Ana C Hernandez

[Ana C Hernandez @AnaCHdez_]

Some great advice for people being mentored in general.
Happy I had a supervisor that helped me get the most of the PhD experience

[Hugh Kearns @ithinkwellHugh]

Starting a #PhD? You need to read this article about: The care and maintenance of your adviser/supervisor. Download the Nature article on this topic here. https://t.co/xFnzQWEt5p #PhDchat #PhDforum #postgrad #academicchatter

[Elisabeth Bik @MicrobiomDigest]

Revealed: the millions of dollars in time wasted making papers fit journal guidelines

The high cost of ‘reformatting’ prompts a call for journals to change their requirements.

https://t.co/32mQwPmaLI

[Marc Bonten @MarcBonten]

After a week with @Ecraid @RECOVER_EUROPE and @EMA_News meetings on pandemic preparedness of clinical trials, great to see how the perpetual observational trial of complicated urinary tract infections is speeding up enrolments: 546 with a rate of 160 in the last 31 days!

[Andrew Akbashev @Andrew_Akbashev]

Rejection of your paper or grant has NO relevance to the opinion of #research community. It is nothing but the opinion of one person.

Several examples:

1. The first paper on graphene was rejected from Nature because “it did not constitute a sufficient scientific advance”. Later, it was awarded a Nobel prize.

2. The first manuscript showing the microbiome-brain connection was published after 7 submissions that took 3 years. Today, this field has exploded. I expect it will get a Nobel prize in the future.

3. Theodore Maiman tried to publish a paper describing the first operating laser in Physical Review Letters and… got a rejection!

4. Peter Ratcliffe, who worked on cells’ response to changes in oxygen levels, got his key paper rejected from Nature (see photo). Later, he was awarded a Nobel Prize for this work.

And there are many other examples…
.

And yet I see so many young scientists stressing about rejections. For some reason, they seem to genuinely expect that the editors should know which study is truly worth it.

As a result, many rejections are met with surprise and disbelief: 
“How could they reject it? They publish so much trash, and yet they think our detailed 3-year-long study is not interesting to the community! WHY?”
.

Well, the reality is:

- Most editors have very little time to delve into your study. They can easily FAIL to recognize the potential impact of your study. Proper communication in the cover letter and clear writing style can help (although only to a limited degree).

- Many reviewers have little idea about the science in your paper. But they can have a big ego. So, if they have a bad day or were rejected recently, it’s easy for them to find 1000 technical reasons to reject your paper as well.

- Most scientists genuinely don’t know if your discovery can make any impact. If we could predict the course of science, we would be living very differently!

My message is simple:

Forget about objectivity. Academia is a very subjective world. Fight for objectivity but don’t take it for granted.

A great study will be found, cited and recognized. Disregard of where it’s published.

A bad study requires a high-impact journal to be found and cited. But the long-time recognition might be a problem.

High-IF journals are simply billboards. Their rejections do NOT represent the opinion of a scientific community.

You can get rejected but don’t reject yourself!
Believe in your results.

#AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter

[France Culture @franceculture]

Il y a 40 ans, le monde découvrait avec effroi le virus du sida. Pourtant, ses origines remontent bien plus loin, à l'Afrique colonisée du début du XXe siècle.

[Marc Shamier @marcshamier]

Today I spoke with RTL nieuws about the Qdenga vaccine that helps protect against Dengue disease. This vaccine is now available in the Netherlands.

[Ana C Hernandez @AnaCHdez_]

Not everyday you get to meet someone that discovers a new bacteria…
Come to hear the full story!
@SylvainMeyer87 #ECCMID2023

[Marie Ploy @marie_ploy]

⁦@SylvainMeyer87⁩ from # RESINFIT unit ⁦@Inserm⁩ @unilim ⁦@CHULimoges⁩ is presenting his PhD work about #NGS #Pseudomonas in #VAP at #ECCMID IN Copenhagen 👏👏👏

[Jan De Waele MD @criticcaredoc]

Discussing #AntimicrobialStewardship at a #ISICEM2023 roundtable - AMS should be focused on responsible antimicrobial use and embedded in every ICU, with intensivists closely involved

With
@Lennie333 @DarkNatter @MayaHites and JoseArturPaiva

[Ana C Hernandez @AnaCHdez_]

I’m glad to have finished these 3 years of thesis at the #RESINFIT @unilim @Inserm under the direction of @marie_ploy, and with collaboration of @CHULimoges.
What a joyful adventure in science!

[Marc Bonten @MarcBonten]

Great achievement. Study aimed to train ICUs in eastern and southern Europe for high-quality trials in patients at risk for developing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. @IHIEurope @Ecraid

[Ana C Hernandez @AnaCHdez_]

Research is safe in the hands of motivated #YoungScientists and there’s space for all of them at the @Ecraid network.
@ECCMID

[Ana C Hernandez @AnaCHdez_]

Exciting to imagine this applied soon to improve RCTs! @Ecraid @ECCMID

[Marie Ploy @marie_ploy]

⁦@AnaCHdez_⁩ at ⁦⁦@ECCMID⁩ for her PhD’s work. How granulocytes in #sepsis induce the bacterial SOS response. ⁦@unilim⁩ ⁦@Inserm⁩ ⁦@CHULimoges⁩

[Ana C Hernandez @AnaCHdez_]

Inspiring Excellence Award lecture this morning @ECCMID
Honored to be part of @Ecraid