Write a comment

Student engagement in authentic research and publication at PUIs is difficult because lab courses are often not inquiry-driven, and publishing can be a lengthy process.  Furthermore, students' sense of their science identity is important as it relates to retention, motivation, and post-graduate employment in the sciences. This study addresses the need for students’ science identity development within post-secondary education by using micropublications embedded in a CURE or PIRL. Micropublications allow early career researchers to publish their short-term/small-scale research within a reasonable timeframe. The research team sought to examine students' science identity development through participation in authentic research experiences and publication of their findings. This study presents interview data from undergraduate and graduate students (n=8) who participated in the CURE-to-PIRL model. The researchers claim that through engagement in research and publication, students were able to develop their science identity and competencies associated with the scientific process. 

The reviewers see the potential of the CURE-to-PIRL model expanding on science identity development. We are also enthusiastic to see student engagement in science communication through scholarly publishing – a necessary, yet rarely taught skill. However, we propose the following critiques be addressed before submitting this manuscript for publication. 

Major issues

• The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors clearly identified the theoretical framework guiding their study in a standalone section within the Introduction. 

• There are several key details of the CURE-to-PIRL intervention description and analysis that are missing. Some of these are outlined here: 

  Which lab courses were the CURE’s conducted in?  

  How did the students get involved in the PIRL after the lab course?   

  Did the instructor make it clear to the CURE students that these labs have the potential to be published? 

  Are students in the CUREs only collecting data and not participating in writing the manuscript?   

  CURE data were sent to PIRLs to be validated. Was this done within the span of the semester of the CURE? 

  Does Table 1 represent two separate publications (1 out of the CURE, 1 out of the PIRL)? 

  It should be made clear that all students who were interviewed were in a PIRL. This is mentioned in the discussion but should be put in the methods. 

  Why was self-determination theory used as a lens for analysis? If this was guiding the study and development of research questions, it should be elaborated on in the introduction.  

  What was the consistency among coders (IRR)? 

  Which participant quotes were undergraduates versus graduates?  

  Which participant quotes were from students who participated in the CUREs, PIRLs, or both? 

  We recommend mentioning “...CURE students did not always see the final paper.” in the methods. 

• The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would address the following limitations/concerns of their model and methods: 

  Do you foresee any impact on the CURE students' science identity from their data being sent off and validated by other, supposedly more-senior scientists? 

  Our interpretation of Figure 1 is that this intervention really only helps the few students who joined the PIRL, since these students are the ones who validate the data and write the manuscript. Could the authors provide clarity on the direct benefits that the CURE students received? 

  All interview participants were white and there were no other measures of underrepresentation provided. Please clarify how this study supports the issue of underrepresentation. 

  The participant pool was not very informative of the problem being addressed, which seems to mainly affect undergraduate students. 

  Master’s students likely already have a developed science identity since they’re pursuing graduate study and are completing multi-year programs in a research lab. How is this considered within the data analysis? 

  We believe that there are not enough different data types to get a deep look into this particular case. The interviews are important but other observations would also be necessary for a true case study. 

  In the participants section, including information for students whose data is not reported can be misleading. We suggest moving this to the discussion and future directions. 

• The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would address the following limitations/concerns of their data analysis and interpretation: 

  The original argument for the intervention was to see its effect on students’ science identity development, not student motivation. This should either be addressed or removed to avoid confusion. -page 10, paragraph 1 

  What supported the students' improved understanding of the content/literature? Were there required readings for the publication? 

  The argument is placed within the context of PUIs, but the majority of the participants were graduate students. Do you foresee these students also lacking “authentic science” experiences? 

  The findings are not clearly connected to science identity. They are categorized as growth in skills that could contribute to science identity, but it is unclear if there was an actual connection between these growing skills/competencies and the individual’s sense of their science identity. 

  Are there any quotes that talk directly of feeling like a scientist/having that identity? To improve on this study, we recommend including interview questions like the following: “Do you fit in with the broader scientific community? Why or why not?” 

  There is not much presented evidence in the quotes on the impact of the micropublication itself or how the CURE-to-PIRL model contributed. It is rather just observations of their experiences.  

  It is unclear what is a result of engagement in the research experience versus engagement in the publication process. 

  Is the publication necessary for striving for replicability? -page 11, last paragraph  

  It is unclear how this study provides a replicable sample. -page 15, first paragraph of discussion 

  It is unclear how this study “strongly suggests that participating in a large-scale, multi-year project is not necessary to realize desirable psychosocial benefits for early-career scientists” since all the participants were engaged in research for at least two years. -page 16, first full paragraph 

Minor issues

• Overall 

  It appears that the sections were written by different authors. This paper would be much improved if there was a single voice throughout the paper. 

• Title 

  The reviewers do not see a clear connection between the intervention and science identity development. Rather, the data suggests that students strengthened their disciplinary literacy. For this reason, we recommend reframing the title of the manuscript. 

• Introduction 

  The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors provided more context for the use of Talent Development (conceptual framework) within higher education, as it isn’t common in science education literature. -page 2, paragraph 1 

  Please provide a citation for the Olszewkei-Kubilius et al., 2018 paper in the References section. -page 2, paragraph 1 

  The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would provide more context or examples of “domain-specific abilities”. We are unsure if this is a term specific to the conceptual framework or is synonymous with “discipline-specific abilities.” -page 2, paragraph 1 

  The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors provided a clear definition of “authentic” research experiences. -page 2, paragraph 1 

  The reviewers recommend providing more than 1 example or citation for each use of “many” or “multiple”. This occurs in the following sentences: 

  “...many advanced curriculum models.” The reviewers suggest the authors consider the Communities of Practice framework (Lave and Wenger), and the See One, Do One, Teach One framework (Halsted). -page 2, paragraph 1 

  “...multiple entry points.” -page 2, paragraph 3 

  “...developed using multiple methods.” -page 6, paragraph 1 

  The reviewers recommend rewording the final sentence on page 2, paragraph 1 as it reads that faculty are undergoing talent development rather than the students. 

  The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would clarify whether usage of the word “lab” referred to participation in a PI research lab (often >1 semester) or a course-based lab (often 1 semester). -page 3, first full paragraph 

  The reviewers recognize the significance of timely publications at PUIs. We believe this argument would be substantiated by referencing that this is more common at larger universities/R1s (see work by Katelyn Cooper and her CURE students). -page 3, first full paragraph 

  We also recommend citing this work when stating that CURE data is typically a small part of a larger project, as there are many publications that have resulted from a single-semester CURE. -page 5, first paragraph 

  The reviewers recommend that the authors provide a citation for the claim that publications after already having left a lab and in the “next career phase” primarily benefits PIs and does not contribute to science identity.  –page 3, first full paragraph; page 5, paragraph 2 

  The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors could provide more context on how quickly microPublications is able to conduct their peer reviews and final decision making, as the ability to publish while still involved in a lab is dependent on the turnaround time of the journal. -page 3, third full paragraph 

  The reviewers recommend that the authors provide a citation for the drawbacks and benefits of CUREs versus PIRLs. -page 5, paragraph 3 

  Contributions to the scientific community can occur outside of authentic research experiences and publishing. The reviewers recommend including other examples outside of these contexts (e.g., community science, peer-reviewing, informal/formal science communication). -page 6, paragraph 1 

  The reviewers recommend specifying that scientific publishing is “a mystery” for many early career scientists but not all. We also recommend that the authors provide a citation to support this claim. -page 6, paragraph 2 

  The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would clarify their statement on complaints of second drafts. As it stands, this comment seems subjective, and we recommend removing it unless the authors can provide supporting literature that speaks more broadly to perceptions of student revisions. -page 6, paragraph 2 

• Discussion 

  The authors point to future research on literacy (competencies), identity, and belonging (community). The reviewers suggest citing work by Gary McDowell and Rebeccah Lijek, as they have examined the interaction between these components –also within a scientific publishing model at a PUI.  

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.