Habits and attitudes toward writing affect the publication output of environmental biology trainees

Publications are the mainstay of academic success, yet scientific writing requires consistent feedback and practice to build and maintain skills. In this study, we surveyed 342 environmental biology trainees (i.e., graduate students and postdoctoral scholars) about their writing habits. Our objective was to explore whether trainee writing habits align with suggestions from scientific writing guide books and articles, and how individual habits and attitudes may impact writing output. We found that the majority of respondents (>65%) felt negatively about writing and publishing, and few adhered to established advice such as scheduling writing time, setting attainable goals, or joining a writing accountability group. Our results show that trainees who dedicated more hours to writing each week and individually tracked their writing progress had more first-author publications. In particular, graduate students who regularly scheduled writing time during the week and participated in writing groups also had more first-author publications. Conversely, trainees who felt negatively about writing, wrote mainly before deadlines, and relied on “check-ins” with advisors or writing groups to monitor writing progress had fewer first-author publications. We describe ways that individuals, advisors, and institutions could improve trainee writing habits and assist them in developing more positive attitudes toward writing to ultimately help trainees achieve their writing goals

Towards a new stable state: Equitably assessing trainee writing productivity post-COVID-19

The current academic ‘ecosystem’ prioritizes publications and has remained in this stable state despite increasing calls for change. Although writing is a strong determinant of academic success, certain groups may experience publishing barriers that may be amplified by disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we surveyed 342 graduate students and postdoctoral scholars to assess (1) how identity predicted publishing outputs and (2) how the pandemic influenced feelings of writing productivity based on identity. We show that there were differential publication totals across identities. Respondents reported feeling less productive and motivated during the pandemic, despite having more time to write. BIPOC graduate students reported being the most negatively impacted. Since the pandemic disproportionately affected historically excluded groups, we urge the academic ‘ecosystem’ to transition away from an overemphasis on publication outputs and reach a new, more equitable stable state that evaluates accomplishments more holistically

Overemphasis on publications may disadvantage historically excluded groups in STEM before and during COVID-19: A North American survey-based study.

Publishing is a strong determinant of academic success and there is compelling evidence that identity may influence the academic writing experience and writing output. However, studies rarely quantitatively assess the effects of major life upheavals on trainee writing. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented life disruptions that may have disproportionately impacted different demographics of trainees. We analyzed anonymous survey responses from 342 North American environmental biology graduate students and postdoctoral scholars (hereafter trainees) about scientific writing experiences to assess: (1) how identity interacts with scholarly publication totals and (2) how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced trainee perceptions of scholarly writing productivity and whether there were differences among identities. Interestingly, identity had a strong influence on publication totals, but it differed by career stage with graduate students and postdoctoral scholars often having opposite results. We found that trainees identifying as female and those with chronic health conditions or disabilities lag in publication output at some point during training. Additionally, although trainees felt they had more time during the pandemic to write, they reported less productivity and motivation. Trainees who identified as female; Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color [BIPOC]; and as first-generation college graduates were much more likely to indicate that the pandemic affected their writing. Disparities in the pandemic's impact on writing were most pronounced for BIPOC respondents; a striking 85% of BIPOC trainees reported that the pandemic affected their writing habits, and overwhelmingly felt unproductive and unmotivated to write. Our results suggest that the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on writing output may only heighten the negative effects commonly reported amongst historically excluded trainees. Based on our findings, we encourage the academy to consider how an overemphasis on publication output during hiring may affect historically excluded groups in STEM-especially in a post-COVID-19 era

Postdoctoral scholar model results for Bayesian multiple regression of how years in training and identity affect publication output.

Years spent as a graduate student and postdoctoral scholar are continuous, and all other variables are factorial and coded as 1 = trainee identifies or 0 = trainee does not identify as first generation, female, BIPOC, having a chronic condition, or having English as a second language (ESL). Variables with 80% or higher probability of being on the same side of zero as the estimate (PD sign match) are bolded. 95% CRI = 95% credible interval, ESS = effective sample size. (PDF)</p

Word cloud representation of respondents’ subfield of environmental biology.

Bigger words indicate higher occurrence in the survey responses. (PDF)</p

Graduate student results for Bayesian multiple regression of how years in school and identity affect publication output.

Except for years in graduate school, all other variables are factorial and coded as 1 = trainee identifies or 0 = trainee does not identify as first generation, female, BIPOC, having a chronic condition, or having English as a second language (ESL). Variables with 80% or higher probability of being on the same side of zero as the estimate (PD sign match) are bolded. 95% CRI = 95% credible interval, ESS = effective sample size. (PDF)</p

Fig 1 -

The effect of years in training and identity on total publications for A) graduate students (n = 229) and B) postdoctoral scholars (n = 79) leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple regression models suggest that identity of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars predicts publication totals. Each point is the median parameter estimate, thick lines are 50% credible intervals (CRIs), and thin lines are 95% CRIs. Graduate and postdoc yrs indicate the number of years in training (as a continuous variable). First gen = first in family to graduate from college; female = female respondents; BIPOC = Black, Indigenous, and/or a person of color; chronic condition = chronic health condition or disability; and ESL = respondents with English as a second language as categorical variables (yes/no).</p

In the optional open question “<i>Is there anything else you would like to add about your writing experiences</i>?” trainees with ESL were the only ones who responded about how their identity affected writing and publishing.

While the model indicated that having ESL was not detrimental to publication output, these stated experiences of trainees with ESL highlighted the challenges.</p

Results for binomial multiple regression on yes/no responses among graduate students to the question “<i>Has COVID-19 impacted your writing habits</i>?”.

All estimates are in logit scale for ease of comparison. Variables with 80% or higher probability of being on the same side of zero as the estimate (PD sign match) are bolded. (PDF)</p