Panels @ NetSci23: Academic Writing and Mental Health
Inspired by the topics that have spurred the most interest in the past NetPLACE seminars, we propose two panel discussions at NetSci2023 on some common concerns about academic writing and mental health. Our aim is to spark a fruitful discussion between people with different perspectives and backgrounds, from psychologists and experts of the field, to both junior and senior researchers in complexity science. We believe that bringing these discussions to a broader audience at such a big conference will be beneficial to both junior and senior researchers, towards a better future for complexity scientists. Indeed, we stress that these panels are open to all members of the NetSci community, regardless of their career stage.
Summary of the event
Last July, we decided to go live and organized a two-day in-person panel event. Thanks to the participation of many young and senior researchers from all around the world (more than one hundred people each day!), it has been a great success. We are very grateful to you, so we wanted to summarize our event on this page. Share it with your friends and let’s continue our discussions!
On the first day, the panel on Academic Writing started with two amazing talks: “What makes a paper great from the reviewer’s perspective?” by Jari Saramaki, and the other, “How to get your paper rejected – An editor’s perspective” by Ingo Scholtes.
Later on, we engaged in a lively discussion with our distinguished speakers, the panelists Elisa Omodei, Martina Contisciani, two editors Jacopo Fregoni and Leonardo Benini, and of course, the audience.
Many topics were discussed, but the most debated one centered on the question of who should give the guidelines for the publication process: should it be the editors or the scientific community at large? While a consensus emerged that reforms in the review process are needed, the path to achieving these changes remains an ongoing and open challenge. Will AI lend a hand in tackling this problem?
On the second day, the topic was mental well-being in Academia. We started with our first speaker, Jana Lasser, who talked about “Power abuse in academia – problem description and suggestions for solutions”. Next, Tobias Galla talked about reducing frustration, but in a sarcastic manner, as you may deduce from the title of his talk: “How to achieve maximum frustration during your PhD”.
As on the previous day, the talks were followed by an open discussion with the speakers, the two panelists, Simone Daniotti and Hannah Metzler, and the audience. The discussion focused on possible measures to stop power abuse in Academia, in order for the students not to be exploited. Connected to this was also the hot topic of whether the PhD should be considered a job or not. This ambiguity can indeed foster exploitation and lack of regulations.
If you attended the event, please let us know what you think by filling in this questionnaire. If you didn’t have the chance to attend, stay tuned for more events like this!