Jack C. Lennon

Behavioral Scientist, University of Pennsylvania
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • United States of America

About Jack C. Lennon

I am a clinical research coordinator within the Penn Center for Neuroimaging in Psychiatry. As a scientist with a behavioral and neurosciences background, I value knowledge guided by empirical inquiry and rational thought intended to improve the human condition. Within clinical research, I harbor specific interests in the effects of neurodevelopment on human behavior and how various technologies may help to prevent, diagnosis, and/or treat neurologic and -psychiatric disorders. To this end, I am involved in exploiting neuroimaging tools for “deep phenotyping” of brain and behavioral parameters using computerized acquisition tools that can integrate cognitive and clinical measures with neuroimaging and genomic data within the framework of large, multicenter studies, including but not limited to those related to NASA spaceflight. Additionally, I assist with medicolegal evaluations within the Forensic Neuropsychiatry Service, wherein an understanding of brain function may be of value to individuals involved in litigation.

Subject

Cognitive science Publishing Science, technology and society

Intro Content

Contributor Nature Human Behaviour

Navigating Academia as a PsyD Student

"Is it publish or perish?" is discussed from the perspective of a Clinical Psychology PsyD student interested in a clinical-research career. As a degree in that is newer than the PhD, it is being pursued by an increasing number of trainees and is worth discussing from the students within it.

Topics

Channels contributed to:

Is it publish or perish? Earth Day 2020

Recent Comments

Oct 26, 2019

I have generally been fortunate to have avoided some of the review horror stories. However, I would say that my worst review was one during which the two reviewers noted two entirely different views on the manuscript - they did not merely disagree with types of revisions. Instead, one reviewer generally deemed it acceptable with minor revisions while the other reviewer made comment after comment negating my premises. Admittedly, I find some pleasure in taking critical feedback and strengthening premises if one can sufficiently refute them. This particular review, though, did not offer constructive feedback. It was a straw man fallacy, such that I felt almost certain that the individual disagreed with my entire perspective and remained steadfast to her or his own. 

We are all entitle to our own opinions and, in many ways, this is how manuscripts can become as strong as possible prior to publication. Serving as a peer-reviewer is also a role to take seriously as a service to the profession - one that should offer useful and actionable feedback to authors of all manuscripts sent for review, even if the topic is highly contentious or defies everything we believe or claim to know. This is how strong science makes it through, even if it takes countless submissions and revisions to eventually make it work. While relatively minor compared to other stories I have heard, I have taken this experience and allowed it to inform how I review manuscripts. It becomes a highly rewarding activity that instills humility, because no matter how much we believe we know or understand about a topic, there is always room for growth.