Skip to main content Accessibility help
The Effective Scientist
  • Cited by 2
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Buy the print book

Book description

What is an effective scientist? One who is successful by quantifiable standards, with many publications, citations, and students supervised? Yes, but there is much more. Truly effective scientists need to have influence beyond academia, usefully applying and marketing their research to non-scientists. This book therefore takes an all-encompassing approach to improving the scientist's career. It begins by focusing on writing and publishing - a scientist's most important weapon in the academic arsenal. Part two covers the numerical and financial aspects of being an effective scientist, and Part three focuses on running a lab effectively. The book concludes by discussing the more entertaining and philosophical aspects of being an effective scientist. Little of this material is taught in university, but developing these skills is vital to maximize the chance of being effective. Written by a scientist for scientists, this practical and entertaining book is a must-read for every early career-scientist, regardless of specialty.


’Choose: A) Stumble through your career or: B) Read this book and avoid our mistakes.'

William J. Sutherland - Miriam Rothschild Chair in Conservation Biology, University of Cambridge

'With a relaxed and humorous style, Bradshaw indoctrinates the uninitiated into hard-won tricks of the trade, at times opening up to the reader about his own career missteps to illustrate a point.'

Source: The Times Higher Education

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.


Page 1 of 2

Page 1 of 2


1.Bialystok, E, Craik, FIM, Luk, G (2012) Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:240–50.
2.Gold, BT, Kim, C, Johnson, NF, Kryscio, RJ, Smith, CD (2013) Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural efficiency for cognitive control in aging. The Journal of Neuroscience 33:387–96.
3.Laurance, WF, Carolina Useche, D, Laurance, SG, Bradshaw, CJA (2013) Predicting publication success for biologists. BioScience 63:817–23.
4.Zinsser, W (2006) On Writing Well. 7th Edition (Harper Collins, New York, NY).
5.Strunk, W, White, EB (1999) The Elements of Style. (Longman, London).
6.Herrando-Pérez, S, Delean, S, Brook, BW, Bradshaw, CJA (2012) Density dependence: an ecological Tower of Babel. Oecologia 170:585603.
7.Herrando-Pérez, S, Brook, BW, Bradshaw, CJA (2014) Ecology needs a convention of nomenclature. BioScience 64:311–21.
8.Nuzzo, R (2014) Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature 506:150–52.
9.Mogie, M (2004) In support of null hypothesis significance testing. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B-Biological Sciences 271:S82S84.
10.Elliott, LP, Brook, BW (2007) Revisiting Chamberlain: multiple working hypotheses for the 21st century. BioScience 57:608–14.
11.Burnham, KP, Anderson, DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd Edition (Springer-Verlag, New York, NY).
12.Burnham, KP, Anderson, DR (2004) Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33:261304.
13.Link, WA, Barker, RJ (2006) Model weights and the foundations of multimodel inference. Ecology 87:2626–35.
14.Lukacs, PM, Thompson, WL, Kendall, WL, et al. (2007) Concerns regarding a call for pluralism of information theory and hypothesis testing. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:456–60.
15.Gaertner-Johnston, L (2006) “That” or “Which”? Business Writing. (accessed 17 October 2017).
16.Tang, M (2011) Passive voice vs. active voice. (accessed 17 October 2017).
17.Day, RA, Gastel, B (2012) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 7th Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
18.Hofmann, AH (2009) Scientific Writing and Communication: Papers, Proposals, and Presentations. 1st Edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
19.Schimel, J (2012) Writing Science. How to Write Papers that Get Cited and Proposals that Get Funded. (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
20.Bradshaw, CJA, Brook, BW (2016) How to rank journals. PLoS One 11:e0149852.
21.Pautasso, M (2013) Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology 9:e1003149.
22.Vetter, D, Rücker, G, Storch, I (2013) Meta-analysis: a need for well-defined usage in ecology and conservation biology. Ecosphere 4:124.
23.Laurance, WF, Useche, DC, Rendeiro, J, et al. (2012) Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489:290–4.
24.Atlas Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, Aad G, et al. (2015) Combined measurement of the Higgs Boson mass in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Physical Review Letters 114:191803.
25.Ball, P (2016) The mathematics of science's broken reward system. Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20987.
26.Ware, M, Mabe, M (2015) The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands).
27.Jinha, AE (2010) Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258–63.
28.Landhuis, E (2016) Scientific literature: information overload. Nature 535:457–8.
29.Pyke, GH (2013) Struggling scientists: cite our papers! Current Science 105:1061–6.
30.Pyke, GH (2014) Achieving research excellence and citation success: what's the point and how do you do it? BioScience 64:90–1.
31.PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor game. PLoS Medicine 3:e291.
32.Seglen, PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314:497.
33.Jacsó, P (2008) The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Web of Science. Online Information Review 32:673–88.
34.Ramírez, A, García, E, Del Río, J (2000) Renormalized Impact Factor. Scientometrics 47:39.
35.Althouse, BM, West, JD, Bergstrom, CT, Bergstrom, T (2009) Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:2734.
36.Neff, BD, Olden, JD (2010) Not so fast: inflation in Impact Factors contributes to apparent improvements in journal quality. BioScience 60:455–9.
37.Bergstrom, CT, West, JD, Wiseman, MA (2008) The Eigenfactor™ Metrics. The Journal of Neuroscience 28:11433–4.
38.Moed, HF (2010) Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics 4:265–77.
39.González-Pereira, B, Guerrero-Bote, VP, Moya-Anegón, F (2010) A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR indicator. Journal of Informetrics 4:379–91.
40.Guerrero-Bote, VP, Moya-Anegón, F (2012) A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics 6:674–88.
41.Hirsch, JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 102:16569–72.
42.Braun, T, Glänzel, W, Schubert, A (2006) A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics 69:169–73.
43.Delgado-López-Cózar, E, Cabezas-Clavijo, Á (2013) Ranking journals: could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank? Learned Publishing 26:101–13.
44.Falagas, ME, Kouranos, VD, Arencibia-Jorge, R, Karageorgopoulos, DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal 22:2623–8.
45.Jacsó, P (2008) The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review 32:437–52.
46.Jacsó, P (2008) The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus. Online Information Review 32:524–35.
47.Aksnes, DW, Sivertsen, G (2004) The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics 59:213–24.
48.Aksnes, DW (2003) Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation 12:159–70.
49.Sumner, P, Vivian-Griffiths, P, Boivin, J, et al. (2016) Exaggerations and caveats in press releases and health-related science news. PLoS One 11:e0168217.
50.Osterloh, M, Kieser, A (2015) Double-blind peer review: how to slaughter a sacred cow. Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations, eds Welpe, MI, Wollersheim, J, Ringelhan, S, and Osterloh, M (Springer International Publishing, Cham), pp 307–21.
51.Faggion, Jr , CM (2016) Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer. British Dental Journal 220:167–8.
52.Didham, RK, Leather, SR, Basset, Y (2017) Don't be a zero-sum reviewer. Insect Conservation and Diversity 10:104.
53.Schmitt, J (2015) Can't disrupt this: Elsevier and the 25.2 billion dollar a year academic publishing business.–2-billion-dollar-a-year-academic-publishing-business-aa3b9618d40a#.kbdywg8ns (accessed 17 October 2017).
54.Relx Group (2016) Annual Reports and Financial Statements 2015. (, London, United Kingdom) (accessed 17 October 2017).
55.Larivière, V, Haustein, S, Mongeon, P (2015) The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One 10:e0127502.
56.John Wiley and Sons Inc. (2016) John Wiley and Sons, Inc. and Subsidiaries Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended April 30, 2016. (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA) (accessed 17 October 2017).
57.Springer (2013) Springer Science+Business Media. General Overview and Financial Performance 2012. (Springer, Berlin, Germany) (accessed 17 October 2017).
58.Sage (2016) Sage Group plc Preliminary Results for the year ending 30 September 2015. (Sage, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (accessed 17 October 2017).
59.Holcombe, A (2015) Scholarly publisher profit update. Alex Holcombe's Blog. (accessed 17 October 2017). Vries, J (2012) Thousands of scientists vow to boycott Elsevier to protest journal prices. ScienceInsider (accessed 17 October 2017).
61.Van Noorden, R (2014) The scientists who get credit for peer review. Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2014.16102.
62.Wilkinson, MD, Dumontier, M, Aalbersberg, IJ, et al. (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3:160018.
63.Hollowell, J, Nicholas, G (2008) Intellectual property issues in archaeological publication: some questions to consider. Archaeologies 4:208–17.
64.Lindenmayer, D, Scheele, B (2017) Do not publish. Science 356:800.
65.Teferra, D, Altbachl, PG (2004) African higher education: challenges for the 21st century. Higher Education 47:21.
66.Bhandari, R, Blumenthal, P eds (2011) International Students and Global Mobility in Higher Education: National Trends and New Directions. (Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY).
67.Slippers, B, Vogel, C, Fioramonti, L (2015) Global trends and opportunities for development of African research universities. South African Journal of Science 111:a0093.
68.Altbach, PG (2013) Brain drain or brain exchange? International Higher Education 72:24.
69.Grace, OM (2017) Crowdfunding your science. Nature Ecology and Evolution Community (accessed 17 October 2017).
70.Fitzpatrick, SM, Bruer, JT (1997) Science funding and private philanthropy. Science 277:621.
71.Weingart, P, Guenther, L (2016) Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication 15:111.
72.Cook, I, Grange, S, Eyre-Walker, A (2015) Research groups: how big should they be? PeerJ 3:e989.
73.Conti, A, Liu, CC (2015) Bringing the lab back in: personnel composition and scientific output at the MIT Department of Biology. Research Policy 44:1633–44.
74.Zakaib, GD (2011) Science gender gap probed. Nature 470:153.
75.Ceci, SJ, Williams, WM (2011) Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108:3157–62.
76.Helmer, M, Schottdorf, M, Neef, A, Battaglia, D (2017) Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife 6:e21718.
77.Knobloch-Westerwick, S, Glynn, CJ, Huge, M (2013) The Matilda Effect in science communication. Science Communication 35:603–25.
78.Moss-Racusin, CA, Dovidio, JF, Brescoll, VL, Graham, MJ, Handelsman, J (2012) Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109:16474–9.
79.Aldercotte, A, Guyan, K, Lawson, J, Neave, S, Altorjai, S (2017) ASSET 2016: experiences of gender equality in STEMM academia and their intersections with ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and age. (Equality Challenge Unit, London, United Kingdom).
80.Grunspan, DZ, Eddy, SL, Brownell, SE, Wiggins, BL, Crowe, AJ, Goodreau, SM (2016) Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLoS One 11:e0148405.
81.Kimmel, MS (2009) Gender equality: not for women only. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work: A Research Companion, ed Èzbilgin, MF (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, United Kingdom), pp 359–71.
82.Holter, ØG (2013) Masculinities, gender equality and violence. Masculinities and Social Change 2:5181.
83.Miller, T, del Carmen Triana, M (2009) Demographic diversity in the boardroom: mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies 46:755–86.
84.McGuire, KL, Primack, RB, Losos, EC (2012) Dramatic improvements and persistent challenges for women ecologists. BioScience 62:189–96.
85.O'Brien, KR, Hapgood, KP (2012) The academic jungle: ecosystem modelling reveals why women are driven out of research. Oikos 121:9991004.
86.Mayer, AL, Tikka, PM (2008) Family-friendly policies and gender bias in academia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30:363–74.
87.Martin, JL (2014) Ten simple rules to achieve conference speaker gender balance. PLoS Computational Biology 10:e1003903.
88.Favaro, B, Oester, S, Cigliano, JA, et al. (2016) Your science conference should have a code of conduct. Frontiers in Marine Science 3:103.
89.Davis, KS (1999) Why science? women scientists and their pathways along the road less traveled. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 5:129–53.
90.Handelsman, J, Cantor, N, Carnes, M, et al. (2005) More women in science. Science 309:1190.
91.Benderly, B (2011) A Nobel Laureate's advice to women scientists. Science Magazine Blog. (accessed 17 October 2017).
92.Folkins, CH, Sime, WE (1981) Physical fitness training and mental health. American Psychologist 36:373–89.
93.Hillman, CH, Erickson, KI, Kramer, AF (2008) Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9:5865.
94.Deslandes, A, Moraes, H, Ferreira, C, et al. (2009) Exercise and mental health: many reasons to move. Neuropsychobiology 59:191–8.
95.Kramer, AF, Erickson, KI (2007) Capitalizing on cortical plasticity: influence of physical activity on cognition and brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:342–8.
96.Brisswalter, J, Collardeau, M, René, A (2002) Effects of acute physical exercise characteristics on cognitive performance. Sports Medicine 32:555–66.
97.Kashihara, K, Maruyama, T, Murota, M, Nakahara, Y (2009) Positive effects of acute and moderate physical exercise on cognitive function. Journal of Physiological Anthropology 28:155–64.
98.Hillman, CH, Motl, RW, Pontifex, MB, et al. (2006) Physical activity and cognitive function in a cross-section of younger and older community-dwelling individuals. Health Psychology 25:678–87.
99.Penedo, FJ, Dahn, JR (2005) Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 18:189–93.
100.Fontaine, KR (2000) Physical activity improves mental health. The Physician and Sportsmedicine 28:83–4.
101.Saxena, S, Van Ommeren, M, Tang, KC, Armstrong, TP (2005) Mental health benefits of physical activity. Journal of Mental Health 14:445–51.
102.Callaghan, P (2004) Exercise: a neglected intervention in mental health care? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 11:476–83.
103.Weyerer, S, Kupfer, B (1994) Physical exercise and psychological health. Sports Medicine 17:108–16.
104.Dudo, A, Besley, JC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One 11:e0148867.
105.Anonymous (2010) Closing the Climategate. Nature 468:345.
106.Eysenbach, G (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13:e123.
107.Shuai, X, Pepe, A, Bollen, J (2012) How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS One 7:e47523.
108.Priem, J, Costello, KL (2010) How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47:14.
109.Thelwall, M, Haustein, S, Larivière, V, Sugimoto, CR (2013) Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One 8:e64841.
110.Bradshaw, CJA, Ehrlich, PR (2015) Killing the Koala and Poisoning the Prairie: Australia, America, and the Environment. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
111.Linden, B (2008) Basic blue skies research in the UK: are we losing out? Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration 3:3.
112.House of Lords (2010) Setting priorities for publicly funded research. Volume II: Evidence. (United Kingdom House of Lords, The Stationery Office Limited, London, United Kingdom).
113.Bhattacharya, A (2012) Science funding: duel to the death. Nature News 488:20–2.
114.Bradshaw, CJA, Brook, BW (2014) Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111:16610–15.
115.Martínez, DM, Ebenhack, BW (2008) Understanding the role of energy consumption in human development through the use of saturation phenomena. Energy Policy 36:1430–5.
116.Heard, BP, Brook, BW, Wigley, TML, Bradshaw, CJA (2017) Burden of proof: a comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76:1122–33.
117.WWF (2016) Living Planet Report 2016. (WWF, Gland, Switzerland) (accessed 17 October 2017).
118.Pimm, SL, et al. (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752.
119.Cribb, J (2014) Poisoned Planet. (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, New South Wales, Australia).
120.IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC WGII AR5 Technical Summary. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland).
121.Lehmann, E (2012) Conservatives lose faith in science over last 40 years. Scientific American (accessed 17 October 2017).
122.Dierkes, M, von Grote, C eds (2000) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. (Routledge, London, United Kingdom).
123.Master, Z, Resnik, DB (2013) Hype and public trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 19:321–35.
124.Oliver, JE, Rahn, WM (2016) Rise of the Trumpenvolk. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667:189206.
125.Lamberts, R, Grant, WJ (2011) The government's war on science: deliberate attack, or abuse by neglect? The Conversation (accessed 17 October 2017).
126.Mervis, J (2016) Senator's attack on ‘cheerleading’ study obscures government's role in training scientists. ScienceInsider doi:10.1126/science.aaf9993.
127.Cairney, P, Oliver, K (2016) If scientists want to influence policymaking, they need to understand it. The Guardian (accessed 17 October 2017).
128.Shanley, P, López, C (2009) Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41:535–44.
129.Gibbons, P, Zammit, C, Youngentob, K, et al. (2008) Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource management. Ecological Management and Restoration 9:182–6.
130.Garvin, T (2001) Analytical paradigms: the epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Risk Analysis 21:443–56.
131.van den Hove, S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39:807–26.
132.Choi, BCK, Pang, T, Lin, V, et al. (2005) Can scientists and policy makers work together? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59:632.
133.Science and Technology Australia (2017) Open Letter for Science. (Science and Technology Australia) (accessed 17 October 2017).
134.Caldeira, K, Emanuel, K, Hansen, J, Wigley, T (2013) Top climate change scientists’ letter to policy influencers. CNN (accessed 17 October 2017).
135.Bryner, J (2013) NASA climate scientist arrested in pipeline protest. Live Science (accessed 17 October 2017).
136.Maynard-Casely, H (2017) Inspiring to speak out – two physicists who changed the world. The Conversation (accessed 17 October 2017).
137.Frid, A (2012) Conservation value of paddy wagon currency: civil disobedience by scientists. Conservation Bytes (accessed 17 October 2017).


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.