I want genuine research, not mere hype

Over the past several days, I have been developing the roadmap for my next project, drawing on the questions and discussions that arose during the Summer School. The datasets I have acquired are nearly ideal for serving my research goals, and the algorithms I have considered appear quite promising for the subsequent analytical processes. However, when I presented the concept to my supervisor, he rather dampened my enthusiasm: “While everyone is incorporating omics dimensions and capitalising on the deep learning trend, your pragmatic approach is unlikely to yield compelling results. I’m not suggesting that chasing trends is advisable, but those who pursue such approaches will inevitably influence how others’ work is perceived.” I was rather deflated, though I recognised he was quite right.

Why do researchers invariably force elements that may be inappropriate into their work, simply to align it with current trends? It rather feels like doing something one knows to be improper. When reading articles, I consistently find it rather pointless when researchers add spatial omics using basic, formulaic processes that lack thorough interpretation, or when those unfamiliar with algorithms feel compelled to incorporate models with seemingly impressive AUCs that are, in practice, unusable. I’m thoroughly fed up with such practices. The research I admire is invariably logical and concise, yet I don’t appear to possess the credentials to adopt their approach.

I stared blankly at the research ideas on a whole page of my draft paper for quite some time, unable to discern a way forward. My reasoning is sound, and the methods are practical. However, no one will find my narrative compelling if I simply follow these straightforward steps. I want genuine research, not mere hype. Yet this seems rather impossible to achieve.