Definitely agree with you that a journal club is very important. I get so much out of them and like you learn something (lots) every time. I really appreciate that you respect that not everyone wants to speak up during the discussions but you still see the result in their work. We also find that there's also usually someone that has not read the paper that attends; they aren't criticised for that, in fact we just use it as a challenge to be able to describe the paper in a way that they can understand and they use it to ask great questions about 'did they do this?' thinking about it from their own perspective of 'how would I have tested the idea in this case?', not knowing how the work was actually carried out. We even thought about having a nominated person each week to be the non-reader!! If they understand everything and want to read the paper, then it's a successful discussion!
Thanks for sharing! The non-reader, I bet there would be volunteers for that role. ;) Not everyone has the time to read every paper in great detail, and I think the final bits of the discussion (now what can *we* do?) are typically so general that people can contribute even if they haven't spent a lot of time reading the paper.
very interesting video. Indeed, the "non speaker" behaviour sometimes do not help to get in touch with new ideas in a meeting. Frequently, younger (less age or time in the lab) members may experience some problems in debating. But I think that debating on the scientific topics is a pivotal role in the development of a research, research line and indeed having a ms put on the desk. I would suggest you to discuss in a journal club the following paper, that you likely know (www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.627345/full). In my opinion, this perspective is useful to launch various issues of debate since it encompasses aspects of plant physiology, plant-microbe (especially arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) interaction and their implication for plant breeding and the agronomic management, with hints on the plant and human need (well, I speak "plantish", not "fungish", as P. Bonfante and A. Genre would say). I also think this perspective pave the way to the debate of the AMF breeding strategy. These strategies are recently being debated by P. Franken in various online seminars with special emphasis to the selection of the AMF strain or species. Collins and Gibson view turn out a hand to the potential choice of system combinations (of AMF, plants and crop management). Regards. Sergio
Yes; it certainly takes some time to 'warm up'. We recently changed the meeting to have small groups discussions first, before it goes into plenum. I think this already helps.
Definitely agree with you that a journal club is very important. I get so much out of them and like you learn something (lots) every time. I really appreciate that you respect that not everyone wants to speak up during the discussions but you still see the result in their work. We also find that there's also usually someone that has not read the paper that attends; they aren't criticised for that, in fact we just use it as a challenge to be able to describe the paper in a way that they can understand and they use it to ask great questions about 'did they do this?' thinking about it from their own perspective of 'how would I have tested the idea in this case?', not knowing how the work was actually carried out. We even thought about having a nominated person each week to be the non-reader!! If they understand everything and want to read the paper, then it's a successful discussion!
Thanks for sharing! The non-reader, I bet there would be volunteers for that role. ;)
Not everyone has the time to read every paper in great detail, and I think the final bits of the discussion (now what can *we* do?) are typically so general that people can contribute even if they haven't spent a lot of time reading the paper.
This video came when I needed it most! Thank you for the inspiration 👍🏾👍🏾
Thanks, glad you lied it!
MAGNIFICENT VIDEO!!!
Thanks; glad you liked it.
very interesting video. Indeed, the "non speaker" behaviour sometimes do not help to get in touch with new ideas in a meeting. Frequently, younger (less age or time in the lab) members may experience some problems in debating. But I think that debating on the scientific topics is a pivotal role in the development of a research, research line and indeed having a ms put on the desk.
I would suggest you to discuss in a journal club the following paper, that you likely know (www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.627345/full). In my opinion, this perspective is useful to launch various issues of debate since it encompasses aspects of plant physiology, plant-microbe (especially arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) interaction and their implication for plant breeding and the agronomic management, with hints on the plant and human need (well, I speak "plantish", not "fungish", as P. Bonfante and A. Genre would say). I also think this perspective pave the way to the debate of the AMF breeding strategy. These strategies are recently being debated by P. Franken in various online seminars with special emphasis to the selection of the AMF strain or species. Collins and Gibson view turn out a hand to the potential choice of system combinations (of AMF, plants and crop management).
Regards.
Sergio
Yes; it certainly takes some time to 'warm up'. We recently changed the meeting to have small groups discussions first, before it goes into plenum. I think this already helps.
very good, it would be great to have you as an advisor
👍