JRD, or the Journal Of Reza's Desk, does not have the impact factor of JACS or the readership of Nature. OK, so it is not even a real journal. It is a running joke in Dr. Reza Ghadiri's lab, and to some extent around Scripps as well. At least it was while I was there. I have no idea who came up with it originally and when. But as a Ghadiri lab member, I did come to appreciate the humor.
Here is how you can get your paper "published" in the Journal of Reza's Desk:
- Join the Ghadiri lab as a postdoc or a graduate student;
- Work on a project for a year or two, get results;
- Write up a scientific paper;
- Wait for Reza to send it out to a scientific journal for review and publication.
You will not be notified if or when your paper is accepted into JRD. But, if a year or more have passed, and Dr. Ghadiri still has not submitted your manuscript where you thought it was supposed to go (a real journal, like JACS or Biochemistry)... Congratulations, you have a paper in JRD!
It does not happen every time. For example, your research might have the coolness factor high enough for Science or Nature. In this case Reza should be quite keen on sending your paper out. Like many scientists, he appears to be very fond of seeing his name in either of those two journals. A paper in Science or Nature is like a tiny Nobel Prize as far as scientific prestige goes.
Personally, I have two JRD papers. One communication, one full, both originally intended for JACS. Professor Ghadiri gave me the green light and I wrote them up in late 2005. We went through the usual editing process together. The papers traveled back and forth between my desk and Reza's for a month or two. That was it. Reza's desk is where those papers are to this day.
At first I was not worried. Up to that point Dr. Ghadiri seemed very excited about getting my papers published. He certainly did a good job of encouraging me to complete the work as soon as possible and keeping me excited about it. Among the incentives he pointed out were: 1) a positive effect on my career: "We need to get your name out there, Andrei," he would say to me, 2) preparing a stronger grant renewal application, 3) making a valuable contribution to science, and 4) being able to move forward to other important projects. All of which sounded very reasonable to me.
Time passed. Reza kept reassuring me that he would get back to my papers as soon as he had time. I did not care to doubt his words or nag. The subject came up once in a while, so I knew he remembered. More time went by. Whatever other publishable results I had, I now hesitated to write up. Preparing manuscripts for publication began to feel like a waste of time. Besides, I could always do it later. Reza did not insist. Summer of 2008 was the last time we had a one-on-one meeting. "Why have you not published the papers?" I asked. "I've been busy," said Dr. M. Reza Ghadiri. Well, in the words of SNL's Seth Meyers: Really?!
It had been 2,5 years then, it has been over 4 years now. How busy can a man be?
Dr. Reza Ghadiri's publication history is openly accessible, of course. Authoratory.com has this summary, for example. When I joined the group in August 2003, the two laboratories were crowded with researchers. 15, possibly 18 working scientists. When I left in April 2009 there were more like 8 people there. Take 10 for a conservative average, and do the math. Correct me if I am wrong, about 0.5 publications per person per year on average? Not too low, but not that high either.
Will my work in the Ghadiri lab ever see the light of day? Maybe, maybe not. This is not the point. The bigger question still stands. WHY? Why would anyone choose to delay announcing the results of his and his own laboratory's research to the rest of the world? After all, this is how science is meant to advance. Otherwise the wheel gets reinvented and resources go down the drain. Why run the risk of getting scooped? Whatever happened to publish or perish?
Before you think Dr. Ghadiri is a bit on the loony side, let me assure you, he is not. Far from it. He is a successful scientist, and a very rational man. So why then? I can offer a perfectly sane explanation. Read Journal of Reza's Desk, part II.
comments for this post
I've been a student of science for over 10 years. Most of that time I worked in academic research labs. The last and the longest time – in the laboratory of Dr. 
I was a Chemistry PhD student myself for 13 years working under 4 advisors at 5 institutions of higher education with an additional intervening 4 year stint as an RA at a 6th university. I finally got my degree. In my many past lives I happened to cross paths with Dr. G. and now recently find his work converging on my present field. Perhaps you did some of the work!
Keep it up and I'll be back.
Let me preface my post by saying that I am no big fan of Prof. G. (and I have some very good reasons for this).
However, from your story it is absolutely clear that your failure in TSRI graduate program, and your failure to publish cannot be completely blamed on Reza. Let me treat you to a list of bullets.
* Your post seems to imply Reza cost you two JACS papers. I have a few of those myself, and I frequently serve as a reviewer. I can tell you authoritatively that it is not a given that your papers would have been accepted. It very well might be that Reza did not see the work as particularly publishable, or was waiting for some better results to add to it. Since, as you have said, you are not going to be pursuing your scientific career any further, you could just post the PDFs of your work right here, and let us see what it is all about.
*You say that you "...did not care to doubt his words and nag...". Well, perhaps you should have. You do not live in a vacuum, and you surely have observed what the other members of the group did when they wanted to get their work out. I do not even want to talk about the other support resources available to you (for instance, Prof. Williamson and Prof. Kelly, or the three members of your committee).
*Speaking of support resources... How about changing advisors instead of going for the thermonuclear option? I know people quit Reza's lab before. I know people quit Phil Baran's lab. It happens all the time.
Finally, I can assure you that there are PIs out there that will make Reza look like a six-winged Seraphim (complete with a golden halo). I can easily provide you with some examples from your field (chemistry).
Ever heard of Linda Hsieh-Wilson (Clatech)? Well, this rising star PI used to yell and break glassware (on purpose) when her students were not producing the desired/expected results. Eventually many of the group members left.
What about Bartosz Grzybowski (Northwestern)? This guy bestows special favors on group members who go out to smoke with him. At least one student started smoking while in his group to be in a more privileged position. Grzybowski yells at his students and postdocs at every single group meeting (especially when he has already written up a paper, but the recent experimental result is unexpected/"wrong"). Results are regularly photoshopped, "creatively presented", or adjusted. Two of his best students were denied the opportunity to defend their theses until they went to complain to the powers that be (eventually, Grzybowski physically attacked the mediating professor).
How about Homme Hellinga (Duke)? Even though the students/postdocs warned him the results were suspect, he really pushed to publish. A well-known Sceince paper retraction scandal resulted. It did not do much to his own career (he has tenure, after all, and was formally cleared of misconduct), but the other people on the infamous paper were not so lucky.
For all his failings, Reza cannot compare to these guys (and gals). Also, he is actually a good chemist.
Linda may have had her moments, but she never broke any glassware on purpose.
I know I did not explain everything, and I'm not your typical "disgruntled student" (mostly because I'm not even disgruntled). But seriously, jumping to conclusions is hardly in the spirit of the scientific method, is it? I kind of ran a little experiment here to see if anyone would actually catch on or just plain ask. It worked. And by that I mean it didn't, lol. But it's what I expected. Leaving science ≡ failure, regrets, misery and disgruntlement. Right? Anyway...
1) You do realize that even though I don't have the diploma, I did my time in the system, right? Why are you "authoritatively" telling me things that most undergrads know by their third year? I got into Scripps, could I really be that dense?
2) JACS or not JACS is beside the point. In any case, it's Reza's words, not mine. And of course he didn't "cost me". I'm not in science any more, remember? Cause and effect issue here, because if I truly wanted to stay in science, I'd actually make sure my work got published at some point.
3) I've always been satisfied with my choice of Dr. Ghadiri for my PhD advisor. I had heard about the JRD phenomenon before I joined the lab. It is not why I left. Even if I published 20 papers, all in all, it would still be a good idea for me to quit. When I say "I did not nag because I did not care to", that's exactly what I mean. I'd say it's much better to figure out what you really care about and go for that, instead of trying to force yourself to care about arbitrary stuff.
4) Yah, I knew of plenty of PI's I thought were umm... "worse" than Reza. It's kind of like part of the reason why I didn't run around joining their labs, you know?
Hahaha...
"I do not even want to talk about the other support resources available to you (for instance, Prof. Williamson and Prof. Kelly)"
Well, there was this one time when I went to professor williamson about a blatantly unfair grade in a class that he organized. He said that he couldn't do anything about it, because a different professor (Ian Wilson) was *actually* calling the shots. Despite the fact that I was a chemistry student in a biology class (and so 'figuring the things out' was not as easy for me) - and the fact that Williamson was the chemistry dean, and I'd say that part of his job description was to stand up for chemistry students. In the end, he said, "don't worry, grades don't matter" (or something to that effect), which is a running mantra at TSRI. I wouldn't mind that, except for the fact that it's NOT true. I mentioned to him "what about [extramural] fellowships". I don't remember what his answer was, but the look on his face was something that told me that these guys caring for you is a bunch of bluster. The institute can have 20% of its kids kick ass, and make a name for it, and that's all they need to care about. The other 80% can go figure out how to do things themselves.
Williamson is a great guy. He's the type of guy that I'd like to have a beer with, enjoy chatting with at a grad school function, or probably even have as a boss. But in his function a dean of chemistry students (with, btw, no chemistry students in his own lab), I feel like he was spineless. Of course, he was rewarded by getting promoted to full dean of students.
I have a lot more respect for Jeff Kelly, but of course, the administration overworked him (he headed his own lab, was dean of students, was vice president of scientific affairs).... And despite being MY BOSS, he delegated me to Williamson. I don't blame him, but it was a situation that never should have happened.
Of course Andrei could have 'figured things out'. It's often said that ignorance is no excuse. I subscribe to that theory. But what is going on here is not an ignorance of the rules, rather the people in charge tell you one thing, or sell you on one myth, and then put you through an elaborate lie. That sort of a system rewards liars and cheaters. So the person who is a good student, who takes advice seriously, and tries to work in the system gets fucked. That is not the sort of society I want to be selecting for.
Well, I pretty much knew what I was getting myself into. Reza really only got me once, when he was all "oh, finish this manuscript ASAP, we have to publish right away". I fell for it and worked harder than I felt like working for a week or so. No, my real issue was trying to figure out whether I wanted to have a career in science at all (or, the way I thought about it at first, what the lesser of two "evils" was: academia or industry). And if not, what I would do. Everything else was secondary. I joined the Ghadiri lab for two reasons: 1) I liked the science, 2) I knew Reza wasn't a slave driver (which I'd had experience dealing with before and didn't exactly enjoy). In fact, he's always been a likeable guy, problems aside. Those things didn't change, so I never wanted to switch labs.
As it was, the status quo with my JRD papers also provided me with some counter-leverage in case Ghadiri wanted to pressure me. If I didn't want to talk to him about how research was going and listen to his pep talk, I just didn't go into his office. Sometimes for months. And he wouldn't bring the topic up either -- possibly because he knew I could bring up the papers in response. There's only been a couple dozen group meetings in the entire time, none in the last 3 years or so. I had free rein a lot of the time, which was what I wanted in the first place. All in all, having the papers out would have been pretty nice, but not really mission critical.
Keep it coming Andrei! We need someone with the balls to shine a light on how badly slaves....errr, I mean chemistry grad students are treat.
Hi Andrei,
It is terrible that you ended up leaving without a degree in hand. But perhaps this blog might be a useful place to explore the issue in general; it could bring about some good discussion that may be useful to many people in grad school and who are facing similar circumstances.
Many of the points you allude to are valid and describe a common experience. I think you brought up an important point, and that is that your previous adviser was quite likely acting rationally (I am considering the economic sense of the word). Let's see if we can explore this argument further, generalizing to anyone in the position of your previous adviser.
The crux of the argument that I will put forth centers on the fact that there is no demand or utility for the knowledge and skills that are generated in places like the lab you were a part of. Without demand, the PI cannot practice 'chemical biology' (or whatever it is being called) towards increasing his wealth. This was perhaps not always true years ago, as many drugs/foodstuffs and dyes were discovered by very small teams of people who were able to profit in a milieu of a regulatory authority with far less capability and capability of enforcement, than today.
Without demand, there is no motivation for a PI to be productive. An optimal solution maximizing the wealth of the PI may very well be to hire labor (at extremely favorable rates, subsidized by taxpayers), publish the minimal amount of work (requiring the minimal amount of effort and risk on the side of the PI), and continue turning over the lab as people realize the need to seek higher returns for their work.
The PI gains nothing by advocating for the advancement of most of his students, as replacements will require more attention and would threaten to bring the publication rate below the critical level to maintain standing. It would be more rational to only advance students who have earned selective honors, so that the barrier for escape is higher, even if the work performed is near the mean quality (after all how can quality of work be measured when there is no utility). The lack of demand comes into play again, as there is no reward or satisfaction in training "The World Greatest Postdoc". Additionally the PI risks devaluing his own credit rating in advocating for a student who winds up being anything less than "stellar".
You also describe the seemingly paradoxical verbal encouragement to quickly finish writing papers, and the lag-times measured in years to actually publish them. Again, there is a case that the PI is merely being rational. It costs very little to browbeat a student to work hard, anything that is written can be hoarded in case there is some unforeseen utility. The PI only incurs cost by publishing all of his results (recall that most papers are published simply to justify grant money, very very few papers actually have an observable economic impact or truly contribute to our fundamental understanding of the world).
Without the utility for the products of a chemical biology lab, there is no demand and PIs are forced into the practices that you describe, in order to maximize their wealth. The number of failed biotech startups, inflated promises and low salaries in the field is consistent with this view. There are of course frictions we have not explored here (e.g. students who are not optimal workers or indirectly contribute or take from the wealth of the PI), perhaps though the behavior you describe is entirely consistent with a rational person.
Good luck and we hope to hear more thoughts from you.