Delving in the data

My days are now filled with working up data from the experiments and measurements we took in the Antarctic. This is a slow, but mostly fun process. First, you sort the data, analyze samples that couldn’t be analyzed on the boat, check no mistakes have been made, and put everything in a logical fashion in a spreadsheet. This then seems like a huge chaos without any sense or story: Help! So, you try to find the big picture, relate different parameters, and find a few more mistakes. First, you test the ideas and hypothesis you had going into the cruise. If these don’t make sense you try to figure out what is actually going on. You try some relations based on experiments performed in the laboratory or studies published by other researchers. Most of this doesn’t give anything, but some relations pop up, or things are different from one region to the next, or between phytoplankton species. Bit by bit, a story becomes clear and at this point it’s getting fun. You may present the data at conferences and talk about some ideas with colleagues, when someone looks at you and says: “WOW, can you prove that?” “Yes, I can!”

The next challenge is to write your ideas in a logical fashion into a scientific article. At this time you may get some help from co-authors: people who helped with experiments on board, analyzed samples, or make their data available. Sometimes, these people are a great help, and sometimes you really have to bug them for a response or for the data they promised you. My boss is a great help, and as a non-native speaker is very nice to write with an American who is very good at it. So you write, rewrite, make figures, remake figures, and after blood, sweat, the occasional tear and some Abode Illustrator drama there is an article. You submit this article to a scientific journal where an editor will look at it, and if he or she thinks it’s an interesting topic, he/she sends the article to two to four other scientists who will read it and give their comments anonymously. In the latest case one reviewer was very positive, but another one was whining a good deal. Although it’s anonymous, you always have your suspicions about their identity, and the next time if I have to review something of her I’m going to whine too! The next step is to answer all questions and comments from the reviewers and then the editor will decide if it is good enough. If this is a YES, you eat cake and drink champagne! Everybody is happy, especially co-authors, as they share the honors of the paper, and I’m very proud! On to the next paper!

A scientific paper from the first cruise