Anthony Watkinson, Principal Consultant - CIBER Research Early Career Researchers in science and social sciences are both the senior researchers of the future but as doctoral candidates and post-doctoral researchers are responsible for a significant part of the actual work represented in the ever-increasing number of scientific research outputs. As part of a team from 2016- 2021 across eight countries we researched the findings from questions to the same cohort of ECRs over this period. This both included the millennial attitudes and practices of the cohorts plus also the impact of the pandemic on their behaviour. This session shall concentrate on our findings in particular from UK and US ECRs, highlighting the elements of most relevance interest to publishers and librarians

1. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com
Their attitudes to and practices in scholarly communication/plus the
impact of the pandemic
With special reference to the ECR cohort and what they can tell
intermediaries especially publishers and librarians

2. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
background and context
1. The content of this presentation is drawn from the Harbingers-2 project commissioned
by the Sloan Foundation 2020-2022 (H2) which followed an earlier grant from the
Publishers Research Consortium 2016-2018 (H2). See CIBER-research.com/Harbingers-
2. I shall say a little about the nature of our ECR cohorts (24) balanced as much as
possible
2. Why ECRs? The senior researchers of the future – on the academic ladder and in
science do most of the work. Our definition is postgraduate and postdoctoral
3. We were concerned with scientist and “hard” social scientists (article culture) but
hope to go on to humanities and “soft” social scientists (book culture)
4. It was international, involving in depth interviews in local languages by 170
researchers in UK, US, China, Russia, Malaysia, France, Spain and Poland.
5. We offer publications from the resulting database which include data in quantitative
and qualitative form mainly in peer-reviewed papers see site.
6. Our definition of ECR included doctoral candidates, post-doctoral researchers and
some “assistant professors” not yet tenured

3. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
Impact of Pandemic
Some topics taken up in more detail in later slides
• 1. March published in Learned Publishing a comprehensive paper on this
topic but concentrating here on UK. Funder keen on the impact
• 2. pandemic not always central to UK concerns – often BREXIT more
mentioned. Usually deny impact when direct question asked
• 3 Generally switch to remote teaching biggest impact but in UK teaching
not always part of job of our researchers
• 4. Working from home usually problematic but sometimes not
• 5. Current and new collaborations hindered by travel bans/shutdowns
• 6. ECRs under pressure but not usually burned out – resilient but in
precarious state

4. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
morale
• In the first interview all UK ECRs demonstrated resilience but by
interview three this had changed probably because of trust.
• But there could be advantages – for example learning to use software.
• Obviously not being able to get into the lab or out to do field work
impacted on work whether on project of for dissertation.
• They did not usually accept burn out but preferred low morale or too
much pressure. None gave up.
• Most had good support sometimes clinical.

5. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
career progression
• In first interview all saw themselves as on the academic ladder with
academic post in view but by last interview 40% either getting out now or
mostly getting out when grants ran dry.
• Some had always envisaged time in industry with possible return.
• Others were disenchanted by perceived systemic problems in UK
universities instanced by seniors they worked with.
• Precarious nature of pre tenure life often mentioned – after doctorate
constant search for grants or real jobs if at that stage. C
• A few were hooked on working from home
• ECRs with dependants most affected
• Those who had reached assistant professor stage were continuing but
suffered from management problems

6. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
“collaboration”
• For most disciplines the research life involves collaboration with
colleagues, others elsewhere or other disciplines.
• Note that most social science ECRs and among “scientists”
mathematicians were working in “support” roles eg biostatistics.
• The pandemic stopped lab visits etc. and the networking that comes
from in person conferences just coming back at final interview.
• Most, while recognising the affordance of virtual “meetings” yearned
for personal contact – the poster tube had come back.
• They wanted to build their own network not rely on supervisors/PI

7. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
“scholarly behaviour”
• I use this portmanteau term to cover searching, finding, dissemination,
interaction and achieving visibility. Comments below very broad brush
• UK ECRs tend to search for scholarly content using Google Scholar or, if in medical
department, PubMed though a minority start with Google.
• They find what they want through their digital library but (also in US) where they
do not have a well stocked library they go to Research Gate or Sci-Hub. In other
countries Sci-Hub is more used (France)
• They still publish mainly in journals, and few blog.
• They mainly communicate still using email but there has been an increased use of
twitter (at least pre Musk). The norm is to link to a publication to enable visibility
for their research but for this purpose they do use such as linked in and less than
before Research Gate.
• We asked questions about use of smartphones. Yes they did of course but if there
was something to read they passed on to their PCs – too small.

8. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
reputation and assessment
• They tended to see reputation gained though journals with high
IF/prestige or lots of cites with little interest in altmetrics still. When
asked where they submitted IF/prestige still came top NOT OA see
below
• However DORA is beginning to gain a foothold and they “believed” in
the aims of the San Francisco Declaration.
• Publications representing research quality were central to assessment
but for senior ECRs administration came into consideration and value
of grants

9. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
“openness”
• ECRs are millennials. OA is what they aim for (moral) but they want to
remain on the ladder. They also hate APCs and only publish gold/hybrid
(not distinguished) if specifically funded – they like transformative. We did
not see any falling off in keenness to do OA by the latest generation.
• They were uninterested in green. Almost all put papers in IRs but when
asked why they said it was because the university said they should.
• In previous work (H1) they felt held back by seniors but no longer say this.
• They want to make their data or software open but often cannot because
nature of data (human). They were asked about enabling reproducibility
but no more response – except clarity –than in H1

10. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS peer review
PR is central in “Cracks” paper Learned Publishing
March 2023
• Peer review central to publications which have special position still but mostly recognised
that they needed to judge using experience and knowledge. Same process used in
judging blog posts or posters!
• Preprints in some fields not seen as replacing articles because not peer reviewed
• Most by final interview had experience of answering critiques and actually doing peer
review but less so: few had formal training.
• Need for reform assumed because too slow (slower) and wrong people chosen.
• Offered anonymisation and open (opposite) but enthusiasm limited. They felt that
author could always be recognised and some were worried by exposure of open.
• However significant minority keen on ECRs being called upon more frequently as experts,
getting recognition and payment.
• Hypothesis that speedier peer review of Covid related work would spread – not
accepted.

11. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
Outreach
• There was a lot of enthusiasm for reaching out to the general public
in particular, to industry in some cases where appropriate and policy
formers less frequently – more than in H1 where doubts of capacity.
• Universities seem to be offering opportunity but no pressure.
Workshops/seminars etc
• Perceived as duty to public who had paid for their research.
• We did not ask about impact in H2 though did in H1 and not raised
but much concern about misinformation and to a lesser extent about
unethical behaviour.
• As scholarly integrity is so big now I hope to have added some results.

12. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
transformations
• We ended our questions when the ECRs were tired with some major
questions about probable future developments in scholarly
communications in its broadest sense.
• We wanted to do about whether ECRs might see an opportunity to
fundamentally change the whole system and whether they could/
would be able to take part. Yes – see slide on openness
• Most hoped that change would be possible, but the pressure had to
come on the whole from senior researchers.
• Few had a template in mind for the transformed system but some did
have a big schema in mind

13. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
researchers and librarians
• We asked under both grants about whether libraries would still have
a role in ten years time. The answer was yes.
• However their understanding of the role of librarians was very limited
– to look after books and students. They had to be reminded that
they bought, platformed and maintained the digital journals.
• Most rarely interacted with librarians or read guidance except some
medical ECRs. They saw no point.
• Doctoral candidates still are very much part of the university do why
so little contact? Postdoctorals were basically employed by the PI and
were peripheral. It is a pity

14. EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS
researchers and publishers
ECRs did not talk much about publishers and rarely differentiated between
society publishers and commercial conglomerates. We stopped asking them
to do so.
In H1 they tended to foreground editors-in-chief but in H2 they did see
publishers as in charge and able to improve – see slide on openness.
The fact that there was a strong contingent originating from Sense about
Science list led to a level of awareness of change/sometimes attendance at
workshops
They often did think the there was enough money in the system for
transformation if profits were cut.
They had stopped (H2) thinking about PLOS1 (big in H1) but still in some
cases were aware of eLife innovations. I tried F1000 platforms on them but
only some real interest.