Our lab is growing! In our Three Questions series, we’re profiling each of our members and the amazing work they’re doing.

Our latest post features Mario Malički, a former visiting scholar and ongoing collaborator at the ScholCommLab. Currently working as a postdoc at METRICS Stanford University, Mario is also a Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review. In this post, he reflects on some of the proudest moments of his career and shares why he’s most excited about the moments yet to come. 

---

Q#1 What are you working on at the lab? 

Joseph Costello, Juan Pablo Alperin, Lauren Maggio, and I recently finished an analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints. And I have recently proposed a template for peer review which I will improve based on the feedback from the lab. It is my hope that such a template will help both young and established researchers be more honest in acknowledging and understanding their scholarly strengths, and how they can best help those whose papers they review. The template is supposed to support researchers in conducting and writing their review reports, and help them focus on essential items they should try to address.  

Q#2 Tell us about a recent paper, presentation, or project you’re proud of. 

I am moving in the mid-career researcher stage and have been recently reflecting on the 30+ papers I have co-authored in my lifetime. I remember the pride I felt the first time I designed and wrote a full study from scratch that did not involve my PhD mentors. I also remember the sense of accomplishment I experienced when I finally finalized a project on duplicate publications after five years of work, as well as the satisfaction of posting my last preprint that dealt with preprint server policies and research integrity. Lately, however, I am most proud that I have realized what I want to focus on in the next period of my career: increasing the transparency of peer review. I believe it’s time we start making it clear when peer review predominantly provides a seal of approval for a study well done vs when it greatly improves the study’s reporting, analysis, or interpretation of results. 

I am moving in the mid-career researcher stage and have been recently reflecting on the 30+ papers I have co-authored in my lifetime… I have realized what I want to focus on in the next period of my career: increasing the transparency of peer review.

Q#3 What’s the best (or worst) piece of advice you’ve ever received? 

My mum worked as a nurse, so there is a trifecta of advice I always think of when someone asks about advice I’ve received. Although I remember them in series, I cannot be sure she offered these words of advice one after the other—maybe they just accumulated in my mind over time. The first one was to never use fireworks (as she would treat so many kids who had been badly hurt by them), the second was to use protection (as you don’t want to regret your choices), and the third was to live with someone for at least a year before you marry them.  

The worst advice (I got this twice actually) was that I should back down on my principles if I wanted to more easily advance in academia and not offend senior or emeritus professors. Even though I didn’t take the advice, I am glad those words were spoken to me, as they made me realize under which conditions and with whom I want to continue working as a researcher.   

Find Mario on Twitter at @Mario_Malicki