The theory

Doing science, reporting discoveries and communicating the importance of our activities exposes us to criticism from various sources. It can be peer review of a paper submitted to a prestigious journal; a referee’s report on a grant application; aggressive questioning from a member of the public during an outreach lecture; or a scathing article in the popular press. To be successful as a scientist, you need to handle criticism with confidence and grace, yet nobody likes to be criticised, least of all publicly. Some psychological studies argue that, when we are criticised, our response is of the ‘fight or flight’ type. It is accompanied by physical feelings of discomfort, anger or aggression, in any ratio depending on our personality, and often our response is not a measured one. If you have ever witnessed two rival scientists hotly arguing after a conference presentation, you know what we are talking about. Some understanding of the nature of a scientist – a subject explored by both sociology and psychology (Mahoney, 1979) – may help put this scenario in perspective. Apparently, we have a very idealistic view of what a scientist should be: objective, rational, open-minded, having superior intelligence, integrity and communality (sharing results with others). This view sets our expectations of behaviour, and if the reality turns out to be different, we are likely to be disappointed. The nature of the scientist delivering the criticism – a human factor – will thus influence both your perception of the criticism and your way of dealing with it.

The practice

Dealing with criticism is a skill that can be developed and as with any lasting skill must be practiced frequently. So seek it – start with people you trust, those who understand your work and your formal or informal mentor. Have you got data that you think would make a Nature paper? Put it together and ask somebody who has published there whether they think it is good enough. Accept the advice given; work on writing a paper or collecting more data and have another go, this time asking more people. Ideally, they should be outside your field if your ambition is to inform a broad readership. Having gone through this process, by the time you are ready to submit your paper, you will be reasonably certain of the quality of your work. You will also have practised arguments and counter-arguments and possibly improved your original idea as well. Being proactive in seeking criticism also helps you to detach yourself from feeling personally criticised: it is not that you are stupid, but that your data are not watertight.