Impactful scientists have higher tendency to involve collaborators in new topics.

In scientific research, collaboration is one of the most effective ways to take advantage of new ideas, skills, and resources and for performing interdisciplinary research. Although collaboration networks have been intensively studied, the question of how individual scientists choose collaborators to study a new research topic remains almost unexplored. Here, we investigate the statistics and mechanisms of collaborations of individual scientists along their careers, revealing that, in general, collaborators are involved in significantly fewer topics than expected from a controlled surrogate. In particular, we find that highly productive scientists tend to have a higher fraction of single-topic collaborators, while highly cited-i.e., impactful-scientists have a higher fraction of multitopic collaborators. We also suggest a plausible mechanism for this distinction. Moreover, we investigate the cases where scientists involve existing collaborators in a new topic. We find that, compared to productive scientists, impactful scientists show strong preference of collaboration with high-impact scientists on a new topic. Finally, we validate our findings by investigating active scientists in different years and across different disciplines.

Feeling like a 'real' scientist.

Peer reviewing helped a graduate student to finally gain a sense of belonging within the research community.

Attitudes of Australasian Clinicians and Laboratory Staff to Changing Fungal Nomenclature: Has Mycological Correctness Really Gone Mad?

Fungal nomenclature changes have been a regular occurrence in recent years, eliciting heated debate on whether such changes will confuse clinicians and harm patients. We conducted surveys of Australasian laboratory staff and clinicians to assess attitudes, practices, and concerns regarding nomenclatural change. The majority of respondents to both surveys were aware of fungal nomenclatural changes (93.5% laboratories, 79.7% clinicians); 72.8% of laboratories had already implemented nomenclature changes, and 68.7% of clinicians recalled receiving at least one laboratory report utilizing updated fungal nomenclature. The vast majority of clinicians (94%) both within and outside of infection specialties supported laboratories reporting updated species names with inclusion of the previous species name. The importance of including the previous name on reports was demonstrated by 73.3% of clinicians viewing "Nakaseomyces glabrata (formerly Candida glabrata)" as clinically significant, versus only 38.2% viewing "Pichia kudriavzeveii" as significant in the absence of its former name. When asked about reporting practices, 73.9% of laboratories would report a Candida krusei isolate as "Pichia kudriavzeveii (formerly Candida krusei)," with the rest reporting as "Candida krusei" (21.7%) or "Pichia kudriavzeveii" (1.1%) without further explanation. Laboratory concerns included clinicians being confused by reports, commonly used identification platforms continuing to use superseded species names, education of staff, and delays in updating species codes in laboratory information systems. Adopting fungal name changes appears to be well supported by laboratories and clinicians in Australia and New Zealand, and can be achieved safely and unambiguously provided the former name is included on reports. IMPORTANCE Recent changes in fungal species names have been contentious, eliciting heated debate on social media. Despite available recommendations on adapting to the changes, concerns include clinicians dismissing pathogens as contaminants with patient harm as a result, and disruption of the literature. Such concerns are understandable, but are not supported by evidence and may represent a vocal minority. This survey of Australasian laboratories and clinicians assesses attitudes and practices relating to changes in fungal nomenclature and found that there is overwhelming support for adopting nomenclature changes.

Navigating COVID-19: Starting a lab during the pandemic.

For new principal investigators, the first years are key to getting a laboratory off the ground and running. COVID-19 has changed the world, bringing on unforeseen difficulties and challenges at every level. We asked these investigators to share their experiences in navigating the unique environment since the start of the pandemic-what has changed in their vision for their laboratory, how they have adapted, and what advice they can share with others in a similar situation.

Ten simple rules for increased lab resilience.

When running a lab we do not think about calamities, since they are rare events for which we cannot plan while we are busy with the day-to-day management and intellectual challenges of a research lab. No lab team can be prepared for something like a pandemic such as COVID-19, which has led to shuttered labs around the globe. But many other types of crises can also arise that labs may have to weather during their lifetime. What can researchers do to make a lab more resilient in the face of such exterior forces? What systems or behaviors could we adjust in 'normal' times that promote lab success, and increase the chances that the lab will stay on its trajectory? We offer 10 rules, based on our current experiences as a lab group adapting to crisis.

Public perceptions of federal science advisory boards depend on their composition.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides expert advice to inform agency decision-making. Recent regulations have decreased the representation of academic scientists on the EPA SAB and increased the representation of industry scientists. In an experiment, we asked how the US public views the goals and legitimacy of the board as a function of its composition. Respondents perceived SABs with a majority of industry scientists to be more likely to promote business interests than SABs with a majority of academic scientists. Liberals were less likely than conservatives to perceive industry-majority SABs as promoting human health and the environment, and making unbiased and evidence-based decisions. Our findings underscore the potential for politicization of scientific advice to the government.

When SARS-CoV-2 comes knocking on your lab door: Individual scientists' experiences during the pandemic.

A snapshot of how scientists are personally affected by the global Covid-19 pandemic.

Scientists' political behaviors are not driven by individual-level government benefits.

Is it appropriate for scientists to engage in political advocacy? Some political critics of scientists argue that scientists have become partisan political actors with self-serving financial agendas. However, most scientists strongly reject this view. While social scientists have explored the effects of science politicization on public trust in science, little empirical work directly examines the drivers of scientists' interest in and willingness to engage in political advocacy. Using a natural experiment involving the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF-GRF), we causally estimate for the first time whether scientists who have received federal science funding are more likely to engage in both science-related and non-science-related political behaviors. Comparing otherwise similar individuals who received or did not receive NSF support, we find that scientists' preferences for political advocacy are not shaped by receiving government benefits. Government funding did not impact scientists' support of the 2017 March for Science nor did it shape the likelihood that scientists donated to either Republican or Democratic political groups. Our results offer empirical evidence that scientists' political behaviors are not motivated by self-serving financial agendas. They also highlight the limited capacity of even generous government support programs to increase civic participation by their beneficiaries.

Influenza vaccine acceptance by healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia: A questionnaire-based analysis.

The aim of this study was to gauge the reasons for accepting or declining influenza vaccine in healthcare staff in Saudi Arabia. A questionnaire was administered to healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia. In all, 633 respondents who provided gender, nationality and profession were included. Reasons for vaccine uptake or refusal were assessed according to profession and educational level. Uptake of vaccine was lower in the period from 2010 to 2014 (3-13.3%) compared to pre-2010 figures (20.7%), rising to 44.1% in 2015. Comparing data for 'never having been vaccinated' to 'being vaccinated in 2015', there was no significant difference in distribution between nurses (9.27% v 38.8%), physicians (13.9% v 56.0%) and laboratory technicians (15.9% v 33.5%) (p= 0.08). The top reason for vaccination was protection of self and family, while the top reason for refusal was not considering the vaccine to be necessary. Education level had no significant effect on the likelihood of being vaccinated. Improvement of healthcare worker vaccination levels in Saudi Arabia might be achieved by addressing staff concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy, emphasizing the potential dangers of influenza and capitalizing on the staff's focus on protecting themselves and their families.

Essential role of laboratory physicians in transformation of laboratory practice and management to a value-based patient-centric model.

The laboratory is a vital part of the continuum of patient care. In fact, there are few programs in the healthcare system that do not rely on ready access and availability of complex diagnostic laboratory services. The existing transactional model of laboratory "medical practice" will not be able to meet the needs of the healthcare system as it rapidly shifts toward value-based care and precision medicine, which demands that practice be based on total system indicators, clinical effectiveness, and patient outcomes. Laboratory "value" will no longer be focused primarily on internal testing quality and efficiencies but rather on the relative cost of diagnostic testing compared to direct improvement in clinical and system outcomes. The medical laboratory as a "business" focused on operational efficiency and cost-controls must transform to become an essential clinical service that is a tightly integrated equal partner in direct patient care. We would argue that this paradigm shift would not be necessary if laboratory services had remained a "patient-centric" medical practice throughout the last few decades. This review is focused on the essential role of laboratory physicians in transforming laboratory practice and management to a value-based patient-centric model. Value-based practice is necessary not only to meet the challenges of the new precision medicine world order but also to bring about sustainable healthcare service delivery.

Postdocs' lab engagement predicts trajectories of PhD students' skill development.

The doctoral advisor-typically the principal investigator (PI)-is often characterized as a singular or primary mentor who guides students using a cognitive apprenticeship model. Alternatively, the "cascading mentorship" model describes the members of laboratories or research groups receiving mentorship from more senior laboratory members and providing it to more junior members (i.e., PIs mentor postdocs, postdocs mentor senior graduate students, senior students mentor junior students, etc.). Here we show that PIs' laboratory and mentoring activities do not significantly predict students' skill development trajectories, but the engagement of postdocs and senior graduate students in laboratory interactions do. We found that the cascading mentorship model accounts best for doctoral student skill development in a longitudinal study of 336 PhD students in the United States. Specifically, when postdocs and senior doctoral students actively participate in laboratory discussions, junior PhD students are over 4 times as likely to have positive skill development trajectories. Thus, postdocs disproportionately enhance the doctoral training enterprise, despite typically having no formal mentorship role. These findings also illustrate both the importance and the feasibility of identifying evidence-based practices in graduate education.