Below, please find the personal reflections on scientific practices.
Peer Review
Personally, I highly value peer review process. I believe it is important to understand that reviewers are in the same team with the authors in dedicating their time to contribute to spread of scientific knowledge ensuring its quality and improving the authors' manuscripts by addressing shortcomings and providing new perspectives. In turn, I am happy to be a part of this as a reviewer, because it allows me to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge, ensure the quality and integrity of research, and engage in meaningful academic discussions that refine and improve scholarly work.
Academic Integrity
My academic integrity comes from my opennes about the shortcomings of my research, I do not subscribe to the practice of concealing flaws in the hope that editors, reviewers, or readers will fail to notice them. If I spot a shortcoming in my research, I personally do not like the idea that relying on the possibility that no one else would catch it, rather I prefer an open communication in my research about what I see holistically. I believe in openly discussing the shortcomings, so the readers are also aware of the flaws of my work, which serves as the bedrock of my academic integrity.
Scientific Writing and Publications
Over the years I have developed a style in scientific writing. I use writing as tool to frame emerged questions based on the conclusions or emprical findings, highlight unresolved issues, reflect on ideas. I also highly value the discussion sections of the articles, because it helps researchers to broaden the field beyond the contributions by unfolding new areas to explore. I try to construct logically sound arguments from hypothesis formulation to research design. To me, a strong argument requires specifying conditions under which claims hold. This relies on building precise, well-defined claims rather than vague ones. Over the years, I have learnt that clearly articulating the boundaries of an argument not only strengthens its validity but also helps readers to understand the specific contexts in which the findings apply.
Open Science
Open Science ensures broader access to research by removing paywalls, making scientific knowledge more inclusive. I personally advocate spending budget on making articles open access, negotiate with editors if no funding is available, put effort and time in ahcieving higher standards making the information available to everyone's access. I am committed to Open Science pratices such as providing my materials and data online, pre-registrations, asking editors for transparent peer-review process for the scientific community.
Conferences and Meetings
Conferences and meetings provide a unique space for scientific discussions, allowing researchers to come together and critically examine challenges in the literature. I see these exchanges as an opportunity to provide solutions to identified problems through collective thinking. Moreover, I see these gatherings for building meaningful connections – which may potentially foster more meaningful scientific contributions via collaborations.