My new subfield moves really fast. New technology is continually rolling out, such that you might start a project with one technology and finish it with another. That goes for the literature too. Other Postdoc said that the oldest paper she's ever cited is from 1990. PI told me his thesis is totally out-of-date, maybe even obsolete. Year-old data starts to smell stale.
In contrast, the oldest paper I cited in my thesis is from the 1930s. In fact, one of the larger criticisms of my big paper was that I didn't cite enough of the pioneer literature; the reviewer suggested some papers from the 1970s. Research Advisor's thesis papers are still frequency cited. We have data that is several years old that would still get in very decent journals.
Just another example of how a shift in fields can have a major impact on how you do, and think about, science.
7 comments:
sometimes it depends on how competitive/high-profile the field is, too. and how far ahead you are. in some fields, it's easy to look ahead and take a slightly larger step than everyone else. in others, it's not obvious how you could go one step beyond and get ahead of the pack.
These things are so field-dependent, it makes a mockery of attempts to compare simple metrics to decide who's best for a job or whatever, doesn't it? How does it feel to move into a faster field - is it more pressured?
Can I just say I'm jealous of your slower-moving field? Every area of cell biology that I've been involved in has moved at dizzying speeds.
What Bean-Mom said, but for molecular biology. The oldest paper I've ever cited was from like 1984, and that was in 2001!
That sounds both stressful and exciting. Stressful because you have to keep up with so much, but exciting because you are unlikely to get bored.
I would be screwed if my subfield moved like yours, considering the little amount of research I can get done with my undergrads during the academic year.
Even with a slower pace, I am perpetually behind...yikes!
MsPhD - I agree. The new field uses brand new techniques. People have wanted to use them for along time, I think, but have been waiting for the technology to mature enough. In contrast, it's hard to imagine how to revolutionize the old field.
JaneB, I'm not sure if it's more pressure or not. My first reaction is yes, but it takes so much more time/labor to finish things in the old field that both are subject to a lot of pressure to get enough to publish. And I agree about metrics being noncomparable!
Beanmom and Cath, I guess I'm really getting a taste of other worlds!
MXX, I agree. It is stressful, but so far it's a whole lot of fun.
UR, I think this sort of work would be very difficult to do at a PUI at the moment, if for no other reason that it's so multidisciplinary. Get an army of dedicated undergrads working for you and you might be unstoppable!
Post a Comment