‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development?

‘What seems to be missing is actual... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717" }, "headline": "‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused...", "datePublished": "2024-07-01T14:42:00", "dateModified": "2025-08-19T15:36:21", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mollie Etheridge" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jessica Hampton" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Becky Ioppolo" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Lara Abel" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Noam Tal-Perry" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Katherine Dawson" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Marie Collier" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Zoe Matthews" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kate Murray" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sylvia Osborn" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Liz Simmonds" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Steven Wooding" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The relationship dynamics between postdoctoral researchers and their managers – typically Principal Investigators (PIs) - can directly and indirectly impact the professional development activities that postdocs participate in. Although career and development (C&D) conversations can be a platform through which both parties communicate about the postdoc’s development needs and career aspirations, it is unclear how frequently postdocs are having these types of conversations. Evidence from across the UK indicates that this group receive little feedback on their performance. Methods To explore interventions that could empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations, we conducted a pilot study at the University of Cambridge where current postdocs were offered workshops utilizing two widely available professional development tools. Both workshops included 360-degree feedback interventions, and we hypothesized that the feedback gathered through these tools could give postdocs both a launching pad for facilitating a conversation with their PI and address the aforementioned feedback shortfall. Results Although most of the participant sample reported already having C&D conversations, those who did not report as such demonstrated mixed feelings about whether facilitating these types of discussions is even part of the PI role. Insights from participants’ engagement with the 360-degree feedback tools also show that participants were mindful of time constraints when seeking feedback, indicating that the usefulness of such interventions may be inhibited by wider cultural issues in the sector. Conclusions Through the development of what we call ‘the researcher development framework, this study highlights the shortcomings of using professional development interventions to address cultural issues. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1", "name": "‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage..." } } ] } Home Browse ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Etheridge M, Hampton J, Ioppolo B et al. ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Mollie Etheridge https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0589-9222 1-3 , Jessica Hampton https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6871-2846 4 , Becky Ioppolo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1301-7947 1,2 , [...] Lara Abel 1,2 , Noam Tal-Perry https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2521-9546 1,2,5 , Katherine Dawson 6 , Marie Collier https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5535-5549 6,7 , Zoe Matthews 8 , Kate Murray 6 , Sylvia Osborn 6 , Liz Simmonds https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1822-1393 6 , Steven Wooding https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-1054 1,2 Mollie Etheridge https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0589-9222 1-3 , Jessica Hampton https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6871-2846 4 , [...] Becky Ioppolo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1301-7947 1,2 , Lara Abel 1,2 , Noam Tal-Perry https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2521-9546 1,2,5 , Katherine Dawson 6 , Marie Collier https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5535-5549 6,7 , Zoe Matthews 8 , Kate Murray 6 , Sylvia Osborn 6 , Liz Simmonds https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1822-1393 6 , Steven Wooding https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-1054 1,2 PUBLISHED 01 Jul 2024 Author details Author details 1 Research Strategy Office, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 1TN, UK 2 Bennett Institute of Public Policy, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UK 3 Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 8PQ, UK 4 Department of Languages, Cultures and Film, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, L69 7WY, UK 5 Murray Edwards College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB3 0DF, UK 6 Human Resources, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 1TN, UK 7 Department of History of Art, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 1PX, UK 8 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK Mollie Etheridge Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Jessica Hampton Roles: Investigation, Methodology Becky Ioppolo Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Lara Abel Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Noam Tal-Perry Roles: Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Katherine Dawson Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Marie Collier Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Zoe Matthews Roles: Project Administration Kate Murray Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Sylvia Osborn Roles: Project Administration, Resources Liz Simmonds Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Steven Wooding Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway. Abstract Background The relationship dynamics between postdoctoral researchers and their managers – typically Principal Investigators (PIs) - can directly and indirectly impact the professional development activities that postdocs participate in. Although career and development (C&D) conversations can be a platform through which both parties communicate about the postdoc’s development needs and career aspirations, it is unclear how frequently postdocs are having these types of conversations. Evidence from across the UK indicates that this group receive little feedback on their performance. Methods To explore interventions that could empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations, we conducted a pilot study at the University of Cambridge where current postdocs were offered workshops utilizing two widely available professional development tools. Both workshops included 360-degree feedback interventions, and we hypothesized that the feedback gathered through these tools could give postdocs both a launching pad for facilitating a conversation with their PI and address the aforementioned feedback shortfall. Results Although most of the participant sample reported already having C&D conversations, those who did not report as such demonstrated mixed feelings about whether facilitating these types of discussions is even part of the PI role. Insights from participants’ engagement with the 360-degree feedback tools also show that participants were mindful of time constraints when seeking feedback, indicating that the usefulness of such interventions may be inhibited by wider cultural issues in the sector. Conclusions Through the development of what we call ‘the researcher development framework, this study highlights the shortcomings of using professional development interventions to address cultural issues. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Mentorship, careers, research culture, postdoctoral researchers, professional development, feedback Corresponding Author(s) Mollie Etheridge ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Mollie Etheridge Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work was primarily funded by the Research England Development Fund as the ‘Action Research on Research Culture’ grant, with additional support from several institutionally allocated sources including the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategy Support Fund. Representatives from Research England and the Wellcome Trust are members of our External Advisory Group, along with representatives from other funding organisations who are not funding the study. The funders had no direct role in the study design, data collection or analysis. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 Etheridge M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Etheridge M, Hampton J, Ioppolo B et al. ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.1 ) First published: 01 Jul 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.1 ) Latest published: 19 Aug 2025, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction In Higher Education (HE) settings, the term ‘research culture’ refers to ‘the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes, and norms of our research communities’ ( Royal Society, n.d. ). Powell et al. (2024) have put forward a framework for research culture that aims to offer a comprehensive view of the aspects that support open, inclusive, and supportive research cultures and related initiatives. Validated through consultations and interviews with key stakeholders and researcher networks, the framework is organised into four areas: 1. How research is managed and undertaken; 2. How research ensures value; 3. How people are supported; 4. How individuals engage with others; Although Powell et al. (2024) recognise there may be some overlap among the categories, they group effective leadership and management under point four, and professional and career development opportunities within the remit of point three. With an emphasis on the role of career and development (C&D) conversations, in this paper we assume that points three and four are in fact inextricable. In other words, we posit that the professional relationship between postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) and their managers – typically Principal Investigators (PIs) - can directly influence the opportunities for development that postdocs feel willing/able to engage in. Even in cases where the PI-postdoc relationship is regarded as ‘good’ by the postdoc, there is a tension between the immediate production of research outcomes and the longer-term development needs of junior researchers. PIs are obligated to their funders, and they may sometimes prioritize project-focused tasks over people-focused activities. Conversely, postdocs – who are typically employed on fixed-term, project-based contracts – must explore other research opportunities, secure their own funding, or pursue a different career path should they wish to progress professionally. Whilst developing advanced technical skills may facilitate the research being undertaken in the moment, other forms of professional development, including so-called ‘soft skills’, can help postdocs make deliberate career choices by providing insight on navigating the (academic and non-academic) workplace and on their personal strengths and weaknesses. Both PIs and postdocs may nevertheless be concerned that these forms of development take time away from the projects they are currently employed to complete. In the modern university, academic contribution is assessed through outcome-based metrics, leading to a narrow focus on outputs and publications, things researchers believe will improve their separate and joint academic profiles ( Herschberg et al., 2018 ; Van Der Weijden et al., 2016 ). Efforts to enhance research culture need to consider these dynamics in researcher relationships and identify ways of empowering postdocs to navigate these dynamics effectively. In this paper, we contribute to this endeavour by presenting the findings from a pilot study with 14 STEM postdocs at the University of Cambridge. As part of our research efforts, we focused on three interrelated aspects of the postdoc experience: engagement with professional development; C&D conversations; and the barriers faced when requesting and receiving feedback. Our specific objectives were to explore the types of C&D conversations that take place between postdocs and their managers, and to examine the extent to which readily available forms of training could prepare postdocs to facilitate productive conversations. This focus was justified by a common understanding amongst professional services staff (LS) of the difficulties Cambridge postdocs face in initiating productive conversations around their career aspirations and development needs. This experience is not unique to Cambridge, however, and evidence indicates that early career researchers in general do not receive either regular feedback on their performance or guidance in terms of their career aspirations ( Gottlieb et al., 2021 ). Although our research design examined the effectiveness of a variety of professional development tools (including the Myers Briggs Type Indicator), this paper concentrates on the impact of the 360-degree feedback interventions. In the Wellcome Trust Townhalls report (2020a) , some members of the research community proposed implementing 360-degree feedback opportunities to address the challenges associated with receiving feedback. We hypothesised that offering 360-degree opportunities to postdocs could both redress the feedback shortfall and provide them with a launching pad for initiating C&D conversations. In this paper we explore three insights: 1. PIs have a direct and indirect influence on postdoc engagement with professional development activities. A lack of C&D conversations can lead postdocs to believe that their PI has no interest or support for these activities. While an increase of such conversations could help postdocs understand their PI's perspective, our findings indicate that postdocs do not always view these conversations as a necessary part of the PI's role. 2. The perceived effectiveness of 360-degree feedback tools in facilitating C&D conversations is partially dependent on the type of feedback requested and the postdocs’ level of experience. 3. The potential benefits of professional development activities on PI-postdoc relationship dynamics are undermined by the performance-focussed context of the modern university. In what follows we will first discuss the significance of career and development conversations in the workplace generally, after which we will explore the feedback shortfall experienced by early career researchers and the potential ways in which 360-degree feedback interventions may mitigate this shortfall. We will then outline the design of the pilot study we conducted before reviewing our findings and putting forward an original framework of researcher development. Career and development conversations C&D conversations are formal and informal discussions which incorporate at least one of the following characteristics ( Right Management, 2016 ; Hirsh, 2018 ): • The giving/receiving of feedback about performance. • Reflection on strengths and weaknesses. • The identification of development needs and opportunities. • The giving/receiving of guidance on professional aspirations. • The management of sensitive workplace matters. C&D conversations differ from traditional performance evaluations, which are often pre-planned and take place on an annual basis. C&D conversations serve to evaluate and enhance performance in ways that align with the dynamic nature of organisations and the people within them. Frequent C&D conversations can allow employees and their managers to identify and address workplace issues as they arise ( Kidd et al., 2004 ; Winter, 2013 ). An ongoing debate exists in non-academic settings regarding the integration of appraisal discussions focused on past performance with developmental conversations aimed at personal growth and skill enhancement ( Evans, 2017 ). It is also recognised how it can be difficult to ascertain exactly what makes for a ‘good’ career and development conversation. Throughout this paper, there is similarly a recurring theme that explores whether a ‘good’ conversation is necessarily satisfying, and to whom it is so. For instance, is it still a good conversation if an employee is provided with feedback that they may not want to hear? And how can we define a ‘good’ conversation in relationships with an inherent power imbalance, where the person receiving feedback may feel unable to challenge it? Career and development conversations in research contexts The Vitae (2019) Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers acknowledges the role of institutions, funders, researchers, and their managers in supporting researcher careers. Signatories of this document, including the University of Cambridge, are committed to enhancing their research environment through specific actions. The Concordat states that the managers of researchers must ‘identify opportunities and allow time for their researchers to develop their research identity and broader leadership skills’ (p.7). Similarly, researchers are expected to ‘take ownership of their career, identifying opportunities to work towards career goals’ (p.7). Still, a Wellcome Trust (2020b) survey of over 3,800 members of research staff found that less than half of respondents (44 %) had had career conversations with their manager in the past year. Even fewer respondents reported receiving support such as introductions to relevant individuals within or outside their field (34 %), career advice and guidance (34 %), and training opportunities for skill development (31 %). The nature of academic careers leads to uncertainty regarding the significance of career and development discussions, as well as who bears the responsibility for initiating them. Firstly, there is a reluctance amongst researchers to view the PI role as a management one. This may stem from the fact that transitioning from a postdoc to a PI is marked by a tension between ideas around leadership and management. Whilst a postdoc’s primary responsibility is to support the research activities on the PI’s research project, the PI oversees – manages – the people who execute this work ( Vitae, 2019 ; Prosper, 2022 ). With this shift comes a concern that leadership manifests as a form of top-down control and ‘form-filling’ ( Flinders, 2020 , 2022 ), matters which may be perceived to take away from necessary research work and which strip researchers of their autonomy and integrity. Furthermore, and even though we consider the concept of ‘distributed leadership’ relevant to academic work, distributed leadership being a collaborative social process that is dispersed throughout the organization ( Grajfoner et al., 2022 ), popular notions of research ‘excellence’ continue to focus on the singular - that is, the researcher who stands out from the pack (for example, see University of Nottingham, n.d. ; University of York, n.d. ). This is leads to a disconnect between the management tasks that PIs are expected to undertake with and on behalf of their team, and the sector-wide celebration of ‘leader’ attributes that ultimately separate researchers from the others they work with and above. Secondly, there is the issue of whether postdoctoral researchers view postdoc work as a stepping stone to academic tenure. The conventional trajectory of academic careers, particularly in STEM, supposes that a PhD candidate graduates into postdoc work, during which they will prepare to secure their own funding and become a group or project leader. Given the fiercely competitive context of early career academic work, postdocs may concentrate on the research activities that they believe will translate into immediate outcomes and outputs. In doing so, they may neglect areas of professional development, such as C&D conversations, that could benefit them in the longer-term. Postdocs may therefore find it challenging to initiate these discussions with their PI. This may be due to concerns regarding taking up the PI’s time on something that may not necessarily further project work, and the optics of looking less focused on core skills and outputs. Guidance at the postdoc stage is nevertheless paramount. Nowell et al. (2020) report that even though most postdocs have the objective of pursuing an academic career, less than 20 % obtain permanent positions in academia. This underscores the necessity of preparing for a wide range of careers beyond academia. However, partly because of the significant time and effort required to establish an academic career, as well as the perception that successful academics ‘persevere’ when faced with rejection and uncertainty ( Afonja et al., 2021 ), there is an enduring perspective that leaving the profession is akin to, or may feel like personal or professional failure ( Gewin, 2023 ). Postdocs may therefore be reluctant to engage with training associated with non-academic careers ( Nowell et al., 2020 ), as doing so entertains the possibility of this ‘failure’. They may also worry that being seen to engage with such training will be regarded by colleagues and supervisors as a lack of commitment to the ‘vocation’ ( Weber, 1989 [1946]) - the calling – of research. 360-degree feedback In the Wellcome Trust (2020b) report, ‘What Researchers Think about the Culture They Work In’, 360-degree feedback was suggested as a means by which poor academic practice can be identified and deterred. In subsequent Townhall proceedings ( Wellcome Trust, 2020a ), 360-degree feedback was also put forward as one avenue for ‘improving research culture’, though the report did not elaborate on how these improvements might take place or even who the recipients of 360-degree feedback would be. 360-degree feedback involves collecting performance evaluations from various sources, including supervisors, coworkers, subordinates, and external parties. This feedback process also commonly includes self-evaluation. Anonymised 360-degree feedback is thought to be particularly powerful in improving self-awareness and mitigating the negative effects of biases and power dynamics in the process of giving and receiving feedback ( Hensel et al., 2010 ). There are some challenges to implementing 360-degree models. Providing feedback can be time-consuming, which can result in a lack of responses from raters. It can also be difficult to identify appropriate raters. Research indicates that reliability increases with the number of raters, with 10 being considered a desirable number. For a rater to have a strong baseline knowledge of the individual being rated, it is suggested that raters have at least 10 interactions with the individual ( Hensel et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, 360-degree feedback can have negative effects on self-confidence should the employee feel ostracised or judged unfairly by the raters ( Karkoulian et al., 2016 ; Peng & Zeng, 2017 ). To ensure the effectiveness of the feedback received, it has been proposed that professional support, such as mentoring, is made available to the individual receiving feedback ( Vukotich, 2014 ). 360-degree feedback in research Since 2021, the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Future Leader Fellows (FLF) Development Network (n.d.) , a UK-wide programme providing leadership and career development opportunities to ‘world-class’ research and innovation leaders in academia and industry, has provided its members with access to a leadership-focused 360-degree feedback model that obtains anonymous feedback and is paired with a 1-2-1 coaching session. Outcomes from the pilot study of this model, which were acquired from Dr Steve Joy, the Deputy Director of the FLF Development Network, observed how 360-degree feedback increased FLF’s awareness around their responsibilities, strengths, and weaknesses. These early insights suggest that 360-degree feedback can support research leaders in identifying and building on good leadership traits. At the time of writing, we know of no research on the effectiveness of providing postdocs with 360-degree feedback opportunities. Some potential benefits may be surmised. Advancing 360-degree feedback opportunities to postdocs acknowledges the nexus of relationships in research work. Indeed, PIs may not possess all the information on a postdoc’s performance, especially if they manage a large research group or if the postdoc assumes additional roles such as teaching and mentoring. In enabling postdocs to solicit feedback from various parties, 360-degree feedback may provide postdocs with a more holistic understanding of their skill set and development needs. Furthermore, in conveying the message that performance can be evaluated from multiple perspectives, 360-degree feedback may also encourage postdocs to seek guidance from sources outside of their PI. In this study, we aim to provide empirical evidence to support these speculations. Research design Our research design began with the hypothesis that improving the frequency and quality of C&D conversations may help postdocs establish a more informed understanding of their role and their performance within it. Due to the respective obstacles that PIs and postdocs face in broaching such discussions, we sought to identify readily available professional development interventions we believed to be capable of equipping postdocs with the confidence to facilitate C&D conversations. To identify suitable interventions, we consulted with careers professionals at the University of Cambridge and conducted a search for readily available - ‘off the shelf’ - training interventions. We then categorised the identified tools into themes (e.g. self-understanding, feedback from others, conversations with managers, and cross-cutting tools). Our pilot study was intended to consist of four workshops. Each workshop was designed to include two tools from different themes, each with a different cost associated with delivery. The workshops were advertised to current postdocs at the University of Cambridge. We focussed on this group because of the significant number of postdoc researchers present at the university, which totals just over 4,000 ( Postdoc centre n.d. ). We hoped this meant we would have a large participant sample from which we would draw reliable insights. However, following practical challenges with recruiting enough participants to carry out all four workshops, only two were carried out. The structures of the workshops we did run are displayed in Table 1 . Due to the relevant comparability of the 360-degree feedback tools offered across these workshops, this paper focuses on the effectiveness of these interventions. Table 1. The career and development workshops offered as part of the research. Activity 1 Activity 2 Workshop one Tool: Challenging Conversations, an interactive workshop on navigating difficult conversations in the workplace, using actors to role play difficult conversations. Theme: Conversations with others Cost: High Tool: At My Best, a strengths-based non-anonymous 360-degree feedback tool. Theme: Feedback from others Cost: Low Workshop two Tool: Narrative CV formats, and how might completing a narrative CV support postdocs in identifying development areas Theme: Self-understanding Cost: Low Tool: A bespoke 360-degree feedback model based on the variation used by the Future Leader Fellows Development Network. This model was anonymous and came with the addition of a 1-2-1 session with a coach. Theme: Feedback from others Cost: High Workshop one delivered one high-cost tool, ‘Challenging Conversations’. The second tool, ‘At My Best’ (AMB) was a low-cost strengths-based 360-degree feedback tool that enables individuals to seek positive feedback from up to 12 ‘raters’, such as colleagues, managers, staff, friends, and family. Workshop two combined an informative session on putting together a narrative CV (low-cost) with access to a customised 360-degree feedback tool and follow up coaching session (high-cost). The 360-degree feedback model was based on a variation offered in the FLF Development Network. Methods We evaluated the effectiveness of the workshops through a combination of survey and interview methods. The full experimental protocol is displayed in Figure 1 and was approved by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (approval number: PRE.2023.029) on 20 th April 2023. Participants were recruited through flyers, which were distributed over social media, email channels and posted around the university and in postdoc groups. Prospective participants were advised that participating in the research was a condition of attending the workshops. Figure 1. An overview of the research protocol. Each of the blocks and icons within represents a stage in the data collection process, starting from the left-hand side. Our data collection efforts started with the first survey. Then, on the same day as the workshop, we held focus groups with the participants. We then distributed survey two after participants had been given enough time to engage with all the information around the professional development interventions incorporated in the workshops. The orange block indicates a two-month pause in the data collection process, during which participants were expected to undertake a career and development conversation with their manager. After this, as illustrated in the final green block, we distributed one final survey and invited participants to a one-to-one online research interview. Data was collected at three points: before the workshop, immediately after the workshop, and two months after the workshop. As stated in our approved ethics application to the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee, written consent was obtained at the point when participants registered for the workshop. Consent was verbally reaffirmed at the start of each workshop and prior to the research interviews. Per the Participant Information Sheet (available at Etheridge et al., 2024 ), participants were aware that they could withdraw from the study at any point during the data collection phase. Prior to attending the workshop, participants were required to answer survey questions on their demographic background, postdoctoral experience, relationship with their PI, and confidence with career conversations. This included responding to a Personal-Growth-Initiative-Scale II (PGIS-II) ( Robitschek et al., 2012 ), which considers the extent to which a person seeks out opportunities to grow and initiate change in oneself. We incorporated the PGIS-II as we believed participant responses would allow us to account for the influence of personality differences in the effectiveness of the workshop interventions. In the days following the workshop, participants were invited to complete a second survey. This questionnaire regarded their impressions of the interventions they had been presented with. We also explored these impressions via semi-structured focus groups, which were conducted immediately after the workshops had taken place. Two months after the workshops, participants were sent a final survey enquiring about the influence of the development tools on any career and development conversations that had taken place in that time. This survey included a second PGIS-II scale. Our intention was to see if the interventions had a quantifiable effect on participants’ attitudes to personal growth and how, if at all, these changes developed over the course of the study. Participants were also invited to join one-to-one semi-structured interviews. All research instruments, along with collected data and Atlas.ti 23 code manager, is available on the project Open Science Framework repository (see Etheridge et al., 2024 ). In total, we recruited 14 participants. Eight attended the Challenging Conversations/AMB workshop, and six attended the bespoke 360 feedback/Narrative CV workshop. All 14 participants were involved in group interviews and four attended individual interviews. Interview data was analysed using a general inductive approach ( Glaser & Strauss, 2017 ). This is where raw data is compared against raw data before being organized into categories to create a framework capturing key themes and processes. The analysis was undertaken on Atlas.ti 23 Desktop. The exact process is listed below: 1. Researchers BI and ME did an initial read through of all the interview transcripts. 2. Researchers BI and ME then re-read the transcripts and began identifying ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ level themes in the data. Upper-level themes connect with the research aims and focus (e.g. career conversations, PI-postdoc relationships, intervention-specific observations), whereas lower-level themes include things tangential to the research aims or which were unanticipated by the researcher ( Thomas, 2006 ). 3. Researchers BI and ME explored potential relationships between the identified codes. 4. Researchers BI and ME compared their findings and effort was made to merge themes. 5. Researcher LA read the transcripts twice before reviewing the themes identified by researchers BI and ME. 6. Researchers BI, ME and LA met twice to share feedback before coming to an agreement on the final ordering of the themes. Findings The main findings from the interview and survey data are as follows: 1. Most participants reported having productive C&D conversations with their PI. In instances where participants felt there was a lack of these conversations, it seemed that they did not regard career development discussions as a crucial aspect of the PI's role. 2. The 360-degree feedback tools tested proved problematic for most postdocs in the study, particularly those who were more junior. This related to either the difficulty the postdocs’ experienced in receiving the requested feedback or concerns around the type of feedback requested. In this section we discuss these observations, paying attention to participants’ reported experiences with both career conversations and the 360-degree feedback tools offered as part of the research. Participant characteristics Despite its small size, the participant sample captured reasonable diversity in postdoc experiences and backgrounds. Of the 14 participants, eight participants identified as male, five identified as female, one participant identified as non-binary, and another preferred not to specify their gender identity. The participants belonged to various age groups, as depicted in Figure 2 . Figure 2. Participant (postdoc) age range. Participant (postdoc) age range. A vertical bar graph depicting the age range of the participants, as determined by the responses given to survey one. The participants also reported a diverse range of ethnicities: eight participants identified as White, three of Asian descent, and one participant each as North African/Mediterranean, White Eastern European (Jewish, Greek-Cypriot, Italian), and Mixed or multiple ethnic groups. Regarding confidence when conversing in English, seven participants reported being ‘extremely’ confident, three reported being ‘very’ confident, one person reported feeling ‘reasonably’ confident and another chose not to specify their confidence level. Participant characteristics point to a diversity of research experience. The years in which participants were awarded their PhDs ranged from 2000 to a projected graduation date of 2024. Two participants had yet to submit their PhD thesis. Figure 3 shows the gender split regarding the years since PhD submission. The number of postdoc positions held varied from zero to five, with some individuals having had multiple postdoc experiences. Figure 3. Participant (postdoc) gender split and years since PhD submission. Participant (postdoc) gender split and years since PhD submission. A horizontal bar graph illustrates the gender split in participants’ professional experience, understood to be the number of years since their PhD submission, as determined by the responses given to survey one. The majority of participants worked in a STEM capacity; however, a number of academic disciplines are represented in the data set, including: • Biological and Medical Science • Chemistry • Education • Engineering and Materials Science • Geography • Psychology Out of the 14 participants, 12 had one primary PI/supervisor and two participants had two supervisors. Two participants were reported to the same PI. Seven of the participants reported to male primary PIs and 7 reported reporting to female primary PIs. For the participants with more than one supervisor, one was supported by a male primary PI and a female secondary PI. The other was supported by two male PIs. PIs had varied levels of experience: • Half of the participants reported their primary PI/supervisor as having over 20 years of experience • Four reported their primary PI as having six-ten years of experience • Three believed their PI had less than three years of experience for their primary PI As shown in Figure 4 , participants reported that the female primary PIs had relatively less experience. For those with two PIs, one participant worked under two supervisors with over 20 years of experience, and another participant worked under one PI with less than 20 years of experience and a second PI with less than three years of experience. Figure 4. Primary PI gender split and experience supervising postdocs. A horizontal bar graph displays the gender distribution and years of professional experience of the Principal Investigators of postdoctoral researchers involved in our study, as determined by the responses given to survey one. Conversations In response to the initial survey, most participants (12/14) reported having positive C&D conversations with their PI. Eight responded that their PI is either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ interested in supporting their development and nine reported how such conversation felt either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ much like a positive experience. Although we predominantly recruited participants who, on the surface, did not require support facilitating C&D conversations, our findings still point towards some tensions around identifying whether C&D conversations have taken place and whether, or to what extent, these conversations should be satisfying and/or an integral part of the PI role. Of the 12 participants who had had a C&D conversation with their PI, Participant 8 was the only one who felt negatively about their PI’s ‘genuine openness’ to C&D conversations, selecting ‘rarely’ on the Likert scale. This participant also reported that their PI was only ‘slightly’ interested in their professional development and that their C&D conversations felt only ‘slightly’ like a positive experience. Although participant 8 identified more barriers to holding productive conversations with their PI than any other participant, noting language (‘somewhat of a barrier’), cultural (‘extreme barrier’), class (‘extreme barrier’), age (‘somewhat of a barrier’), career stage (‘somewhat of a barrier’), and care responsibilities (‘somewhat of a barrier’), they also referred to the PI’s generally dismissive attitude to these conversations. During the focus group discussion, this participant outlined how, at the start of their role, they had taken professional development seriously: In the beginning I took it very serious. I planned everything, but end of the day there is [no] encouragement to discuss it with the PI, and the PI is only interested to just sign the form. There was no discussion. Despite the absence of productive C&D conversations with the PI, participant 8 reported being ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the general conversations they have about their career ambitions, disclosing that they speak about these ambitions to mentors, colleagues and ‘postdoc societies’. They also continue to describe the relationship with their PI as a positive one: In terms of relation-- relationship, like it was very good in the beginning. First few months or one year … [it then] become kind of stretching, but otherwise it's a business relationship. It’s very good. But it's not there yet where we can discuss career, other things. Participant 8’s experience suggests a postdoc and PI can have a positive relationship despite an absence of constructive C&D conversations. Similar sentiments were expressed by Participants 5 and 7, who reported not having any C&D conversations with their PI. Both participants felt lack of time and support were at least ‘moderately important’ factors in preventing them from thinking about their career, and both felt that lack of support from supervisor was a ‘very important’ barrier when looking to access training for wider workplace skills. During a focus group discussion, Participant 5, who had been a postdoc for two years and who reported having progress meetings with their PI between two and six times a year, elaborated on their outcome-driven relationship with the PI: They [PIs] need people who can get the idea, develop the idea, make a story if they want to write a paper, and after that, all these things, and they, they just want to the papers. You know, but I thought that this is the general methodology in this university … They just get credit from postdocs and other people … anyway, today [after this workshop] I learned that there, there are some other PIs that, they support, they contribute to scientific discussions. Similarly to Participant 8, Participant 5 qualified that they were happy with the relationship to their PI: ‘I like to be independent, so I'm extremely happy with my situation’. Participant 7 reported being ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the general conversations they have about their career ambitions and support, claiming to regularly have discussions with mentors, colleagues and friends. In focus groups, Participant 7 shared that they had been a postdoc for six months. Due to this participant’s relative inexperience, it can be surmised that the PI may not yet have initiated routine C&D conversations. Still, Participant 7 was cognizant of their own reluctance to start these discussions. When asked about barriers to thinking about their career, they noted ‘mental capacity’ and ‘lack of time’. Participant 7’s contribution during focus groups also pointed towards a project-focused orientation on their part: ‘you're always thinking of project publications, like funding, like all these things, but career development doesn't necessarily come into that frame line.’ Satisfaction Participant accounts point to some tension in what it means to have a satisfying conversation. Two participants, 11 and 13, reported feeling ‘extremely’ and ‘somewhat’ dissatisfied with conversations regarding their career ambitions. Despite their dissatisfaction, these participants felt that their PIs were ‘genuinely’ open to supporting their career ambitions, stating they were ‘always’ supportive (Participant 11) or supportive ‘most of the time’ (Participant 13). Both of these participants also mentioned that discussions about career and development would ‘sometimes’ conclude with a clear set of actions and that these conversations were generally positive experiences, rated as ‘very’ and ‘moderately’ positive. Acknowledging how their satisfaction levels may have been affected by their own attitudes, Participant 11 noted that their anxiety sometimes hindered productive discussions, with Participant 13 going on to express: ‘My perception of my supervisor's level of support for my career planning might be more of a challenge than his actual level of support.’ Career stage may also have influenced these participants’ experience of C&D conversations. Both were in the final stages of their PhD and working under PIs with over 20 years of experience. As they moved towards the end of their PhD work, Participants 11 and 13 may therefore have been looking for more support from their PIs but lacked the capacity to action such advice or request it. In the focus groups, Participant 11 said: my supervisor is very supportive if I bring issues to her. If I identify things and bring it to her. But she um {PAUSE}, I feel like she doesn't really provide the options I could then look into … if I want something very specific from her, then she's like, you know, really on it. And she's-- she's emotionally very supportive of my struggles and what I want to do. Participant 13 also discussed difference in career stage, and acknowledged the challenges of communicating with someone with a significantly different level of experience: I think sometimes it can be easier to discuss these things with somebody that's closer to your career path. I think one of the things that's hard about discussing it with the PI or a supervisor is my supervisor is on the verge of retirement. He's a long ways off from where I am now and I think there can be a little bit of a disconnect. Concerns around seniority recur throughout the findings, though most notably in relation to the perceived usefulness of the 360-degree feedback interventions. 360-degree feedback – ‘At My Best’ Workshop one encouraged participants to use the AMB tool to gather feedback from up to 12 raters. Via non-anonymised feedback, AMB aims to give individuals better insight into their strengths and so draws from the understanding that ‘strengths-based’ thinking can improve performance, enhance positive emotions, and minimize negative emotions in employees ( Hodges and Asplund, 2010 ; van Woerkom & Kroon, 2020 ; Wang et al., 2023 ) In focus groups immediately following Workshop one, seven out of the eight participants in attendance expressed concern around the benefits of strengths-based feedback. Only three used the tool to solicit feedback: participant 7 (5/5), 8 (1/3) and 3 (11/11). The bracketed numbers indicate the number of reviewers contacted and responses received. Survey three, which sought to gauge participants’ perspectives on the usefulness of the workshop tools, was completed by six of the workshop participants, four of which reported that AMB was ‘not at all’ useful in improving conversations with PIs or research managers. Participant 7 was the only respondent who selected a somewhat positive response (‘moderately useful’). In survey one, Participant 7 stated that they had not yet had any C&D conversations with their PI. In survey three, they reported having had a one, noting that their PI was ‘very’ interested in their development. As Participant 7 reported being in the first year of their first postdoc, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which this conversation was facilitated by the AMB tool. Despite successfully obtaining feedback from eleven raters, Participant 3 was uncertain what to do with the information they had been given: I don't know if I learned anything … I made sure I sort of contacted everyone afterwards who'd done it for me and most of them in person actually like had a bit of a chat about it … it was just like kind of a happy, uplifting experience, even if it didn't, like, necessarily change anything particularly. Although Participant 3 used AMB to generate multiple conversations with their raters, their perspective returns to the idea that, for some postdocs, time spent on development only feels worthwhile if the development activity can facilitate actions. Concerns around how others would perceive a request to fill in an AMB feedback form were expressed by two participants, who did not choose to engage with the tool. Participant 6, who claimed to work under a PI who was ‘extremely’ interested in his development, stated: I thought about it quite a lot. But it was then kind of a trade-off between and I had already thought ‘this doesn't seem useful to me’ and then it's always, you know, if you ask this kind of thing from colleagues or PIs that, um, I wondered how they would see such tools and I thought they would rather be a bit annoyed by it. Despite their critiques, workshop participants still identified an occasion when AMB feedback would be useful. Participant 7 noted: ‘it might be really helpful for someone who's not confident, who's not aware of their strengths’. This sentiment was shared by participant 4: ‘I think if you're someone who has difficulties looking, asking for feedback, um, then sure it might be useful. But I do tend to do that already.’ 360-degree feedback – anonymous tool Participants in Workshop two were invited to engage with the 360-degree model we had modified from the one offered in the FLF Development Network, which solicits anonymous, qualitative feedback and comes paired with a 1-2-1 coaching session. Four of six workshop participants used the tool, with three reporting that it was ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ useful in improving their conversations with their PI. The remaining participant did not reply to our request for feedback. Except for Participant 13, the participants who engaged with this tool were experienced postdocs, having submitted their PhD theses between 2000 and 2015. Whereas two Workshop two participants have since gone on to secure their own funding, Participant 13 was yet to submit their PhD. They spoke of feeling vulnerable about requesting feedback: I am so early in my path, when I looked at the website and it was asking me to give 9 referees I sort of flinched … reaching out to my supervisor, I don't think that's an unreasonable ask by any stretch of the imagination, but I think, thinking about a couple of other colleagues that are more senior to me and asking them to invest that time, also reaching out to other colleagues, I just was a little hesitant. Participant 13’s hesitancies speak to two challenges junior postdocs may face when soliciting this kind of 360-degree feedback. Being so early in their career, this group have had limited opportunity to consolidate a network from which to request feedback. Junior postdocs may therefore struggle to identify appropriate raters who meet the criteria for reliability, such as needing to have had at least ten interactions prior to feedback being requested ( Hensel et al., 2010 ). Participant 13’s concern also speak to the time commitment involved in giving feedback, a sentiment echoed by participant 10, who did not solicit feedback via the 360 tool: ‘9 letters is a lot … and I’m junior and I don’t know … So then asking for them it’s li--it's time consuming’. Participant 9, who at the time of the workshop had been a postdoc for 20+ years, reiterated that the anonymous 360-degree tool may not be appropriate for novices researchers: it could be difficult to have enough confidence to use 360 when you’re just starting and you're not, you know-- you don't need-- you don't want negative feedback which may be forthcoming. You just want to develop and get all those achievements and things in place, but then when you are mid-stage or senior stage there’s more that you want to get out from that [360-degree feedback]. Similarly, when talking about their decision to undertake the 360 opportunity, participant 12 reflected on their upcoming transition to a leadership role: This [anonymous 360-degree feedback] was always something I was looking for because … I’ll be a PI, have a PhD student, et cetera. And I just thought this is a really good moment to think it through … And when you said ‘would I be ready in my kind of junior years?’, I would say, you know, I wasn’t looking for a criticism … and now I just want to actually find out what people think, because I'm now in position to impact other lives in a bit more meaningful way. In summary, insights from the different 360-degree tools indicate that postdoc experience may affect which model is deemed appropriate and/or utilised. Postdocs with more experience may be ‘ready’ and have the network necessary for soliciting and working through anonymous 360-degree feedback. In contrast, novice postdocs, who may lack confidence or access to feedback, may benefit from engaging with strengths-based tools, such as AMB. Time constraints One factor that seemed to impact both the participants' engagement with the 360-degree feedback tools and their willingness to participate in broader professional development was the concern for using both theirs and other people’s time effectively. Participants compared the open-ended nature of development activities with the certainties they felt were promised in ‘technical trainings’: …if I sign up to learn how to use a microscope, I'm going to leave knowing how to use the microscope. Whereas when you sign up to professional development, you, there's more of a hesitation of: Am I gonna get what I thought I was gonna get? (Participant 2). For some participants, this uncertainty is exacerbated by activities that are too ‘idealistic’, and which do not sufficiently account for the cultural issues within academic work: often in workshops it's like, ‘Oh yeah, you should, um, for example, develop your strength and weaknesses and you have to do networking and put yourself out there’, … what seems to be missing is actual reality because whenever you talk to [someone] … involved in choosing applicants, usually it boils down to, ‘Oh, the first thing we look at is: How many publications do you have? Which journals are they in?’ (Participant 6). Time commitments have been discussed in Nowell et al.’s (2020) research, where the authors concluded that postdocs are likely to attend training that they perceive to be useful. As these perceptions are partially determined by the quality of structure and facilitation, the challenge is that such quality is often determined at or prior to the point of delivery. This means there is a shared issue of getting postdocs in the room in the first place. Although the ability to generalise our research findings is restricted by the small sample size, the difficulty we experienced with participant recruitment indicates a profound limitation with trying to support postdocs’ career development and their access to C&D conversations via training interventions such as those offered in our study. Crucially, although the participants we did recruit appeared to have generally positive relationships with their PIs, participant accounts highlight how a PI can have a direct influence on the usefulness attributed to professional development activities. For participant 8, this was a positive influence: ‘my PI told me to sign up to this, like, “I know we don't have an issue talking about things, but it should be good for you” … I felt like, especially with career development, she's very supportive’. Conversely, Participant 5's perceived ability to engage in professional development was influenced, in part, by what the PI considers to be a valuable use of time. I wrote to her that I'm sorry, due to attending this workshop I may not be able to attend on time, the group meeting. Then she got back to me, and she said that you have to give us a report just to show us some gain from this workshop. Personal-Growth-Initiative-Scale II Participants were asked to fill out the PGIS-II ( Robitschek et al., 2012 ) on three occasions – prior to the workshop, immediately after the workshop, and two months after the workshop. Only a handful (3/14) of participants filled out the second survey, and therefore the results from that survey were not analysed. Most participants (6/8 and 4/6 from first and second workshops, respectively) filled out surveys one and three. While this sample size is relatively small to conduct inferential statistics, it allowed us to make descriptively assess whether the workshop led to any observable change in their score. The PGIS-II is made up of four subscales – Readiness for change, Planfulness, Using Resources, and Intentional behaviour, each assessed by 3-5 items on a 6-points scale ranging from “Disagree strongly” (0) to “Agree strongly” (5). As in Robitschek et al., the questions for each subscale were averaged, with items not answered given the participant’s scale average. Descriptive findings (see Figure 5 ) showed an increase in the average score following the workshops for three of the subscales - Readiness for Change (mean difference d ¯ = 0.33 ± 0.30 standard errors (ste) from the mean), Planfulness ( d ¯ = 0.36 ± 0.32 ste), and Using Resources ( d ¯ = 0.17 ± 0.22 ste), along with a decrease in the average score of the Intentional Behaviour subscale ( d ¯ = − 0.13 ± 0.25 ste). None of the results were observed to be significant at an alpha of 5% ( t (9) = 0.526-1.127, p = .289-.611), which was not unexpected given the small sample size, as mentioned. The data along with the analysis script in R are available in the study’s online material. Figure 5. PGIS-II results. Bar graphs depict group-averaged subscale score before attending the workshop and two months after, with error bars depicting 1 standard deviation from the group mean. Scatter plots depict individual participant scores, with the diagonal line depicting the identity line (such that Before score = After score, with participants above the line scoring After > Before, and vice-versa). Figure 6. Researcher development framework. This is a flow chart of the factors informing postdoc engagement with professional development activities. This framework was initially developed as an outcome space of the core themes that emerged from the interviews. These themes, and the number of codes within them, were identified by researchers BI and ME, with the codebooks publicly available at Etheridge et al. (2024) . Discussion Our study aimed to understand how or, indeed, if, development interventions can improve researcher relationships. Specifically, we tested whether giving postdocs at the University of Cambridge access to 360-degree feedback tools could address the feedback shortfall experienced by postdocs and equip them with the skills to initiate successful C&D conversations. Our ability to comment on this is limited. Only half of the participants made use of the 360-degree feedback tools and most of these participants were already having conversations of this kind with their PI. We did, however, observe that a postdoc’s level of experience can affect their willingness to request feedback from multiple raters. From this we can surmise that future applications of the 360-degree feedback should take into account the diversity of needs amongst postdocs, and effort should be made to inform postdocs of why each model could be appropriate for their career stage. Between AMB and the anonymous 360-degree tool based on the FLF model, participants identified that AMB may be preferable for improving self-efficacy amongst new postdocs whereas the latter model’s emphasis on constructive feedback was better placed for those looking to make the transition to a leadership role. Following the suggestion offered in the Wellcome Trust Townhalls Report (2020a) , that 360-degree models may be used to instil positive research culture, further investigation should be conducted into the benefits of implementing different 360-degree opportunities for researchers with varied experience and responsibilities. Our findings also highlight concerns that postdocs have regarding managing their own time as well as their PIs' time. For some participants, what counted as an ‘effective’ use of time was informed by the needs of the project and the PI, and not by their individual career needs or aspirations. Thus, while research culture initiatives are increasingly concerned with the support obligations PIs have to their postdocs, and, conversely, with empowering postdocs to take ‘ownership’ of their careers (e.g. Vitae, 2019 ), our findings suggest that project-focused orientations make it unclear to postdocs just how much support they can expect or request from either their PI or the support networks available in their institutions. Furthermore, if, as our study suggests, some postdocs assume that being supported in their career is not a standard practice of PIs, then they may find themselves caught at a support and training deadlock wherein they need and would benefit from support but are neither given it nor do they feel entitled to request it. The above themes, alongside other less-commonly mentioned topics from the surveys, focus groups, and interviews have been consolidated into a conceptual framework for postdoctoral engagement, illustrated in Figure 6 . This framework, which was developed iteratively by three members of the research team (ME, BI and LA) explores the processes that facilitate postdoc engagement with professional development activities. It consists of six interconnected themes: broader cultural factors (national funding structures and research cultures), institutional influences (institution-specific policies and structures), postdoc and PI characteristics, relationship dynamics, and postdoc engagement levels. These themes interact in a hierarchical manner. Broader cultural and institutional factors serve as a backdrop, shaping postdocs' and PIs' career trajectories and expectations. These, in turn, influence the dynamics of their relationship, impacting the direction and content of any C&D discussions that occur as well as the postdoc’s engagement in professional development activities. Such engagement is also influenced by factors individual to the postdoc, including personality, professional aspirations, and interpretations of broader cultural influences within academia. Indeed, such pressures were observed in participants’ regard for the different 360-degree feedback tools, which were affected by factors such as perceptions around time and applicability of the feedback requested. Within the framework, the interplay between PI-postdoc dynamics and postdoc engagement with professional development challenges the division of these matters proposed by Powell et al. (2024) . Recognizing the influence PIs can have on postdocs’ engagement with professional development is important to consider when developing interventions to ensure the effective leadership and management of researchers. A number of actors across the sector are already doing this. For example, in 2020, the University of Liverpool’s Prosper programme pioneered a PI network that provides a platform for principal investigators across the UK to meet, share experiences and discuss best practices ( McBride, 2023 ). Moreover, the University of Glasgow have recently piloted a ‘Catalyst Mentoring’ scheme in which collegial conversations between research staff and senior staff were seen to be impactful in supporting self-awareness around relating to others and making conscious career planning decisions ( Guccione, 2023 ). Additionally, during a workshop for PIs around ‘Challenging career assumptions’, Careers Coach, Dr Elizabeth Adams, explored how the assumptions researchers make about careers within and beyond academia can exacerbate barriers to engagement with career development. She encouraged attendees to attempt minimise this influence by asking their postdocs predominantly open-ended questions about their career; by being alert to the postdocs’ inner critique; and by signposting them to support services and networks available at their institutions ( Prosper, n.d. ). On the one hand, interventions such as these are of high importance in seeking to break the silence around the influence of researcher relationships on postdoc careers choices and trajectories. On the other hand, these interventions may suffer from the same issue that we faced with recruiting postdocs to the study – that is, their opt-in nature attracts those who are already thinking about these issues, those who consider them a good use of time, and, crucially, those who feel able to use their time in this way. As the Researcher Development Framework illustrates, these considerations are influenced by wider cultural issues, which speaks to the difficulty of trying to challenge narrow, project-focussed attitudes in a policy landscape that encourages these attitudes at the same time that it endeavours to change them. Participant 6 argued that missing from professional development activities is a sense of ‘reality’, a sentiment we interpret as referring to the lived experience being a researcher in a profession characterized by competition, precariousness and vast racial, gendered and ableist disparities in recruitment ( Sarabi & Smith, 2023 ), research commissioning and funding (Wellcome Trust, 2022), promotion ( Lerchenmueller & Sorenson, 2018 ; Rollock, 2021 ), attribution, publication and citation practices ( Hengel, 2022 ). While development initiatives may acknowledge these conditions and seek to confront them, this reality still hinders engagement with such initiatives and thus preserves the status quo. It is not necessarily the case, then, that development activities are missing or failing to consider this ‘reality’. Rather, the thing which is missing is the ability to realise conditions in which all researchers across different experience levels can and feel able to effectively engage with and request support and development. Conclusion In this study, we explored interventions to empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations with their PI. We offered workshops to current postdocs at the University of Cambridge utilizing widely available professional development tools. However, we found that only a few postdocs made use of the opportunity to engage in this training and many of those who did engage reported already having C&D conversations with their PI. This supports that, with our interventions, we did not manage to reach those postdocs who might need such training, including those with problematic relationships with their PI. Still, our analysis of the survey and interview data produced an overarching framework of the relationship between postdocs and their supervisors within the wider university and academic system. Our analysis reveals that an in-depth exploration of the various factors contributing to the quality of the PI-postdoc relationship is needed to better understand the challenges these parties face in not only prioritizing professional development but in defining professional priorities and expectations. We are currently launching a study, based on the framework we developed, which explores professional expectations of PIs and postdocs on the level of the self, others, the job role, and the wider academic system. We hope that this research will shed further light on possible avenues for supporting postdocs and their PIs to engage in meaningful C&D conversations and to unfold their professional potential. Ethical approval and consent This research study was approved by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (approval number: PRE.2023.029).) on 20th April 2023. As stated in our approved ethics application to the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee, written consent was obtained at the point when participants registered for the workshop. Consent was verbally reaffirmed at the start of each workshop and prior to the research interviews. Data availability statement Repository name: Open Science Foundation, “What Seems to be Missing is Actual Reality”, 10.17605/OSF.IO/CKTH7, Etheridge et al. (2024) . This project contains the following underlying data: 000 Information on appendices 001 Survey templates 002 Post-workshop focus group protocol 003 post-conversation interview protocol 004 Interview analysis protocol 005 BI - Atlas.ti code manager 006 ME – Atlas.ti code manager 007 Focus group transcript 008 Focus group transcript 009 Focus group transcript 010 Focus group transcript 011 Participant interview transcript 012 Participant interview transcript 013 Participant interview transcript 014 Participant interview transcript 015 survey results 016 PGIS results Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission Reporting guidelines This research study meets the criteria set out by the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). This is except for the title, which does not describe the methods used in the study but which still captures the range of topics and ideas presented in the paper. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge in-kind support provided by the University of Cambridge. We would like to thank our Project Board: Patrick Maxwell, Chris Young, Jeremy Baumberg, Diane Coyle, Tomas Coates Ulrichsen, Tim Harper, Peter Hedges, Andrea Hudson, Steve Joy, Michael Kenny, Raphael Lyne, and Jon Simons. In addition, we would like to thank our External Advisory Group: Anne Ferguson-Smith, Steph Bales, Stephen Curry, Catherine Davies, Matthias Egger, Steven Hill, Shomari Lewis-Wilson, Molly Morgan Jones, Iben Rørbye, Tom Stafford and Karen Stroobants. Furthermore, we would like to thank our project partners: Sarah de Rijcke, Jacqui Hall, Ulrich Rößler, Sara Shinton and Martine Vernooij. We would also like to thank Steve Joy, who contributed by way of providing guidance and support during project development, and Kim Newton-Woof, who provided coaching to participants undertaking the 360-degree feedback opportunity mirroring that offered to Future Leader Fellows. Additionally, we are grateful to the many members of the University of Cambridge community and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy provided feedback throughout the project. References Afonja S, Salmon DG, Quailey SI, et al. : Postdocs’ advice on pursuing a research career in academia: A qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16 (5): e0250662. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH: ATLAS.ti Mac (version 23.2.1) [Qualitative data analysis software].2023. Reference Source At My Best: At My Best 360 (online tool). At My Best; n.d.. Retrieved 24 April 2024. Reference Source Etheridge M, Hampton J, Abel L, et al. : What seems to be missing is actual reality. [dataset]. 2024. Publisher Full Text Evans M: Workplace career conversations: Aligning organizational talent management and individual career development? Loughborough University; 2017. [Doctoral Thesis]. Reference Source Flinders M: Fit for the Future: Research Leadership Matters.2020, June 12. Reference Source Flinders M: No one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it well. Times Higher Education; 2022, November 7. Reference Source Future Leaders Fellows Development Network: 360 Feedback Coaching. Future Leaders Fellows Development Network. n.d.. Retrieved 24 April 2024. Reference Source Gewin V: How five researchers fared after their ‘great resignation’ from academia. Nature. 2023; 624 (7991): 461–463. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Glaser BG, Strauss AL: The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge; 2017. Gottlieb G, Smith S, Cole J, et al. : Realising Our Potential: Backing Talent and Strengthening UK Research Culture and Environment. Russell Group; 2021. Reference Source Grajfoner D, Rojon C, Eshraghian F: Academic leaders: In-role perceptions and developmental approaches. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2022; 174114322210959. Publisher Full Text Guccione K: Catalyst: Two-for-one career impact. The Auditorium. 2023, November 16. Reference Source Hengel E: Publishing While Female: Are Women Held to Higher Standards? Evidence from Peer Review. Econ. J. 2022; 132 (648): 2951–2991. Publisher Full Text Hensel R, Meijers F, Van Der Leeden R, et al. : 360 degree feedback: How many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals?. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2010; 21 (15): 2813–2830. Publisher Full Text Herschberg C, Benschop Y, van den Brink M : Precarious postdocs: A comparative study on recruitment and selection of early-career researchers. Scand. J. Manag. 2018; 34 (4): 303–310. Publisher Full Text Hirsh W: Effective performance, development and career conversations at work (IES Perspectives on HR). Institute for employment statistics; 2018. Reference Source Hodges TD, Asplund J: Strengths development in the workplace.Linley PA, Harrington S, Garcea N, editors. Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work. Oxford University Press; 2010; pp. 213–220. Karkoulian S, Assaker G, Hallak R: An empirical study of 360-degree feedback, organizational justice, and firm sustainability. J. Bus. Res. 2016; 69 (5): 1862–1867. Publisher Full Text Kidd JM, Hirsh W, Jackson C: Straight Talking: The Nature of Effective Career Discussion at Work. J. Career Dev. 2004; 30 (4): 231–245. Publisher Full Text Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O: The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences. Res. Policy. 2018; 47 (6): 1007–1017. Publisher Full Text McBride F: What does high quality career development for postdocs look like?.2023, September 20. Reference Source Nowell L, Ovie G, Kenny N, et al. : Postdoctoral scholars’ perspectives about professional learning and development: A concurrent mixed-methods study. Palgrave Communications. 2020; 6 (1): 1–11. Publisher Full Text Peng AC, Zeng W: Workplace ostracism and deviant and helping behaviors: The moderating role of 360 degree feedback. J. Organ. Behav. 2017; 38 (6): 833–855. Publisher Full Text Postdoc Centre: Explore. Eddington Cambridge. n.d.. Retrieved June 4, 2024. Reference Source Powell J, Britton-Drewry E, Pringle Y, et al. : Research Culture Initiatives in the UK. Shift Insight, UK Reproducibility Network & Vitae; 2024. Reference Source Prosper: Supporting researchers to engage in career development and decision making. Prosper; n.d.. Retrieved 24 April 2024. Reference Source Prosper: Career conversations. Prosper; 2022. Reference Source Right Management: Talk The Talk: How Ongoing Career Conversations Drive Business Success. Manpower Group; 2016. Reference Source Robitschek C, Ashton MW, Spering CC, et al. : Development and psychometric evaluation of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II. J. Couns. Psychol. 2012; 59 (2): 274–287. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Rollock N: “I Would Have Become Wallpaper Had Racism Had Its Way”: Black Female Professors, Racial Battle Fatigue, and Strategies for Surviving Higher Education. Peabody J. Educ. 2021; 96 (2): 206–217. Publisher Full Text Royal Society: Research Culture. The Royal Society; n.d.. Retrieved 18 April 2024. Reference Source Sarabi Y, Smith M: Gender diversity and publication activity—An analysis of STEM in the UK. Research Evaluation. 2023; 32 : 321–331. Publisher Full Text The University of Nottingham: Excellence—Researcher Academy.n.d.. Retrieved 18 April 2024. Reference Source Thomas DR: A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. Am. J. Eval. 2006; 27 (2): 237–246. Publisher Full Text University of York: York’s Inspirational Research Leaders.n.d.. Retrieved 18 April 2024. Reference Source Van Der Weijden I, Teelken C, De Boer M, et al. : Career satisfaction of postdoctoral researchers in relation to their expectations for the future. High. Educ. 2016; 72 (1): 25–40. Publisher Full Text van Woerkom M , Kroon B: The Effect of Strengths-Based Performance Appraisal on Perceived Supervisor Support and the Motivation to Improve Performance. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11 : 1883. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Vitae: The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers.2019. Reference Source Vukotich G: 360° Feedback: Ready, Fire, Aim-Issues With Improper Implementation. Perform. Improv. 2014; 53 (1): 30–35. Publisher Full Text Wang J, van Woerkom M , Breevaart K, et al. : Strengths-based leadership and employee work engagement: A multi-source study. J. Vocat. Behav. 2023; 142 : 103859. Publisher Full Text Weber M: Max Weber’s ‘science as a vocation’. Lassman P, Velody I, Martins H, editors. Unwin Hyman; 1989. Wellcome Trust: Evaluation of Wellcome Anti-Racism Programme Final Evalution Report—Public.2022a. Reference Source Wellcome Trust: Evaluation of Wellcome Anti-Racism Programme Final Evalution Report—Public.2022b. Reference Source Wellcome Trust: Wellcome Research Culture Townhalls Report.2020a. Wellcome Trust: What researchers think about the culture they work in.2020b. Reference Source Winter J: Performance and Development Through Conversation. Experience-Driven Leader Development. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2013; pp. 347–353. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 01 Jul 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Research Strategy Office, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 1TN, UK 2 Bennett Institute of Public Policy, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UK 3 Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 8PQ, UK 4 Department of Languages, Cultures and Film, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, L69 7WY, UK 5 Murray Edwards College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB3 0DF, UK 6 Human Resources, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 1TN, UK 7 Department of History of Art, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, CB2 1PX, UK 8 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK Mollie Etheridge Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Jessica Hampton Roles: Investigation, Methodology Becky Ioppolo Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Lara Abel Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Noam Tal-Perry Roles: Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Katherine Dawson Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Marie Collier Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Zoe Matthews Roles: Project Administration Kate Murray Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Sylvia Osborn Roles: Project Administration, Resources Liz Simmonds Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Steven Wooding Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work was primarily funded by the Research England Development Fund as the ‘Action Research on Research Culture’ grant, with additional support from several institutionally allocated sources including the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategy Support Fund. Representatives from Research England and the Wellcome Trust are members of our External Advisory Group, along with representatives from other funding organisations who are not funding the study. The funders had no direct role in the study design, data collection or analysis. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 19 Aug 2025, 13:717 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.2 version 1 Published: 01 Jul 2024, 13:717 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.1 Copyright © 2024 Etheridge M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Etheridge M, Hampton J, Ioppolo B et al. ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151211.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 01 Jul 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Nerad M and Bibbo C. Reviewer Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298047 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298047 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Aug 2024 Maresi Nerad , University of Washington, Seattle, USA Cecilia Bibbo , State University of New York (SUNY), Albany, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298047 Summary of the article The article investigated the relationship between postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) and Principal Investigators (PIs), and how this relationship influenced postdocs' engagement in career-focused professional development. The study was conducted at the University of Cambridge and intended ... Continue reading READ ALL Summary of the article The article investigated the relationship between postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) and Principal Investigators (PIs), and how this relationship influenced postdocs' engagement in career-focused professional development. The study was conducted at the University of Cambridge and intended to explore the frequency and quality of Career and Development (C&D) conversations, alongside the barriers faced when requesting and receiving feedback. The study explored the types of C&D conversations between postdocs and their PIs and the extent to which readily available forms of training tools could facilitate effective feedback and career development conversations. The study tested the authors’ hypotheses about using 360-degree feedback as well as the At my Best self-assessment tools. The results found that of the limited number of participating postdocs, most of them had C&D conversations, but those who did often doubted if holding career conversations was part of the PI's role. The findings suggested that the mostly project-focused orientations for new postdocs did not convey to them that they can expect or request career conversations from their PIs. Further, the effectiveness of the 360-degree feedback tool varied by length in the postdoc period, the perception of the role of the PI, and the time constraints, with junior postdocs finding it the least useful. Finally, cultural issues such as the University of Cambridge’s research culture environment, as well as the general academic system of time constraint can limit the effectiveness of professional development interventions. The study produced a useful overarching researcher framework between the postdocs and the PI within the context of the university’s values and academic system. It well depicts the postdoc/PI dynamic. Accordingly, the conclusions suggest exploring in-depth the various factors contributing to the quality and the challenges of the PI/postdoc relationship within the context of their universities’ values and academic system and clearly define professional priorities and expectations for postdocs as well as for PIs. Such an exploration may eventually provide possible avenues supporting postdocs and their PIs in conducting useful career and development conversations. The proposed next step by the researchers, to explore the self, others, the job role, and the wider academic system of postdocs and PIs, is highly welcomed and will be useful for many universities, beyond the UK, if the academic context is properly accounted for and described. The provided references are very informative and useful. Areas for further improvement It was a bit confusing that some participants were still doctoral candidates, yet the article talks about postdocs. A better description may be early career researchers (ECRs)-- which has been used once--and then list which categories are subsumed under ECR. A disaggregation by UK and international ECRs would be useful, as being from a different country/continent and socialized in a different research cultures may influence the postdoc/PI relationship. For example, in the Asian culture, requesting a C&D conservation from one’s PI, an authority figure, is very unlikely. Also knowing the gender pairing between PIs and ECR would be useful to analyze. U.S. research (e.g., NSF ADVANCE) has shown that it can make a difference whether the PI is a woman or a man in their support of career development vis-à-vis a female or male ECR. Considering that PIs have different roles in various academic contexts across the globe, it may be beneficial to explain the traditional the roles of PIs in the UK and at the particular university. For example, it may be useful to clarify how many PIs were professors and how many were senior researchers. While the authors used the definition of research culture from the Royal Society report, (behaviors, values, expectations, attitudes, and norms of our research communities) the specific research culture of Cambridge university might be described upfront. For Future studies A future study also would benefit from a longer follow-up period to assess the long-term impact of the interventions on postdocs' professional development and career progression. Tracking all participants, 3-6 months after the discussions or/and at the end of their postdoc period, could provide valuable insights into the sustainability of the interventions' effects. As correctly stated, this was a pilot study, given the small sample size (14 STEM participants) and the focus on a single institution. Further a larger and more diverse sample size from multiple institutions naturally allows for greater generalizability, robustness, and applicability of the results. Using statistical methods on a larger sample to analyze the pre- and post-workshop survey data could provide more concrete evidence of the interventions' impact. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Higher Education, doctoral education research, internationalization of doctoral education, We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Nerad M and Bibbo C. Reviewer Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298047 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298047 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 19 Aug 2025 Mollie Etheridge , Research Strategy Office, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1TN, UK 19 Aug 2025 Author Response Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen our manuscript. To clarify the scope of our participant group, we now use the ... Continue reading Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen our manuscript. To clarify the scope of our participant group, we now use the term “postdocs and closely related researchers,” as explained in footnote one. This phrasing reflects the specific context of UK academia, and Cambridge in particular, where individuals may begin postdoctoral work prior to formally completing their PhDs and may remain in transitional roles that fall outside traditional definitions of early career researchers (ECRs). We have considered cultural and gendered dynamics within the postdoc/PI relationship, and we acknowledge their potential significance. However, while we offer some speculative reflections, our data does not provide sufficient depth on these aspects to support firm conclusions. This is a valuable area for future research, and we appreciate the reviewer highlighting its importance. We have added contextual information about the specific research culture at the University of Cambridge, noting how it may differ from other UK institutions. While we do address the mentoring expectations implicit in PI roles, our study does not include the postdocs’ PIs as participants. As such, our analysis is necessarily based on the perspectives and thus reported experiences and professional relationships of postdocs. We recognise the limitations of this approach, as another reviewer rightly notes, but argue that it also provides critical insight into what postdocs perceive as necessary for their career development. This perspective offers a useful foundation for future studies that could more directly assess the impact of specific interventions and mentoring practices on career outcomes. Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen our manuscript. To clarify the scope of our participant group, we now use the term “postdocs and closely related researchers,” as explained in footnote one. This phrasing reflects the specific context of UK academia, and Cambridge in particular, where individuals may begin postdoctoral work prior to formally completing their PhDs and may remain in transitional roles that fall outside traditional definitions of early career researchers (ECRs). We have considered cultural and gendered dynamics within the postdoc/PI relationship, and we acknowledge their potential significance. However, while we offer some speculative reflections, our data does not provide sufficient depth on these aspects to support firm conclusions. This is a valuable area for future research, and we appreciate the reviewer highlighting its importance. We have added contextual information about the specific research culture at the University of Cambridge, noting how it may differ from other UK institutions. While we do address the mentoring expectations implicit in PI roles, our study does not include the postdocs’ PIs as participants. As such, our analysis is necessarily based on the perspectives and thus reported experiences and professional relationships of postdocs. We recognise the limitations of this approach, as another reviewer rightly notes, but argue that it also provides critical insight into what postdocs perceive as necessary for their career development. This perspective offers a useful foundation for future studies that could more directly assess the impact of specific interventions and mentoring practices on career outcomes. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 19 Aug 2025 Mollie Etheridge , Research Strategy Office, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1TN, UK 19 Aug 2025 Author Response Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen our manuscript. To clarify the scope of our participant group, we now use the ... Continue reading Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen our manuscript. To clarify the scope of our participant group, we now use the term “postdocs and closely related researchers,” as explained in footnote one. This phrasing reflects the specific context of UK academia, and Cambridge in particular, where individuals may begin postdoctoral work prior to formally completing their PhDs and may remain in transitional roles that fall outside traditional definitions of early career researchers (ECRs). We have considered cultural and gendered dynamics within the postdoc/PI relationship, and we acknowledge their potential significance. However, while we offer some speculative reflections, our data does not provide sufficient depth on these aspects to support firm conclusions. This is a valuable area for future research, and we appreciate the reviewer highlighting its importance. We have added contextual information about the specific research culture at the University of Cambridge, noting how it may differ from other UK institutions. While we do address the mentoring expectations implicit in PI roles, our study does not include the postdocs’ PIs as participants. As such, our analysis is necessarily based on the perspectives and thus reported experiences and professional relationships of postdocs. We recognise the limitations of this approach, as another reviewer rightly notes, but argue that it also provides critical insight into what postdocs perceive as necessary for their career development. This perspective offers a useful foundation for future studies that could more directly assess the impact of specific interventions and mentoring practices on career outcomes. Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen our manuscript. To clarify the scope of our participant group, we now use the term “postdocs and closely related researchers,” as explained in footnote one. This phrasing reflects the specific context of UK academia, and Cambridge in particular, where individuals may begin postdoctoral work prior to formally completing their PhDs and may remain in transitional roles that fall outside traditional definitions of early career researchers (ECRs). We have considered cultural and gendered dynamics within the postdoc/PI relationship, and we acknowledge their potential significance. However, while we offer some speculative reflections, our data does not provide sufficient depth on these aspects to support firm conclusions. This is a valuable area for future research, and we appreciate the reviewer highlighting its importance. We have added contextual information about the specific research culture at the University of Cambridge, noting how it may differ from other UK institutions. While we do address the mentoring expectations implicit in PI roles, our study does not include the postdocs’ PIs as participants. As such, our analysis is necessarily based on the perspectives and thus reported experiences and professional relationships of postdocs. We recognise the limitations of this approach, as another reviewer rightly notes, but argue that it also provides critical insight into what postdocs perceive as necessary for their career development. This perspective offers a useful foundation for future studies that could more directly assess the impact of specific interventions and mentoring practices on career outcomes. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Teelken C. Reviewer Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298045 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298045 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Jul 2024 Christine Teelken , VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298045 The paper is well written, clearly structured and concerns an important, but relatively under researched topic (career development of postdocs). The specific focus, the interactions between postdocs and their PIs is specially relevant and intriguing, since the general lack of ... Continue reading READ ALL The paper is well written, clearly structured and concerns an important, but relatively under researched topic (career development of postdocs). The specific focus, the interactions between postdocs and their PIs is specially relevant and intriguing, since the general lack of career perspectives contribute directly to their lack of well being. The presented data are clearly part of a much larger study, this is well explained. I sincerely like the structure and quite practical side of the paper. Also, interestingly, while the paper reports on a comparatively small group of postdocs (STEM, University of Cambridge) their demographics (nationality) and background (disciplinary) are highly diverse. Interesting that you used both individual and group interviews. Given the good quality of the paper I have very few recommendations: 1) the view of the PI, is it possible to interview them as well, or let them join in the group interviews? 2) part of the results are a bit 'add on', quite focussed on the individual respondents, I would like to see a more general focus. 3) the conclusion is interesting but could refer more clearly back to the the theory (specially the C&D conversations part) 4) I have some of my own work in the references, given this open review procedure, that seems quite legitimate. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. van der Weijden I, Teelken C: Precarious careers: postdoctoral researchers and wellbeing at work. Studies in Higher Education . 2023; 48 (10): 1595-1607 Publisher Full Text 2. Teelken C, Van der Weijden I: The employment situations and career prospects of postdoctoral researchers. Employee Relations . 2018; 40 (2): 396-411 Publisher Full Text 3. Teelken J.C: Reimagining Doctorate Holders’ motivations to Make Career Transitions: Exploring post-PhD career prospects within and outside academia. Emerald insight In: Talent Management in Higher Education, Emerald. WW Norton & Company . 2024. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Academic Careers, Post-PhD careers, Higher education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Teelken C. Reviewer Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298045 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298045 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Schnell S. Reviewer Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298048 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298048 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Jul 2024 Santiago Schnell , University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298048 General Comments The first version of this work presents a timely exploration of the challenges postdoctoral researchers face in engaging with career-focused professional development. The paper's focus on the dynamics between postdocs and their principal investigators (PIs) ... Continue reading READ ALL General Comments The first version of this work presents a timely exploration of the challenges postdoctoral researchers face in engaging with career-focused professional development. The paper's focus on the dynamics between postdocs and their principal investigators (PIs) is important, as is the examination of available feedback tools as a potential intervention. However, as it stands, this version of the paper is an anecdotal study with limited impact on our understanding of career-focused professional development opportunities for postdoctoral fellows. As a result of this, I cannot endorse this paper. Detailed reasons for my decision are stated below. Major Points for Consideration Incorrect View of the Role of Mentors The first version of the paper incorrectly departs from the principle that principal investigators (PIs) do not view themselves as mentors responsible for the career development of postdoctoral fellows and that there are no incentives from funding agencies or academic institutions to promote mentoring. This view is not supported by my experience as a Principal Investigator, Academic Administrator, and the customs in academia. It indicates a major misunderstanding. The success of faculty members is measured by the successful mentoring and placement of the individuals they mentor in their research groups. Faculty members are very proud to list the achievements and placements of their mentees, whether undergraduate and graduate students or postdoctoral fellows. Moreover, many research funding agencies require the incorporation of postdoctoral mentoring plans in research grants, which support postdoctoral fellows. For example, the US National Science Foundation requires mentoring plans as part of its funding process [1]. In the UK, the Wellcome Early-Career Awards also request mentoring plans for postdoctoral fellows from the mentor [2]. Additionally, the UK Research and Innovation encourages mentors to follow the principles of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers [3]. This reviewer has never been part of an academic institution where a PI is referred to as a manager of a postdoctoral fellow. The PI is generally referred to as a manager of technical staff or administrative staff, but not of trainees: undergraduate and graduate students, or postdoctoral fellows. Perhaps the University of Cambridge is different. However, I doubt that "The Other Place" has such a culture. The authors should consult with a group of experienced active academics who are actively training postdoctoral fellows or serve as directors of postdoctoral studies. Definition of Postdoctoral Fellow The first version of the paper lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a postdoctoral fellow. In the large majority of academic institutions, postdoctoral fellowships are advanced training positions with a limit of five to six years. Exceptions to this limit should be permitted only in cases where additional time and training are clearly needed to prepare the postdoctoral fellow for their future career. In the USA, it is exceptional to find an academic institution that will appoint someone who has already served five years as a postdoctoral fellow again in a postdoctoral position. This has been a standard practice for over 20 years, which was promoted by the US National Academies [4]. Including individuals with more than 5 to 6 years of postdoctoral experience would not be considered appropriate. Are those individuals postdoctoral fellows or research technical staff? This aspect is crucial for understanding the context and limitations of postdoctoral training and should be incorporated into the study design. Small Sample Size The small sample size (14 participants out of a population of 4,000 in one institution) further limits the study's generalizability and statistical power. The authors acknowledge this limitation, but it is bold to make broad and concluding statements about PI and postdoc dynamics with such a small sample. As a matter of fact, the sample is probably non-representative of the postdoctoral fellow population. Study participants were not randomly recruited and selected but voluntarily responded through flyers selectively distributed via social media, email, or campus. Recruitment Challenges The difficulty in recruiting participants, as noted by the authors, is a significant concern. It suggests that the very postdocs who might benefit most from such interventions are the least likely to engage with them. This could be due to various factors, such as the nature of the evaluation vehicle offered, workshops, time constraints, lack of awareness, or skepticism about the value of professional development. Focus on 360-Degree Feedback While the first version of the paper emphasizes 360-degree feedback, it doesn't fully explore other potential interventions or strategies to improve postdoc engagement with professional development. The literature suggests a range of approaches, such as individual development plans (IDPs), mentoring programs, career workshops, and individualized career counseling, that could be considered. The authors seem to be completely unaware of the extensive literature on postdoctoral training programs and resources available. [see, for example, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to cite a few]. 360-degree feedback seems to be effective for individuals working in a large corporate, industrial, or government setting. A PI's research group is not the best place to apply such a tool. The title suggests that postdocs do not want to engage on career development. However, it is possible that the 360-degree tool is the problem! Lack of a Control or Comparison Group The absence of a control or comparison group is a major problem. It makes it difficult to isolate the specific impact of the 360-degree feedback interventions or any other intervention. It's unclear whether any observed changes in career conversations or professional development engagement are attributable to the interventions themselves or other factors. Focusing on Postdoc Feelings instead of Career Outcomes Another major problem with the first version of this paper is focusing the results on the feelings of the postdoctoral fellows rather than the career outcomes of the postdoctoral fellows. Is the 360-degree feedback intervention leading to better career outcomes for the postdoctoral fellows than no feedback or other instrument feedbacks? The results of this work are focusing on the wrong objective. I do not want to diminish the value of feelings. However, PIs mentor postdoctoral fellows with the goal of helping them achieve their career objectives and aspirations. It is unclear why the study is not focusing directly on the outcomes of the career development tools. Limited Generalizability The study's focus on STEM postdocs at a single institution, the University of Cambridge, raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings. The authors are making conclusions about institutional factors when they have only studied one institution. The unique context of Cambridge, with its large number of postdocs and specific institutional culture, may not be representative of other institutions or disciplines. Minor points for consideration Clarity of Research Questions The research questions could be more explicitly stated in the introduction. This would help readers better understand the study's specific aims and objectives. Even though this reviewer does not think that the 360-degree feedback tool is the best option, the hypothesis that 360-degree feedback tools can empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations and address the feedback shortfall is clearly stated. However, the paper would benefit from a more detailed justification of this hypothesis, supported by a broader review of existing literature on feedback mechanisms and their impact on professional development in academic settings. Theoretical Framework The paper could benefit from a more robust theoretical framework to guide the analysis and interpretation of the findings. This would help situate the study within the broader literature on postdoctoral training and career development. For example, [6] used a design-based multilevel structural equation model to examine the relationships between IDP use, mentoring support, and career preparedness, demonstrating the potential of such models to inform interventions. In [7], a postdoctoral training program focused on soft skills and IDPs to support postdoctoral fellows and improve long-term career outcomes. Discussion of "Researcher Development Framework" The "Researcher Development Framework" presented in Figure 6 is a valuable contribution, but its implications could be discussed in more detail. How can this framework be used to inform future interventions or policies aimed at improving postdoc professional development? Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Reference Source 2. Reference Source 3. Reference Source 4. Reference Source 5. Reference Source 6. Chang CN, Patterson CA, Vanderford NL, Evans TM: Modeling individual development plans, mentoring support, and career preparedness relationships among Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) trainees in the life sciences. F1000Res . 2021; 10 : 626 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Omary M, Shah Y, Schnell S, Subramanian S, et al.: Enhancing career development of postdoctoral trainees: act locally and beyond. The Journal of Physiology . 2019; 597 (9): 2317-2322 Publisher Full Text 8. Vanderford NL, Evans TM, Weiss LT, Bira L, et al.: Use and effectiveness of the Individual Development Plan among postdoctoral researchers: findings from a cross-sectional study. F1000Res . 2018; 7 : 1132 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 9. Gruber J, Borelli JL, Prinstein MJ, Clark LA, et al.: Best practices in research mentoring in clinical science. J Abnorm Psychol . 2020; 129 (1): 70-81 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Hokanson S, Goldberg B: Proactive Postdoc Mentoring. 2018. 91-120 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Dr. Santiago Schnell applies mathematical, computational, and statistical methods to address complex biomedical problems. His research focuses on (i) developing standard methods for high-quality measurements in biomedical sciences and scientometrics, and (ii) developing mathematical models to understand complex biomedical systems. Additionally, Dr. Schnell has significantly contributed to the development and management of postdoctoral training programs at two academic institutions, with the outcomes of one program published in The Journal of Physiology (2019; 597(9): 2317-2322). I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Schnell S. Reviewer Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298048 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298048 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 01 Jul 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 19 Aug 25 Version 1 01 Jul 24 read read read Santiago Schnell , University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA Christine Teelken , VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Maresi Nerad , University of Washington, Seattle, USA Cecilia Bibbo , State University of New York (SUNY), Albany, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Nerad M et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Aug 2024 | for Version 1 Maresi Nerad , University of Washington, Seattle, USA Cecilia Bibbo , State University of New York (SUNY), Albany, USA 0 Views copyright © 2024 Nerad M et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Summary of the article The article investigated the relationship between postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) and Principal Investigators (PIs), and how this relationship influenced postdocs' engagement in career-focused professional development. The study was conducted at the University of Cambridge and intended to explore the frequency and quality of Career and Development (C&D) conversations, alongside the barriers faced when requesting and receiving feedback. The study explored the types of C&D conversations between postdocs and their PIs and the extent to which readily available forms of training tools could facilitate effective feedback and career development conversations. The study tested the authors’ hypotheses about using 360-degree feedback as well as the At my Best self-assessment tools. The results found that of the limited number of participating postdocs, most of them had C&D conversations, but those who did often doubted if holding career conversations was part of the PI's role. The findings suggested that the mostly project-focused orientations for new postdocs did not convey to them that they can expect or request career conversations from their PIs. Further, the effectiveness of the 360-degree feedback tool varied by length in the postdoc period, the perception of the role of the PI, and the time constraints, with junior postdocs finding it the least useful. Finally, cultural issues such as the University of Cambridge’s research culture environment, as well as the general academic system of time constraint can limit the effectiveness of professional development interventions. The study produced a useful overarching researcher framework between the postdocs and the PI within the context of the university’s values and academic system. It well depicts the postdoc/PI dynamic. Accordingly, the conclusions suggest exploring in-depth the various factors contributing to the quality and the challenges of the PI/postdoc relationship within the context of their universities’ values and academic system and clearly define professional priorities and expectations for postdocs as well as for PIs. Such an exploration may eventually provide possible avenues supporting postdocs and their PIs in conducting useful career and development conversations. The proposed next step by the researchers, to explore the self, others, the job role, and the wider academic system of postdocs and PIs, is highly welcomed and will be useful for many universities, beyond the UK, if the academic context is properly accounted for and described. The provided references are very informative and useful. Areas for further improvement It was a bit confusing that some participants were still doctoral candidates, yet the article talks about postdocs. A better description may be early career researchers (ECRs)-- which has been used once--and then list which categories are subsumed under ECR. A disaggregation by UK and international ECRs would be useful, as being from a different country/continent and socialized in a different research cultures may influence the postdoc/PI relationship. For example, in the Asian culture, requesting a C&D conservation from one’s PI, an authority figure, is very unlikely. Also knowing the gender pairing between PIs and ECR would be useful to analyze. U.S. research (e.g., NSF ADVANCE) has shown that it can make a difference whether the PI is a woman or a man in their support of career development vis-à-vis a female or male ECR. Considering that PIs have different roles in various academic contexts across the globe, it may be beneficial to explain the traditional the roles of PIs in the UK and at the particular university. For example, it may be useful to clarify how many PIs were professors and how many were senior researchers. While the authors used the definition of research culture from the Royal Society report, (behaviors, values, expectations, attitudes, and norms of our research communities) the specific research culture of Cambridge university might be described upfront. For Future studies A future study also would benefit from a longer follow-up period to assess the long-term impact of the interventions on postdocs' professional development and career progression. Tracking all participants, 3-6 months after the discussions or/and at the end of their postdoc period, could provide valuable insights into the sustainability of the interventions' effects. As correctly stated, this was a pilot study, given the small sample size (14 STEM participants) and the focus on a single institution. Further a larger and more diverse sample size from multiple institutions naturally allows for greater generalizability, robustness, and applicability of the results. Using statistical methods on a larger sample to analyze the pre- and post-workshop survey data could provide more concrete evidence of the interventions' impact. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Higher Education, doctoral education research, internationalization of doctoral education, We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 19 Aug 2025 Mollie Etheridge, Research Strategy Office, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1TN, UK Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to refine and strengthen our manuscript. To clarify the scope of our participant group, we now use the term “postdocs and closely related researchers,” as explained in footnote one. This phrasing reflects the specific context of UK academia, and Cambridge in particular, where individuals may begin postdoctoral work prior to formally completing their PhDs and may remain in transitional roles that fall outside traditional definitions of early career researchers (ECRs). We have considered cultural and gendered dynamics within the postdoc/PI relationship, and we acknowledge their potential significance. However, while we offer some speculative reflections, our data does not provide sufficient depth on these aspects to support firm conclusions. This is a valuable area for future research, and we appreciate the reviewer highlighting its importance. We have added contextual information about the specific research culture at the University of Cambridge, noting how it may differ from other UK institutions. While we do address the mentoring expectations implicit in PI roles, our study does not include the postdocs’ PIs as participants. As such, our analysis is necessarily based on the perspectives and thus reported experiences and professional relationships of postdocs. We recognise the limitations of this approach, as another reviewer rightly notes, but argue that it also provides critical insight into what postdocs perceive as necessary for their career development. This perspective offers a useful foundation for future studies that could more directly assess the impact of specific interventions and mentoring practices on career outcomes. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Nerad M and Bibbo C. Peer Review Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298047) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298047 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Teelken C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Jul 2024 | for Version 1 Christine Teelken , VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 0 Views copyright © 2024 Teelken C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The paper is well written, clearly structured and concerns an important, but relatively under researched topic (career development of postdocs). The specific focus, the interactions between postdocs and their PIs is specially relevant and intriguing, since the general lack of career perspectives contribute directly to their lack of well being. The presented data are clearly part of a much larger study, this is well explained. I sincerely like the structure and quite practical side of the paper. Also, interestingly, while the paper reports on a comparatively small group of postdocs (STEM, University of Cambridge) their demographics (nationality) and background (disciplinary) are highly diverse. Interesting that you used both individual and group interviews. Given the good quality of the paper I have very few recommendations: 1) the view of the PI, is it possible to interview them as well, or let them join in the group interviews? 2) part of the results are a bit 'add on', quite focussed on the individual respondents, I would like to see a more general focus. 3) the conclusion is interesting but could refer more clearly back to the the theory (specially the C&D conversations part) 4) I have some of my own work in the references, given this open review procedure, that seems quite legitimate. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. van der Weijden I, Teelken C: Precarious careers: postdoctoral researchers and wellbeing at work. Studies in Higher Education . 2023; 48 (10): 1595-1607 Publisher Full Text 2. Teelken C, Van der Weijden I: The employment situations and career prospects of postdoctoral researchers. Employee Relations . 2018; 40 (2): 396-411 Publisher Full Text 3. Teelken J.C: Reimagining Doctorate Holders’ motivations to Make Career Transitions: Exploring post-PhD career prospects within and outside academia. Emerald insight In: Talent Management in Higher Education, Emerald. WW Norton & Company . 2024. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Academic Careers, Post-PhD careers, Higher education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Teelken C. Peer Review Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298045) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298045 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Schnell S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Jul 2024 | for Version 1 Santiago Schnell , University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA 0 Views copyright © 2024 Schnell S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions General Comments The first version of this work presents a timely exploration of the challenges postdoctoral researchers face in engaging with career-focused professional development. The paper's focus on the dynamics between postdocs and their principal investigators (PIs) is important, as is the examination of available feedback tools as a potential intervention. However, as it stands, this version of the paper is an anecdotal study with limited impact on our understanding of career-focused professional development opportunities for postdoctoral fellows. As a result of this, I cannot endorse this paper. Detailed reasons for my decision are stated below. Major Points for Consideration Incorrect View of the Role of Mentors The first version of the paper incorrectly departs from the principle that principal investigators (PIs) do not view themselves as mentors responsible for the career development of postdoctoral fellows and that there are no incentives from funding agencies or academic institutions to promote mentoring. This view is not supported by my experience as a Principal Investigator, Academic Administrator, and the customs in academia. It indicates a major misunderstanding. The success of faculty members is measured by the successful mentoring and placement of the individuals they mentor in their research groups. Faculty members are very proud to list the achievements and placements of their mentees, whether undergraduate and graduate students or postdoctoral fellows. Moreover, many research funding agencies require the incorporation of postdoctoral mentoring plans in research grants, which support postdoctoral fellows. For example, the US National Science Foundation requires mentoring plans as part of its funding process [1]. In the UK, the Wellcome Early-Career Awards also request mentoring plans for postdoctoral fellows from the mentor [2]. Additionally, the UK Research and Innovation encourages mentors to follow the principles of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers [3]. This reviewer has never been part of an academic institution where a PI is referred to as a manager of a postdoctoral fellow. The PI is generally referred to as a manager of technical staff or administrative staff, but not of trainees: undergraduate and graduate students, or postdoctoral fellows. Perhaps the University of Cambridge is different. However, I doubt that "The Other Place" has such a culture. The authors should consult with a group of experienced active academics who are actively training postdoctoral fellows or serve as directors of postdoctoral studies. Definition of Postdoctoral Fellow The first version of the paper lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a postdoctoral fellow. In the large majority of academic institutions, postdoctoral fellowships are advanced training positions with a limit of five to six years. Exceptions to this limit should be permitted only in cases where additional time and training are clearly needed to prepare the postdoctoral fellow for their future career. In the USA, it is exceptional to find an academic institution that will appoint someone who has already served five years as a postdoctoral fellow again in a postdoctoral position. This has been a standard practice for over 20 years, which was promoted by the US National Academies [4]. Including individuals with more than 5 to 6 years of postdoctoral experience would not be considered appropriate. Are those individuals postdoctoral fellows or research technical staff? This aspect is crucial for understanding the context and limitations of postdoctoral training and should be incorporated into the study design. Small Sample Size The small sample size (14 participants out of a population of 4,000 in one institution) further limits the study's generalizability and statistical power. The authors acknowledge this limitation, but it is bold to make broad and concluding statements about PI and postdoc dynamics with such a small sample. As a matter of fact, the sample is probably non-representative of the postdoctoral fellow population. Study participants were not randomly recruited and selected but voluntarily responded through flyers selectively distributed via social media, email, or campus. Recruitment Challenges The difficulty in recruiting participants, as noted by the authors, is a significant concern. It suggests that the very postdocs who might benefit most from such interventions are the least likely to engage with them. This could be due to various factors, such as the nature of the evaluation vehicle offered, workshops, time constraints, lack of awareness, or skepticism about the value of professional development. Focus on 360-Degree Feedback While the first version of the paper emphasizes 360-degree feedback, it doesn't fully explore other potential interventions or strategies to improve postdoc engagement with professional development. The literature suggests a range of approaches, such as individual development plans (IDPs), mentoring programs, career workshops, and individualized career counseling, that could be considered. The authors seem to be completely unaware of the extensive literature on postdoctoral training programs and resources available. [see, for example, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to cite a few]. 360-degree feedback seems to be effective for individuals working in a large corporate, industrial, or government setting. A PI's research group is not the best place to apply such a tool. The title suggests that postdocs do not want to engage on career development. However, it is possible that the 360-degree tool is the problem! Lack of a Control or Comparison Group The absence of a control or comparison group is a major problem. It makes it difficult to isolate the specific impact of the 360-degree feedback interventions or any other intervention. It's unclear whether any observed changes in career conversations or professional development engagement are attributable to the interventions themselves or other factors. Focusing on Postdoc Feelings instead of Career Outcomes Another major problem with the first version of this paper is focusing the results on the feelings of the postdoctoral fellows rather than the career outcomes of the postdoctoral fellows. Is the 360-degree feedback intervention leading to better career outcomes for the postdoctoral fellows than no feedback or other instrument feedbacks? The results of this work are focusing on the wrong objective. I do not want to diminish the value of feelings. However, PIs mentor postdoctoral fellows with the goal of helping them achieve their career objectives and aspirations. It is unclear why the study is not focusing directly on the outcomes of the career development tools. Limited Generalizability The study's focus on STEM postdocs at a single institution, the University of Cambridge, raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings. The authors are making conclusions about institutional factors when they have only studied one institution. The unique context of Cambridge, with its large number of postdocs and specific institutional culture, may not be representative of other institutions or disciplines. Minor points for consideration Clarity of Research Questions The research questions could be more explicitly stated in the introduction. This would help readers better understand the study's specific aims and objectives. Even though this reviewer does not think that the 360-degree feedback tool is the best option, the hypothesis that 360-degree feedback tools can empower postdocs to initiate C&D conversations and address the feedback shortfall is clearly stated. However, the paper would benefit from a more detailed justification of this hypothesis, supported by a broader review of existing literature on feedback mechanisms and their impact on professional development in academic settings. Theoretical Framework The paper could benefit from a more robust theoretical framework to guide the analysis and interpretation of the findings. This would help situate the study within the broader literature on postdoctoral training and career development. For example, [6] used a design-based multilevel structural equation model to examine the relationships between IDP use, mentoring support, and career preparedness, demonstrating the potential of such models to inform interventions. In [7], a postdoctoral training program focused on soft skills and IDPs to support postdoctoral fellows and improve long-term career outcomes. Discussion of "Researcher Development Framework" The "Researcher Development Framework" presented in Figure 6 is a valuable contribution, but its implications could be discussed in more detail. How can this framework be used to inform future interventions or policies aimed at improving postdoc professional development? Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Reference Source 2. Reference Source 3. Reference Source 4. Reference Source 5. Reference Source 6. Chang CN, Patterson CA, Vanderford NL, Evans TM: Modeling individual development plans, mentoring support, and career preparedness relationships among Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) trainees in the life sciences. F1000Res . 2021; 10 : 626 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Omary M, Shah Y, Schnell S, Subramanian S, et al.: Enhancing career development of postdoctoral trainees: act locally and beyond. The Journal of Physiology . 2019; 597 (9): 2317-2322 Publisher Full Text 8. Vanderford NL, Evans TM, Weiss LT, Bira L, et al.: Use and effectiveness of the Individual Development Plan among postdoctoral researchers: findings from a cross-sectional study. F1000Res . 2018; 7 : 1132 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 9. Gruber J, Borelli JL, Prinstein MJ, Clark LA, et al.: Best practices in research mentoring in clinical science. J Abnorm Psychol . 2020; 129 (1): 70-81 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Hokanson S, Goldberg B: Proactive Postdoc Mentoring. 2018. 91-120 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Dr. Santiago Schnell applies mathematical, computational, and statistical methods to address complex biomedical problems. His research focuses on (i) developing standard methods for high-quality measurements in biomedical sciences and scientometrics, and (ii) developing mathematical models to understand complex biomedical systems. Additionally, Dr. Schnell has significantly contributed to the development and management of postdoctoral training programs at two academic institutions, with the outcomes of one program published in The Journal of Physiology (2019; 597(9): 2317-2322). I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Schnell S. Peer Review Report For: ‘What seems to be missing is actual reality’ Why don’t postdocs engage with career-focused professional development? [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :717 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165840.r298048) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1#referee-response-298048 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "\‘What seems to be missing is actual...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Etheridge M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717", templates : { twitter : "\‘What seems to be missing is actual reality\’ Why don\’t.... Etheridge M et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-717/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/151211/165840") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "165840"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "453006": 0, "453007": 0, "453004": 0, "453005": 0, "453002": 0, "453003": 0, "453001": 0, "453010": 0, "453008": 0, "453009": 0, "474679": 0, "474678": 0, "474677": 0, "474676": 0, "474675": 0, "474674": 0, "474673": 0, "298044": 0, "298045": 35, "298046": 0, "298047": 38, "298041": 0, "474682": 0, "298042": 0, "474681": 0, "298043": 0, "474680": 0, "451014": 0, "451015": 0, "451012": 0, "451013": 0, "298048": 53, "451010": 0, "298049": 0, "451011": 0, "298050": 0, "439886": 0, "439887": 0, "439884": 0, "439885": 0, "439882": 0, "451018": 0, "439883": 0, "451019": 0, "439880": 0, "451016": 0, "439881": 0, "451017": 0, "414550": 0, "414551": 0, "414548": 0, "414549": 0, "414546": 0, "414547": 0, "439888": 0, "414545": 0, "439889": 0, "414552": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "c4e91532-d5eb-4758-88df-85d0b948f8d6"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });