Academics can be really awkward, so you just have to accept that many conversations at academic conferences will be weird and it's not your fault or even a problem. It's just how things go. Many people will walk by your poster, squint a little, and then hurriedly move on. This isn't because you suck…

For those innocent lambs out there, Reviewer 2 is the nickname that academia has given to the peer reviewer of your manuscript who gives a laundry list of criticisms, demands eight months of new experiments totaling $300,000 in supplies alone, insults your knowledge of the literature or ability to spell your name correctly, insists your study is boring, or some combination of the above. They lurk at the core of the peer review process….

I heard a really poignant question the other day. The person, in a top STEM PhD program, was describing how utterly unprepared they felt for graduate school. Coursework had been easy, but they believe they were terrible at designing experiments and much less productive than their peers. They were having trouble concentrating and getting anything done. Should they cut their losses and leave?

The sooner you realize that rejections are a large part of doing research and not direct measures of your skill or potential, the happier you’ll be. You’ll probably improve faster as a scientist too…

When I finished my PhD, I think I had something like an 18" stack of papers I was still meaning to read. It had caused me a near-daily pang of stress and, if I’m honest, shame for years. I currently have several thousand papers in my Paperpile, but I feel a lot better…