まじめな先生は、教授室や研究室で女子学生と2人きりで会うことは絶対にありません。そんな状況になったときは、ドアを開けておく。学外で2人きりで会うこともない。もし、2人きりになってドアを閉じるような先生ならば注意すべきでしょう。（大学セクハラ －大学生の娘が担当教授から「性的被害」を受けたら…… PRESIDENT 2007年12月3日号 president.jp）
教授の中には、露骨に「君には今度の学会で論文を発表させてあげよう」とか「君をどこそこの研究機関に紹介してあげよう」などと甘言をもちいて性的な誘いをするケースがあり、これを学生が拒否すると、その後全然指導をしてくれなくなったり、研究テーマをもらえなかったり、今までの態度をひるがえし、研究内容について罵倒される、などの不利益をこうむるケースがありえます。 （助けて！教授がセクハラをしてきます。All About 2008年08月27日）
「日経の顔」田勢康弘早大教授がセクハラで解職（My News Japan 04/09 2010）:”日経新聞の客員コラムニストで早大大学院客員教授の田勢康弘氏(65)が、修士論文審査中の女子学生に対して「共著で小説を出すんだから脱げ」という趣旨のセクハラ行為をしていた件で、2010年3月末に早大を解職されていたことが分かった。”
同性愛を暴露され転落死 望まない”アウティング”に「想像力の欠如」の声も (The Huffington Post 2016年08月06日):”同性愛者であることを同級生に暴露された後、心身に不調を来して、建物から転落死した一橋大法科大学院生の男性（当時25）の両親が、大学と同級生に計300万円の損害賠償を求める訴訟を東京地裁に起こした。”
The shifting tide of sexual harassment in science (By Rachel Feltman The Washington Post February 10, 2016):”We know it happens, and far too often: Young women in academia – especially in scientific fields – face sexual harassment that can range from inappropriate comments to actual assault. The perpetrators are frequently their male supervisors.”
How to stop the sexual harassment of women in science: reboot the system (THE CONVERSATION January 29, 2016 6.20am AEDT) “The culture in astronomy, and in science more broadly, needs a major reboot following revelations early this year of another case of harassment against women by a senior male academic. The journal Science revealed earlier this month that the latest case involved Christian Ott, a professor of theoretical astrophysics at Caltech university, in the United States. Frustrated that Ott was not fired and only placed on unpaid leave for a year, the two female students who raised the allegations took their story to the popular online news outlet Buzzfeed. Also this month, US Congresswoman Jackie Speier raised the case of Professor Tim Slater, who had been investigated for various sexual harassment incidents that began after he was hired by the University of Arizona in August 2001. Slater went on to the University of Wyoming.”
How Women Are Harassed Out of Science (Joan C. Williams and Kate Massinger. The Atlantic Jul 25, 2016 )The discrimination young researchers endure makes America’s need for STEM workers even greater.
How Sexual Harassment Halts Science (By Vince Grzegorek July 19 2016 1:01 PM slate.com) Recent reports have revealed how rampant sexual harassment is in the astronomy community. What’s to be done?
‘We All Felt Trapped’ (INSIDE HIGHER ED January 23, 2015 ):”The harassment, however, “started day one,” Harbi said. Eventually, she said she discovered she was one of many women, which MIT confirmed. Harbi last October sent MIT a packet of more than 100 chat logs, emails, pictures, recordings and screenshots to document the harassment against her and other women. She gave Inside Higher Ed permission to view the contents on condition that they not be published and that names of the other women not be disclosed. The various pieces of evidence include nudity and sexually explicit language. After reviewing the packet, MIT last month announced that an investigation had determined that Lewin, 78, had “engaged in online sexual harassment in violation of MIT policies.”” 物理学講義で有名なウォルター・ルーウィン（Walter Lewin）MIT教授がセクハラで処分された事例。
Berkeley professor at center of sexual harassment scandal sues his accusers (The Guardian 29 September 2016):”Blake Wentworth, assistant professor of south and south-east Asian studies, has accused the women of defamation and “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, with new lawsuits filed nearly a year after university investigators concluded that he had violated sexual harassment policies.”
Fil-Am UC Berkeley student file sexual harassment complaint vs. professor UC Berkeley graduate student instructors Erin Bennett and Filipino-American Kathleen Gutierrez filed a complaint with a state agency claiming that a faculty member created a hostile work environment and that the school did little to help them.
Study: Young female scientists face sexual harassment, assault while in the field (By Caelainn Hogan The Washington Post July 17, 2014) “As government initiatives push women to enter careers in science, a new study reveals that young female scientists are getting sexually harassed and even assaulted while conducting field work crucial to their success — mostly by their supervisors. The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, claims to be the first to investigate experiences of scientists at field sites, surveying 142 men and 516 women with experience working in anthropology, archaeology, geology and other scientific disciplines”
あなたがこの世を去って長い年月が経ったとき、あなたの科学的遺産は、主として、あなたがこの世に書き残した論文とそれらの論文が放つインパクトです。(When you are long gone, your scientific legacy is, in large part, the literature you left behind and the impact it represents.) － フィリップ・E・ボーン
The student council (http://www.iscbsc.org/) of the International Society for Computational Biology asked me to present my thoughts on getting published in the field of computational biology at the Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology conference held in Detroit in late June of 2005. Close to 200 bright young souls (and a few not so young) crammed into a small room for what proved to be a wonderful interchange among a group of whom approximately one-half had yet to publish their first paper. The advice I gave that day I have modified and present as ten rules for getting published.
Rule 1: Read many papers, and learn from both the good and the bad work of others.
It is never too early to become a critic. Journal clubs, where you critique a paper as a group, are excellent for having this kind of dialogue. Reading at least two papers a day in detail (not just in your area of research) and thinking about their quality will also help. Being well read has another potential major benefit—it facilitates a more objective view of one’s own work. It is too easy after many late nights spent in front of a computer screen and/or laboratory bench to convince yourself that your work is the best invention since sliced bread. More than likely it is not, and your mentor is prone to falling into the same trap, hence rule 2.
Rule 2: The more objective you can be about your work, the better that work will ultimately become.
Alas, some scientists will never be objective about their own work, and will never make the best scientists—learn objectivity early, the editors and reviewers have.
Rule 3: Good editors and reviewers will be objective about your work.
The quality of the editorial board is an early indicator of the review process. Look at the masthead of the journal in which you plan to publish. Outstanding editors demand and get outstanding reviews. Put your energy into improving the quality of the manuscript before submission. Ideally, the reviews will improve your paper. But they will not get to imparting that advice if there are fundamental flaws.
Rule 4: If you do not write well in the English language, take lessons early; it will be invaluable later.
This is not just about grammar, but more importantly comprehension. The best papers are those in which complex ideas are expressed in a way that those who are less than immersed in the field can understand. Have you noticed that the most renowned scientists often give the most logical and simply stated yet stimulating lectures? This extends to their written work as well. Note that writing clearly is valuable, even if your ultimate career does not hinge on producing good scientific papers in English language journals. Submitted papers that are not clearly written in good English, unless the science is truly outstanding, are often rejected or at best slow to publish since they require extensive copyediting.
Rule 5: Learn to live with rejection.
A failure to be objective can make rejection harder to take, and you will be rejected. Scientific careers are full of rejection, even for the best scientists. The correct response to a paper being rejected or requiring major revision is to listen to the reviewers and respond in an objective, not subjective, manner. Reviews reflect how your paper is being judged—learn to live with it. If reviewers are unanimous about the poor quality of the paper, move on—in virtually all cases, they are right. If they request a major revision, do it and address every point they raise both in your cover letter and through obvious revisions to the text. Multiple rounds of revision are painful for all those concerned and slow the publishing process.
Rule 6: The ingredients of good science are obvious—novelty of research topic, comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature, good data, good analysis including strong statistical support, and a thought-provoking discussion. The ingredients of good science reporting are obvious—good organization, the appropriate use of tables and figures, the right length, writing to the intended audience—do not ignore the obvious.
Be objective about these ingredients when you review the first draft, and do not rely on your mentor. Get a candid opinion by having the paper read by colleagues without a vested interest in the work, including those not directly involved in the topic area.
Rule 7: Start writing the paper the day you have the idea of what questions to pursue.
Some would argue that this places too much emphasis on publishing, but it could also be argued that it helps define scope and facilitates hypothesis-driven science. The temptation of novice authors is to try to include everything they know in a paper. Your thesis is/was your kitchen sink. Your papers should be concise, and impart as much information as possible in the least number of words. Be familiar with the guide to authors and follow it, the editors and reviewers do. Maintain a good bibliographic database as you go, and read the papers in it.
Rule 8: Become a reviewer early in your career.
Reviewing other papers will help you write better papers. To start, work with your mentors; have them give you papers they are reviewing and do the first cut at the review (most mentors will be happy to do this). Then, go through the final review that gets sent in by your mentor, and where allowed, as is true of this journal, look at the reviews others have written. This will provide an important perspective on the quality of your reviews and, hopefully, allow you to see your own work in a more objective way. You will also come to understand the review process and the quality of reviews, which is an important ingredient in deciding where to send your paper.
Rule 9: Decide early on where to try to publish your paper.
This will define the form and level of detail and assumed novelty of the work you are doing. Many journals have a presubmission enquiry system available—use it. Even before the paper is written, get a sense of the novelty of the work, and whether a specific journal will be interested.
Rule 10: Quality is everything.
It is better to publish one paper in a quality journal than multiple papers in lesser journals. Increasingly, it is harder to hide the impact of your papers; tools like Google Scholar and the ISI Web of Science are being used by tenure committees and employers to define metrics for the quality of your work. It used to be that just the journal name was used as a metric. In the digital world, everyone knows if a paper has little impact. Try to publish in journals that have high impact factors; chances are your paper will have high impact, too, if accepted.
When you are long gone, your scientific legacy is, in large part, the literature you left behind and the impact it represents. I hope these ten simple rules can help you leave behind something future generations of scientists will admire.
