The Intersection of New Science Standards and STEM

“STEM education is an interdisciplinary approach to learning where rigorous academic concepts are coupled with real-world lessons as students apply science, technology, engineering and math in contexts that make connections between school, community, work, and the global enterprise enabling the development of STEM Literacy and with it the ability to compete in the new economy.” (Weld, 2017)

STEM education has its roots in economic discussions and has often been characterized as a key to future job opportunities for students and ultimately the economic future of the United States.  As illustrated in the graphic from the US Department of Education (USDOE) shown below, STEM jobs are projected to increase dramatically by 2020.  However, according to the USDOE, many of these jobs are going unfilled as our students are unprepared for these opportunities in many cases because students do not have access to STEM education programs.

The vision of A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) frames these equity issues in the context of the economic and societal challenges of a 21st Century world.  The Framework also highlights the importance of science literacy, which every citizen needs to solve problems and make decisions to improve their lives.  Based upon the latest research on how kids learn, the Framework recommends a level of science literacy necessary for all students, regardless of their future career aspirations.  

The STEM initiative presents needs and goals–in effect, WHERE we need to go to meet the education needs of a 21st century world. The Framework vision adds the teaching and learning research that provides insight into HOW we might get there. Yet, many schools and classrooms are not engaging students with STEM learning opportunities or the innovations in learning articulated in the Framework.  In order to change instruction, classrooms need support to find the intersection of STEM and the research-backed Framework.  We believe ART can be the classroom vehicle for bringing them together:  the trifecta– STEM, Framework-based standards, and ART.

3D learning innovation is a research-based HOW for teaching STEM

In our last post, we discussed the vision provided in A Framework for K-12 Education. The goal is a high-quality education for every student in the US that prepares them for life after the classroom regardless of their career choice.  Grounded in decades of educational and neuroscience research on how students best learn, the vision emphasizes establishing regular connections between technology, engineering, science, math, and literacy–a critical innovation incorporated into the state standards being implemented across the country.  

A key innovation of this vision is an emphasis on three-dimensional learning, or learning that integrates 1) science and engineering practices, 2) crosscutting concepts, and 3) disciplinary core ideas.  Students investigate and solve problems using the science and engineering practices.  Crosscutting concepts help organize and connect student thinking and are often referred to as “thinking tools”.  Disciplinary core scientific ideas have broad explanatory power, are relevant to people’s lives, and are critical for understanding or investigating more complex ideas or solving problems.  

Three-dimensional, or “3D”, learning provides a scaffolding for HOW to effectively design and implement effective STEM instruction.  3D learning can also be the innovation that  leads to deep understanding of science ideas–enabling students to become critical consumers and effective decision-makers.  Without these skills, students will not achieve the scientific literacy required to engage fully in civic discussions about topics such as medical treatment, energy, environment, and make choices that benefit themselves, their families, and their communities.

As we can see in this figure from Change the Equation (1) the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)–which are based on the Framework vision–are encouraging more science classes to tackle engineering challenges.  In addition, an innovation of the Framework and the NGSS is that students must use science ideas to inform the design solutions to these problems.  Therefore, not only are students gaining a relevant and authentic focus on engineering, they are also deeply learning critical science concepts and developing scientific literacy.  

Technology can be leveraged to support students acting, thinking, and communicating like scientists and engineers

As the graphic below reveals, students are largely teaching themselves about technology as a way to collect and share information.  In fact, a staggering 74% of students say people outside of school taught them more about using technology than their teachers. How can schools leverage technology and instruct students on how to use it to collect, evaluate and share information in a globally connected world?

In addition to technology instruction, Engineering practices seems to be in short-supply in our schools as well (see figure below).  An integration of science, engineering, and technology supports STEM initiatives while also supporting the deep understanding of science needed to be critical consumers and civic decision makers in a 21st century world.

The Trifecta supports needed change

The world is changing, the fields of science, technology, and engineering are changing, and our understanding of how students learn is changing.  We need a re-think in our approach to classroom teaching and learning.  The Framework and the state standards that have been developed out of this research-based Framework vision are important steps for supporting STEM education implementation.  Now it is time we move on to the challenge of implementing this vision and providing classroom opportunities for students to use the science and engineering practices beyond a manual–in a live classroom. ART is a research-based approach that integrates the technology, science, and engineering practices, and use of science ideas in relevant and authentic contexts, all required to fulfill this new vision for science education.

References

(1) Presented in the NSTA webinar:  NGSS and STEM, Two Converging Paths

National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.

NSTA press: Creating a STEM Culture for Teaching and Learning, Weld 2017

Engineering Making Headway in Schools, Education Week, March 28, 2017.

.

 

With over 22 years of classroom experience, Tricia Shelton is driven by a passion to help students develop critical and creative thinking skills. Tricia is a 2014 NSTA Distinguished Teaching Award winner for her contributions to and demonstrated excellence in Science Teaching. She serves as the Director of Education Research at BenchFly and can be found on Twitter @benchfly_art and @TdiShelton.

 

A changing focus in education

American education is in the midst of a major transformation, driven in large part, by a technology-focused global economy. Societal shifts like the Industrial Revolution had great impacts on education in the past. We can now ask ourselves, how is the digital revolution affecting the jobs and opportunities that await America’s students?

This graphic from a June 2016 Bloomberg.com article shows the growing trend in the US where companies are having more and more trouble finding qualified skilled workers. But what skills are employers seeking? According to an October Pew Research Center report, economic change is reshaping the workplace, and requiring an emphasis on social and analytical skills.

Teachers inspire others to follow their passion AND empower them with the skills they need to do so. In our digital age, social, communication, and analytical/problem solving skills are essential skills for careers. These skills require a change in emphasis in the classroom. These changes were summarized by former NAIS (National Association of Independent Schools) President Patrick Bassett as the six big shifts in education (2013).

1. From knowing to doing;
2. From teacher-centered to student centered;
3. From the individual to the team;
4. From the consumption of information to the construction of meaning;
5. From schools to networks (online peers and experts); and
6. From single sourcing to crowd- sourcing.

These shifts are exemplified in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the newly adopted state standards throughout our nation that are grounded in the vision of A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2011). These standards are the basis for the vision for a high quality-education for every student in the US that prepares them for the next step of their choosing because they support students in developing the communication, analytical, and problem solving skills necessary for job opportunities in the Digital Age. In addition, these standards are based on the current research in neuroscience and education that show us the most effective ways that students learn.

As a teacher, I can have confidence in using the standards as guides for navigating these shifts in education in the 21st Century. Real change, however, goes beyond what we believe and say –to what we do. How can we be changemakers and encourage the “rethink” of education that is imperative for economic opportunity in the Digital Age? We give students the opportunity to experience a classroom focused on the “big shifts” listed above. Classrooms that exemplify these shifts are student-centered. They are characterized by teams of students utilizing peer and expert networks, collaborating to construct understanding and design solutions, and tapping into the collective intelligence and feedback potential of other classrooms.

.

The ART of Video Framework can serve as a path to prepare for students for today’s world

The ART of Video framework leverages technology and video, standards, and a peer-to-peer classroom network to provide multiple opportunities for students to learn in new ways, and attain the skills needed for success in a globally-connected world and information-based economy. The ART framework also provides teachers access to a system for providing students with relevant real-life contexts and opportunities to develop and use 21st Century Skills. These skills: critical thinking, creative thinking, collaboration, and communication; are the abilities that students need to develop to support success in a globally connected world and information-based economy.

While using ART, students develop and use critical thinking skills to gather and analyze data, construct claims supported by evidence, and communicate reasoning using ART video products. Through the connected classrooms network, students use digital media to collaborate and publish with peers as well as to provide coaching feedback to peer groups outside of the classroom. ART can help teachers be the change-makers to shift to the kinds of teaching and learning needed to empower students in this digital age.

Start transforming your classroom. Take the first step by learning more about the ART of video framework by clicking the large button below. ART can navigate the path to new opportunities for you and your students, and will support the kinds of day-to-day changes in classroom instruction that exemplify the shifts needed to provide opportunity for all students in this globally connected digital world.

Go to the ART website

.

More Resources

Find out more about A K-12 Framework for Science Education, and find more research about science education at the National Academies Press

Find out more about the Next Generation Science Standards, and read more about why science education needs an update at this infograph.

References

Bassett, P. F. (2013, July 1). Schools of the Future: The Big Shifts. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/Articles/Pages/Schools-of-the-Future-The-Big-Shifts.aspx

Coy, P. (2016, June 8). Has America Run Out of Workers to Fill its Open Jobs? Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-08/has-america-run-out-of-workers-to-fill-its-open-jobs

Pew Research Center. (2016, October 6). The State of American Jobs. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/the-state-of-american-jobs/

National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

.g

 

With over 22 years of classroom experience, Tricia Shelton is driven by a passion to help students develop critical and creative thinking skills. Tricia is a 2014 NSTA Distinguished Teaching Award winner for her contributions to and demonstrated excellence in Science Teaching. She serves as the Director of Education Research at BenchFly and can be found on Twitter @benchfly_art and @TdiShelton.

 

An exciting part of being a researcher of any level is the opportunity to travel to research conferences held all over the country and the world. However, the tricky part about a conference is that while the audience is typically knowledgeable about the general topic, there are so many contexts in which the specific topic can be covered. Do you work in animals? Cell culture? The immune system? The brain? I can wax poetic about intestinal structure and function, but ask me about the brain and I’m completely useless.

A research presentation usually includes a five-to-ten minute introduction to the organ or model system being used to interrogate the hypothesis. Often, this is composed of various animated cartoons to give the audience a visual aid. For me, a good introduction is always much appreciated, especially if I am unfamiliar with the system being used. If I haven’t followed the introduction well, the remaining presentation is lost on me. Lately, one of the trends I’ve been noticing is presentation of a video introduction in lieu of the cartoon option. I’ve found this approach is much more effective at making the subsequent research story easy to follow.

For example, I recently returned from a conference where a talk began with a beautiful video on how nerves form connections during development. I was left with what it might look like in real life for nerves to grow and innervate muscle—a visual learning experience that probably could not have been achieved with animated cartoons.

The second thing that stands out to me in this regard comes from clinicians who regularly perform procedures relevant to their area of research. At the same meeting, at least two investigators began their presentations with videos of clinical procedures. I was brought into the operating room for a corneal transplant and a bronchoscopy, all from the comfort of my seat. For me, this integration of the clinical experience with basic research gives me a great appreciation of how the results that follow are relevant to disease and potential therapies.

Conferences can be exhausting: eight hours of sitting in the same seat in the dark, furiously scribbling notes for your PI, counting down the minutes until the network reception (Food! Wine!), with breaks for coffee every so often (but not quite often enough). This new trend of video introductions certainly makes presentations more exciting, more memorable, and – most importantly – makes them more understandable to a potentially uninformed audience.

Have you noticed this trend too? Do you appreciate a video introduction? 

Emily is a fifth year graduate student here to explore firsthand how technology and video can enhance your research experience. As scientists, we are on the cutting edge of new technologies that can take our work to the next level and allow us to find solutions to questions that were previously unanswerable. Let’s make use of the new and shape the future.

But this is not about the ART of Video (this link will tell you more and show Tricia’s students in action). It’s about the human side–how the boundless energy of collaborators like Tricia and her students can fuel a project long before the funding arrives to support it. It’s about honoring the educators working day in and day out to create environments where future scientists can thrive. It’s about being grateful for organizations like The Gates Foundation who see a spark and are willing to fan the flames to see how brightly it can burn.

And finally, it’s about thanking the students and watching in amazement. At BenchFly, we never cease to be blown away by the quality of videos a high school student can produce with an iPad. Trust us when we say video is here to stay and the future of science looks bright.

As a new school year gets underway, we fire up the ART of Video with a fresh crop of students. Throughout the coming semester and year, we will track the progress of the Shelton class here on our blog and highlight some of the incredible video products they’re creating–so stay tuned.

To show your support for the Shelton Class, follow Tricia on Twitter and tell her thanks!

For more information about The Fund for Transforming Education in Kentucky, visit: https://www.thefundky.org/

When I ditched my old Pantech keyboard phone for an iPhone 4 in 2010, I didn’t realize how much it would affect my lab life. Along with email, Google, Facebook, and HD cameras, smartphones also have the ability to put scientific tools at our fingertips.

In the five years I’ve been in graduate school, smartphones have become an everyday item — even not-so-tech-savvy PIs have the latest iPhone — and apps have evolved to the point where scientists now have their favorite tools all in one place. I can access and search journal articles using PubMed on Tap, view the latest edition of Cell on the Cell Press Journal Reader app, and count GFP-expressing cells using a tally counter app — all while streaming my favorite 90’s Pandora station.

Although my computer is only a pipette’s throw away, I can usually find what I need using my iPhone with less work sitting at the bench in the middle of an experiment. Take Life Technologies’ Cloning Bench app as an example. Every calculator I would ever need is provided on a spinning wheel selector tool. With up to six different PCR reactions running at the same time, I can easily automate my workflow and save time. Similarly, I can design a restriction digest using New England Biolabs’ Restriction Enzyme Double Digest Finder without having to leave the bench. In the past, when I have a new student in the lab learning basic lab techniques, I typically referred them to Abcam’s website. Now, protocols for ELISA, IHC, and Western Blotting, among others, are all available with a couple touches on their app. In addition to experimental tools, there are also multiple apps with classroom potential for science-related learning. Exploring 3D animal and plant cells, signaling pathway overviews, and 3D protein structure modeling are just the beginning.

In addition to experimental tools as apps, we’re even turning smartphones into pieces of lab equipment. Want your own personal microscope? Done. Turning your iPhone into a microscope with up to 175X magnification is relatively simple according to this instructional video. We’ve incorporated this functionality in our lab for a measly $70: instead of spending hundreds of dollars on a new lens for our dissecting microscope, we bought a lens adaptor (ōlloclip®) that clips onto an iPhone lens, increasing the available magnification of the existing camera (and mobility) for a fraction of the cost.

While I firmly believe there is always the place for the traditional — I still prefer to read papers as hard copies — the milieu of smartphone tools available to facilitate the basics of experimentation is amazing. While the apps are often the same web tools that have long been available, they’re now conveniently located (literally) in your back pocket on one device you can take anywhere.

Although there is merit in decreasing smartphone use in favor of more personal interactions, overall I think the arguments for using smartphones to enhance your lab experience are good. Many of the tools I’ve mentioned still require basic knowledge of why and how the technique involved is used. Therefore, these shortcuts are not intellectual ones, but rather time-savers. Between working 11-hour days just to have experiments fail and trying to convince your PI that IpromiseI’mworkingeventhoughIdon’thaveanyfiguresyet, being a graduate student is hard enough. If being tethered to my iPhone in lab means finishing my experiment a half hour early because it took less time to set it up, I’ll take it.

So what’s next? Will smartphone technology eventually negate scientific products and the businesses that supply them? (Remember the Flip video camera?)

What smartphone tools do you use in lab? How have smartphones changed your lab experience? Head over to Google+ and let us know.

Emily is a fifth year graduate student here to explore firsthand how technology and video can enhance your research experience. As scientists, we are on the cutting edge of new technologies that can take our work to the next level and allow us to find solutions to questions that were previously unanswerable. Let’s make use of the new and shape the future.

While all that’s been going on, the BenchFly team has been…well, watching Tim Cook’s WWDC keynote, trying to avoid stories about politicians’ book tours, enjoying replays of Robin van Persie’s swan-dive goal, and sitting in slack-jawed amazement at Noah Hawley’s directorial brilliance. We’ve also been updating and expanding BenchFly, and we are really excited for the upcoming rollout of our new features and content. We’ve made tweaks to the site and put together short tutorial videos to help you get started using the platform. New features are also being added to the BenchFly video player, which we will be unveiling over the next several months. In addition, we are developing a series to take scientists at all levels through the logic and process of using video to improve work at the bench, collaboration, product training, and even sales and marketing. If you do science or work for a science company, BenchFly has you covered.

So, as the painfully overused saying goes, watch this space. The changes and new content will be appearing over the next few weeks. You may not care about Germany’s impending World Cup triumph, but you will care about using video to make your professional life easier and more streamlined.

In the meantime if you have questions about BenchFly, want to comment about the site, or feel compelled to claim that “Fargo” was mediocre at best (you’d be wrong, but feel free to say it), check us out on Google+ or drop me a line on Twitter.

David received his PhD in Cell Biology from Vanderbilt University, and joined the BenchFly team in March, 2013. David’s interests lie in helping scientists at all levels communicate and market their work to colleagues, the public, potential customers, and that guy down the street who keeps asking about string theory. On the side, David is an avid runner, an occasional cyclist, and a home coffee roaster.

Dear Dora,

Everyone in my new lab pours all sorts of solvents down the drain and says it’s ok because they flush with a lot of water. I’m a first-year graduate student so maybe this is how all labs work, but it seems crazy. Is there a way for me to bring this issue up without being the annoying newbie?

– anonymous, first year graduate student

Dear Anonymous Graduate Student,

You are right to be concerned about others pouring solvents down the drain. Besides being an environmental hazard, your university can get fined thousands of dollars by the environmental agencies. Some labs even get shut down for improper disposal of lab waste.

It is true that some chemicals can be poured down the sink if you flush it down with plenty of water. If you know which chemicals are used, I recommend doing a quick internet search to determine if they are being disposed of properly (this will save you embarrassment when you bring up the issue). If you have a reasonable suspicion that there is improper disposal, you can bring it up politely, with the responsible person first. You can be polite such as “Are you sure this is the right way to dispose of XYZ?” If he/she dismisses your comment, then the most politically correct solution would be to bring it up with your PI (without any names). He/she might recommend a group meeting where you review proper chemical waste management, or call someone from the university to give a training (these are done on a yearly basis anyway).

Keep in mind that if you bring it up with your supervisor, he/she might give you the responsibility of being the lab safety officer. However, as a first your student this could be a good opportunity for you to learn more about the chemicals used in your field. In addition, your supervisor will view you as someone with initiative and leadership skills, and have more respect for you.

[poll id=”121″]

Dora Farkas, Ph.D. is the author “The Smart Way to Your Ph.D.:200 Secrets from 100 Graduates,” and the founder of PhDNet, an online community for graduate students and PhDs. You will find links to her book, monthly newsletters, and discussion board on her site. Send your questions to DearDora@benchfly.com and keep an eye out for them in an upcoming issue!

Stay tuned for the next Dear Dora in two weeks!  In the meantime, check a few of Dora’s recent posts:

• The Conferencation: Adding Personal Time to a Scientific Meeting
• Keeping Preliminary Results Private with an Overexcited PI
• How Long is Acceptable for Holiday Vacation?
• Graduate School: How Long is Too Long?
• Is a Parasitic Postdoc Trying to Steal Your Project?
• Is the NIH Minimum Binding for All?
• Backing Out of a Postdoc Offer for a Better One
• Managing Publication Jealousy in the Lab
• Debriefing the Lab After a Scientific Conference
• Music in the Lab: MyTunes, iTunes, or No Tunes?
• Cell Culture Derailing Your Vacation Plans?
• Is a Publication Gap on Our CV a Job Killer?

Submit your questions to Dora at DearDora@benchfly.com, or use the comment box below!

In other words: Am I still “thriving” in my current situation?

If this question gives you pause (“I’d never use the word ‘thrive’ to describe my project in lab…”), then take note. Why shouldn’t you be thriving–not just in the lab, but personally? If I’m not “thriving”, am I in trouble? Is there any way to regain control of my drive, success, and ultimately happiness?

Yes! Dr. Heidi Halvorson, Director of the Columbia University Motivational Science Center, has organized a FREE online conference this week that brings together over 20 scientists and experts to discuss The Science of Thriving. The conference addresses proven beliefs and strategies for success based on rigorously tested science-based advice. Many of the speakers will be recognizable for their previous TED talks. How is that not worth a few hours of our time each evening this week?!

While the conference is not explicitly directed toward the success of “life scientists in the laboratory”, the principles are generally applicable. If we can’t figure out how to apply talks like “Nine Things Successful People Do Differently“, “Choke: The Secret to Performing Under Pressure“, or “Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed and How We Can Stick to the Plan” to our life in the lab, then maybe we’ve got bigger problems…

So every evening this week while you’re waiting for that reaction to complete or that gel to finish running, take a few minutes for yourself and attend the conference. What have you got to lose?

Click here to register (only an email address required): 

http://www.entheos.com/The-Science-of-Thriving

.

Disclaimer: We have no vested interest (other than wanting you to succeed!) in whether or not you attend this conference. We are sharing it simply because it looks interesting and we thought it would be worthwhile to attend.

We recently reconnected with our friend, Eva Amsen Ph.D., and found that in the time since our last conversation she’s moved on to a new job (congrats!). Her new position at Faculty of 1000 has thrown her right in the middle of a topic many scientists are very interested in–the future of scientific publishing. In a world of ever-increasing numbers of journals and lower technological barriers to information sharing, it’s unclear whether most publications will survive. We recently spoke with Eva about her views on the future and how the fear of getting scooped may be a driver for a new model of publication.

1. BenchFly: Since we last collaborated to create a Group Meeting Bingo board for Developmental Biologists, there have been some exciting changes in your life!

Amsen: Yes! I had fun setting up the Node and providing an online space for developmental biologists, but I wanted to work with a broader group of scientists – beyond developmental biology and stem cells – so I moved to F1000Research, where I get to work on a journal that’s doing interesting things for all life scientists.

2. Based upon your recent experience, do you have any advice for other scientists on finding opportunities away from the bench?

If you’re at the bench now, and know that you want to find a job outside of research, start doing some of that work on the side right now. I know lab work is time consuming, but if that’s all you do, then that’s going to be all that you *can* do. I did a lot of blogging and science writing on the site, which proved useful, but other people might be interested in public engagement activities, or editing papers for friends, or even starting up a company on the side. If you really want to do these things, it will be fun to you, and you can find time for it.

3. Many folks looking to leave the bench worry that their years of scientific training will essentially be lost when they walk out of the lab. What skills, if any, do you feel prepared you well for your new position? Conversely, what have you found to be challenging?

The main translational skills that I picked up in the lab are probably time management and project planning. If you’re dealing with live cells that need attention every 48 hours, and thesis deadlines, and papers to grade, you get very good at determining what needs to be done to get everything finished on time!

The most difficult thing for me after leaving the lab has been that I don’t always enough time to think and process. I think I miss incubation times, where an experiment is just running itself for an hour or so and you can do something else without delaying your work. Now, if I sit and think for an hour, I’m an hour behind on my work!

4. We theorized that at some point in the not-too-distant-future, journals will no longer be the primary mode of scientific publication and over 70% of scientists thought that would be in the next 20 years. However, there are a number of innovative new publication models emerging. How do you see the future of scientific publishing?

I can see journals disappearing slowly. Journals come from a time when periodical print publishing was the best way to get your work out there, and that has now become a slow and static process compared to the much more flexible internet. There are entire fields within physics where researchers don’t publish in journals anymore, but just upload their work to ArXiv. In the life sciences we’ve been more conservative, but here, too, people are starting to publish a lot of their work outside of journals. Figshare and institutional repositories are getting large amounts of data that might not otherwise be published anywhere, but now is out there, ready for others to see. That just wasn’t possible in the 17th century, when the first scientific journal was published. Many new journals take full advantage of the fact that they don’t have to deal with print issues: they can accept all sound science, link and embed material within the text, track article level metrics, publish non-static articles, include referee reports and accept comments. Journals are starting to look less like journals, and more like interactive websites, so I can see that we’re in a transition phase, where eventually “journals” with periodical issues will become redundant.

5. Beyond the emergence of alternate platforms for sharing results (lab website/blog, etc.) the last decade has seen an explosion in the number of journals. F1000 has also launched a journal, F1000Research – what made F1000 decide to jump into the publication arena and what makes this journal different from the hundreds of other publications out there?

Technically, the company has previous publishing experience: F1000’s founder, Vitek Tracz, also founded BioMedCentral, the very first open access journal. F1000Research is effectively the next step: first it was open access, now it’s open data and open refereeing.

The biggest difference is that F1000Research does transparent post-publication peer review: articles go online after an in-house check, and the peer review doesn’t start until after the article is published. On any given article you can see if it has been reviewed yet, if authors have revised it, and even the full referee reports by invited reviewers – and their names! By publishing before review, research can get out there much faster.

Another difference is that authors can always update their paper – not just in response to reviewer comments, but also if they did some more experiments that they’d like to add to support the paper, or to update a literature review with a summary of new work. Those newer versions of the paper are linked to the old one, so you can always find the latest updates.

6. Speed is definitely important–anyone who’s ever worked in a lab is familiar with the idea of getting “scooped”—or seeing their work published by another group before they publish theirs. In fact, as a graduate student I had a paper held up for nearly at a single journal—not exactly relaxing times. Was this the major driving force for establishing the journal?

It was one of the main driving forces. (Openness — of data and referee reports as well as the paper itself — was probably the biggest one). The fact that we can publish an article within days of submission has definitely been a driving force for some of the authors who submitted to F1000Research. If you know a competitor is working on the same thing, it can be extremely stressful and disappointing to then get scooped as a result of delays by editors and referees. With F1000Research you might still have to wait for the referees (and articles don’t get indexed in PubMed until after they pass peer review), but in the mean time, the work is out there, and you can prove that you did it first. It’s also really useful if you have a grant deadline coming up: you don’t have to say “manuscript submitted” or “under review”, but you can link to the actual paper.

7. We live in a short attention span society, where thoughts longer than 140 characters seem burdensome… So if you were walking past a scientist in a hallway and had to blurt out one sentence as to why they should consider publishing in F1000Research, what would you say?

If we were running quickly and I had *very* little time to talk, I would steal the title of a blog post that Jeffrey Marlow at Wired science used to write about F1000Research: “Publish first, ask questions later”

If I had a bit more time, and could use a full 140 characters, twitter-style, I’d say “F1000Research uses a transparent post-publication peer review system, so you can publish within a week, and see signed referee reports later” (That’s exactly 140, although without punctuation…)

8. Since we’re still sweating over the stressful memories question 7 elicited, we want to open the final question up to everyone since we’re curious how many people share our anxiety (or if we’re just neurotic…).

[poll id=”120″]

Eva holds a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Toronto, and is interested in all aspects of communication between researchers, from hallway conversations to academic papers. Before joining F1000Research, she launched and ran several initiatives for scientists to connect with each other and the wider community, such as the Node and SciBarCamp.

Leading image courtesy of F1000 Research.