If you’re considering joining my lab or are thinking generally about publishing, why it matters, and how I look at the endeavor of publishing, I have something to say about papers and what they’re worth.
We hear a lot about publishing in top-tier journals e.g. JACS or ACIE. I won’t lie, it is true that these are well-regarded by funding agencies and can help push a grant into the funded zone. And I won’t lie that these help for fellowships and awards. But park these thoughts for the time being.
I wear multiple hats here. When I choose a project, my expectation is that it will be scientifically significant and worthy of submission to a top journal. I do my homework and read about the project before assigning it. I try my best to sell this, first to you and then to the journal’s editors, the chosen reviewers, and again in response to reviewers. Sometimes, we get an idea and run with it…very inspired. Sometimes however, despite the best-laid plans, projects don’t get legs; what seems to be a great idea doesn’t always pan out. By this I’ll mean that yields aren’t as high as we expected, the substrate scope is narrower than we expected or that biology simply didn’t cooperate. We can never know this ahead of time. This is what makes science what it is, coming with equal pinches of excitement and suspense and sometimes stress as well. I also have to provide each of my students with a project that works for him/her/them, fits into their timeline and is not so challenging that it cracks the student.
You try, I try, we try. Sometimes it’s the writing – we didn’t convince an editor or 2-7 reviewers. Sometimes an editor is just flawed, sometimes a reviewer might even be hostile. They’re human too. I look back on my 140 papers and there are number that were either rejected from tier-1 journals or were never sent to tier-1 journals in the first place. I am as proud of these works as I am of the other articles that appeared in high profile journals. I’ll list a few of these for you:
- Intra-annular Savige-Fontana reaction: One Step Conversion of One Class of Monocyclic Peptides into a Another Class of Bicyclic Peptides, Jonathan P. May and David M. Perrin Chem. Eur. J. 2008 14: 3404-3409. Commentary: this work really set the stage for being able to generate Ttn-staples at will.
- Substituent Effects on Aryltrifluoroborate Solvolysis in Water: Implications for Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling and the Design of Stable 18F-Labeled Aryltrifluoroborates for Use in PET Imaging Richard Ting, Curtis Harwig, Justin Lo, Ying Li, Michael J. Adam, Thomas J. Ruth, and David M. Perrin, J. Org. Chem. 2008 73: 4662-4670. Commentary: this work was the first-ever Hammett analysis of RBF3 solvolysis and provided a rational basis for designing BF3-based tracers.
- A DNAzyme with three protein-like functional groups: enhancing catalytic efficiency of M2+-independent RNA cleavage, Marcel Hollenstein, Christopher J. Hipolito, Curtis H. Lam and David M. Perrin, ChemBioChem 200910: 1988-1992. Commentary: this work provides the fastest-ever M2+-independent DNAzyme – modified or not.
- Dual isotope labeling of oligonucleotides with aryltrifluoroborate via copper(I) catalyzed cycloaddition for PET imaging, Ying Li, Paul Schaffer, and David Perrin Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.2013 23: 6313-6316. Commentary: this work is the underpinning for labeling oligonucleotides in aptamer and radiohybrid projects.
- Base-promoted Protodeboronation of 2,6-Disubstituted Arylboronic Acids, Jerome Lozada, Zhibo Liu, David M. Perrin J. Org. Chem. 2014 79: 5365-8. Commentary: this work is my 8th-most cited paper (>115 citations).
- Dual Mode Fluorescent 18F-PET Tracers: Efficient modular synthesis of rhodamine-[cRGD]2-[18F]-organotrifluoroborate, rapid and high yielding 18F-labeling at high specific activity with correlated In vivo PET Imaging and Ex vivo fluorescence Zhibo Liu, Mark Alex Radtke, May Q. Wong, Kuo-Shyan Lin, Donald Yapp, David M. Perrin Bioconjugate Chemistry 2014 25:1951-62. Commentary: this work definitively demonstrated the inability to detect fluorophores at high molar activity and ended the debate about needing to do no-carrier-added syntheses.
- From Minutes to Years: Predicting Solvolysis Rates for Organotrifluoroborates, Zhibo Liu, Daniel Chao, Ying Li, Richard Ting, Jihyoon Oh, David M. Perrin Chem. Eur. J.2015 21, 3924-3928. Commentary: this work provided for another “first” on organotrifluoroborate solvolysis and was the basis for our granted patent on non-aromatic organotrifluoroborates for use as imaging prosthetics.
- Whole cell SELEX of modified aptamers with tyrosine-like sidechains against live bacteria, Marlene Renders, Emily Miller, Curtis Lam, and David M. Perrin Org. Biomol. Chem. 2017 15: 1980-1989. Commentary: this work was the first whole-cell aptamer selections using modified dNTPs.
But now I’m going to tell you where papers really count. They are a testament not only to a student’s technical skills but the student’s ability to generate raw data, compile it, characterize it, describe it with figures and equations, and ultimately provide a report that demonstrates that a student knows how to create new compositions of matter, how to design and experiment, and through these efforts, the creation of new knowledge. And yet, in which journal a body of work gets published may not always be up to us. Ultimately, what is most important is that a student’s work gets published in a peer-reviewed journal – outside of the thesis.
And here’s why: when selection committees, granting agencies or human resource offices look at CVs, they primarily want to see output first and foremost. Yes, they might look at journal stature or impact factor, but they might also count author number – a paper with 15 authors is not the same as a paper with 1-2. Or they might count the total number of papers. As important as these factors are, my letter of reference will also be a major component of a student’s file – notably what I say about a student’s abilities in the lab, how he/she works with others, the ability to meet deadlines, supervise others, the ability to prosecute a project and bring it to completion, they ability to communicate in writing….And then there will be the interview. When a student interviews, the search committee will inevitably ask , “what of this did you do?” and for many of my students they can proudly answer, “all of it” or “nearly all of it”. The depth of the work and the ability to answer the questions based on what has been learned and read will be readily recognized by the interview team and will likely win the student a job. A record of no publications on the other hand will often limit job prospects. At some point it’s better to publish and move on rather than fret about rejections or trade time for impact factor.
Philosophically, I like to compare scientific research to a real-time, dynamic recording of knowledge – metaphorically a Great Book, perhaps on par with the bible. We all are here to try to write in that book. Some scientists will make profound discoveries and/or write long verses. Others will write less and what’s written might not be as profound. The point is, we have the special privilege and honor, paid by tax payers, to write in that Great Book of Science. But then we must move on. For most of my students, moving on will be a ticket to better opportunities – all but one have found employment in STEM, nearly all have had their choice of postdoc. For PIs, we eventually run out of ideas, projects lose steam, we lose funding, eventually we get old, we retire, we too are mortal.
Collectively, what’s left are our contributions to that Great Book of Science. As we write in it, and eventually prepare to take our leave and stop writing in it, we ask: did we grow, did we learn, did we interact and did we try? And if we can answer these questions affirmatively, all the while having the honorific of writing in that Great Book, we can all say that we left our mark, be it big or small, profound or not so much. And hopefully, the experience of writing in it helps propel us – you the students – to the next opportunity. Be this my gift to you? Maybe. But this is also me just doing my job – as I’ve been wont to say, I too just work here. But the tax payers should expect no less of us. Put it another way: this is the gift my students give to themselves, and authorship is the honor they derive from the hard work they do. And a decade later, they will look back and will realize that what happened here was but a small part of life. The experience is what counts.
If this resonates, let me know.
Thanking you for reading.
Peace out.
D