Research Culture: A survey of new PIs in the UK

University College London, United Kingdom
University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Sep 20, 2019

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46827

Open access
Copyright information

Download
Cite
CommentOpen annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).
Share

Peer review process

This article was accepted for publication as part of eLife's original publishing model.

History

Version of Record published September 20, 2019
Accepted August 5, 2019
Received March 14, 2019

Decision letter

Peter Rodgers

Senior Editor; eLife, United Kingdom
Emma Pewsey

Reviewing Editor; eLife, United Kingdom
Amanda N Sferruzzi-Perri

Reviewer; University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Thank you for submitting your article "The life of P.I. - Transitions to Independence in Academia" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by myself (Emma Pewsey) and the eLife Features Editor, Peter Rodgers. The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Amanda N Sferruzzi-Perri (Reviewer #1).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission. While the list of points to address may seem long and will require major revision of the article, we feel that they will greatly benefit the clarity of the article, and its ability to influence decision-makers. We hope you will be able to submit the revised version within two months.

SUMMARY OF MANUSCRIPT

This is an important and timely topic that should get major spotlight and we congratulate the authors for deciding to tackle it. The paper does a good job of identifying the major struggles of new PIs, and makes some suggestions for how PIs, host institutions and funding agencies can help to prevent these struggles. The opportunity that the findings present to influence senior academics and other decision makers therefore make it crucial that this manuscript is of excellent quality and that it leads to clear conclusions about why and how the situation should change.

LIST OF REQUIRED REVISIONS

GENERAL

1. There are a number of incorrect citations (for example, the in-text citations for the panels of Figure 10 are labelled as Figure 9, and a citation to 14F appears to be for 14G). Also, the 4th sentence in the caption to figure 13 should start: "Fellows (D) and Lecturers (E) were then.. . ". Please check and correct the text and figure captions for issues like these. Please also ensure that all in-text discussion of data that's presented in a figure cites that figure.

2. Please present the findings in a more neutral manner. For example, instead of making a broad statement such as "too many new investigators express frustration", please report on the percentages who are frustrated.

PRESENTATION OF FIGURES

3. The article will be easier to read if the number of figures is reduced. eLife allows the figures in a paper to have figure supplements; the figures appear in both the online and pdf versions; the figure supplements only appear in the online version, but the figure caption makes it clear that the figure supplement are available online. Please combine figures and convert some panels into figure supplements as suggested below.

4. Some panels are not discussed in the text (2C, 6A, 6B, 6D, 6E, 7A, 7B, 9C, 10A, 13B, 13C, 14D, 14E, 14F, 14I, 15A); please either i) delete these or ii) convert them to figure supplements (and make sure they are cited somewhere in the text or the relevant figure caption).

5. The results of yes/no questions (5A, 5B, 5C, 6C, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, 12A, 12B, 13A, 14A, 14B) would be better presented by stating the percentage of respondents who answered yes in the text and/or figure caption, and citing the appropriate section of your supporting data file.

6. Please include y-axes and keys for figures where these are missing (including Figures 3, 4, 11).

7. Figure panels 14G and H show the same data, so please convert one to a figure supplement. Also, for 14G, please adjust the y-axis scaling to make it possible to see the data that supports the statement in the text about start-up funds "in the region of £20-60K".

8. Please ensure that the order of the figures matches the order in which they are cited/mentioned in the text.

RESULTS

9. Please present the results of the statistical tests for all the data shown; for example, this is missing from comparisons between female and male PIs and/or lecturers and researcher fellows. Please state the types of statistical tests run for each piece of presented data, with details on how certain confounders were controlled for, as well as detailing any corresponding statistical outcomes.

10. The first sentence of the results states that '...365 respondents represents a significant proportion of new group leaders in the UK.' To support this comment, please state the number of new group leaders in the UK for the period corresponding to the results presented.

11. Please rephrase the final sentence for the second paragraph of the results ('There has been some discussion... in redressing the balance') to make its meaning clearer.

12. Please clarify what Figure 2B represents by describing it in the figure legend; you may also wish to add further clarification in the main text. Should the values for women and men add to 100%? Does this graph show only those that had dependents/caring responsibilities? Does '0' for length of break mean the individual had a dependent but took 0 months off from work? What is the mean and median for the data for each gender? How does this relate to the number of dependents per respondent? Furthermore, the panel shows possibly 1 or 2 men taking very long periods of leave, which does not appear to support the statement in the text that '... fathers are also taking significant periods of leave and sharing childcare responsibilities.' Please clarify.

13. Please provide the data supporting the following sentence: 'It was also encouraging to find that having dependents did not affect satisfaction ratings or optimism scores for either females or males'; the data presented is not separated by sex.

14. Instead of stating that the proportion of lecturers to research fellows captured in the study was roughly equal, please state the exact percentages.

15. The comments about research fellows being based at Russell group universities (bottom of page 3) seems to reflect that these universities first recruit individuals as research fellows (rather than as lecturers), as shown in Figure 5D. Please discuss this in the text.

16. Could the data presented in Fig 8 and 15 also relate to when career breaks may occur for a women (which we know are for longer periods)? Was information collected about the timing of leave with regard to the trajectory of the respondent's career paths? In regards to 8C, could this be related to men asking for more money for each grant compared to women? Could a calculation be made to determine whether the amount awarded per grant varied between women and men?

17. Based on the data presented in 9B and C, women have the larger loads for teaching and committees. Please discuss this, as these data may be related to the finding that women also secure fewer grants and have small lab sizes - as they are simply over-committing themselves to, or are more commonly tasked with, non-research activities.

18. The sentence 'New PIs should also be aware that supervision of master's students and PhD students would also count as teaching contribution', is not strictly true for all universities. There are differences in what universities classify as part of a teaching load.

19. Please check that the data presented in 10C does correspond to the sentence stating 'Nearly 18% of externally funded fellows reported not having an.. .'.

20. The statement '...participated by submitting projects to up to 5-6 in some cases (Fig 14C).' does not agree with the data shown in Figure 14C.

21. Please show the data that supports the statement that '...lecturers were the least satisfied with worklife balance compared to research fellows'.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED SUPPORT OF NEW PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

22. Many of the advice points are not related to issues arising from the data. It would instead be more compelling to discuss recommendations directly related to the data and/or to discuss sources that may support the potential effectiveness of these solutions. The article would also be strengthened by more recommendations that new PIs can act on regardless of host support. For example when mentioning that mentorship to new PIs is not ideal, you could direct readers to resources for effective use of mentorship.

23. For the actions by host institutions, could you recommend anything related to the observations that there are clear gender differences in salary and start-ups, as well as recruitment around the REF?

24. Please explain the rationale for suggesting different grades for research fellows and university-funded fellows (action points 7 and 8 for host institutions).

METHODS AND SUPPORTING DATA

25. Please expand the methods section to give full details of the nature of the items included in the survey and explain why these were chosen, the pilot testing and revision process, the specific definition of the sought respondents, and the recruitment strategy used. Please also refer the reader to the document of the final survey questions.

26. Please provide a supporting data file that clearly states the number and percentages of respondents to each option in the survey, broken down by gender and lecturer/fellow as appropriate.

[Editors' note: further editorial revisions were requested prior to acceptance, and these revisions resulted in changes to the numbering of the figures.]

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46827.036

Author response

We repeat the reviewers’ points here in italic, and include our replies point by point, as well as a description of the changes made, in Roman.

GENERAL

1. There are a number of incorrect citations (for example, the in-text citations for the panels of Figure 10 are labelled as Figure 9, and a citation to 14F appears to be for 14G). Also, the 4th sentence in the caption to figure 13 should start: "Fellows (D) and Lecturers (E) were then.. . ". Please check and correct the text and figure captions for issues like these. Please also ensure that all in-text discussion of data that's presented in a figure cites that figure.

REPLY: The figure panels and numbering have all been updated to address edit suggested below. The text has been edited to reflect all of these changes. Many panels have also been removed from the main figures to streamline the manuscript, and now form supplements for each main figure.

2. Please present the findings in a more neutral manner. For example, instead of making a broad statement such as "too many new investigators express frustration", please report on the percentages who are frustrated.

REPLY: We have edited the text with this comment in mind, all changes are tracked in the submitted text document. We have deleted statements such above, and replaced with numbers from the data collected.

PRESENTATION OF FIGURES

3. The article will be easier to read if the number of figures is reduced. eLife allows the figures in a paper to have figure supplements; the figures appear in both the online and pdf versions; the figure supplements only appear in the online version, but the figure caption makes it clear that the figure supplement are available online. Please combine figures and convert some panels into figure supplements as suggested below.

REPLY: We have rearranged all of the figures to streamline the manuscript

Please see table of rearranged figures below

4. Some panels are not discussed in the text (2C, 6A, 6B, 6D, 6E, 7A, 7B, 9C, 10A, 13B, 13C, 14D, 14E, 14F, 14I, 15A); please either i) delete these or ii) convert them to figure supplements (and make sure they are cited somewhere in the text or the relevant figure caption).

REPLY: Please see table of rearranged figures below

5. The results of yes/no questions (5A, 5B, 5C, 6C, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, 12A, 12B, 13A, 14A, 14B) would be better presented by stating the percentage of respondents who answered yes in the text and/or figure caption, and citing the appropriate section of your supporting data file.

REPLY: This is now changed. Please see table of rearranged figures below for updated figure numbering.

6. Please include y-axes and keys for figures where these are missing (including Figures 3, 4, 11).

REPLY: This is now changed. Please see table of rearranged figures below for updated figure numbering.

7. Figure panels 14G and H show the same data, so please convert one to a figure supplement. Also, for 14G, please adjust the y-axis scaling to make it possible to see the data that supports the statement in the text about start-up funds "in the region of £20-60K".

REPLY: Please see table of rearranged figures below

8. Please ensure that the order of the figures matches the order in which they are cited/mentioned in the text.

REPLY: Please see table of rearranged figures below

Figure in manuscript	Reviewer suggested actions	Final Figure numbering
Figure 1A - gender		Figure 1B
Figure 1B - nationality		Figure 1C
Figure 1C - age		DELETED
Figure 1D - race		Figure 1D
Figure 1E - dependents		Figure 1-figure supplement 2A
Figure 1F - field		Figure 1A
Figure 2A - postdoc experience		Figure 1E
Figure 2B - career breaks		Figure 1-figure supplement 2B
Figure 2C - age at independence	discuss or delete	Figure 1-figure supplement 1
Figure 3 - mobility		Figure 2
Figure 4 - satisfaction		Figure 3
Figure 5A - full time/part time	delete	Figure 1 - figure supplement 2C
Figure 5B - uni or inst	delete	DELETED
Figure 5C - russell	delete	DELETED
Figure 5D - first job		Figure 4A
Figure 6A - advertised port	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 6B - position created	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 6C - moved to start group	delete	Figure 2 - figure suplement 1
Figure 6D - previous in current dept	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 6E - probation period	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 7A - £ required	discuss or delete	Figure 4B
Figure 7B - external fellowhsip	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 7C - external funding		Figure 4C
Figure 8A - grant success by year		Figure 5A
Figure 8B - grants recieved		Figure 5B
Figure 8C - grant income		Figure 5C
Figure 8D - starting salary		Figure 5D
Figure 9A - teaching		Figure 6A
Figure 9B - contact hours		Figure 6B
Figure 9C - committees	discuss or delete	Figure 6C
Figure 10A - dept size	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 10B - mentor	delete	DELETED
Figure 10C - annual review	delete	DELETED
Figure 10D - union member	delete	DELETED
Figure 10E - fellows meetings	delete	DELETED
Figure 11 - mentoring		Figure 7
Figure 12A - proleptic appointment	delete	DELETED
Figure 12B - proleptic in place	delete	DELETED
Figure 13A - clear criteria	delete	DELETED
Figure 13B - promotion criteria	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 13C - proleptic offered	discuss or delete	Figure 8 - figure supplement 1A
Figure 13D - fellows porleptic		Figure 8 - figure supplement 1B
Figure 13E - lecturerers promotion		DELETED
Figure 14A - PhD student	delete	DELETED
Figure 14B - PhD programmes	delete	DELETED
Figure 14C - number of programmes		Figure 8 - figure supplement 2
Figure 14D - facility access	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 14E - lab space	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 14F - start up funds	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 14G - start up amount	point 7	DELETED
Figure 14H - start up amount	point 7	Figure 8
Figure 14I - lab space funds	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 15A - PhDs to completion	discuss or delete	DELETED
Figure 15B - PhD students		Figure 9A
Figure 15C - postdocs		Figure 9B
Figure 15D - RA/tech		Figure 9C
Figure 15E - group size		Figure 9D
Figure 16		Figure 10
NEW	respond to point 16	NEW Figure 1 - figure supplement 2D
NEW	responding to point 21	NEW Figure 9 - figure supplement 1
NEW	to go with "It was also encouraging to find that having dependants did not affect satisfaction ratings or optimism scores for either male or female PIs."	NEW Figure 3 - figure supplement 1
NEW	Grade level appointed at - was previously missing	NEW Figure 5 - figure supplement 1B
NEW	Starting salary for Lecturere's Fellow - see CT comment on line 201	NEW Figure 5 - figure supplement 1A

RESULTS

9. Please present the results of the statistical tests for all the data shown; for example, this is missing from comparisons between female and male PIs and/or lecturers and researcher fellows. Please state the types of statistical tests run for each piece of presented data, with details on how certain confounders were controlled for, as well as detailing any corresponding statistical outcomes.

REPLY: The methods section has been extended and updated, changes are tracked in the attached document. We now also include. xls files for each graph shown, which makes clear the total numbers for each category/response.

10. The first sentence of the results states that '...365 respondents represents a significant proportion of new group leaders in the UK.' To support this comment, please state the number of new group leaders in the UK for the period corresponding to the results presented.

REPLY: We have been unable to find a total number of PIs in the UK, this statement was based on estimates knowing the approximate number of fellowships awarded by each of the larger funding bodies per cycle. However, we would be happy to remove this statement if required.

11. Please rephrase the final sentence for the second paragraph of the results ('There has been some discussion... in redressing the balance') to make its meaning clearer.

REPLY: Please see tracked changes in the attached text.

12. Please clarify what Figure 2B represents by describing it in the figure legend; you may also wish to add further clarification in the main text. Should the values for women and men add to 100%? Does this graph show only those that had dependents/caring responsibilities? Does '0' for length of break mean the individual had a dependent but took 0 months off from work? What is the mean and median for the data for each gender? How does this relate to the number of dependents per respondent? Furthermore, the panel shows possibly 1 or 2 men taking very long periods of leave, which does not appear to support the statement in the text that '... fathers are also taking significant periods of leave and sharing childcare responsibilities.' Please clarify.

REPLY: Figure 2 B has been edited and now forms part of the supplement for figure 1. We do not have data for the number of dependents per respondent, this was sometimes supplied in the comments but we are unable to break the data down in this way.

13. Please provide the data supporting the following sentence: 'It was also encouraging to find that having dependents did not affect satisfaction ratings or optimism scores for either females or males'; the data presented is not separated by sex.

REPLY: This data is now included as a supplement to figure 3, split by gender as requested.

14. Instead of stating that the proportion of lecturers to research fellows captured in the study was roughly equal, please state the exact percentages.

REPLY: This has now been addressed

15. The comments about research fellows being based at Russell group universities (bottom of page 3) seems to reflect that these universities first recruit individuals as research fellows (rather than as lecturers), as shown in Figure 5D. Please discuss this in the text.

REPLY: This has now been addressed, please see tracked changes

16. Could the data presented in Fig 8 and 15 also relate to when career breaks may occur for a women (which we know are for longer periods)? Was information collected about the timing of leave with regard to the trajectory of the respondent's career paths? In regards to 8C, could this be related to men asking for more money for each grant compared to women? Could a calculation be made to determine whether the amount awarded per grant varied between women and men?

REPLY: We did not collect data regarding the timing of leave with the career trajectory, although this would be an interesting question. We also did not ask for grant amount per application, and since this would vary greatly depending on the type of grant it would not be possible to draw concrete conclusions. It would be very interesting to ask funders to look at the grant amount awarded split male to female.

17. Based on the data presented in 9B and C, women have the larger loads for teaching and committees. Please discuss this, as these data may be related to the finding that women also secure fewer grants and have small lab sizes - as they are simply over-committing themselves to, or are more commonly tasked with, non-research activities.

REPLY: This has now been addressed, please see tracked changes

18. The sentence 'New PIs should also be aware that supervision of master's students and PhD students would also count as teaching contribution', is not strictly true for all universities. There are differences in what universities classify as part of a teaching load.

REPLY: We have edited this please see tracked changes

19. Please check that the data presented in 10C does correspond to the sentence stating 'Nearly 18% of externally funded fellows reported not having an.. .'.

REPLY: This figure has now been removed from the manuscript

20. The statement '...participated by submitting projects to up to 5-6 in some cases (Fig 14C).' does not agree with the data shown in Figure 14C.

REPLY: This data has been move to Figure 8 - figure supplement 2, and the text has been edited to match the plots.

21. Please show the data that supports the statement that '...lecturers were the least satisfied with worklife balance compared to research fellows'.

REPLY: This is now shown in a new figure supplement - NEW Figure 9 - figure supplement 1

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED SUPPORT OF NEW PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

22. Many of the advice points are not related to issues arising from the data. It would instead be more compelling to discuss recommendations directly related to the data and/or to discuss sources that may support the potential effectiveness of these solutions. The article would also be strengthened by more recommendations that new PIs can act on regardless of host support. For example when mentioning that mentorship to new PIs is not ideal, you could direct readers to resources for effective use of mentorship.

REPLY: Please see tracked changes, we note that peer-peer mentorship can be extremely important and an excellent source of support.

23. For the actions by host institutions, could you recommend anything related to the observations that there are clear gender differences in salary and start-ups, as well as recruitment around the REF?

REPLY: Having discussed this with our host departments this is a very difficult issue to address, as they require a degree of flexibility in starting salary in order to recruit their favoured candidates who may have other offers.

24. Please explain the rationale for suggesting different grades for research fellows and university-funded fellows (action points 7 and 8 for host institutions).

REPLY: University funded fellowships are generally a scheme to bring in potential candidates for career development fellowships, so within our peer group this is generally viewed as a stepping stone towards independence which is solidified when external funding is awarded.

METHODS AND SUPPORTING DATA

25. Please expand the methods section to give full details of the nature of the items included in the survey and explain why these were chosen, the pilot testing and revision process, the specific definition of the sought respondents, and the recruitment strategy used. Please also refer the reader to the document of the final survey questions.

REPLY: Please see tracked changes, we have added detail to this section

26. Please provide a supporting data file that clearly states the number and percentages of respondents to each option in the survey, broken down by gender and lecturer/fellow as appropriate.

REPLY: We have uploaded the supporting data for each plot now shown, broken down as presented.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46827.037