Journal clubs are something I expected to love, but mostly hate. In college, I participated in informal journal clubs as part of lab meetings. Some upper-level classes would also include discussion of relevant papers. This was usually lots of fun. I always felt comfortable participating, and energized by the discussion.
As a graduate student, I’ve participated in a handful of journal clubs as part of seminar courses, and they’re completely different. One student presents the paper, usually with a power point accompaniment. Faculty members may quiz the student, and occasionally one or two graduate students doing related research will jump in. Most students sit quietly, and wait for it to be over. Sometimes it’s still interesting, but they never reach majority participation.
I wonder about what factors contribute to this.
The journal clubs I participate in these days are much more molecular biology and biochemistry oriented than the articles I was reading as a college student. I’m frequently unfamiliar with at least some, if not all of the techniques used in an article. This can make it difficult to engage with the paper deeply enough to provide real critique. It’s possible this is true for other students as well. With the more organismal/behavioral papers I was reading as a college student, even if you were unfamiliar with the specific methods, it was relatively easy to understand the experimental logic.
Another difference is the level of faculty participation. One of the journal clubs I attend has multiple faculty members in regular attendance, whereas in a classroom setting, or in a lab meeting, there’s only one PI. That may leave more room for students to jump in. However, I don’t think this is the issue. The seminar courses mostly have only one professor, and lab meetings in Senior-Adviser’s lab regularly incorporate article discussions, and they’re all equally lacking in spirit.
The only really successful journal club I’ve attended in graduate school was in Adviser-Prime’s lab, while AP was on sabbatical. We called it ‘fake journal club’. Since AP wasn’t around, we figured it was a good excuse to spend Wednesday afternoons at a bar. However, we did take it seriously, and worked through several fairly difficult, math-intensive classic papers. It was much closer to the fun, discussion oriented experience I remember from my undergrad. However, the total lack of faculty involvement/guidance did lead to eventual deterioration and dissolution.
I suspect a large part of the problem is that most of the journal clubs I’ve attended in graduate school allow students to choose the paper they ‘present’. These papers are usually very recent. When faculty choose papers, include older, classic papers, they’re more likely to be pertinent to more people. Fake Journal Club focused on classic papers, so everyone had a vested interest in reading and understanding the content.
I think the secret recipe might be:
-faculty participation, but not too much faculty participation
-the journal article needs to be (for one reason or another) interesting to a majority of the group
-everyone needs to have read the article
-important papers should be given precedence over recent paper
-a culture of participation
The last factor is probably the most important, for all that it’s a catch-22. If people participate, people are more likely to participate.
I may have just written myself into another new years resolution.
Science Pilgrim 