Good research needs a number of skills, and not all of them might be available at all times. Due to time constraints (and conference deadlines fast approaching) I might be in a hurry and miss important literature due to inefficient searching. But I think the biggest mistake I make is to underestimate the time needed for writing down all the stuff I've found together with my colleagues. I have to be aware that I cannot work 8 hours a day on research, so the usual man week does not have 40 hours but only 20 or maybe even less.

So, my mistakes are more on the time management side (as far as I can see).

Good research needs a number of skills, and not all of them might be available at all times. Due to time constraints (and conference deadlines fast approaching) I might be in a hurry and miss important literature due to inefficient searching. But I think the biggest mistake I make is to underestimate the time needed for writing down all the stuff I've found together with my colleagues. I have to be aware that I cannot work 8 hours a day on research, so the usual man week does not have 40 hours but only 20 or maybe even less.

So, my mistakes are more on the time management side (as far as I can see).

If people would be able to predict the future, the number of mistakes would be substantially reduced or could be anticipated. How many people can reliably predict the future in a dynamic world?

If an outstanding student that will be recruited as a scientists or professor in the future has a university score of 16/20 on average, does this imply that the student will make on average 4 mistakes out of 20 decisions in the future?

Every researcher belongs to a social collaboration network to conduct research. What is the probability that one of the participants will make a mistake? Quite high just by chance alone?

Scientists that cannot accept they can make mistakes, are not scientists. The fact that knowledge evolves in time perhaps implies that there have been mistakes of thinking in the past, or not?

I just corrected to writing errors. Perhaps there are others...

In my major research, I selected some 35 labour disputes for reconstruction; worked on them for some six months. When I went to the field, I contacted the GM-HRM of the first company and explained to him that I wanted to know about that dispute. He said he would tell me the next day after talking to the top management. The next day, he gave me the shocking news that he was told by the top management not to talk even one sentence to any one about that dispute. All my efforts went waste.

Then I decided in other cases first to talk to the union, to get a good picture of the case. This was never a problem. I extracted information from management reps. very tactfully without telling them the full purpose of what I was doing. I did succeed eventually. I learned never to be transparent with management reps. while doing research if I wanted some factual details from them. This helped me immensely; I made it a habit in my future research..

Sometimes, I have tried to study too many different topics (but as I can now use some of such work, it is not such a huge problem), sometimes I have stopped working on some papers (but some can be still 'warmed up'), sometimes I have not selected the right co-authors and sometimes, I have not been able to convince reviewers that my article is right for that journal (but I'm working on it and trying to find new outlets). Anyway, the best lesson is to keep trying and not to be too impatient: after hard work, success can still come.

Dear Debi,

for me it is extremely difficult to hide what I really think. Based on your experiences my attitude must be a mistake in at least some professional environments.

I was (with about 16 years plus in Management and around 7 years into OD interventions) before getting into PhD research, for me the outlook was groomed on to 'as-to-what an organization" sees than it was "as a research problem".... I was completely biased towards the entrepreneurial community or the hired Employers... My PhD research made me into both sides and become impartial... not to be worried about the outcome of the result, meticulously carry out the research.... today i just talk my heart out (with modesty and polite)........

Thanks for your views. I have just got back from an extra class on Biology and self directed learning for Biology. I have made mistakes too, but I learn from them. There are 1000s of ways to err. To err is human; thanks for sharing things so openly for my learning. But we have a tendency to forget our mistakes, so just post when you remember...

'Rediscovering the wheel.'!

Absolutely!

Period!

All researchers could have been made mistakes, especially in the first years. I made some mistakes at that time.

@Marcel: i like this -

'Scientists that cannot accept they can make mistakes, are not scientists. The fact that knowledge evolves in time perhaps implies that there have been mistakes of thinking in the past, or not?'

@Michael, Tiia, I have missed you both. I'm glad you are on this thread.

@Tobias, I have wasted much time re-inventing the wheel. It's not just you.

Friends, I corrected by sections of my thesis several times a day, over a period of 2 years. So 1000 mistakes may be a reasonable estimate.

Friends, for us to reflect:

Dear Miranda,

How much different versions of a manuscript are written before it is sent to a journal for publication, or before the manuscript is finally accepted by an editor? Perhaps the vast majority of science products remain unpublished, such as contents of refused manuscripts submitted for publication or contents of projects submitted for financial support. Very often much of a waste of time for even the brightest scientists and teachers? I therefore cannot accept that even the brightest leaders do not make mistakes, even after more than 40 years of experience.

I have had few mistakes in my pilot research programmes related to some complex and multidisciplinary projects but those mistakes helped improving my extended research programmes. What I have learnt from those mistakes is that it is always better to start a research on a pilot scale to evaluate pros and cons of such research before embarking on full scale research.

Interesting question Dr. Yeoh. I'm still relatively new in my research field. Facing mistakes is something that I will need to carefully venture.

My first work was devoted to metaphors in poetry, then- to typology.The works were based on sources and filing. They were rather good. Then I researched a problem of aesthetic education, based on experimental work.Later I understood, that there had been few practical examples. It can give only experience.What is a main mistake? I thought,"The best is yet to come"

Dear Marcel

I don't think I am exaggerating when I say: leaders only became leaders by making mistakes and learning from them and the wisest brightest leaders learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others. This reminds me of a quote by Eleanor Roosvelt:

“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself. ”

Dear Michael

Mistake about the time dimension is committed by, i think, most researchers. I also do so more often. Sometimes, i missed deadlines, and could not submit papers for conferences, etc. But honestly, I have not been able to learn from them so as to mend myself.

My latest mistake is an oversight and false trust. Our team accepted to perform a regional research on the basis of an agreed upon contract. It covered 200 participants from 10 local government units across six provinces. The duration was 2 months. Two days before the deadline, my team members were still collecting data because the people who were supposed to administratively and financially support us did not do their part. I had to finish the report at an amazing two days and I got sick. Worse, the other party wanted an output beyond those contained in the Contract. And again, those who were supposed to support us on the matter did not, because of pride.

Thanks for your posts and the value that you have added to this thread :)

I think that I am the living presentation of mistakes, since all of my submitted articles have been rejected, either from desk or from peer review process! So, when I will finally be accepted as a normal member of scientific community, I will come back and answer this question!

Dear Demetris, you have more papers accepted than me. Now, your answer reminds me of another very specific thread on 'mistakes' when I try to get my paper published. Oooh yes, I learned from that. And got so much fresh courage from RG friends to try and try...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_does_a_rejection_of_a_scientific_paper_become_beneficial_to_the_author_Have_you_experienced_a_rejection_that_worked_out_for_your_good

Dear Miranda, my great mistake is that i haven't published many of my research papers. Few years ago i was busy with many tasks, I was custom to write many drafts that i haven't submitted for insufficient time or maybe insufficient professional interests 'as publications for promotion issue was applied only for few researchers' , may be this discrimination was the cause of my disinterest on submitting formatted papers, focusing on few conference proceedings 'that was able of acceptance by my employer' for sharing in real time my work. Now, i don't know if i could have time and courage to update their content and make them relevant for publication issue. Any work is relevant at its time, years ago, it needs remodeling , rethinking and reformulating...etc... unfortunately as Marcel said, "the vast majority of science products remain unpublished"

Mistakes are also learning tools if one can be humble enough to accept them.

Dear Fairouz, I understand exactly. It's so true that "the vast majority of science products remain unpublished".

Thanks Joao :)

Dear Miranda, my advise is focus on your research and publish, publish, publish your academic rank is permanent and more important than any other posts.

Thanks Nasser. My good friends all give me the same advice, thanks again. But QandA is good for some relaxation. Just make short posts...

Yes publishing is good but must be fair too. When the proposals are not accepted, jumping between a publisher to another for acceptance issue generates a waste of time (if we count the revisions, the corrections, the resubmitting,etc.. til acceptance which could take more than year). Publishers should define their acceptance criteria, as researchers are not silly people for running for who wants really take care of their works.

I think that publishers have the responsibility of protecting science history practice for the future generations. Even if a paper is not a prestigious one, still be the memory of the scientific work of a group of persons (authors) from an x lab of an university or research institute y of a country z who have contributed with their knowledge and tools to some science. This is a form of research history for future researchers and students which could be lost

Dear Miaranda, very recently my advisor asked me: "Did they accept your submitted papers?", in order just to downsize my work, when he actually rejected a 4 years Thesis of 7 Chapters without reading it...

Reviewers are one kind of human beings, and publishers are another. Even if a practical reviewer (they are not by chance) approved your work, it wouldn't mean, that a publisher could approve it. A publisher must sell the journal.It's business for him/her. The journal must be readable and payable I think, a researcher shouldn't worry about his/her manuscript. Every work is rather hard and dignified, and it will find his/her own publisher..

Thanks for your posts.

@Demetris, an advisor who is too lazy to read your thesis is not worth having :(

@Irina and Fairouz, thanks. You are great , diligent and encouraging friends. Thanks for being my friends.

I believe many of us make mistakes but we learn from our mistakes. It's just that some people will not admit it because they are just too proud and arrogant. (Just like your advisor, Demetris.)