Build Your Scientific Persona — What Have You Solved or What Are You Solving?
Your professional profile tells people who you are. Your MetaG1 contributions should show them what you can actually do.
“This is what I have solved” → “This is what I can help with” → “This is what I cannot yet solve” → “Who here can help me?”
Researchers may be working on questions whose solution takes months or years. For them, the equivalent journey is:
“This is what is known” → “This is what remains unknown” → “This is what we are trying to discover or establish” → “This is what it could enable” → “Who can contribute to the next step?”
Choose Option A, Option B, or both. Create a separate topic for each contribution so that your work can be found, discussed and updated independently. A rough draft is welcome; MetaG1 staff can help you structure it without changing your meaning.
Protect confidential and patentable work
Do not disclose confidential client information, personal data, unpublished results, patentable details, collaborator information or proprietary methods that you or your organisation are not authorised to share. Anonymise people and clients where necessary. Describe the problem and scientific direction only at the level appropriate for shared professional discussion.
Clearly label preliminary findings, distinguish observations from conclusions, cite public evidence where useful, and state important limitations or conflicts of interest. MetaG1 publication is not peer review, regulatory approval or independent verification.
What can this build for you?
A strong contribution can make your demonstrated capability discoverable in context. It may support:
- Professional recognition through demonstrated judgement rather than claims.
- Scientific exposure among people working on related problems.
- Collaboration opportunities where others can identify complementary expertise.
- Research opportunities involving methods, facilities, data or complementary disciplines.
- Consulting or business opportunities when another member or organisation faces a problem similar to one you have solved.
MetaG1 does not guarantee recognition, collaboration, consulting or business. It helps the right people understand what problems you can address, what you are advancing, and where your expertise may be useful.
Option A — A Problem I/We Solved
Suggested title: Solved Story: [describe the problem in one clear sentence]
A useful Solved Story can be 150–300 words. Copy the headings below and replace the prompts with your case.
1. The problem
A client, our team or our organisation was facing:
[State the problem clearly.]
2. What had already been tried
They/we had already tried:
[Describe the relevant prior attempts.]
The problem continued because:
[Explain what remained insufficient or failed.]
3. Why it was difficult
The main difficulty was:
[State the scientific, technical, operational or field constraint.]
We observed that:
[Add the observation that helped clarify the problem.]
4. What we changed
Based on the evidence or experience, we decided to:
[Describe the change in reasoning, method, design or intervention.]
5. What finally worked
The important change or solution was:
[Describe what worked.]
This resulted in:
[State the observable result.]
6. What this taught us
This experience demonstrated or taught us that:
[State the transferable learning.]
7. Limitations and where it may not apply
This result should be interpreted with the following limits:
[State uncertainty, conditions, trade-offs or contexts where the solution may not transfer.]
8. Where I/we can help others
I/We at [organisation name] can help others facing similar problems involving:
[Describe the relevant capability without turning the topic into an advertisement.]
9. Evidence or supporting material — optional
Publication, graph, photograph, result, technical note, case study or public link:
[Add only material you are authorised to share.]
The useful sequence is:
Problem → difficulty → reasoning → intervention → result → transferable learning → limitations → demonstrated capability
Option B — A Scientific Problem I/We Are Working to Solve
Suggested title: Research Frontier: [the question or problem we are trying to resolve]
1. What is already known
Current scientific understanding indicates that:
[Summarise the established knowledge relevant to the problem.]
Relevant work has established:
[Cite or describe the strongest applicable evidence.]
2. What remains unresolved
We still do not adequately understand, know or have established:
[State the precise knowledge gap.]
This matters because:
[Explain the scientific or practical consequence of the gap.]
3. What we are investigating
I/We at [organisation or institution] are investigating, discovering or establishing:
[Describe the research objective at an authorised level of detail.]
Our central question or hypothesis is:
[State the question or hypothesis.]
4. Why the problem is difficult
The principal scientific or technical challenge is:
[Describe the main obstacle.]
Existing approaches are limited because:
[Explain the limitation.]
5. Our approach
We are addressing the problem through:
[Describe the overall approach.]
The important method, model, experiment or technology is:
[Describe only what can be shared safely.]
6. What we know so far — optional
Our current evidence or observations suggest:
[State preliminary findings and label them as preliminary.]
The major uncertainty that remains is:
[State what is not yet resolved.]
7. What success could enable
If this work succeeds, it could lead to:
[Describe the potential scientific or practical outcome without promising it.]
This could contribute to a new scientific understanding, method, technology, diagnostic, process, product, platform or field application involving:
[Describe the relevant area.]
8. Research outputs already produced — if applicable
We have published this work or related findings in:
[Add authorised citations or public links.]
We have filed or obtained patents relating to:
[Mention only publicly disclosable information.]
Other outputs—prototype, dataset, method, technology, software or field trial:
[Describe authorised outputs.]
9. Where I/we can help others
Through this work, I/We at [organisation] can contribute expertise in:
[Describe the relevant capability.]
10. Where collaboration could help us
We would particularly value expertise, evidence, facilities, methods or collaboration concerning:
[Make the request specific enough for another member to recognise a useful contribution.]
The useful sequence is:
Known → unknown → research question → difficulty → approach → current evidence → possible outcome → collaboration need
A third path — a problem you need help solving
If you have a current problem that needs other members’ expertise, it should become a separate Solve Problem record rather than being hidden inside your profile or another topic. During the controlled limited launch, staff can help you structure and route it. The formal Solve workflow will use a precise problem statement, a definition of solved, evidence, prior attempts, constraints and a maintained state of the problem.
Together, the three records reveal more than a conventional CV:
| Record | What others learn |
|---|---|
| Solved Story | What have you demonstrated that you can solve? |
| Research Frontier | What difficult problem are you advancing now? |
| Solve Problem | Where do you need other people’s expertise? |
Before you publish
- Confirm that you are authorised to share the material.
- Remove confidential, personal, client-identifying and security-sensitive information.
- Avoid unsupported performance, medical, regulatory or commercial claims.
- State preliminary status, uncertainty and limitations honestly.
- Declare your organisation and relevant commercial or professional interests.
- Use public citations or supporting material where they materially help.
- Ask staff for a confidential editorial check when you are unsure.
Your expertise becomes visible when somebody can say: “This person has solved—or is seriously advancing—a problem like mine.”