Negida Academy

Advice & Guidance

Feb 2, 2021

If you are a junior researcher, don't fall into the "Quality not Quantity" trap

Hello everyone,

Groundbreaking research requires learning, commitment, hard work, persistence, and cumulative efforts and expertise of several individuals over several months up to decades! I believe that engaging junior researchers in such a lengthy process is a two-sided weapon.

First of all, let's agree on the definitions. In science, a junior researcher is defined as someone who has been doing research continuously for less than 7 years while a senior researcher (or scientist) is defined as someone who has spent more than 7 years of continuous research work.

At the early stages of the academic pathway (0-4 years), everyone has stopped to ask themselves:

"When will I get published?"
"When will I see a meaningful outcome of these efforts?"
"I want to make sure this is the right thing for me"
"I want to make sure the process will work".

Usually, when you are at this stage, I assume that you have already learned the basic research skills for your field and have acquired sensible *theoretical* knowledge about the research process in your field.

I always advise junior researchers, at the early stages, to (1) employ, refine, and improve their skills by participating in several small, pilot, initial research projects rather than doing a high-impact, high-quality, mega project, (2) get involved in multiple research projects as long as they can, and (3) accept the risks of doing mistakes and the risks that some projects might eventually be published in modest journals. My advice is always criticized by people who advocate the "Quality NOT Quantity" thing. In this post, I explain philosophically, scientifically, and historically from my experience, why the "Quality NOT Quantity" mindset does more harm than good for early junior researchers (0-4 years).

Your first research projects are very critical

Your first research projects will give you either the hope and motivation to continue that pathway or a big early failure and disappointment. I believe that at this early stage, it is very important to keep students motivated on the track to continue doing research. The learning curve in scientific research is steep and the outcomes are usually slow and might be delayed for years. The pathway to finish your research projects and get published is not usually as straightforward as you might think.

The concept of the initial project

A wise decision at this point is to involve students in what I call *the initial project*, *the pilot project*, or *the short gains*. This is a simple and easy pilot project with a straightforward plan and plausible publication chances. This can be a simple narrative review article, a systematic literature review, a case report, or a cross-sectional study. Furthermore, I sometimes, encourage students to submit their work for international conferences. At the moment they receive their first acceptance email, their motivation is reborn, their self-confidence is built, their energy for the work is recharged, and most importantly, the many previously unanswered questions in their subconscious mind, about their capacities and skills, will resolve immediately.

One big high-quality project OR multiple small lower-quality projects?

Clinical research is different from many other fields of scientific research. Clinical research extends far beyond the scientific experiments done in laboratories. Since clinical research deals with patients, it requires clinical knowledge AND expertise in epidemiological research methodologies and medical statistics. Employing this knowledge and skills in field projects and/or systematic reviews of published literature is important to build the capacity of early career researchers in the field of Medicine.

While working on a BIG project seems a wow thing for many people. I always recommend against participating in this kind of work that consumes your effort and kills your other skills and motivation unless it is accompanied by many other parallel works. I advocate that early career researchers benefit more from working on multiple small initial projects that diversify and solidify their skills and also give them the satisfaction and motivation they need at this stage.

Furthermore, working on multiple small projects maximizes the chances of publication by augmenting the independent probabilities of getting this work done and published. The longer the time from your start point to the time of the first publication, the higher the possibility of losing interest and motivation and I know many people who have already quitted the pathway as a result of this wrong strategy.

Conducting a high-impact multicenter project that achieves SMART goals is a good step. But building your self-confidence, building your connections, strengthening your skills in methodology and data analysis, and choosing the correct timing to do this mega project are more important. I personally consider any project that takes more than 6 months as a high-risk project for junior researchers. I recommend against involving students in that kind of thing unless it is a tiny part of many parallel projects and provided that it does not consume them their energy.

In the following paragraphs, I summarize the key phases of my research journey starting from July 2014 until now.

PHASE 1 (July 2014 to November 2015)

In the first 17 months of my research journey, I did not aim to publish research as much as I aimed to learn every single step in the process, allowing myself to make mistakes and be embarrassed by the *harsh* reviewers' comments and editors' feedback on my work.

PHASE 2 (December 2015 to April 2017)

Once I had published my first co-authored paper, where I wrote 30% of the manuscript and run the data analysis part, I started a new phase in my research journey. During the 1.5 years of this phase, my aim was to publish as many papers as I can. At this stage, I never aimed to publish in a top journal and I never considered the impact factor thing when doing research but I was pragmatically looking at the final outcome "Publishing". Some of our papers would have had better chances in Q1 journals but we chose to submit to the journals with the +50% possibility to accept the papers. I remember one meta-analysis by our team was published in a journal with IF of 1.5, a few months later, a similar meta-analysis on the same clinical trials, the same number of patients, and the same findings were published in a top Q1 journal with an impact factor +5. This phase ended when my mentor Prof. Mohamed Abdel-Daim, Ph.D., faithfully gave my team the best advice at this time. "You should only publish in PubMed- and SCOPUS-indexed journals with a minimum impact factor of +2" - he advised.

PHASE 3 (May 2017 to April 2018)

Within this one-year phase from May 2017 to April 2018, I focused on publishing as many papers as I can but only in PubMed- and SCOPUS- indexed journals with a minimum impact factor of +2.

Phase 4 (May 2018 till now)

By May 2018, I found myself fully saturated with publications and I felt it is time to become more focused on topics and methodologies that will directly and positively benefit my career pursuits after graduation (Neurological Surgery and Global Neurosurgery). At this phase, I asked my team to immediately remove my name from the authorship of several high-quality manuscripts that deemed too far from my target despite my substantial contributions to this work. Some of these papers are now highly cited and impactful in clinical guidelines, however, I do not regret the decision and the step I took. I started to collaborate with neurosurgeons and get involved in Neurosurgery research. I initiated the Global Neurosurg Research Collaborative, the World Global Neurosurgical Outcomes Collaborative, currently hosted by Oregon Health and Science University in the United States. Since May 2018, these are my current goal in addition to working on the thesis where I critically discuss 17 of my previously-published work in Parkinson's Disease (11 journal articles and 6 conference abstracts) as part of my Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) by publication in biomedical sciences.

Phase 5 (From October 2021 ...)

This phase has not started yet, however, it is a well-planned continuation of the aforementioned progress. This should start in October 2021, I will talk to you later when I get involved in this phase!

My take-home messages for early junior researchers (0-4 years) are as follows:

1- First, you should do research to learn (phase I), then to become motivated to do more (phase II), then to become personally satisfied (phase III), and finally to advance science and improve your field for the remaining of your academic career.

2- Participate in as many research as you can, provided that you are not doing 3 things: (1) Ethical misconducts, (2) Plaigarism, and (3) Publishing in predatory journals.

I hope that this helps! Please, let me know what you think and write your opinion in the comments below. If you are not a member of our community, you can subscribe for FREE to the basic membership level.

Stay tuned for more of my thoughts and opinions.
Thank you ... Ahmed Negida

12 comments

Show 2 more...

Eslam Mohammed

Feb 2, 2021

You deserve all of that Dr.Negida this post is showing a high commitment.

Negida Academy

Feb 3, 2021

Thanks

Raghda shahin

Feb 2, 2021

ربنا يسعد حضرتك يادكتور ويوفقك دايما لأحسن حاجة ويبارك فيك وف علمك يارب العالمين

Negida Academy

Feb 3, 2021

Thanks, Raghda 😇

Asmaa Hasan

Feb 2, 2021

Thanks doctor for valuable information May Allah bless you

Ahmed Negida

Feb 3, 2021

Thank you

Sara Jpeil

Feb 3, 2021

Thanks doctor for that highly informative article ,but what l need to know is how to find that "initial research" with no experience.

Aya Al-Nabahin

Feb 15, 2021

thank you a lot you make me excited to continue my journey , I learn a lot from your advise and session