Graduate students need formal training on the publication process

Hidden curriculum, the knowledge and skills you need to know but are not taught directly, runs rampant in graduate school. Yet, success and career path are largely determined by these skills, especially in the context of scientific publishing. While formal classroom training typically accompanies and ideally complements independent research in the early stages of graduate curriculum, formal training on the publication process is notably absent, resulting in uneven access to knowledge and skills critical for success as defined within the “publish or perish” model. As oceanography students on a satellite campus at University of Rhode Island (URI), we recognize a barrier to formal training is physical access to courses on separate campuses, a common issue in the marine sciences. We reviewed the syllabi of courses related to writing and communication of seven oceanography graduate programs at R1 institutions in the United States and found that most did not cover key aspects of the publication process (from what we could find, four additional schools had no writing course within their oceanography graduate program). Our criteria for including a course in the scope of the review was a catalog listing under oceanography/geosciences to target specifically the offerings of these departments. We acknowledge that courses beyond the department are available to students; however, there are often barriers—for instance, distance from a home campus and time constraints on coursework completion—that impede students from taking courses outside their discipline. It is also notable that when searching course catalogs, we did not find many publishing courses offered by other science departments at these schools, perhaps signaling a broader issue. The courses we reviewed usually focused on the writing process, covering conventions and best practices surrounding academic journal articles (e.g., how to write an introduction). Many graduate curricula also include reviewing classmates' work, which may help prepare students for writing formal peer reviews of journal articles and alleviate the burden on the peer review process by increasing the reviewer pool. While we acknowledge the possibility that material not listed on the syllabi is included in course instruction, by and large it appears that these classes do not cover a number of key elements of publishing in academic journals including choosing a journal, writing a cover letter to the editor, determining authorship, making data publicly available in a repository, formally responding to reviewer comments, and interpreting copyright (see Table S1 for details). These skills are requisite for successful publication, but generally students are expected to gain familiarity with these elements informally, by working with their advisors, lab members, or other collaborators. The often-repeated adage “publish or perish” lays bare that the metric of success in academia is publication output. Yet, a lack of formal classroom training on these subjects leads to unintentional gatekeeping of career pathways. This ad hoc training may vary substantially from lab to lab, and student to student, which can lead to arbitrarily inconsistent outcomes. In a survey we conducted of URI oceanography degree-holders who graduated in the past 10 years (207 people contacted in total, of whom 27 responded), only 60% (n = 16) reported receiving adequate to exceptional training in science publishing, while 74% (n = 20) reported that familiarity with the science publishing landscape is required for their current jobs. Graduated PhD students who received some guidance on publication (n = 12) had a median first author publication rate of 3 papers based on their work at URI, while those who received no guidance (n = 2) had a median publication rate of 1.5 papers. For former MS students, those who received some guidance (n = 8) had a median publication rate of 1 first-author paper based on their work at URI, while those who received no guidance (n = 2) had a median publication rate of 0. All survey respondents who did not publish their graduate work (n = 4) also reported receiving no guidance on the publication process. Taken together, these results indicate how the lack of formal training creates a gap that some students may fall through, inhibiting their ability to share their science with the broader community and pursue career paths that value published work. In more egregious cases, a lack of formal training on the publication process may enable bad actors who seek to take credit for work done by students. One graduate who received no guidance on the publication process reported that their advisor published their graduate research without extending authorship or even acknowledgement. This “Gollum effect” is an unfortunate reality across the scientific publishing world, where advisors can make unethical claims of authorship, excluding graduate students from publications of their own work (Gould and Valdez 2022). This type of behavior is perhaps driven by the incentive structure that informs the publishing process from manuscript preparation and submission to review and acceptance: scientists are pushed to publish more to boost flawed indices that improve career prospects, while journals are motivated to accept publications to earn revenue. Hence, under the “publish or perish” model, misplaced incentives and conflicts of interest can arise. While it is impossible to say with certainty whether formal classroom instruction on the publication process could prevent these kinds of unethical behavior, formal instruction may empower students to discuss authorship expectations during the course of their independent research and to seek out opportunities to publish even in the absence of support from their advisors. As noted by Mills-Finnerty (2019), it is difficult to quantify the scope and impact of negative outcomes associated with a lack of formal training on publication because survivorship bias is inherent in academia. There is also survivorship bias among the respondents to our survey of URI Graduate School of Oceanography alums, all of whom completed their degrees. Indeed, students with more resources available to them and other privileges stemming from social identity and background may be better positioned to access informal or ad hoc training on publication, which is often behind a paywall (e.g., Nature Masterclasses), thus creating a disparity that favors certain groups. Access to non-classroom training relies heavily on the relationship between advisor and student, thus historically marginalized students seeking to prove they belong in graduate school may be more reluctant to ask for help, creating further exclusion from these opportunities. Inequity in access to training on publishing is especially concerning as the pathway to careers in academia already favors the Global North, especially cis-gender White men without disability, which could be reinforced by the lack of formal publishing training. Though funding institutions like the National Science Foundation (NSF) often require some form of training on ethics to awardees, this does not meet the full breadth of publication training needs of the wider scientific community. Such uneven distribution of training further reinforces systemic biases against underrepresented groups. The nature of hidden curricula benefits majority groups; thus, formal training in a classroom setting could serve as a tool for mitigating systemic disadvantages, especially reducing financial barriers to accessing this information. In Table 1, we give practical suggestions for identifying and mitigating this hidden curriculum, and we provide an example syllabus for classroom training on science publishing in the Supporting Information. Though misplaced incentives and barriers to access continue to plague science publishing, the publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts remains the primary vehicle for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Flaws aside, the backbone of the scientific publication process—iterative submission and review by experts—is potentially democratic and collaborative in nature. If we, as a scientific community, are to realize this potential, we must ensure adequate knowledge and skills of publishing—from journal selection to peer review to post-publication promotion and data sharing—are instilled in the next generation of scientists. A combination of lecture-based instruction in which a more experienced researcher provides information and shares publishing experiences and an open discussion forum on key issues related to publishing ethics, philosophy, and best practices would prove valuable to early-career researchers. An empowered generation of scientists, equipped with the practical knowledge of publishing, would stand poised to improve not only the process of publishing academic works but also the scientific disciplines they represent. Acknowledging that we are operating under the current, problematic “publish or perish” model, we have made practical suggestions in an effort to harness education as a means for informing more ethical publication practices and empowering students to take ownership over publishing their work. We would like to thank Dr. Erin Peck for her guidance throughout the writing process and for her invaluable insights on scientific publishing. Data S1. Supporting Information. Table S1. Review of writing/publishing course syllabus topics. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.