Summary
Highlights
Professor David Stuckler introduces the session by highlighting that 95% of research success is attributed to choosing the right topic. He acknowledges the common struggle among researchers to find a 'winning topic' and promises to provide a system to consistently achieve this. He shares his personal journey as a professor, emphasizing the lack of a structured system during his early career and how FastTrack aims to formalize the informal logic he passed on to his mentees.
A crucial quick tip is introduced: the '5-minute supervisor audit'. Researchers should conduct due diligence to understand their supervisor's work, priorities, and research philosophy. Misalignment in methodology, theory, or topic can lead to friction. The audit involves searching the supervisor's name on Google Scholar to view their profile, top-cited papers, publication history, and preferred journals to ensure compatibility and set realistic expectations.
The first phase of finding a winning topic is to identify a 'topic neighborhood' using the convergence method. This involves three concentric circles: passion, feasibility, and identifying a debate within the field. Researchers must choose a topic they are genuinely passionate about to sustain motivation, ensure the research is feasible (e.g., avoiding extensive primary data collection if possible), and confirm an active debate exists in the chosen area. Broad interests like 'gender inequality' or 'gene therapy' are not specific enough and need further refinement.
To move beyond a broad topic neighborhood, researchers need to connect their interest to something else, often a variable affecting another (X affecting Y). Examples include combining 'COVID' or 'AI' with other fields to create a current and relevant topic. Observing debates in public discourse or media can also provide clues for academic research. Google Scholar can be used to forensic search and see what areas are active and resonate with the researcher's interests, leading to a more defined topic like 'gender inequalities in diabetes risks'.
The second phase focuses on testing and refining the chosen topic using the PICO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome, Design) model. This model forces clarity by defining the study's population, intervention/exposure, comparison group, outcomes, and design/time period. The PICO model acts as 'control knobs' to narrow down a broad topic into a precise research question or hypothesis. An example of 'regional inequality in the youth labor market' is used to demonstrate how to refine it using PICO elements.
Before finalizing a topic, it's essential to conduct a duplication test by searching for a 'conceptual nearest neighbor paper' to ensure the research hasn't already been done. This step helps avoid rejections based on lack of novelty. Additionally, researchers should forecast their potential impact through Google Scholar searches to gauge the citation potential and existing debate around their topic. The example of 'youth unemployment and regional inequalities' showed low citation rates, indicating a potentially low-impact area despite passing the duplication test.
To specifically identify research gaps, researchers are advised to look at the 'limitations sections' of existing papers and the 'recommendations for future research' in review articles. This allows for quick identification of areas needing further investigation. An optional Phase 3 involves getting buy-in from colleagues or co-authors, especially for dissertations, to sanity-check the topic and ensure support. This prevents wasted effort on dead-end topics.
The discussion addresses the common challenge of Article Processing Charges (APCs). Three strategies are presented: looking for journals with a non-open access 'subscription model' where no APCs apply (about one-third of journals), checking for waivers or exemptions for authors from developing countries, and leveraging institutional agreements or co-authors whose universities cover APCs. It is crucial to consider APCs before submission to avoid issues later in the publication process.
The importance of journal alignment and understanding impact is reiterated. Publications often align with geographical or thematic interests of specific journals (e.g., American journals focusing on American content). Researchers aiming for wider international impact should tap into broad, international debates. The median number of citations in the first two years for newly published papers is zero, highlighting the need to forecast impact effectively rather than just aiming for publication.