Postdoc Spotlight: Sandra Petrus-Reurer

Please could you give us an overview of what you do and what you’re working on?

I am a 5th year postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge with a background in cellular therapy for regenerative medicine. I’m based in the Department of Surgery on the Biomedical Campus.

My work is on understanding immune response to cell therapies directed to regenerate bile ducts in patients that suffer from bile duct disorders called cholangiopathies. Bile ducts carry bile which is essential to digest food. The cause for these diseases is multiple but the consequence is the same: liver failure. Bile duct disorders affect approx. 500,000 patients per year worldwide.
 

What led you to get involved with Open Research at the University?

Throughout my academic journey across several countries, universities and institutions, I always valued and advocated for open and collaborative science by actively engaging with efforts to make research more accessible, reproducible, transparent, and impactful. 

I am particularly passionate about enhancing training and assessment opportunities in open research, and responsible, fair use of metrics in research.

I have firsthand knowledge of the challenges and opportunities associated with implementing open research practices, from sharing data and methodologies to navigating publishing models. I am deeply aware of the pivotal role postdocs as future leaders play in driving open science and the need for dedicated representation in this area. 

I thought that being part of a committee at university level and in Cambridge would provide a unique platform to allow advancement in open science initiatives across the University. I got inspired by the opportunity to contribute to this vision by representing the interests of Cambridge STEM postdoctoral researchers.

What are your plans while in the role?

I aim to work closely with committee members to ensure that the needs and expectations of postdocs are integral to shaping the University’s open research strategy. My main role is to make sure the STEM postdoc community voice is heard in any decision making needed for implementing a new strategy.
 

What do you consider to be the main challenges researchers face when aiming to get their work published?

I think the right timing for your work is critical and can be determinant. Unfortunately, the timing of a project is usually out of your control. Additionally, having the right people as senior authors supporting the work can make a huge impact when aiming to publish in a middle-to-high tier journal. I would summarise the main challenges researchers face when aiming to publish as: timing, interactions/connections, and the level of competition in the field.

Do you think Open Research and Open Access will fundamentally change in the future?

For the benefit of science and the scientists it must change. Similarly, the publishing system needs a paradigm shift. We are in a system where the scientists do the research, the scientists write the papers, and the scientists do the review process for free! Then they have to pay to publish and even to read the research if the university doesn’t have the right agreement in place with that specific journal.

We should advocate for providing open access to a specific journal for the researchers that contributed scientifically, including the reviewers in the current system. Hiring professional reviewers instead would speed up the process and make it more standardised and less biased.

In my opinion, these changes would not only hugely benefit science and its accessibility, but also the mental health of many scientists. However, influential PIs and institutions need to advocate for it.

How will (and does) the committee communicate to the wider postdoc community at Cambridge? Is there an ongoing dialogue?

The committee communicates via the postdoc representatives, me for the STEM and Dr Noam Tal-Perry for Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. To communicate to the wider postdoc community, we can then approach our networks. I specifically plan to interact and continue the dialogue with the Postdoc Academy and PdOC.
 

Can you give an example of the kinds of activities taking place to support Open Research in the University?

The committee aims to implement strategy in the University’s research policy at different levels, including (among others):
●    ethics on data sharing
●    open research in humanities
●    sensitive data management
●    effective guidance/research matrices for hiring and promotion
●    reward and recognition on open research.

Is there anything else you’d like to mention?

Maybe I can finish up by saying that for substantial changes to happen in Open Research we need influential leaders to engage, and that prestigious institutions like Cambridge must lead by example.