Caitlin Karniski, PhD is an Associate Editor at Communications Biology at Springer Nature. She received her PhD in Biology from Georgetown University, where she was an NSF Graduate Research Fellow. During her PhD, Caitlin studied the evolution of menopause in mammals and specifically how aging affects the reproduction and behavior of bottlenose dolphins. Throughout this time, she traveled to Western Australia, where she led research teams in boat-based fieldwork. At Communications Biology, Caitlin’s primary remit is ecology and evolution manuscripts, but she also handles papers from a wide variety of sub-fields within biology. Find her and the journal on Twitter at @CaitlinKarniski and @commsbio.

Can you describe your academic and professional background? What path led you to pursue this field? 

Early on in my PhD I attended a career panel for positions outside of academia, and one of the panelists was an editor for Science. I hadn’t much considered scientific editing as a career before this, but hearing this editor’s experience really sparked my interest.  This field seemed to equally value both technically robust science and a narrative that communicates the conclusions of a study in an accurate and compelling way, and this really appealed to me. I continued to think back to this panel throughout my PhD as all the while it was becoming clear to me that I wanted to look for careers outside of academia. By the time I was preparing for my defense I had settled on pursuing a career in scientific publishing, and started at Springer Nature shortly after graduation.

How did you find this particular position, and what was the hiring process like? Is there a typical structure for this in your field? 

I found my current position through the Nature Careers site. Once past an initial interview with HR, manuscript assessments are quite common for scientific editor positions. For my first manuscript assessment, I was sent a paper that had been submitted to the journal. After an hour to read the paper, I had a phone call with the Chief Editor to discuss the objectives and novel results of the paper, the methods used, the target scientific audience, and, among other aspects, ultimately my assessment on whether I considered the paper to meet the editorial standards to be sent out for review. Following this, I had an in-person interview at the New York office, where the manuscript assessment followed the same format but with one hour to evaluate three manuscripts. This is of course in addition to a more standard question-and-answer interview portion about the role.

Can you tell us about your current responsibilities? What is a typical day or week like in your role?

As editors we are constantly juggling many manuscripts at every stage along the publication process, from submission to acceptance, so in a typical day I handle several manuscripts at each stage. The backbone of my day is reading new papers and making initial assessments of whether to send new submissions out for review. From there, a lot of time is spent searching for and inviting reviewers. I also read referee reports once papers come back from review in order to make a decision on a manuscript, and I make sure papers comply with our digital image integrity and data accessibility guidelines before acceptance. We also work on front-half content for the journal, including writing editorials, research highlights, and coordinating collections.

What do you enjoy about your current job and work environment?

I really never tire of reading new science! The benefit of working on such a wide variety of subject areas is that I am always learning something new and interesting, which is why I got into science in the first place. We all have our preferred fields and subjects in science, but I feel very lucky to always be able to find something truly interesting in every single manuscript I read.

Is there anything you wish you had known about your job or industry before joining?

I had considered myself someone who was generally pretty curious about all science and keen to read across many different fields, but I don’t think I quite realized just how much breadth of exposure to scientific literature could benefit someone in this role. Having known this I think I might have pushed myself even further to read (or potentially work on!) more research that was completely outside of my area of study during my PhD.

What’s changing in your industry? Are there any future trends we should be aware of?

It feels like everything is changing in scientific publishing right now! While the journal where I work has been open access (OA) since its inception in 2018, the move to OA affects almost every facet of the publishing industry in some way nowadays. There are also initiatives like Registered Reports on the rise, which involves peer review of a study in two parts: first, authors submit the proposal of a study for reviewers to evaluate hypotheses, experimental design, and methodology prior to the research actually being conducted, and second, they authors collect and analyze the data, and report the results and conclusions of the experiment regardless of the outcome. There is also a big push toward open data and code, as well as transparent peer review. This is all to say that these trends are reflective of science moving toward increased transparency and openness, which is a great thing. I’m also really hopeful to see discussions of inclusivity and diversity in science translate into tangible and more progressive practices.

What activities, internships, or organizations would you recommend someone get involved with to help them break into this field?

I would say to stay as engaged as possible in the scientific publishing process. Writing and reading papers is obviously a central part of research, but I would also suggest gaining experience as a peer reviewer of manuscripts as early as possible, and to be active in a journal club. I also found writing about new research for more general audiences in blogs like Science Bites to be really useful practice in honing in on the central messages of a paper and communicating them in a clear way. All of these practices build the skills needed for an editor to both evaluate and amplify new research.