal habits. The mistake is right there, yet it goes unnoticed. Let others point out your mistakes, whether they are in the same field as you or not. Some insights from my research work (13): How to read literature 1. Goal: Without a clear goal, there is no efficiency; failing to identify the key points also leads to inefficiency. Before choosing a topic, one might experience a period of uncertainty, not knowing where to start. I read a large number of documents casually, but didn’t understand what was going on. With the guidance of mentors and the inspiration of peers, some people can quickly define their goals and take targeted actions; it is from here that their journey begins. Even if there is no supervisor or no specific topic assigned, one should first set a specific question and consult relevant literature. Whether you end up doing these things in the future or not, it’s still much better than having no goal at all, as it ensures that you will achieve something. The general laws of scientific research are universal. 2. Levels: For a specific topic, relevant literature falls into three levels: research directions, research fields, and research topics. For example, someone is studying the use of stem cell directed differentiation for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease; in their case, the research focus is Parkinson’s disease, the research area is stem cell therapy for Parkinson’s disease, and the specific research topic is the use of certain substances to induce stem cells to differentiate into nerve cells that secrete dopamine. When reading literature, it is important to determine what level the source belongs to, as this determines the extent to which you need to master it. Literature at the research direction level: generally covers basic knowledge, disciplinary standards, an understanding of current major advancements and trends, and attainment of a professional level ； Literature at the research field level: Understanding key focuses and hot topics, ongoing and future research projects, achieving expert level ； Literature at the research topic level: It should be comprehensive, covering history, current status, prospects, main methods, and approaches, to reach the level of a top expert. Only by correctly identifying the structure of an article can one focus efforts where they matter most. 3. Format: Literature in a broad sense includes all forms of publication that can be read. Textbooks, monographs, conference abstract collections, journals, web pages, and even PPT files. For example, to understand the basic forms of immune responses, it is best to consult textbooks ； To refer to the stereotactic atlas of the rat brain, it is best to consult specialized monographs ； To stay informed about the latest developments, it is best to consult journals ； To keep track of others’ research trends, it’s best to attend conferences or read the conference proceedings. Don’t turn to the wrong source of information. 4. Degree: Different levels of familiarity with the literature lead to vastly different ways of reading it. Beginners learn *-style reading by going through each word and sentence, understanding the details, and mastering the most basic concepts. The first dozen or so articles need to be studied in detail, and the most important ones among them even need to be memorized. Experienced readers use a search-based approach; they are familiar with the common patterns and typical structures of various studies, enabling them to quickly extract key information and grasp the main ideas. They often do not read in a conventional order. Some people read by looking at pictures, while others recognize numbers and letters. Experts engage in critical reading, hitting the nail on the head and pointing directly at the core of the issue. In fact, no paper is flawless. Beginners need to be steady, veterans need to be precise, and experts need to be ruthless. The representatives of beginners, experienced users, and experts are postgraduate students, supervisors, and reviewers respectively, but a postgraduate student who studies diligently can definitely transform from a beginner to an expert within 3 years. Only by having a clear understanding of one’s own position can one choose the right way to read. 5. Contradictions: Reading too many papers fills one’s mind with information. Each side has its own reasoning, so what should one do in such a situation? To address this issue, evidence-based medicine classifies the levels of evidence from clinical trials ； Similarly, when reviewing literature, we should also pay attention to the strength of experimental evidence. Identifying contradictions is the first step ； Identifying the similarities and differences is the second step ； Thinking about solutions is the third step. By examining the origins of contradictions derived from conflicting conclusions, and by being able to step outside that framework, avoid mental stereotypes, and start from the original scientific question, one can achieve an advantage without relying on any specific tactics – truly reaching a different level of understanding. Why bother translating a foreigner’s review and pretending it’s one’s own? Why repeat experiments already done by others and pretend it’s one’s own idea?