It felt really liberating, but more than liberating myself, I hoped that my students felt that no matter their identity they felt safe acknowledging them in my class.
I want to be radical. I want my home to reflect my radical values. Well, if my bod
Posted by thelittlepecan on June 15, 2017
What do you do when you are at an academic meeting and see the only woman on a panel not being given a chance to speak? If you’re Marilee Talkington, you speak up and become an internet superhero.
Posted by Fighty Squirrel on June 5, 2017
Hiring a medical editor is like having a bespoke tailor. No one cares what I’m wearing, but I want my work to step-out completely dressed for success.
Posted by Katherine Hartmann, MD, PhD on May 24, 2017
A request for revisions is as good as acceptance – but only if you’ll put aside your burning desire to see the wretches who did not appreciate your brilliance crushed for their impertinence.
Posted by James West on April 18, 2017
Proposed research project is feasible? Check. Timeline formatted? Check. Milestones added? Check. Now it’s time to break the work into manageable chunks….
Posted by Durango Kid, PhD on March 27, 2017
You don’t have to say you are away to use your “out of office” feature. You just have to be bold. My favorite flavor of bold is the Texan Dean who declares in an email bouceback that the eight people and email addresses listed serve as portals for specific types of emails, including the category […]
Posted by Edge for Scholars on January 20, 2017
Got your R and the realities of budget management sinking in? Want to prepare yourself financially to get to that R? Three newly independent investigators at Vanderbilt shared their wisdom with Newman Society members today.
Posted by Rebecca Helton on January 19, 2017
Reviewers review. We will notice. These fresh mistakes straight from study section: 1.) Please agree with yourself. If the abstract says n = 110, the aims say 100, the statistical section says 110, and the budget justification says 100, it makes me cranky. 2.) Please explain yourself. When presenting power/sample size calculations let me know […]
Posted by Cranky Reviewer on January 18, 2017
In 2009, NIH revamped their scoring system asking reviewers to provide numbers ranging from 1 (best) to 9 (worst) assessing applications Environment, Investigator, Innovation, Approach, and Significance. NIH has emphasized Innovation (insert jazz hands), leaving many a weary grant writer to feel a need to invent fabulous new techniques to take DNA out of things, […]
Posted by Fighty Squirrel on January 3, 2017