Melissa Cholette is a Research Scientist in Numerical Modelling and Prediction Research Division at Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) in Québec, Canada. She obtained her Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) in 2020 under the supervision of Professor Julie Thériault.
Her doctoral research focused on implementing the prediction of mixed-phase hydrometeors within a bulk microphysics parameterization scheme, with the goal of improving simulations of various precipitation types, including ice pellets, freezing rain, hail, and partially melted snow that occur quite often in Canada. Since her Ph.D., her research has centered on advancing numerical weather prediction (NWP) of high-impact weather events and precipitation processes through the use of state-of-the-art microphysics schemes and high-quality observational datasets.
Melissa’s Perspective on the Challenges Faced by Early-Career Scientists (ECS)
During the early stages of my career, I benefited from the guidance of two mentors who supported me in building international collaborations and developing my scientific publication record. Recognizing the value of such mentorship, I deeply appreciate how critical these opportunities are for early-career scientists (ECS), for whom access to mentors and supportive scientific communities that encourage discussion, questioning, and constructive feedback remains a significant challenge.
As a researcher at a government NWP center, I have encountered two key challenges. The first is learning how to develop a medium-term research plan (2–5 years), as research priorities are often shaped by constantly evolving organizational mandates, making it difficult to maintain a consistent long-term research direction.
Secondly, I have found that reviewing scientific manuscripts requires a distinct set of skills that are not typically taught during academic training and differ substantially from those needed for writing manuscripts. While students gain considerable experience writing scientific papers throughout their studies, they often receive little formal training in how to critically evaluate the work of others. I believe that ECS would benefit from dedicated training in peer review, enabling them to provide more thorough, constructive, and scientifically rigorous assessments that support the research community.