date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2017/06/08
| 1,048
| 4,438
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I have been appointed as a reviewer for an IEEE journal in CS. This journal is indexed on Scimago and its ranking is a Q3 journal.
I know that one cannot know all the topics covered in the diverse areas of CS, but as a reviewer, I have been assigned some papers that do not specifically belong to my field of expertise. Even though the journal appears to check the familiarity of the reviewer with the topic before reviewing it, I just feel it is not close enough.
Apart of that sometimes I get some papers in which the practical part or the methodological part is jumped quickly, and for me, it lacks consistency and is rather descriptive; I know the limitations of space, but I believe some authors should put more effort on that section.
Also, how can I know that the results that they present are for real? I have read many cases in which some authors fake their own results or push them to show nice results when in reality is not like that.
What to do in the aforementioned situations?<issue_comment>username_1: If you feel unable to referee a paper (due to any circumstance), refer it back to the editor, possibly with a list of colleagues which you suggest.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In any field, once you start reviewing, you're going to see a lot of problematic submissions, because there are a lot of people out there who submit really bad manuscripts. In some cases, the authors are unaware of their problems, while in others they're trying to slip a minimal paper past peer review because they aren't really interested in the science---they just need the publication to graduate or get promoted.
Your job as a reviewer is to make sure that what gets published is credible. That means that if you don't understand something or don't feel that the evidence presented supports their conclusions, you have a *duty* to report that as a problem with the manuscript. Depending on the severity of the problem, you might recommend either revision or rejection---and the handling editor will make the actual decision.
You shouldn't, however, demand that authors to do new work just because you think it would be interesting. You also shouldn't expect to know every tiny detail of their methodology. So, where to draw the line? Here is how I think about it:
* The authors need to provide enough methodological detail that no significant implementation decisions are missing.
* The conclusions need to be well-supported by the evidence presented.
* The overall thrust of the paper should be interesting to a typical reader of the journal (this one varies highly by journal).
None of this will allow you to detect clever fraud, but not-so-clever faking often leaves a clear trace (data that looks *too* nice), and cherrypicking of data is usually detectable because the authors present data from very few samples or trials.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Also, how can I know that the results that they present are for real,
> I have read many cases in which some authors fake their own results or
> push them to show nice results when in reality is not like that.
>
>
>
Unfortunately, that's not uncommon. However, we can't assume fraud. Doubt is not enough, if you can know for sure that the results are fabricated, then put that in the review. Otherwise, it is up to those who replicate later to find out if the results are not reliable.
>
> I get some papers in which the practical part or the methodological
> part is jumped quickly, and for me, it lacks more consistency and to
> be more descriptive;
>
>
>
This is more of a problem. Chances are that others reading the paper will also find the lack of consistency and coherence troublesome. Depending on how bad it is, you can either suggest a revision or reject on this basis. If it is incoherent or obfuscated then you owe it to future readers to give feedback on this.
>
> but as a reviewer, I have been assigned some papers that do not
> specifically belong to my field of expertise, and even though it
> appears to check the familiarity of the reviewer with one topic before
> reviewing it, I just feel it is not enough.
>
>
>
If you are not comfortable with the subject, basic decency is to return it to the editor. I would never suggest rejection a paper that I do not fully understand, I would just return it to the editor. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/08
| 580
| 2,409
|
<issue_start>username_0: Years ago, I, as well as a team of other engineering students, conducted some pretty solid research for an undergrad project. We didn't end up commercializing it or anything, but I believe it would be a great fit for an upcoming conference.
I am no longer affiliated with the university where the research was originally conducted. The original paper was horrible, and needs to be re-written (I've been published before and am familiar with writing styles and the process of submitting a paper, despite not having an adviser).
Can (or should/must) I use the university as my (and my team's) affiliation? What does this actually mean? Does the university have to know I'm publishing a paper with their name on it? If so, who typically signs off on this?
I've tried to find an answer online and have come across [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49263/what-affiliation-to-put-on-a-research-paper-as-a-college-student), but I'm not sure if it applies since I am not currently enrolled as a student, and because the paper is being re-written.<issue_comment>username_1: Is your then-adviser also a co-author on the paper? If so, and if they are still affiliated with the university, it may be enough that their affiliation is listed.
If your undergrad research was funded, that funding information should appear on the paper. This usually means that funding was provided through your adviser's grant(s).
If neither is true, i.e. you got no co-authors that are still affiliated with the university and no grants to report, you can still state somewhere in the paper (e.g. in the acknowledgements section) something along the line of "during the original research, author was affiliated with university X", if you feel inclined.
In general, your and every co-author's affiliation should be the current one and you are obliged to state your funding sources, if you have any.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your affiliation is listed so that you can be identified/contacted. Thus, your affiliation should be listed as your current employer.
Given that your university provided resources to conduct the research, you should list them in the acknowledgements section.
You should probably invite whoever supervised your project to co-author the paper. You should also invite your fellow team members to co-author the paper too.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/08
| 2,003
| 8,393
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose an instructor shows up to teach a class and no students are present. Assuming that the instructor's institution has no formal policy on such matters, how should an instructor proceed in such a situation?
If it helps to narrow down the question a bit, assume that the enrollment is no larger than ~20 students or so.
I am in the US, but responses tailored for other physical locations are welcome, too.
The above question was inspired by the following related one: [Is it okay for a professor to leave the classroom only 5 min past the class start if nobody has shown up?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90456/is-it-okay-for-a-professor-to-leave-the-classroom-only-5-min-past-the-class-star)<issue_comment>username_1: I feel it is okay for the teacher to leave should there be no students showing up. Almost every class has at least 1 person who shows up early. For no one to show up after waiting x period of time, I would put a note on my door saying class has been cancelled due to no attendance. Please see me in my office / faculty dept for notes. This way, anyone who does show up late can still contact the teacher.
A teacher's time is valuable. They have multiple classes to go through content and grade. Multiple classes to prepare for. Emails from 3-4 classes worth of students and class preparation. To have no one show up is frankly insulting to a teacher no matter what kind of justification you make for why you showed up late or feel entitled to him having to sit and wait for 2 hours.
The best thing a teacher can do is post on the boards/door before leaving the class that it has been cancelled and that each student needs to find a way to make up the missing notes on their own time. I say this because if you provide students with a way to just pick up lecture notes in your office or at a different time, you are reinforcing the notion that the students can skip class and just take the 5 minutes to get notes from your office and taking away accountability. You can also set up a mutual block where you can teach the class again as a make up class depending on what the reason is for half the class not showing up.
To comment about the original question, weather is provided multiple times a day on tv, your phone provides weather forecasts for a week at a time as well. A quick glance at tomorrow's weather will tell you if you need to wake up earlier or not due to weather. Accidents are a bit harder to plan around but that is still not an excuse. You should never plan to arrive where you are going within 5 minutes of that start time. It leaves very little room for issues. I feel in the original thread of this question, there seems to be a failure to communicate tardiness to professor as well as didn't do their due diligence to make sure they will arrive on time regardless of issues.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: At my former institution the rule of thumb was a lecturer waited 15 minutes and if no one turned up then the he/she was free to leave (this was common when the period was devoted to a problems class). However, even if one student out of the class turned up then we were expected to present the lecture.
The only case where I didn't follow this was one time out of a class of approximately 30 students one solitary student turned up. This was rather extreme so I checked and found that the students were on a field trip that day (I hadn't been informed which was rather bad) and the student who had turned up often missed lectures and had, apparently, missed the lecture when the field trip was discussed.
Because of this, the majority of students had good reason to be away I decided not to take the class since, effectively, the students on the field trip would have been at a disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The following is a comment made on the related question by @JakubKonieczny (the comment has since been [moved to chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/60090/discussion-on-question-by-ann-greene-is-it-okay-for-a-professor-to-leave-the-cla), but I think it deserves to be included as an answer here):
*"I used to be taught by a professor who had a clever solution for situations like that. Whenever nobody showed up, he would just... go ahead with the lecture as usual, thus lecturing to the empty room. To make things more amusing, because (as any mathematician will tell you) any member of an empty audience is a genius, he was able to speed up the lecture considerably. Of course, at the final exam all students were expected to know all the lectured material. Consequently, we were very careful to always have at least one student present at each lecture. [...]"*
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm assuming the professor has already checked they're in the right place, and they haven't got the time/date wrong, etc.
I would say as a good rule of thumb it would be acceptable to leave after 10-15 minutes if no one has shown up. While they wait, they can try to find out what's going on, e.g. check email/text messages to see if a notification has gone out that might cancel or reschedule/relocate things, or if several students are reporting an issue, such as a clash with an exam or field trip, or delay due to something running overtime, bad weather, traffic accident, etc. If the professor can determine what's going on, they can better judge whether it would be appropriate to wait a little longer for people to turn up, or leave immediately and cancel/reschedule the class entirely.
If they do leave, it may be a good idea for the professor to contact the students in some way to let them know what's happening, such as informing them of when the rescheduled class is, or redirecting any late arrivals to their office, either to fetch them for the class, or to replace the class with general homework help/questions/etc. A note on the board or door could be sufficient for the latter.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Take out you laptop and:
a) check your emails (and if you have a mailing list, possibly mail the students)
b) assuming that your laptop is enough to work and there is wifi: start to work there (e.g. by checking and answering your other emails)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I do think that contexts for to this will vary so greatly that there can't be any one consistent answer. Obviously it depends on existing institutional culture and policies. And also number of students in the class (3, 30, or 300?) and duration of the class (1 hour, 2 or 4?). And level of the class (intro freshmen or graduate seminar?). And proximity of other resources like department or lecturer's office, so as to possibly direct students there (maybe you're at a foreign location where that's not possible). And availability of other work the lecturer can do (e.g., username_5's answer about work via laptop).
Here's just one example for me: I'm in a pretty traditional math department in the northeast U.S. where almost everyone still lectures with chalk. A few years back when I did the same, I had a trigonometry class during a winter module at 8 AM (think: snowy January, not a residential campus, everyone's on the road, need to leave home before sunrise). Several mornings no one was there at the class start time; and yes, I did start writing the presentation on the board as usual. I figured students could show up and copy what was on the board, which was the only way they could get those notes (and that's what did in fact occur).
Now I've switched my method to use projected digital slides, which are all available for download off the school's learning management system any time at a student's convenience (for which I've had to request room changes outside our usual math department lecture wing). So there isn't the same motivation to mime-out the lecture in students' absence. This semester I had an intro programming course which several times had no students present at the 9 AM start time. In this case I just waited and did some reading until the first student showed up, and commenced a one-on-one conversation about questions or difficulties. Once there were 2 or 3 there I started the normal presentation.
In short: Good responses to this question will vary without bound, depending on context (e.g., even depending on the lecture format itself).
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/08
| 1,366
| 5,957
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my field, computer science, employers offer referral bonuses of a few thousand dollars to employees who refer successful job candidates who go on to work at that company. My spouse works at a company that an alumnus would like to apply to. So do several alumnae and a former professor who has taught that student. I used to work there too.
Is it ethical for me to tell the student (truthfully) that, if he applies through my spouse and gets hired, we will donate the bonus to the college? I would also tell him (truthfully) that I would submit an equally enthusiastic recommendation letter and help him prepare for interviews no matter who he chooses to refer him.
My ethical concern is that the student might feel pressured by my implying I would like him to apply through my husband and fear that I would not help him as much if he did not. I could partly alleviate that concern by writing the recommendation letter first and giving it to the former professor at the company to submit after anyone has referred the candidate. Is that enough?
**Update**
I asked an alumna at the company (rather than my husband) to refer the student and donate any referral bonus. She cheerfully agreed and coached him on interviewing. The candidate had no problem with being referred by an alumna (or by my spouse) and appreciated the coaching, although he ended up working for another company.
I think going through someone other than my spouse reduced the appearance of a conflict of interest all around (including to the company, to which I would have submitted a letter of reference).<issue_comment>username_1: (Disclosure: I'm not a professor.)
I don't personally see any ethical concerns SO LONG AS you indicate clearly (as you said you would do) that the recommendation letter will be equally strong regardless of whether or not the student applies through your spouse. Under those circumstances, I'd call this "networking," not "bribery" or "coercion".
The idea you proposed of writing the letter first and *then* informing the student seems like a nice way of ensuring that the student knows you've written a strong letter. There is the possibility that the student will still feel pressured, of course -- "if I don't say yes, then my professor will send a second contradictory letter" -- but assuming you have a positive relationship with the student, that seems unlikely.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Disclaimer: this is not legal advice. This is just a personal opinion. I might be somewhat though in comparison with most.
This is a borderline case. In general however I would stay away from this unless you are very sure the alumni would like this job. Although I am utterly convinced of your good intention, even if you say there will be no consequences the alumni might not believe you. That sounds like it is not your problem but you have an authority position and so you don't have a relationship of equals. This means that you must be much more careful. And in this case the doubt might, completely independent of you, be somewhat justified, because you might not **intentionally** write a worse recommendation letter. But **unintentionally** you might. At least I could see that as a legitimate worry.
First writing the letter might be a good guarantee like @username_1 pointed out. However I still think this is not optimal since then you might write an overly positive recommendation letter because you want the student to be hired **for your personal gain** (reputation within the college can also be gain) or it might at least be perceived that way.
This might be immoral to the company or towards other students (since they get comparatively less positive recommendation letters).
I can see this working in a morally acceptable way but I think there is alot to be carfull about. In general I would be at the very least cautious when having a monetary/reputational (outside your reputation as teacher) incentive in dealing with students outside of the money adn reputation you get from the university.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I don’t see any conflict (or need to donate the bonus). Simply inform the student that as an applicant, that they are more likely to be accepted if they are referred by an existing employee and that at this company employees receive bonuses when they successfully refer a applicant. Ask if they have such a referral, and if not offer to have your spouse submit one on their behalf.
This is a classic win-win situation, where all parties benefit from cooperation. The only potential conflict is if the student already has such a referral, it might seem that you are pressuring them to use your spouse instead, which is why you ask if they have one before volunteering your spouse.
The only possible conflict is if you embellished the LoR in order to increase the students chance of gaining the job in order get the bonus, which is more than balanced by the resulting damage to you and your spouses reputations. An appropriately luke-warm recommendation and referral is going to better for both of you in the long run.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Your job includes writing letters of recommendation when students have earned them. Finding students a referral opportunity from a company employee is doing better than what you need to do.
Your spouse's job includes earning referral bonuses.
Both of you are doing your jobs. There is no conflict. Your spouse could reasonably keep the bonus.
* Don't require the student to use the referral, apply for the job, or accept the job.
* Warn students not to apply for companies you know are abusive.
* Don't recommend students who will do a bad job.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I often found jobs for my cs students at the company I consulted with. I arranged to have the referral bonus given directly to my department.
I made sure everyone knew about this arrangement up front.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/08
| 417
| 1,718
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Phd student from Algeria, and I received an invitation to Review for the International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing. My Phd supervisor advised me to accept the invitation to review the paper, so I accepted the invitation.
Now from the title of the paper, it looks to be in the field that I am working in. However, when I accepted the invitation and they sent the manuscript to me, it is much more complicated than it looks from its title and touches on topics that I do not know.
What are the best responses should I give in the reply?<issue_comment>username_1: You have two choices, each of which I have done at different times:
1. You can tell your advisor and the editors that now that you've seen the paper, you no longer think you could do a good job reviewing it.
2. You can review it to the best of your ability and state clearly in the review that you have low confidence in your review. (Often, this can be indicated numerically.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I (from mathematics) think that if the topic of the paper is somewhat foreign to you, you should decline the refereeing job. Referees should be substantially expert in relevant subject matter, to gauge the value of a paper. If the topic has many new features to you, and you are a novice besides, you will not be able to give any sort of competent opinion in such a direction. You should decline. That is, simply verifying low-level coherence, or line-by-line coherence, is not what refereeing is about, and if one has no higher-level competence, it is not plausible to magically instantly acquire competence thereby to produce an expert opinion. Let's be serious, folks.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/09
| 570
| 2,495
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was asked to review a conference proceedings which topics I'm not entirely interested or knowledgeable (there is an overlapping topic I'm qualified to review though). Since I'm new to the field, I searched the ranking and I found it's close to the bottom tier. The colleague who asked me for reviewing it says it might help gaining experiences since I'm new to the field.
Would it be helpful for gaining an experience, or would it be a waste of my time if I'm not interested in publishing in the journal/conference anyway?<issue_comment>username_1: Reviewing for a journal/conference will (ideally) not help you publish there (the ones reviewing your papers will not know whether you are a reviewer).
But (as your colleague noted), reviewing for a journal/conference may be a step on the way to reviewing for another journal/conference. And reviewing may be considered positively when your department considers you for promotion and/or raises.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: "Concerned" is not quite the word I would use, but it seems very reasonable to *take the quality of the publication venue into account* when deciding whether to accept the referee request.
Most academics I know hit a certain threshold age / level of seniority after which they get more referee requests than they can reasonably take on [here I should say that in my field, mathematics, refereeing one good paper can be *a lot of work* -- it is no exaggeration to say that doing so may require putting one's own research on hold for several weeks]. So they have to pick and choose which requests to take. They pick papers through a combination of personal interest, sense of their relative expertise (if you feel that you are one of the only people in the world qualified to competently referee a paper in a reasonable amount of time, it's pretty hard to say no) and estimations of quality of the author/editor/venue.
Based on what you said, considerations like the above seem to point in the direction of your declining to referee the paper. If you are so junior that you have almost no refereeing experience at all, then you might want to take it anyway...but then again you still might not. I would encourage you to discuss this with your thesis advisor (if you are a graduate student) or with a faculty mentor. You want someone with intellectual and sociological expertise in the field to weigh in on whether this would be a good use of your time.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/09
| 884
| 3,862
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a student, and as a tutor, I have found that tutorials for liberal arts subjects (in university) can be a bore. As a student, in large courses you mightn't know anyone in your class, you mightn't want to answer questions in order to avoid looking like a know-all, or you mightn't answer questions because you haven't done the reading; and all-in-all it's a painful process of the tutor attempting to inveigle responses from a very quiet audience.
This also doesn't make tutorials very useful, and seeing that time is being put aside to this end (by both students and staff) it often feels a real waste.
*For anyone unfamiliar with such tutorials, they tend to be for 1 hour each fortnight; designed to discuss subjects that have been lectured on with a view to informing students in relation to a continual assessment deliverable (e.g. an essay).*
I'm now in the position where I can dictate tutorial structure of a subject (though I'm not actually a tutor). While I don't want to make any massive revolutionary changes in relation to tutorials, I'm curious what changes to the subject as a whole could produce an environment more conducive to interesting and productive tutorials. What alterations could help tutors and students make the most of these sessions?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that it is a mistake and a waste to approach a tutorial like a lecture.
In my own experience both in leading tutorials (in a more STEM environment, but still one with some open-ended discussions) and in being a student in them (both STEM and liberal arts), the instructor needs to actively cultivate an culture of participation by the class. Once such a culture is established, you can much better use the uniquely interactive format of a tutorial to really follow the students interests and needs in exploring the material.
Some tactics that can help in doing this:
* Begin each tutorial by asking the students to set an agenda of things they would like to discuss. Bring a few of your own that you can use to seed the list.
* Along the same lines: be confident enough in your knowledge and the material to let the students see your process as you work through your thoughts on their harder questions. They will generally get more out of understanding how to engage with the material than out of the specific answer to a specific question.
* Giving enough quiet space for students to feel comfortable to speak takes longer than you may think. You will often need to silence stretch long enough to be uncomfortable.
* Avoid conversation being dominated by a couple of active students by occasionally saying things like, "I'd like to hear from somebody who hasn't spoken much today." This asks the active students to step back while avoiding the down-sides of calling on individuals to speak.
* Set clear expectations about culture at the beginning of the class, and explicitly revisit your commitment to them from to time as necessary.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You could find and present **examples of spectacular blunders and failures** (and then try to analyze them together).
The lecture has to be concise and to communicate the general concept. It would be fun and educational if you could present examples from history when things went horribly wrong, while *apparently* obeying all the "state of the art"/"unwritten rules"... not to prove the gereral concept is "wrong", but to put to attention there's usually more in it than following the the simpler rules. Exceptions, side effects, surprises!
Was nice for STEM ("...and that's the algorithm they put into the autopilot. See this formula? - Now, imagine what happened at a later time, when the first F16 fighter jet crossed the equator... surprise, it automatically rolled to upside-down flight!"), should work for any field :)
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/09
| 1,363
| 5,760
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know that in the US people apply for PhD programs, with a rough a idea in their heads what interests them, as PhD's take much longer and include time to explore the subject.
How does this work for UK students? PhD's usually last for around 3-4 years, and it seems that you would have to know exactly what you want to do when you apply?
I have completed a BA & MA in the Humanities, but I am not sure yet what to write my PhD on. I am sure though that I want to pursue this path.
How does the usual process look like? Would I first contact a professor I would like to work with and then apply to the program? And how specific should my research idea be? I have a certain subtopic of my discipline in mind, and I have also identified a few interesting potential supervisors. However, I am nowhere near having found a proper topic, or an interesting idea which I would want to develop.How do people do this? Sorry if this is a little bit general, but I am a bit stuck!
edit: Let's work on the assumption that I am in the Humanities & that I do not require funding.<issue_comment>username_1: How does the usual process look like?
-------------------------------------
Differently.
Are you applying for a 3+1 degree? Or a studentship? Or a normal PhD?
*(Note: 3+1 (or 1+3) degrees are a combination of a 1-year Master's and a 3-year PhD. Their first year is equivalent to a Master's, and upon satisfactory performance at the end of your first year, you are allowed into the PhD programme. Sometimes the first year is done at one university, and the remaining three years at another university. [Example 1](https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/dphil-radiation-oncology?wssl=1) [Example2](http://www.gradschl.lifesci.cam.ac.uk/Current%20Students/Lifecycles/1%20Plus%203))*
Does the application require a research proposal? And/or a writing/work sample? And/or a personal statement?
Do you have your own funding? If not, what type of funding are you applying for? If the funding applications are separate, do they require their own documents?
Etc.
Would I first contact a professor I would like to work with and then apply to the program?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it is a 3+1 course, then normally yes. You would have to find a supervisor willing to supervise you, and to help you properly form your research proposal.
If you are applying for a studentship, then it is likely that most, if not all, the information needed to write the research proposal is already available.
In 3+1 courses, the applications tend to be much more general. They often do not require research proposal, but rather personal and/or research statements. Also, you typically are not required to get in touch with any of the supervising staff, because the topic of your PhD is decided toward the end of your first year.
And how specific should my research idea be?
--------------------------------------------
Research proposals are very specific. It is rare for students to deviate too much from the core of their research proposals during their PhDs.
To get a broad idea of how specific your research proposal should be, I can tell you that your research proposal would need to have introduction, background, aims, methodology, possibly a strategy/schedule, possibly a section about the importance of the research, etc.
But, many people (and most, if not all, successful candidates) get help from their potential supervisors with forming and writing their research proposals.
How do people do this?
----------------------
I cannot say how other people did it, but the way I wrote my research proposal was I started with a more general idea, then I read a lot about it, which helped me to reduce it to a somewhat specific idea and to find a couple of possibly suitable approaches to achieve this idea. Then I got in touch with a potential supervisor who pointed me to a few recent papers, which further narrowed down my idea to something that looked like a proper PhD project. He then helped me write my research proposal by providing me with tips and very useful feedback.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'll start with the caveat that I'm in the sciences and this got too long for a comment.
You state that
>
> "I have a certain subtopic of my discipline in mind, and I have also
> identified a few interesting potential supervisors."
>
>
>
That's great! I think the next step for you would be to contact those potential supervisors with a brief email explaining your interests and asking if they are looking to take on a PhD student.
If the answer is yes, you will likely be able to work with that supervisor to develop a specific research proposal. This could be done via email, but I would recommend Skype or meeting in person if possible, just so you can get to know them. When you're ready, you can then formally apply to the department for a PhD position using the proposal you have prepared, mentioning your prospective supervisor's name in your application.
You also state that you do not require funding- I think this will work in your favour, provided you are a competitive candidate (i.e. your grades and research proposal are good). The reasons for this are twofold: one, the supervisor does not have to find money to support you and two, you *may* be able to start your PhD whenever you want, rather than being tied to a start date dictated by when your funding starts. However, this is something you **should** discuss with your prospective supervisor.
Note: the academic year in the UK begins in September, and as such you are almost certainly too late to apply to start your PhD this year.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/09
| 636
| 2,795
|
<issue_start>username_0: In computer science conferences, the following publication timeline is somewhat common for conferences:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mvO3H.png)
For those who have been involved in program committees, what gets a paper rejected *after* conditional acceptance? Further, does this happen often? Is there a common percentage of papers this happens with?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know statistics, and perhaps in some fields it is more common, but in the conferences I'm involved with, that extra check is more to encourage authors to act in good faith than because papers will actually be rejected then. In other words, it's exceedingly rare.
I once served as technical program chair for a small conference in which a junior faculty member wanted to reject a paper he felt didn't satisfy reviewer demands. Ultimately even that paper was accepted.
I'm guessing there are examples where this has real teeth, but i haven't come across them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I have been a part of computer science program committees that actually do reject papers that do not meet the conditions of their acceptance.
In my experience, papers are generally classed into two categories, essentially corresponding to "minor revision" and "major revision" for a journal. The papers that are basically acceptable in their current state are in the first category, and the organizers mostly just trust that the camera-ready will be acceptable as well---after all, it's in the authors' interests to improve it further.
Papers in the second category often get assigned a "shepherd" or, in rare cases, a second round of review, to ensure that they actually meet the minimum quality standards of a meeting. In my experience, this second category is much more rare than the first, and is not used by a large number of conferences. In general:
* The big first-tier conferences are often already overflowing with strong submissions, and don't need to bother about trying to cultivate borderline papers.
* More specialized or not-quite-as-good conferences are more likely to make provisions to help turn borderline papers into solid papers, in order to make sure they end up with enough strong papers.
* Low-ranked conferences often aren't very choosy in any case.
Turning to understanding the state of a particular paper: look at the process you've been told is going to happen. If you're being told about something like another round of evaluation or a shepherd, then your paper is likely borderline and you probably need to work hard to improve it to keep it from being rejected. Otherwise, "conditional accept" is likely to be more a matter of wording than serious judgement questions.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/09
| 636
| 2,701
|
<issue_start>username_0: A recent exciting but unpublished discovery of mine was scooped by a colleague. I am a PhD student and I shared the discovery with the colleague a year ago. The colleague is a professor who came from the research group I work in. I found out about the scoop through my adviser who attended the colleague's talk about the discovery; the colleague's group did similar research that led them to the same discovery after we talked.
Obviously my adviser and I were surprised, upset, and angry. Initially after my adviser confronted the colleague about this the colleague was argumentative but eventually saw the light and became apologetic. The colleague offered to retract the paper that was accepted for publication but not published until we've published our findings (it's taken so long to publish for good reasons). However, the colleague is still pushy about trying to get at least something from their research out, but it is our judgement that any of their results would scoop my discovery.
Although I haven't talked with the colleague since this happened (my adviser has been mediating), I get the impression that the colleague did this intentionally with the hopes that it would go unnoticed by us.
So my question is this: what should I do to ensure this colleague receives their comeuppance i.e., does this deserve some sort of punitive action on my part? I haven't asked my adviser yet and any suggestions I receive here will certainly be discussed with my adviser.<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like your adviser is already on the case -- let her handle it. She may know the colleague better, may know better how to handle such situations, and is in a position where she may not care about consequences any more if she calls out the colleague about the issue (because she already is a professor). You, on the other hand, do not have this luxury and consequently would be better off letting someone else handle this as long as you think that it is handled in a way that goes in the right direction.
So, rather than being involved yourself, let her handle that and keep you updated as to what is happening.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Document everything and expose the thief. It will stop them and anybody else who can see what public exposure does to people who are deceitful and unjust. When you protect them or fail to nip it in the bud, they will only find a smarter, less conspicuous way to screw you over, again. It was what they intended to begin with. They are fighting without scruples, you need to defend and protect yourself without apology or fear. When someone tries this with you, they do not respect you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/09
| 3,064
| 13,453
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was just looking at a different post that cites National Center for Educational Statistics about how professors of all levels spend their time. I am actually doing some research on faculty hiring practices at research universities.
[How much time do professors have to do research on their own?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27493/how-much-time-do-professors-have-to-do-research-on-their-own/27494#27494)
The thrust of the data is that most professors, whether tenure track or non-tenure track spend more than 50% of their time on teaching. I imagine this data is averaged across both research and teaching universities, but still teaching must make up the bulk of time or even professors at research universities--whether that be teaching classes, mentoring grad students, committees, etc.
But at the same time, I know that the hiring criteria for the research universities focuses on publication records with little if any concern about teaching evaluations and such. I am not trying to make a critique or political point, this is just something that I have understood from my interactions with professors and other graduate students.
Now my assumption is that most research university departments get the majority of their money from student tuition. I might be wrong about this, and if I am wrong please let me know. We also know that the ability to do research does not always correlate with teaching ability.
So I want to understand the mechanisms that allow research universities to continue to hire professors who are not necessarily the best teachers? Of course, there are many amazing professors at universities who are excellent teachers. I am not trying to make a blanket statement by any means. I just mean that you would probably get better teachers if the primary hiring criteria was teaching ability, right.
By mechanisms I mean, if student tuition is the main source of money, then why do students keep paying for classes taught by not always the best teachers? Or is there just so much money coming into research universities from grants, etc., that they can afford these large professor salaries despite the loss of undergraduate students? Like how does this actually work?
I imagine part of the answer to this question is associated with the growth in non-tenure-track faculty like adjuncts. That seems like it would solve some problems. But still why can universities who seem to get most of their money from students, get away with paying so little attention to students when it comes to hiring faculty?
Any insights are welcome. Again, if I phrased anything indelicately, please forgive me. I was not trying to cast any aspersions on anyone. Just purely thinking from an economic rationale.<issue_comment>username_1: Because they don't spend most of their time teaching. For example, officially the expectation is that I spend half my time on research, a third on teaching, and a sixth on service (e.g. administrative responsibilities).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: One contributing factor is that research ability is much easier(\*) to measure than teaching effectiveness.
Beyond some level of basic competence, how effective a professor is with students depend quite a lot on the characteristics of the student body. A professor can be quite effective with a certain student body but quite inept with another.
Teaching evaluations give very little information about how effective a teacher someone is; they just say how popular a teacher is with their students - which is not the same thing. Generally, it seems that professors get better evaluations if they spoonfeed material to students and don't make their classes too challenging, telling the students what they need to write on exams rather than getting them to think.
Peer evaluations don't seem too useful either; a peer can only spend so much time observing a class, and the effects of a professor seem to be too subtle to measure over an hour. Also, just because someone is a good teacher doesn't mean they know what to look for to judge whether other people are good teachers.
Student performance is too variable and dependent on the group of students. Also, what we would really like to know is whether students develop over the course of their studies the ability to contribute original ideas to complex projects related but not identical to material they should learn. This is hard to measure within the context of a single course/module. For example, it happens frequently that a curricular unit is originally introduced (as one of the last in a course/module) to get students to synthesize for themselves various ideas they should learn in a course, an exam item is introduced to test whether students have managed to synthesize all these ideas, but, over time, students and instructors become accustomed to the particular (type of) exam item and this curricular unit becomes teaching students how to do this exam item by rote. Exam results look better, but learning has been diminished. (It doesn't help that such an evolution typically improves student evaluations even as it destroys the aim of this curricular unit!)
(\*) Maybe it's not actually easier. However, there is a research community that is willing to volunteer (as reviewers and editors) and able to do this evaluation and report reasonably accurately on it, whereas an institution has to do the work of evaluating teaching effectiveness by itself since it depends much more on local factors.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this state of affairs may be easier to understand if we look at it in this direction:
University needs good researchers because that is a core part of their mission --> now that we've got these great researchers on board, let's have most of them (but not Fomite!) teach too, since teaching is a core part of the university's mission too, and since a great researcher would understand the material inside and out.
If you go at it like this, great teaching will be icing on the cake, not fundamental from the ground up.
There are smaller "liberal arts" schools that supposedly emphasize great teaching. (Maybe I've had bad luck, but the ones I visited were disappointing. My conclusion was, the best thing a student could do, when shopping for a university, is enroll in a large institution and then pick and choose the best instructors.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'd like to add a few important points. Tenured positions in many universities are a way to attract well known, accomplished academic staff. Having famous professors increases prestige of the university and makes it attractive to potential students, who in turn are willing to pay higher tuition. That's the business side.
Another important point is that in many fields you have to be a good and active researcher to be a good teacher. For example, in my field of economics, we always have to stay up to date with current research. Things change so quickly that in 10 years the same lesson plan doesn't only become obsolete, it can become plain wrong. That doesn't apply to all fields, but it applies to many. In engineering fields, for example, there is a constant struggle to make things simpler, easier, and more efficient. Being an active researcher shows that the professor is at least aware of the new and better things that are out there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You asked many different questions in your question.
I'll only be addressing some of them in my answer.
In my opinion,
the reason why tenure-track professors are hired
on the basis of their research rather than their teaching
is due to the following reasons.
I have ordered the reasons from what I think are
the most important reasons, to the least important reasons:
1. The professors in an academic department
care about hiring the best researchers
because that would affect their school's research ranking.
For example, in business schools,
there is a ranking of business school research known as
[The UTD Top 100 Business School Research Rankings](http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top-100-business-school-research-rankings/worldRankings#20122016).
This is an *objective* and *measurable* way
to rank business schools in their research,
although you could argue about whether
*quality* is more important than *quantity*.
2. On the other hand,
it is extremely difficult to accurately measure the teaching quality
of a particular academic department.
For example, how do you objectively measure and compare
the teaching experience of say
Harvard Business School versus Stanford Graduate School of Business?
I imagine that if there were a magical way to measure teaching quality,
and schools could be objectively compared on this metric,
schools would try to improve their teaching performance and their ranking.
3. Finally,
it is not true that the hiring committee does not consider
a job candidate's teaching ability in a hiring decision.
Typically, there is a 1-hour research presentation
as part of the tenure-track hiring process.
In my opinion, the ability of a candidate to explain his/her research clearly
has moderate correlation with the ability of the candidate
to do a "good enough" job of teaching students in a lecture setting.
If a candidate is extremely brilliant,
but shows poor presentation and social skills,
that would definitely count as a negative in deciding to hire this candidate.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I think part of the answer here is that in most fields we just don't need that great teachers. At this age student in a good university are expected to pick up the material themselves, esp nowadays with all the textbooks and supplementary information available. If you need someone who spoon feed you everything you may be not ready for university. So a good average teacher can do most of the work, and his/her research experience, knowledge of the cutting edge techniques of the field is the more important part, that textbook does not contain. Sure, good/ better than average teacher can be helpful, but less harm if they are not, one should be able to make up without them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: From the perspective of a smaller school whose faculty do not spend a majority of their time doing research. In no particular order:
* Successful researchers have to be current with their field. The world moves pretty fast today, especially in STEM fields. A great teacher who is 5-10 years behind the state of the art is going to be less valuable to our students than a decent teacher who stays on top of things. Even if you only publish once a year or every other year, that still means that you have to bring yourself up to date every 12-24 months. Most people have had the experience of a woefully out of date professor, and it's a horrible experience.
* Small research projects create opportunities for students outside the classroom. In particular it creates reasonable undergraduate research experiences, which are vital for students who are considering graduate school. Without these opportunities during the semester our students' only option for an informative research experience would be an REU at another location after their sophomore or junior year.
* Our department doesn't have a doctoral program, but we're a part of an R2 school whose administration would like to see more research being done. This creates downward pressure from the administration to hire researchers, and lateral pressure from colleagues to do so. For example, the university tenure guidelines require a reasonable amount of research activity for an R2 institution. Even if our department decided that we all just wanted to be great teachers and forget about research, the university wouldn't approve anyone's tenure case. Not having any tenure-track positions would effectively end our department.
* Most Ph.D. holders do not have any formal educational training. We all tend to be mediocre teachers in that respect (especially out of grad school). If your options are between two mediocre teachers, but one of those people has a better research track record, why wouldn't you pick that person?
I will object to your statement, *"I know that the hiring criteria for the research universities focuses on publication records with little if any concern about teaching evaluations and such."* Universities do not want to hire bad teachers. If you had two otherwise equal candidates for a job, but you knew that the first of them was a bad teacher, you'd offer the job to the second person. Likewise, if you had two otherwise equal candidates and one of them had great evidence of being a great teacher, you'd be inclined towards the great teacher.
However, objective teaching evaluations are hard to get for anybody, and especially for graduate students who have had little teaching experience. It is true that a *research-oriented position* will more highly value research qualifications, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, teaching-oriented positions aren't given a pass on teaching qualifications. It's becoming more standard as these positions become more common for those who apply for lecturer/teaching oriented positions to be asked to give a sample lecture. For teaching-oriented positions any evidence of good teaching such as past favorable evaluations or teaching grants or awards would be taken into account in the hiring process as well.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/10
| 451
| 1,872
|
<issue_start>username_0: Why don't professors give talks at seminars in their own departments? They travel to other schools to give talks, while seminars at their home departments consists of talks given by visitors. Is there a reason for this?<issue_comment>username_1: In most of the departments that I have known, the professors do indeed give seminars within their own departments. The few exceptions I have known are either fairly small or else have some sort of problem with their seminar culture.
Now, it is certainly true that *most* talks in any department will generally be given by outsiders---there's a lot of incentives to have visitors give talks (e.g., building collaborations, faculty candidates), and there's just plain lots more researchers outside the department than in it (see [Joy's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy%27s_law_(management))).
Still, there will be many possible occasions where an internal talk would be of interest, and I believe that healthy departments see it as a valuable way to keep people in the department connected to one another.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: From a chemist's point of view:
At many universities, it's quite uncommon for a professor to give a talk at his or her own institute — at least at the six universities I know — for the simple reason that the content of his research is usually already being presented by his or her group members. It is quite common to have a seminar where PhD students and PostDocs, who do most of the actual research, present their work. So the professor would just give another overview over already presented work.
I've only seen talks of professors at their own institute in case of getting an award, a full professorship, or some kind of lecture series where you want to give an overview of the research done at the institute to people from outside.
Upvotes: 5
|
2017/06/10
| 3,248
| 13,633
|
<issue_start>username_0: While I read through a similar post written by [K.Grayson](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89883/how-do-i-cut-ties-with-a-bad-supervisor), I couldn't find a response that overlaps with my case.
In all honesty, I don't know in what way to explain how the situation with my M.Sc. graduate supervisor has escalated to what it has gotten. There are a lot of factors and interference by people who have nothing to do with our problems that muddled communication. Things escalated to a point where I was on the receiving end of a racist declaration from him, at which point a few breaches of my privacy had set me up on a vulnerable path.
My graduate supervisor has actually admitted to some of the abuse and said that he wouldn't do it again with his new students. (At this point, I suspect that someone in the department had found out, ousted his behavior, leading to some disciplinary action.) Unfortunately, by then, my time was up and I had already submitted my thesis, which I later defended successfully.
Leaving the lab, I actually gained nothing more than whom not to work with and whom not to be in the future. As far as my scientific development goes, I gained absolutely nothing, as extreme as that sounds. I figured since my graduate supervisor had at least admitted to some of his mistakes (mainly withholding information and exclusion from project development discussions, grant/article writing, and experiment designing) that he wouldn't stop me from getting that training I had missed somewhere else. I was wrong. In applying to a PhD program in my field, I had asked him if he could write a strong recommendation later (through e-mail) for me, explaining that this is a field I would like to dedicate myself to, and asked if he could be objective despite his personal reservations. He wrote that he would.
I was rejected, unfortunately. I grew suspicious, however, of the rejection. I went back to the previously mentioned e-mail, where he had forwarded the PhD department's request for the letter. (He forwarded the e-mail to me initially to convince me that the deadline was not what I was informing him to be. I sent him a link to the department's website to see for himself that I wasn't lying to him.) In the e-mail there was a link, and I clicked on it and read the letter. I know that what I did was unethical, and there is probably no excuse that I can offer to justify it. I know why I did it and I have come to terms with that. However, now I also know that my graduate supervisor does and will not have my best interest at heart, and thus I cannot trust him. I also know that, given that most of the things that have happened with him would require that witnesses corroborate my experience, I essentially cannot relate what I went through in that lab.
I am currently seeking psychiatric help since the culmination of what happened at that lab has left me cynical, enraged, and depressed. I am also having a hard time with the psychiatrist who suspects that I have gone through a psychotic break that left me delusional. Honestly, I don't want retribution or anything; I just want to move on and continue research in my field of interest. It feels like all doors are closing on me, and I just want a clean break from anything that has to do with him and his influence. Is it even worth staying in the same field? If even a psychiatrist is skeptical that a graduate supervisor would do that, is this uphill battle too steep for me to climb?
Thanks.
Edit: I provided the background info I thought necessary for a stranger to understand my position right now. To clarify my question: what are my chances of getting into and continuing research in the same field considering that:
1. I don't have the primary reference expected by grad schools to be the best source of information on my performance; and
2. I cannot relay what has happened since I am afraid it would be dismissed the same way as with my psychiatrist?
Also, Dawn brings up a good question. How do I go about building new research mentors using a diplomatic approach to discuss my M.Sc. experience?<issue_comment>username_1: Well, you've had a nightmare of an experience so far in grad school, and your therapist is alarming you by speculating that you are delusional. You know, it's possible that both things are true. It's possible that you were badly treated, AND your grasp on objective reality is tenuous.
Of course I don't know; but perhaps a visit to your primary medical doctor could help. In other words, perhaps you could take a step back and get an initial mental health screening from a generalist. S/he might recommend that you get a more specialized evaluation. When a person has a mental health condition, it can be helpful to be aware of it and learn more about it.
I don't know if this psychiatrist is a good fit for you or not; but I do know that it can't hurt to get a second opinion.
As for cutting ties -- I don't see that you have any ties, currently, with your advisor, given that you complete your master's degree. Is there something I'm missing?
With regard to your PhD applications -- I suggest you ask a department administrator or another member of your thesis committee for a letter of recommendation.
If necessary, you could look for someone else to write your letter, by taking or auditing a class, helping someone with a project, doing an internship, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I was going to just leave this as a comment, but I feel like it's worth an answer (even if it's effectively only one half of the answer), given the other current one:
Your current therapist (psychiatrist) has tried to guide you through this in a way that has caused you to mistrust them, by calling your account into doubt in a way that questions your grounding in reality and as a sole means of directing that line of inquiry, rather than something such as a strategy leading you to find (should they even exist) other symptoms that can serve as evidence of differences between what you recall and what may have actually occurred, should there even be any such discrepancies. All they have done is put you purely on the defensive and add an element of antagonism to a situation where you are already highly pressured from external sources, and where your issues stem from a situation where your trust was horribly abused. From how you are discussing the experience, it sounds like you are unlikely to receive meaningful therapy with them at this point, if trust with your therapist can't be re-established.
Find a good **Clinical Psychologist**. (PsyD or PhD)
If you do not have other, local avenues of seeking a referral you trust (and assuming that this is in the US), the APA maintains a [Psychologist Locator service](http://locator.apa.org/?_ga=2.215539607.1879534477.1516728633-760356480.1516728633). You should probably first check if there aren't any state based referral networks available to you, if you can't get a personal referral from someone you trust. One avenue can be through your University's psychology department, not necessarily in terms of seeking care but at least a trusted referral.
A good psychologist will also be positioned to help you move on socially and professionally/academically from this as specific to your situation, with setting up both coping strategies and boundaries, and helping reflect on your own behavior, thoughts, and feelings in relation to both what happened and in moving forward from it. Not every psychologist is a perfect fit for everyone, and not every form of therapy as administered is a perfect fit personally or situationally: it's ok to tell a psychologist who you're trying to work with that things aren't working out with them and you feel you need to see someone else. Every clinical psychologist I personally know would be more than happy to refer you to a colleague who might be a better fit, in that situation.
If you feel you need medical (psychopharmaceutical) support to help *manage* things like immediately severe (acute) emotional issues while working on recovering, then seek a referral to a psychiatrist for that. There's nothing wrong with needing more or more immediate help than what therapy alone can offer, but I would suggest being upfront with your psychologist about that too (and usually they can be a good source of a referral to someone who can handle the medical side of things in a balanced manner) as it will affect how therapy proceeds in relation to corresponding changes.
A Psychologist will also be able to administer any well validated instruments that are appropriate, or refer you to someone who specializes in related testing, if there is a need for any.
>
> I cannot relay what has happened since I am afraid it would be
> dismissed the same way as with my psychiatrist?
>
>
>
This is, ultimately, part of why this answer focuses on seeking out a psychologist to help you through this, because while your focus is on what happened (which is completely understandable), you may need to work on processing it as something unfair and unjust that happened to you and work on moving past it without relying on the particulars of the event as justification for how you choose to do so.
Sometimes when we are in the middle of a situation, all of our attention remains riveted on what happened, and we lose sight of simple answers to moving forward where what happened isn't a relevant matter to doing so. Some of @username_1's answer focuses on suggestions that would fall under this.
I can think of at least a couple of Psychology Professors who also do clinical work, who I'm personally well acquainted with who have "seen it all" in academia and would give whatever story you have complete face value credence: if you can't find someone willing to give what happened to you a fair listening without immediately jumping to questioning your grounding in reality simply on a basis of what happened, then keep looking, because they are out there. At the same time, it's important to understand that questions of whether your perception of what happened might differ from the actual events is also not necessarily an attack on your state of mind. We are all prone to remembering things in ways that are not perfectly genuine to actual events.
Someone who approaches that line of questioning should manage to do so in a way that doesn't leave you completely distrusting them, however.
>
> Things escalated to a point where I was on the receiving end of a racist declaration from him
>
>
>
It's unfortunate that you apparently have no documentation of your supervisor's behavior (although there may be more *evidence* of that behavior than you believe exists), because I realize the reality is that it can make filing a grievance difficult. I do think it's likely that you probably should file one either way (not about the letter, but about the behavior you experienced) from even the little you've relayed here, depending on the political situation within the department, but given how that may impact you professionally it's probably best to explore a discussion of that with someone you trust and with whom you can discuss it confidentially (which again, leads to the recommendation of seeking out a clinical psychologist you can form a strong working relationship with). I think if I had friends/allies in the department who were familiar with the Dean in particular and the political situation with your adviser in relation to the rest of the department, I would sound things out with them after receiving some counseling, and then make a decision of how to proceed with anything more formal based on their feedback.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: First, it is good that you recognized the need for and sought out counseling. Kudos to you for making that big step - many people can't get that far.
Second, sort out the psychiatric stuff first, so you are sure you have a clear head to deal with the academic issues. Or at least get to a state where you are sure you are able to operate objectively.
Thirdly, it is possible the psychiatrist is just not a good fit. Not your fault - it happens. Try another one, at least for an initial second opinion. A diagnosis of delusions is serious enough to warrant a second opinion.
Fourth, as someone who had issues with a PhD adviser myself, I found a sympathetic ear and good advice from another professor who at the time held the title of Head of Graduate Adviser (within my department). He provided good advice and was sympathetic to the issues at hand. In my case, the right person was available and known to me (and me to him). There might be another faculty member, a department staff person or someone a level up in the Deans office to whom you can talk who will maintain your confidentiality.
One last bit of advice: if you don't feel confident enough to pursue this through the academic faculty channels, search out the Dean of Student Affairs or the equivalent. As an undergrad I had to "rescue" a friend who became a danger to them-self and I turned to the Dean of Student Affairs. In total confidence they helped me get help for my friend and to workout some of the related academic issues.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Please get another doctor. I hope you were able to move on from that creep. There are too many criminals in academia today, sadly. I dropped out of grad school and had my own mental health emergency because of the abuse and toxic environment within. The imbalance of power between advisor and student sets up too many opportunities for corruption.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/10
| 1,395
| 6,317
|
<issue_start>username_0: Two years ago I read a paper in which the "Methods" section did not report enough information to reproduce the analysis presented by the authors.
I contacted the first author in order to have more information and he provided me the code he used to analyse the dataset presented in that paper.
I found out that in the code there was a conceptual mistake in the way some algorithms were used. However, I did not have a solution for the mistake. So, I just ignored the fact and started working on a different problem.
One year later, while working on the new problem, I found a solution that could permit to avoid the conceptual mistake that I found in the above-said paper. As in the meanwhile I stumbled across to another paper doing the same methodological mistake, I thought to write a letter to the journal in which the first paper was published to underline the problem in those two papers and propose a solution. The paper analyses a simple dataset in order to show the differences between the results obtained with the old method and with my new method. I also (of course) point to the fact that the data presented in the two papers should be re-analyzed, as a data analysis containing that mistake can produce misleading results.
The peer-review process went smooth, with constructive comments of the reviewers. At the end of this process the Editor informed me that they also requested a signed review by the first author of the paper published in his journal. So, the same person who originally provided me his code.
The recommendation that he gives on my paper is of major revision. His comments are (in principle) constructive but he requires me to cancel from the paper the reference to his paper because: i) the re-analysis of his dataset with my method (re-analysis that he did not share) does not show significant differences; and ii) the criticism of his results is not justified as the Methods section in his paper does not contain sufficient details to infer the error. *Do you think that these request are justified?*
During a private conversation with me he also made clear that it is his interest to make sure that his original paper "would not be destroyed" and that he does not consider to publish a re-analysis of his data. This is particularly nonsensical because the results affected by the error are just a rather small part of the results presented in his paper and could only be found out by inspecting the code.
Given this context, I think that his requests are quite unfair. It is clear that he is just trying to preserve his publication record. It also makes clear that all his positive comments in the review are just an attempt of bargaining a positive recommendation for the publication of my paper in exchange of erasing the reference to the error in his paper.
Therefore, my conundrum is if I should just give in to his requests for an easy publication (nice thing during a PhD) or do not bend, argument against his comments and get a rejection recommendation. *What would you do?*<issue_comment>username_1: To begin with, I find it highly problematic that this journal has a policy of inviting authors to review any paper that criticizes their work. That seems to me to be highly inhibitory of criticism and likely to produce situations exactly like the one that you are facing.
I find it doubly problematic that this author has chosen to communicate with you outside of the review process in order to persuade you to change your writing. His communications can easily be interpreted as an unethical *quid pro quo* request: you drop your criticism of his paper, and he'll drop his criticism of yours.
What is not clear from what you have written, however, is just what the journal intends to *do* with the review that they have received. Surely the journal must understand the potential conflict of interest here. So is the review mainly to allow an author to point out errors in the critique that those less familiar might overlook, or are they going to treat it just like one of the other reviews?
I would thus recommend taking the following approach:
1. Write to the editor and let them know that the author has approached you separately with what you are concerned may be an unethical proposal --- the editor needs to know about this and should be able to make their approach clear to you. Ask the editor how they would like to proceed.
2. In parallel, use all of the constructive parts of the criticism to improve your manuscript.
3. Consider slightly softening the language in your criticism in the manuscript. I do not know how you have written it, but it's often possible to use slightly less definitive language to make the same point, e.g., changing "Papers [1] and [2] should be re-analyzed to see if their results are affected." into "As it is possible that results might be affected, we would recommend considering re-analysis of papers [1] and [2]." Same substance, but less confrontational and allowing you to write that you have adjusted the paper in response to the review.
Hopefully, the editor can provide you some clarity as to how to navigate the difficult situation that their journal has created for you, and judicious adjustment can allow you to pass peer review without compromising your ethics. If not, there are other good journals out there that will not have this unusual conflict-generating policy.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In case of a corrigendum there is a standard practice to ask the author(s) of the original paper (OA, original authors). However, ignoring the "opposed" request is highly problematic assuming the journal offers such a list. Take a different journal, write the new editor that you will put OA into the opposed list, and **ask** (do not request) the editor whether such a list would be observed. State that if it won't, you'll withdraw the paper, and that you'll wait for a clear yes/no before submitting. Yes, and all your e-mails should be utmost polite, but still clear.
Your re-submission should be improved in any case. Use the comments of the OA.
Cite OA, scold his technical results, but acknowledge himself a lof for his source code and reviews.
If everything fails, consider a journal of negative results. There are some of them around in the meantime.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/10
| 1,337
| 5,891
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm applying for undergraduate studies and there is one question that keeps returning to my mind. Lots of novel degree programmes started to emerge within universities (at least where I live). For instance, one started offering a course in "Quantum Engineering", another one in "Nanostructure Engineering". Undoubtedly, a major cause for that is marketing (they sound nice), but when I looked into them, most are just interdisciplinary, specialized degrees in physics with chemistry.
Now, assuming I'm willing to pursue a PhD in an area related to those previously mentioned degrees, how would having one of those degrees affect an application as opposed to having a standard degree in physics?
On one side, I find such degrees more commensurate with my interests and intentions for further study, which would allow me to specialize earlier. Thus, I should be able to find and perform relevant research or internships more easily. But I'm also worried that such novel degrees would spark cynism and distrust that could be disadvantageous to a potential application for a PhD.
Thanks in advance for any response.<issue_comment>username_1: Note that I'm answering this from the perspective of an applicant rather than someone on a PhD admissions committee.
>
> "(...) how would having one of those degrees affect an application as opposed to having a standard degree in physics?"
>
>
>
I don't think that the name of the degree itself would affect your application. However, I think it would be a good idea to make sure that you carefully explain the content of your degree (for instance, in your research statement/ statement of interest/ personal statement, or get one of your referees to do this in their letter), so that the admissions committee understands what courses you have taken and how these relate to a more "standard" degree scheme.
From the degree titles that you mention, I'm guessing that these will involve a large amount of normal undergraduate physics and maths, the names of which will also be on your transcript for the admissions people to see.
>
> "I'm also worried that such novel degrees would spark cynicism and
> distrust that could be disadvantageous to a potential application for a PhD."
>
>
>
The most important component of a successful PhD application is your demonstrated aptitude or ability to perform research. If you can do this, and do it well, then I think the name of your degree will matter less.
I speak from personal experience on this; my undergraduate degree is in Astrophysics, with a lot of specialised astro modules, but for my PhD I'm moving into theoretical cosmology, an area which is more commonly populated by applied mathematicians and theoretical physicists. I just had to make sure I "sold" my degree to the admissions committees by explaining that my degree was sufficiently theoretical. Getting some research experience by writing a dissertation during my fourth (Master's) year undoubtedly helped this.
If you're still worried about people distrusting the value of your degree, I would recommend trying to find out if the degree scheme is accredited in any way; for example, here in the UK, all reputable physics degrees are standardised and accredited by the [Institute of Physics](http://www.iop.org/education/higher_education/accreditation/page_43310.html). I don't know what country you are in, but something similar may exist there.
Finally, as I mentioned in a comment, it might be best not to specialise too early (although you sound as though you have a pretty good idea of what you want to do). The option in this case would be to enroll on a straight physics degree scheme and specialise later on by taking any optional modules that are available (modules which would probably be mandatory if you were on the Quantum Engineering scheme, for example). The best person to advise you about the possibility of doing this would be the admissions tutor at the university offering these courses. They will be able to tell you what combinations of modules lead to which degree.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Caveat: I'm a mathematician, and I don't really know how physics (or other disciplines) graduate admissions committees think (although I expect it differs substantially from committee to committee).
If you take nearly all the courses that a standard physics major is expected to take, I don't think a novel name on your undergraduate degree is going to keep you from getting accepted into graduate school in physics. It certainly wouldn't in the math graduate admission processes I've been involved with.
If you don't take all the courses that a standard physics major is expected to take, then this could pose a barrier to being accepted at a physics graduate school, as you wouldn't be able to start taking the standard physics curriculum in graduate school. (But with great recommendations, you should be able to overcome this disadvantage.) Many departments use the GRE as a filter, so it would really help to have enough background to get a reasonably good score on the Physics Subject GRE.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: "how would having one of those degrees affect an application as opposed to having a standard degree in physics?"
It would make no difference. In your PhD application, make sure you state what kind of research you are interested in performing. If the things you studied in your Bachelor's are relevant to the research you want to perform, everything is fine. If you only studied quantum engineering and you want to get a PhD in gravitation, then there would be a problem. The problem is not in the name of the degree, but rather in the mismatch of content.
It is good that your university realises that Quantum Engineering and Nano Engineering are becoming their own disciplines (though the latter is still ill-defined).
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/11
| 1,104
| 4,614
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have written a paper jointly with my supervisor. He will be presenting our research as a part of a keynote lecture on an international conference. The lecture is in his name, but a part of that lecture has to do with my research. In fact, he will mention my name on one of the slide as an acknowledgement of my contribution. I am in need of items on my CV for upcoming funding applications and I am wondering **if I should include this lecture on my CV**? If yes, **how can I list this item on my CV**?<issue_comment>username_1: No, you shouldn't list it on your CV -- it's not your talk. Presumably, this work has or will be published, with you as an author. That, of course, should be on your CV.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Even if you're a co-author on a talk or poster you will only include it on your CV if you're short of material. If you're acknowledged in something you don't.
I wouldn't even keep a personal note of it (I wouldn't know if I wasn't there and hadn't provided figures), though I do record talk co-authorships etc. for my own use.
You mention a paper. Assuming that's going to be published, it's much better than a section of a talk, and there's no doubt that should be on your CV. If the paper comes up in interview, you can mention that it was an important part of a keynote then, but you might have other good things to say about it instead.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: **Short answer**
Assuming it was a keynote lecture on a conference that contained some of your data, alongside a whole bunch of other stuff that your professor is working on, it shouldn't go on your CV in any way. An acknowledgement is, unfortunately, not enough to include it on your CV.
**Background**
Journal papers should of course go on a CV when you co-authored. The same goes for Conference Proceedings. International conference abstracts including poster and oral presentations, can (and imho should) be mentioned on a CV when you co-authored, even if you weren't the presenter and even when you weren't even physically there on the conference. You're a co-author and therefore it can be included in your CV (under the header **Conference abstracts**, or **Published Abstracts**, depending on the conference). At least in the STEM disciplines this is commonplace.
If it concerns a keynote lecture at an international conference, and there was a formal abstract submitted including you as a co-author, you can definitely put it on your CV. However, if your professor was invited and did not submit an abstract, I would be very careful adding it as a conference abstract on your CV. If (s)he added you as a co-author on the opening slide, and you participated in the preparation actively, you could consider including it on your CV. If your supervisor wrote the keynote by her- or himself and included some of your data alongside a whole bunch of other stuff, I would not even consider adding it. Then the mention of your name is a sidelong acknowledgement. An acknowledgement is not enough to be mentioned on your CV.
Local, closed departmental, or university meetings generally don't go at your CV as they are considered part of a researcher's normal routines. Personally I even exclude national meetings (I'm based in the Netherlands - a small strip of land which I often refer to as the beach of Germany - explaining why national meetings don't mean much to me).
Down another level - lectures. I'm unsure what you mean with a 'keynote lecture'. When assuming it's a university or college lecture for undergrad students, and not a part of a conference, I wouldn't put it on my CV. The professor who gives the lecture is the one who may put it on her or his CV. **A lecture has no authors** and as such assistants do not take credits directly.
However, all of the above highly depends on your career status. As an undergrad, you may wish to mention as much as possible on your CV. For example, if you haven't got any publication yet on your CV (no poster abstracts, no journal papers *etc*.), you may wish to consider adding things like that 'keynote' lecture on there. In case you do, make a proper heading and summarize what your contribution was. E.g. something like this --
>
> **Scientific activities**
>
> *Applicant assisted in the preparation of a keynote lecture on an international conference.*
>
>
>
A CV is a dynamic abstract of your accomplishments. When those accomplishments are relatively few, you can, and likely should add stuff that more senior scientists will definitely not mention (anymore) on their CVs.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/12
| 472
| 2,051
|
<issue_start>username_0: Who/what determines the order of articles appearing in an issue of an academic journal? Does the editor or the publisher decide this? A few examples reveal that it is not alphabetical by author or title. Is order determined by time (i.e. when each paper is accepted), or does the order indicate how the editor/publisher perceives the potential impact of each piece?<issue_comment>username_1: It is the editor, that determines the order. Other than that there are no general rules. Typically, they just pick the order that "makes sense". Maybe a topical article first if one is available. Maybe there are a couple of articles that fit nicely together, and (s)he wants to emphasize that, etc. etc.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Some common "clever" ways:
* By topics: The journal covers several topics and their order is preserved throughout the time.
* Highights/special issue first: Sometimes a part of the issue is a special issue for some conference or such; this would go first. Also, if you have a particularly notable article, it could go first, too, also articles to which the issue cover relates could go first.
* By whatever the editor deems related: I mean, the editor can do whatever he wishes, so whatever he considers relevant.
Some common "simple" ways:
* By order of acceptance: This allows final page numbers to be assigned once the final version of the article is available.
* Alphabetically by first authors: The simplest of all, in a sense.
Note that I don't necessarily consider "clever" better than "simple".
What a particular journal does varies, there are different motivations. For journals that people do not get in print much, there is a prevalence of the "simple" ways as the order does not really matter. For those that are read in print (think Science, Nature or even less strictly scientific titles such as National Geographic), some "clever" ways are usually chosen and more fine-tuning is usually done in order to provide smooth and comfortable reading.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/12
| 782
| 3,328
|
<issue_start>username_0: 8 months ago, I have submitted my paper to the top journal in my field and finally it got accepted. Unfortunately, I have found one wrong table entry (Experiment Section), which is not a logical value at all. More precisely, I was copying from my raw data (in cm) to the paper (in mm) and I forgot to convert one value. Actually the mentioned value is **not possible** at all and the change does not affect the conclusion of neither the corresponding subsection in the experiment section nor the conclusion of the paper. This paper is very important for my PhD which will take place in few weeks.
I am pretty sure that reviewers did not deeply examine that table, otherwise they would find out the error because it is too obvious. Now, I am wondering how to deal with this issue.
Ps. Another problem is that in the policy of that journal, the paper which needs another major revision will be rejected. Now, I have one week to provide the final revised version.<issue_comment>username_1: If you are still in the **revision process**, changing a single number in the Results section is **no problem** at all. A simple typo, anywhere in the manuscript, is a **minor revision**. They will not reject your paper. If worst comes to absolute worst, they will send it back to the referees, but likely that will not happen either.
Just **explain the issue** to the copy editor or the handling editor - this stuff happens all the time. Don't worry.
Once it has been accepted, things get more difficult, if not impossible to change such stuff.
Once published, an *erratum* needs to be submitted, which is not a disaster, but does complicate things.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This is not a major revision. Just change the value in the final version. (And explain to the editor in the cover letter that you are correcting a typo. A misplaced decimal point is essentially a typo.)
You are not misrepresenting yourself in any way. Because you're explaining the change in the cover letter, you are giving the editor the chance to reject the paper if they deem the changes are big enough to count as a "major revision". However, any editor that rejects the paper for that reason would have to be totally insane. Typos get fixed in the final version of papers all the time.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It's just a typo. It's two characters that were swapped. That's all. It's not a massive change that implies a different conclusion. It's the smallest of small changes.
You're clearly competent and have found an error that your peers who reviewed it failed to find. You'll be fine :)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> ... This paper is very important for my PhD which will take place in few weeks.
>
>
> I am pretty sure that reviewers did not deeply examine that table, otherwise they would find out the error because it is too obvious. Now, I am wondering how to deal with this issue...
>
>
>
Presumably your PhD thesis duplicates the error and is already with your examiners, and your defense is in a few weeks? This isn't an issue. If asked, then you can explain to your examiners that you are aware of the problem and that you fixed the problem in the published version. (I don't know whether it is advisable to raise the issue yourself.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/12
| 746
| 3,359
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently had to make a questionnaire for my research. For this questionnaire, I tried taking some ideas from other examples for the questions. Another student was working on the same topic and did her questionnaire before mine, but didn't publish any results yet. After comparing my questionnaire with hers, it was clear that some questions are a remarkably similar, due to covering the same topic, same country, same society and same climate. The other student made a complaint that I have copied some of the questions from her questionnaire.
Could anyone please help me know whether did I commit plagiarism? How should I deal with the present situation?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> tried to obtain some ideas from other examples for the questions
>
>
>
That has the hallmark signs of plagiarism, although without seeing the original sources and your questionnaire it is hard to give a definitive answer. It is okay to look at other sources for ideas. Paraphrasing is okay also. Copying, or even changing a few words, is not okay without proper attribution. In general it is okay, and often desirable, to reuse an existing questionnaire, or parts of an existing questionnaire, in a new study, but you need to provide attribution to the original questionnaire.
As to the similarity between you and the other student, this depends on if you used her questionnaire for *ideas*. If you never saw her questionnaire, then you clearly did not plagiarize from her. It is possible that both of you got ideas from the same source, in which case you both plagiarized someone else.
You need to determine if you plagiarized and if you did plagiarize, who you plagiarized from. If you plagiarized from the student, you need to tell her and your supervisor. If you plagiarized from a third party, you need to tell your supervisor. You should also inform the student that your questionnaire contains plagiarism, but that you did not plagiarize her. You should also tell her that you are telling your supervisor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is perfectly correct to use questions from previously validated and published surveys in your own questionnaire. These questions would not be cited in the survey instrument, but should be cited and discussed in your documentation and paper. If you and the other student both sourced questions from the same survey (perhaps a well-known national survey on your topic exists), then you will have similar questions.
When I create a survey, I work to find existing questions that would apply to my survey context. There are many benefits to this approach. First, it may allow you to compare your (possibly small) sample to a more representative one. Second, the previous survey may have done the hard work of validating questions, and you may be able to rely on their work. Finally, you may have an easier time publishing your results, as reviewers may not have as many quibbles with your wording.
It sounds like you may have made the mistake of not documenting your sources. This would be considered plagiarism, and you should immediately dig through your notes/the internet to find the original question sources and cite them in your writeup. In the future, I recommend you create an annotated version of your survey as you write, noting where each question comes from.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/12
| 817
| 3,497
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to send a draft of mine to a specific professor. I would be very interested in his comments, however, I am not a student at the moment, so I am not at his institution nor at any other.
Is there any way for me to send him my draft in an email and introduce myself, without sounding rude & incredibly in love with myself? I believe that asking s.o. to read a 5.000 - 10.000 word essay is maybe a bit much? I have no idea how to phrase this or not come across as very demanding and arrogant and I am incredibly concerned.<issue_comment>username_1: Start off by sending an introductory email mentioning that you are working in this area and would really value his feedback.
If you get a positive response from this, then try to get his feedback on a few key questions. Take some time to think about how you can present him with well-formed questions that cut to the heart of the matter. You might send the questions by email, or see if he would be willing to chat on the phone or in person.
There is a reasonable chance that he will be willing to provide this level of input, if this does indeed fit his area of interest and he's a generous person.
Asking him to read a long essay would typically be far too much, though. I would only do this if, after the above, he takes an exceptional interest in your work *and* offers to be further involved.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, visit the official website of famous university and get the details of professors working there.
After reading their profiles, choose the most appropriate professor who can help you out for your topic. Quite often, there will be email address or telephone number of the professor. You can straightly contact him/her asking your need. If there is no contact detail of the particular professor, you can contact the university and collect the details.
No professor would reject your request because professors have social commitment to extend help to all who seek it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: My approach would be a bit different. I'll assume you have done the background check and have reason to believe he/she would be interested in helping you with it.
I would, myself, send a letter, maybe better than email, introducing myself and my interests. A few sentences only. I would mention what I was working on and ask if he/she would have any interest in giving feedback. But I would only include a short abstract of the longer work. Include email contact information.
If If I get a positive feedback I could feel comfortable enough to send the whole thing. At some point you can mention your longer term goals, but it need not be in the initial contact. Keep that pretty short.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: This is a classic example of what’s been dubbed the “[XY problem](http://xyproblem.info/).” You have some actual problem to which you’ve decided that emailing this professor is the solution and you’re asking about your solution. But I’m quite confident that getting a professor at another school to read a draft of an essay is not the correct solution to any problem. You should not be emailing your draft to a professor at another school and no advice we can give on how to email this person is going to make your plan work. Instead, you should ask a new question about your actual problem. What kind of essay is this? What kind of problems are you having with writing it? What kind of help are you looking for?
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/12
| 792
| 3,257
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of my manuscripts was prepared for submission to a [CORE](http://core.edu.au)-A conference in Computer Science. There are only 2 days due for submission of the paper. As usual, I usually get my paper reviewed by one of my colleagues. However, I was surprised by his remark that the manuscript looks like a complete paper and should be submitted to a journal instead.
This is creating a mood switch in me as I am highly confused whether should I submit to the conference or a journal suggested by him. I already have one paper submitted to the conference along with my students which should not influence this submission ([as per answer here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38054/submission-of-two-papers-in-one-conference/38056)). Moreover, I am not interested in working on the extension of the presently prepared work (so [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/83842/simultaneous-submission-short-version-to-conference-and-full-version-to-journal) does not come into the situation). So, I just want to get my work published somewhere in a good venue.
Is it common in research dissemination? How should I decide on the possible venue given such a short deadline of 2 days?<issue_comment>username_1: If your paper is ready to go and in good shape for a high-impact conference, I would recommend sticking with the conference.
The reasons that I would suggest doing so are:
* In many subfields of Computer Science, a highly competitive conference publication is often effectively worth more than a journal publication.
* The conference deadline is *now*. If it doesn't get into the conference, you can always choose to send it to a journal later.
* If it's well received and/or you get interesting feedback from the reviewers or audience, you might end up changing your mind about whether to submit an extended version to a journal. You can't change your mind in the other direction.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Submit to the conference.
>
> However, I was surprised by his remark that the manuscript looks like a complete paper and should be submitted to a journal instead.
>
>
>
Coming from a computer scientist, that seems surprising. Unless your employer confuses CS conferences with other non-peer-reviewed conferences, and doesn't value them for promotion/tenure: that happens, and is one reason for some to publish journal versions of conference papers at all.
Feel free to look at Google Scholar metrics for your field to gauge venues. For instance, in programming languages (my subfield), the top venues are all conferences (most journals below are software engineering):
<https://scholar.google.it/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_softwaresystems>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Submit to the conference first in an abstracted form and then expand the work into a full blown paper. I'm in one of the STEM disciplines, but I worked in a computer science department for years. They basically targeted only conferences, but when they were up for it, they followed up with a journal paper. If the latter is pretty much done, why not condense it into a conference proceeding and expand it along the line into a full paper?
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/12
| 418
| 1,600
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a table, I would like to use abbreviate the word *number*. The column heading is namely:
>
> Number of items
>
>
>
In [what is the correct abbreviation for the word “numbers”?](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/43095/236922) both "*No*" and "*#*" are suggested as abbreviations.
The *Chicago Manual of Style* (16th ed.) in §10.43 also suggests "*No*".
However, I am not sure these abbreviations are meant to be used with cardinal numbers.
**Question:** What is the correct abbreviation of *number* in this context?<issue_comment>username_1: My suggestion would be to use #. The hash symbol is commonly used this way; in mathematics it's even used to denote the [cardinality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality) of a set, i.e. the number of items in a set.
Having said that, I think abbreviating it as *No.* is perfectly clear if your usage is along the lines of *No. of x*. If you think your audience will be more familiar with one of the two, go for that.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Although, both No. and # are widely understood as abbreviations of "number (of)" and are absolutely correct answers, with respect to table headers another possibility could be to express it as ***Item count***.
This has the added advantage of having the object of that column first, thus if you're performing data processing of any kind on the same table, anywhere where the column headers are listed in alphabetical order, it will display next to other columns, such as *Item rate, Item date, Item group or anything similar*.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/13
| 498
| 2,105
|
<issue_start>username_0: I used a number of figures from journal articles in my master's thesis. I cited the sources in all cases, but didn't ask permission (I didn't know at the time that I was supposed to). Many posts on this site recommend asking permission to be "better safe than sorry". In my case, the thesis is already published - should I ask for permission now, even after the thesis is published and for each of the figures?<issue_comment>username_1: To be honest, my answer is *No need, it is enough that you have specified the source*.
I think some aspects of the current legal system, such as copyright, patents, etc, are inhumane and must be corrected. I think the reason you are suffering this weird issue is a reflection of the fact that the existing rules are crazy.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I am not sure that one is supposed to ask permission to reproduce a picture from a book/article in their dissertation. From academic point of view, an citation is necessary and sufficient to properly acknowledge the source - otherwise it would be plagiarism.
IANAL, but I don't think there are any copyright issues here, since your thesis is a non-profit academic publication and a relatively small quote from another academic source should be normally treated as a [fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If it concerns a few figures only, it's not a lot of work to ask for permission *post hoc*. Why not? As you say, better safe than sorry. In general, when you re-print material, you *always* have to ask permission (if it does not pertain open access material at least).
To make it easier on yourself, I wouldn't even explain the situation to the publisher(s) you are approaching; just ask permission '*for use in a master's thesis*'. Often, especially for use in undergrad theses and academic purposes in general, things are pretty lenient.
Many publishers have online resources to swiftly deal with permissions, for example through the [Copyright Clearance center](http://www.copyright.com/get-permissions/).
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/13
| 1,693
| 6,533
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am looking into options to submit my research paper to this conference:
- <http://www.icbdr.org/> or - <http://www.iccbdc.org/index.html>
Both of the links indicate that after acceptance, the paper will be published in ACM library and indexed in Scopus and EI. But after I discussed with my colleagues they said that there is a chance of being a scam.
I checked the ACM main events but did not find any of the above-mentioned conferences but instead, I found them in Non-ACM Events <http://www.acm.org/conferences/non-acm-events>.
Does it mean that the work will be published and archived in ACM library?
**UPDATE:** I contacted the Elsevier Ehelpdesk and got the following reply:
>
> Dear xxxxxx, Thank you for reaching Elsevier Ehelpdesk regarding
> Scopus Indexing. The 2017 International Conference on Cloud and Big
> Data Computing (ICCBDC 2017) is set to be published under the
> International Conference Proceedings Series by ACM as seen on their
> site <http://www.iccbdc.org/index.html>. I can confirm that the
> International Conference Proceedings Series by ACM is already indexed
> in Scopus which has several conference titles already indexed. Once
> a conference is is published, the publisher will be processing the
> title to be included in Scopus to be indexed. I hope I have provided
> you with everything you need. Should you have further query, please
> don't hesitate to email me back. Kind regards,
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I would like to answer to this question along with a combination of the replied comment provided to my own comment here.
>
> I am looking into options to submit my research paper to this conference: - <http://www.icbdr.org/> or - <http://www.iccbdc.org/index.html>
>
>
> Both of the links indicate that after acceptance, the paper will be published in ACM library and indexed in Scopus and EI. But after I discussed with my colleagues they said that there is a chance of being a scam.
>
>
>
I visited the first link, but I could not find a detail in which says that it is going publish the proceeding in ACM.(probably I missed it.) Regarding the latter, it does indicate that in their homepage. It is quite possible that ACM might publish it. Moreover, you should also note that the ACM website might be quite lazy in updating it and the agreement has recently been made.
>
> I checked the ACM main events but did not find any of the above-mentioned conferences but instead, I found them in Non-ACM Events <http://www.acm.org/conferences/non-acm-events>.
>
>
>
This could be true if ACM is sponsoring the event in some way. Probably, just by publishing the proceedings. I would suggest checking with ACM or the conference committee first.
>
> Does it mean that the work will be published and archived in ACM library?
>
>
>
Probably YES. But I would advise checking with the Program Chair or Conference Chair before submission. You would not want an unprecedented mail after the acceptance saying that we never promised such thing.
*Answer to the comments:*
>
> I would not submit my work to any of these. This looks like easy business model. – username_1
>
>
> @username_1 i am only considering them because the accepted papers will be indexed in ACM. Why do I have to care about their business model since my work will be indexed in ACM? In other words, why do I have to submit the work to an IEEE ranked conference and wait for 2 months in order to get feedback ? and most probably in both cases you will be paying the same fees and the reviewers will pass the work to their masters students to check the work up and got the same quality feedback from the less ranked one... – Krebto
>
>
>
* You must care about the business going on in academic research. Because it is your original hard-work and you don't want your work to be in vain after the publication. Nobody is citing your outcomes and the article, or nobody talking about it.
* Your assumption that the quality of review will be same is wrong. The quality does vary with the quality of the conferences. You always get top quality review and rigor in top quality conferences.
If none of the above points matter to you then go ahead and submit your work to one of these (but, not both).
**Still, I would advise you as well as the people visiting academia.SE to take care of the quality of the conference before submitting their work.**
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Yes, but there are rules.**
There are three ways for conferences to have their proceedings published in the ACM Digital Library.
What most people mean by an "ACM conference" is a conference that is [**sponsored**](https://www.acm.org/special-interest-groups/volunteer-resources/conference-manual/read-me) by ACM or one of its special interest groups. Proceedings of all ACM-sponsored conferences are published in the ACM Digital Library. ACM sponsorship must be advertised in all conference publicity, including the conference web site and call for papers.
Conferences can also be held [**in cooperation**](https://www.acm.org/special-interest-groups/volunteer-resources/conference-manual/1-3) with ACM. In-cooperation conferences can *apply* for their proceedings to be published in the Digital Library, but not all such applications are approved. Cooperation with ACM must be advertised in all conference publicity, including the conference web site and call for papers. In particular, in-cooperation conferences *cannot* claim to be sponsored by ACM.
Conferences can also apply to publish their proceedings in [**ACM’s International Conference Proceedings Series**](http://www.acm.org/publications/icps-series) without sponsorship or cooperation. These conferences are *allowed* to use a special [ACM-ICPS logo](https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/gallery/acm/ctas/icps-logo-plain.jpg) on publicity materials to advertise the publication agreement, but they cannot claim to be sponsored by or held in cooperation with ACM. **This is the agreement advertised by [ICCBDC](http://www.iccbdc.org/index.html).**
Nothing on the [ICBDR web site](http://www.icbdr.org/) suggests that their [proceedings](http://www.icbdr.org/proceedings.html) will be published in the ACM Digital Library, so they almost certainly won't be.
(Indexing is a separate question. A very small number of proceedings series like [VLDB](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=J1174) are *indexed* in the Digital Library even though they are not *published* by ACM.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/13
| 601
| 2,656
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently accepted to review an article for a journal. I actually reviewed the very same article for another journal from where the submission was rejected. This is a rather common occurrence however, as I was looking at my notes from the previous review to see if the authors have addressed the previous issues, I noticed that the new submission has actually different authors. For example:
* Initial Submission: **Author1**, **Author2**, Author3, Author4, **Author5**
* New Submission: **Author1, Author2, Author5**, Author6, Author7
I will clearly mention in the review that I have reviewed the article before (actually the submission is in a different journal of the same publisher) but is the change of authors something that I should mention in my review?<issue_comment>username_1: It's not particularly unusual for authors to be *added* during a revision of a paper, but for them to be removed is quite unusual and often linked with something improper going on.
Since this submission is a different publication than the original version that you saw, the editors do not have this history in front of them, and I think that it is indeed a good idea to flag this as a concern to the editors.
Moreover, if the article has not been significantly revised but the set of authors has changed, then that's a major red flag that the authors are doing something improper. If this is the case, then the editors absolutely must know, and should probably investigate wrongdoing.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This seems like plagiarism: the authors of the new submission (namely, Author1, Author2, Author5, Author6 & Author7) are passing-off work from the initial submission as their own, yet that work belongs, in part, to others (namely, Author3 & Author4).
Personally, I would write to the editor and explain this. I would expect the editor to immediately reject the article and take further action. I don't think there is any need for you to review the paper at this stage.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I have been in a situation where a co-author's organization told us to remove them from a paper for inscrutable legal/security reasons. The author gave us permission to remove them. So this not necessarily unethical. But it's a good idea to ask. I would also check if there are changes in the acknowledgements. I think the author would be obliged to thank them for their contributions even if they can't do it by name.
Our co-author's organization eventually let them be re-added to the paper. But I can see how that might look sketchy to someone who didn't have the context.
Upvotes: 4
|
2017/06/13
| 713
| 3,257
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a 2nd year graduate student (biological sciences). I've been developing a new research tool, which builds upon a system developed by a different lab. However, I've had issues replicating the previous system, owing partly to a scarcity of certain details that would be useful for someone who is still new to most of the technical aspects of this type of research.
I'm debating whether I should contact the corresponding author of the source literature to ask for clarification (e.g. if they could send me specific plasmid maps). However, based upon the research history of my lab, I'm concerned that the other lab may be able to deduce what enhancements I'd like to make to their system (since they've attempted to do similar things in the past). As such, I'm not sure if they would be willing to provide such information.
I've thought about discussing with my advisor. However, I also don't want to seem like I don't have the initiative/independence to seek out what I need myself. If general protocol is for students to directly contact corresponding authors, I'm wondering what is the best way for me to phrase this inquiry.
Thanks so much!<issue_comment>username_1: Ask your advisor. In this context I think it's more important to show you have some forethought to realize the situation could be potentially tricky and that you know when to ask for advice, versus showing your initiative/independence. You're a second year graduate student.
There are several issues that your advisor will know more about than you regarding your relationship with this other lab, in terms of publication strategy, any personal contact they already have, avoiding your request sounding like an accusation or making you look foolish, etc. Your advisor might also know about the reputation of the other author: maybe this is someone who would be responsive to a student email, maybe it's someone who would ignore you and your advisor needs to intervene on your behalf. Your advisor can also give you recommendations on your own work and help you discover if there are other causes for your inability to replicate results so far, and save you both from some embarrassment if the problem is your own.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends a bit. If the plasmid sequence is published, that's open information and there shouldn't be a problem in getting the plasmid map. In any case, the corresponding author should provide you with all information needed to repeat their experiments so you can actually check their conclusions. There's nothing odd about that.
This changes when we're talking about protected intellectual property. It might be that contracts or patent applications prevent the corresponding author from giving that information. So success is not guaranteed.
Nevertheless, even though I would definitely discuss this with your advisor, just requesting information on the procedures or even the plasmid map shouldn't give an indication as to what you're going to do. Unless the author is aware of what's going on in your lab (i.e. you're direct concurrents in the same field) and guesses the general direction of your own research. Which is a good reason to talk to your advisor (as Bryan said already).
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/14
| 1,085
| 4,226
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated with engineering degree. I (along with 2 other) had done project on SDN, and we have a research paper to publish. But our project guide(, and former project guide ) is forcing us to mention add their name as first, second author and all fee should be paid by us.
Paying fee is not a big deal, but we cannot add their name as first and second author as they have less/no contribution.
We finally decided to remove all instance their name from the paper, and publish it. It is right, or we should inform them before publishing. In all case, we are going to remove every instance of their name. Or any other way to deal it or accept their name and get out of this thing.
We are OK with adding their names, but how should be the order of names?
Edit1
Top/first page. First comes their name, then ours. We are OK with it.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kWn3W.jpg)
Bottom(Authors section, biography in some). They want only their name to be written.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wggFE.jpg)
Edit2: By less contribution I mean on scale of 10, 3 of us have 7-10, and they have 0-3<issue_comment>username_1: I'll assume "*guide*" means "*supervisor*." Hence, your project supervisors are insisting that they be listed as co-authors on your SDN paper written under their supervision. Assuming that their supervision resulted to an intellectual contribution to the paper, I believe you have an obligation to list them as co-authors. On the other hand, if your supervisors provided *no input* / *no guidance*, then I think you can publish without listing them as co-authors. You could invite the department head to mediate, if there is a dispute over whether the supervisors contributed.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: One thing you should really keep in mind, is who paid for the project. Many universities and research institutes have the policy that all data from research done at their facilities, is property of the institute and not the researcher itself. So *if* the research was done there, big chance the institute's policies require you to at least mention them. If not, you could face a lawsuit on infringement of intellectual property, despite the fact you did the actual research. You better check that thoroughly before publishing.
In case you have to mention the institute in some way, I would propose the supervisor to list them as co-authors in second-to-last and last position. Many universities follow that same practice: The first (second, third) author are the ones writing the actual paper. The last author is the professor supervising the lab. So unless they're very out of touch, they should be fine with being second to last and last author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: *This is not an answer to the question. But as a researcher, I would definitely answer this in my way. I don't care about the downvotes and flagging here in academia.SE.*
Dear Mr. Priyesh, I would advise against publishing in such a journal. Sorry, this comment has nothing to do with the question.
* This is a **scammy journal**. They must be charging you some money for the publication. From their site, I got this:
>
> Publication and Indexing Charges
>
>
> Other Author USD 65
>
>
> Indian Author INR 1500
>
>
>
Which definitely suggests that it is from India and is a pure business.
* There are a lot of grammatical mistakes in the web page that adds to suspicion more.
* The reviewer board is not eligible at all to be called so.
* When they mention that it is Open Access, why would they want a copyright transfer policy from the authors? Is it not sufficient to just ask for a consent form?
* If you have not paid the money till now, do withdraw your paper. Anyway, it is left to you.
* Regarding author order, it does not matter to the journal. They just want your money.
Be careful!
And one more thing, you should anonymize the article images. These may not be necessary to disclose your co-authors' details as per reputation is concerned.*(in line with one of the comment by username_1)*
Upvotes: 4
|
2017/06/14
| 523
| 1,842
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is this the correct [APA form of citation](http://www.bibme.org/citation-guide/apa/) with two publishers in different locations?
<NAME>., & <NAME>. (2013). The labour markets of emerging economies: Has growth translated into more and better jobs? Geneva. UK: ILO-Palgrave Macmillan.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm going to say something perhaps controversial here: I do not believe that location information is really relevant any more.
Consider, in your example, Palgrave Macmillan: Wikipedia tells me [it is located in London, New York, Shanghai, Melbourne, Sydney, Hong Kong, Delhi, and Johannesburg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palgrave_Macmillan). And what good does it do to know that? After all, anyone attempting to access the reference is going to use a library or the internet, rather than attempting to physically call some office in Melbourne to order a copy. My point is that I think you should fill in this obsolete slot with something reasonable (like you have done), but that I don't think it will actually matter to anybody.
It does seem reasonable to keep both imprints of publisher, and a hyphen like you've used (or maybe a slash) seem like reasonable enough ways of doing so.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: From this APA [library guide](http://irsc.libguides.com/apa/publisherreferencecitation) it says;
>
> If more than one publisher is given, use the first one or the one that
> represents the home office, if given.
>
>
>
This answer at [writer stackexchange](https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/23826) supports this as well
So for your example the following should be fine for APA
>
> <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2013). *The labour markets of emerging
> economies: Has growth translated into more and better jobs?* Geneva:
> ILO.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/14
| 4,635
| 19,550
|
<issue_start>username_0: I saw [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8UhcyJS0I) about the *busy beaver function* and looked at the applications section of the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver) about the *busy beaver function*.
I concluded that there is zero practical or even theoretical value in searching these numbers *S(n) : n > 5*. Now in the video the person says, that people are using supercomputers to calculate *S(5)*. Now I assume using supercomputers is expensive and so somebody is obviously funding this research.
Am I too narrow minded to see the value of funding such research and there is actual value to it or what other reasons are there to fund such endeavors? I assume most academic research is funded by taxes and so it should bring some value to society. While there might be some intellectual value in having such knowledge, does the cost justify it?
PS: Probably this question is too broad/opinion based, but I didn't know on what SE site it would fit best or how to improve it to make it less opinion based, feel free to edit.
**EDIT:** The economic question is partially solved, by supercomputers being much cheaper than I thought so that argument falls flat. Still could somebody give me a hint on what the value of such research is?<issue_comment>username_1: Extremely likely, this concrete example is useless. So is any other concrete example. However, there are many of these examples, and we do not know which handful of them will be useful.
Some ancient people wasted time on research in number theory, some of which ended up being practically useful. Some studied motion of stars in detail far exceeding calendaring and navigational needs. This also proved useful.
Many, many studies also led to dead-ends. At the time, one could not tell which of them would.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let me give a guess, which might not be accurate for this case but which has a more general range.
If one tries to compute S(5) by brute force, that is probably not more interesting (but much longer) than solving any given Sudoku by brute force with a computer. But the point of such a question is precisely that, being difficult, if one hopes to answer it one needs to try being smart. One needs to find smart ways to be able to skip as much computations as possible compared to a brute force approach. In this process, one will probably learn something about the involved objects (e.g. Turing machines) and understand them better. One will also have to be smart with the details of the implementation, with the multi-threading, etc.
>
> We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. (JFK 1962)
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Research like this tends to open doors. You never ever know what discoveries will be built on them in future. Many, many crucial modern discoveries come from research that didn't seem to have any practical use at the time.
So funding it has really practical benefits, over and above those due to "gaining pure knowledge" - especially if you target which to fund or explore based on what it might relate to. It's like an investor investing in start-ups. Not every idea goes anywhere (yet) but given support, a proportion will... and a few will become worlds-changers.
Radio waves are a good example of a discovery thought to be completely useless for practical purposes - look up what Hertz though of their practical uses. Could he have foreseen a world of radio media in every pocket, radio emergency teams and work crews coordinating, mobile phones, satnav, radar, microwave ovens, remote space missions and exploratory cameras, Google Earth, and WiFi, would he have thought this?
Ditto quantum theory - surely discussing the arcane ideas of not just atoms but quarks and smaller particles, not to mention assuming that they can do weird things like exist and not exist in different places or one place at the same time, is a useless hypothetical debate about atoms and hypothetical smaller sub-particles too small to be relevant to everyday life, if anything is. Fast forward 50 years - the semiconductor. Supermagnets. Superconductors. MRI scanners in hospitals. Your smartphone. Undersea cables. The laser. CD/DVD/Bluray. The internet. Almost every computing device and optical cable in widespread use today. Anything else that uses (or needs to take into account) quantum tunnelling and other weird behaviours.
Ditto the odd crackling of silk rubbed on amber (electricity), the seemingly random number sequences generated by elliptic forms and modular entities (the Modularity Theorem and Fermat), tables of logarithms and trigonometric values (tabulated values were used used by pre-computer age mathematicians, and may have seemed pointless to some, but without them would Kepler, Galileo, Newton and others have made all of the discoveries they did?) Mendel spent years crossing peas; a pointless and obsessive waste of effort, until you fast forward to genetics, understanding DNA, gene therapy, disease resistant rice, mitochondrial disease treatment, heredity when it starts to look a bit more significant in human history.
Mathematically, the same holds true. One difference is that you sometimes have to calculate your data rather than just observe it. But the principle is very similar and so is the impact.
It's also quite likely that this is seen by those in the know as an "interesting" problem, one likely to not be entirely a dead end or which is linked somehow to other intractable problems.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The busy beaver function is an important artifact of computability theory- in particular it's known to (asymptotically) grow faster than any computable function. Intuitively this means that it is a "harder" sequence to compute than all computable sequences.
Thus, it gives rise to a new kind of proof by exhaustion. Suppose you were to write a Turing machine program P to test all possible special cases of a proof (potentially an infinite number of cases). If the program finds a problem with the proof, then it will halt. Otherwise, it will run forever. By the definition of the busy beaver machine, *if the Turing machine P halts, then it will halt sooner than the busy beaver machine with the equivalent number of states*. Thus, all we have to do to prove our theorem is to run our program for the specified number of steps, and if it doesn't halt before our busy beaver machine then we're guaranteed that it will never halt, and indeed there can be no contradictions of any special case to our proof.
Using this fact isn't feasible on current computer hardware, but that's rarely been a roadblock to this kind of research. If our concept of computer hardware or software were revolutionized and such a task could be completed then this would be a systematic approach to proving or disproving many outstanding questions in many fields. One of the purposes of this kind of research is to spur new questions, not to provide new answers.
When it comes to computing S(5) in particular, the challenge is a basic research challenge. Pure research is about solving problems that have never been solved, it's not about having some great application. Nobody has yet devised a way to compute S(5), and since this sequence is not computable it's possible that there is no way to effectively compute this number. Being able to compute it, or to give a reason why it can't be computed, would probably be a publishable result- both are hard, and neither have been done before.
As a practical exercise it's a good application of computability theory and a counterpoint to the halting problem. The halting problem shows us that there is no single algorithm that can tell us whether any arbitrary program halts, but it's often possible to tell whether a specific program will halt. The analysis of S(3) and S(4) required in-depth analysis by experts to determine whether certain Turing machines with 3 and 4 states actually halted or not. That's not really possible with S(5), so tackling this problem requires asking other questions like "what classes of programs can we determine whether they halt or not?".
To see this more clearly, try this blog post by MIT's [<NAME>](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2725). A student of his proved that the 8000th busy beaver number is unknowable by standard set theory. Mathematics and logic cannot compute this number, even given unlimited time and space. Here's a very obvious and very deep question that nobody can answer: Why is it the case that we can know S(1), S(2), S(3), and S(4) relatively easily, we can't say whether we can know S(5), and we can say for certain that we can't know S(8000)? If you could tell us the answer to that you'd have the attention of a whole lot of smart people. Endeavoring to do the hard work of computing S(5) is a step in understanding this.
Is S(8000) the first such element in this sequence that is unknowable? If not, what's the smallest element?
Two notes: I'm not a theorist, so all of this is my interpretation. Take it with a grain of salt. Second, a better venue for this question would be the [Computer Science stack exchange](https://cs.stackexchange.com/). They love this stuff over there.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I concluded that there is zero practical or even theoretical value in searching these numbers S(n) : n > 5.
>
>
>
Perhaps wrongly. Euclid first studied the primes over 2000 years and they didn't have a concrete application until a few decades ago (cryptography).
Anyways, if you're looking for a real answer, I'd suggest you read some of the papers on the subject. The wikipedia page lists a few.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I completely agree with the mathematicians and physicists in the audience who have pointed out that pure math has in the past sometimes led to important practical advances. While this happens very rarely, it’s utterly impossible to know which will be the rare gem ahead of time so you have to fund lots of ultimately-useless (or, more accurately, useless-so-far) research if you want to have a chance to find said gems. As an engineer, I am familiar with a lot of those past gems, and would not be able to do my job at all if they hadn’t happened. I certainly have neither the skillset nor the temperament to have found those discoveries myself!
*That said*, as an engineer, there is another aspect to consider: building supercomputers is hard. The simple engineering practice of building the computer to do this may lead to improvements and discoveries itself, and even if it doesn’t, funding this engineering means you have that many more people with that much more experience doing things. This is important, and very, very frequently overlooked.
A recent question on Aviation Stack Exchange asked why modern military aircraft take so long to produce compared the military aircraft of decades past (after all, those aircraft also had to break new ground and solve extremely difficult challenges, using much more basic tools, and the difference in time is nearly an order of magnitude). There are, of course, many reasons, but [this answer](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/38846/1443) in particular stood out to me by emphasizing the importance of having a highly-experienced engineering workforce:
>
> Experienced engineers back then had worked on a dozen new designs (or more), so they had developed a gut feeling how to design the next one. Today, one can be lucky to have brought a single one into the air within a lifetime.
>
>
>
That answerer recounts how he had actually lobbied his company to do a quick, cheap design just to give the engineers more practice and more experience doing a real-world design, that having better engineers would be worth the cost of an entirely artificial exercise (it should come as no surprise that this project did not get green-lit).
Does the fact that a few more people have built one more supercomputer equal the cost of them doing so? I don’t know—but it’s a non-negligible thing, and should be considered in the cost–benefit analysis. Particularly from the perspective of a nation—having skilled engineers is such an obvious advantage to a nation that I suspect very few would object to the general concept of taxes going towards having better engineers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: To extend the answers with another perspective: the fundamental question that theory of computability asks is "what kind of functions are computable, given some simple, sensible assumptions and given models of machines that could be instantiated in the physical universe?" (I mean, "instantiated" in theory, with some practical caveats, of course.)
So one way how to look at the theories of computability and computational complexity is to view them as being about some fundamental properties of the world. Why are some functions computable and some are not, given the standard model of physics? What is computable in the lifetime of the universe and what is not? What makes quantum computers possible, and what are their ultimate limits? What kind of computers could we expect if physics were slightly different? What kind of assumptions one needs to make for hyper-computation to be possible?
It is therefore possible that these theories aim to uncover something as deep and fundamental as theoretical physics. Under this analogy, investigation of whether the Busy Beaver function with argument "5" is computable could be compared with a single specific experiment about the properties of some esoteric particle. It gives a little bit of insight in some fundamental nature of things.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Complex number theory projects often get approved because they might possibly have some cryptographic benefit. Much work has been done on one-way functions and calculations that require considerable computer resources. An concrete example is modulus of a prime exponent in a finite field used in RSA public key cryptography.
Also, much of the research in cryptography is classified. There might be a reason this project was approved that is known only to the researchers and the people approving the project.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: By definition, science is not about having value.
Science is about **accumulating and organizing knowledge**.
This applies not only to the busy beaver problem, but also to the digits of Pi, the digits of the Euler's number, the string theory in physics, and the sex life of Amphicoelias fragillimus.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: Some research might open up unforeseeable opportunities in its sister fields. Implementation of extremely efficient busy beaver systems (as it is quite time consuming) might have implications in some other important simulations. I am not saying busy beaver problem has no value, but others has pointed those out quite well.
This type of cross benefit occurs in open source systems as well. I remember explicitly that the research that is done on Linux to improve battery life of Android devices has led to a substantial cost savings on supercomputers running on Linux as their major cost is electricity.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: **The Busy Beaver problem/game has provided a very tangible application** in its contribution to deciding the halting time of a very large set of small Turing machines that, in turn, are used to calculate an empirical distribution as an approximation to the so-called Universal Distribution that allows the estimation of the algorithmic probability of a string (that is the probability to produce a string with a random computer program whose executable bits are the result of e.g. tossing a coin).
Such distribution has been called miraculous in the past (Google The miraculous universal distribution). This is because of its theoretical properties as the most powerful general purpose predictor. In the work of the Algorithmic Group and the Algorithmic Dynamics Lab that I co-lead together with the help and contribution of several brilliant researchers, the Busy Beaver has contributed to produce these numerical approximations of algorithmic probability and has made impact in areas such as animal and human cognition, graph complexity, evolutionary biology, artificial life, and molecular biology. Here a few pointers (only 2 with URLs because Academia does not let me add more links, the others you can Google):
* [*Algorithmically probable mutations reproduce aspects of evolution
such as convergence rate, genetic memory, modularity, diversity
explosions, and mass extinction*](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00268)
* [*Human Behavioral Complexity Peaks at Age 25*](http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005408) (there was a lot of hype in the media about it, and there is a video in YouTube explaining the results in a very simple, kind of oversimplified, fashion)
* *Methods of Information Theory and Algorithmic Complexity for Network
Biology Correlation of Automorphism Group Size and Topological
Properties with Program-size Complexity Evaluations of Graphs and
Complex Networks*
In turn, that research has triggered theoreticians to update their work too! e.g. this paper:
* *A probabilistic anytime algorithm for the halting problem*
Among many others, including a Physica A article on graph complexity and a Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology paper on applications to molecular biology and genetic networks.
This is because the Busy Beaver is deeply related to concepts in Algorithmic Information Theory such as the Chaitin Omega number and the so-called Solomonoff's-Levin's distribution (see the Scholarpedia article).
So, all the way from a completely theoretical 'game' to real-world applications in the context of the most pressing problems of science!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Even if a theoretical problem has no applications (yet), the techniques developed to tackle it and the knowledge acquired *along the way* can be immensely valuable and potentially useful even in seemingly unrelated areas. One can look to the history of mathematics for examples of this.
Aside from this, I'm going to add a potential application of tackling the busy beaver problem: [**Solomonoff induction**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference). In short, Solomonoff induction is a theory of general inductive inference based on weighing hypotheses according to the size of Turing machines that produce them. Theoretical formalisms for artificial general intelligence like [AIXI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI) are based on it.
Tackling the busy beaver problem is also relevant to areas like [inductive programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_programming) (automatically constructing computer programs) and [automated theorem proving](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving), since it involves proving properties (e.g. halting or non-halting) of arbitrary computer programs. See [Computer Runtimes and the Length of Proofs](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0825.pdf), for example.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/15
| 679
| 2,997
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my first article to a journal and the journal indicated that it was now under review.
Now, I want to withdraw my article. The journal has a lower impact factor than a different journal, and I want to submit the manuscript to the other journal with the higher impact factor.
* Is it possible to withdraw a manuscript when it is under review?
* How do you do this?<issue_comment>username_1: You might be able to withdraw/retract the manuscript. This might be possible using the web interface by which you submitted the manuscript. Alternatively, you can write to the editor or associate editor that is processing the manuscript. Do not submit the manuscript to another journal until you have withdrawn/retracted the manuscript.
EDIT: The question has been edited since this answer was written. It is now apparent that the reason to withdraw/retract is to resubmit to a journal with a higher impact factor. This [raises ethical questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/90904/22768).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: **Technical aspects of withdrawal**: Technically, you should be able to withdraw your manuscript from a journal any time prior to acceptance. This would usually be done either by using some kind of button in the submission management system, or by contacting the journal (e.g., editor, action editor, etc.).
**Ethics and norms of withdrawal**: However, there are reasons for withdrawing a manuscript that are appropriate and those that are inappropriate. After you submit your manuscript, the journal, the editors, and reviewers may begin expending effort and resources in processing your manuscript. It is considered poor form to waste their time, by withdrawing the manuscript for no good reason.
The appropriate time to consider impact factor is before you submit your manuscript to a journal. This is information that is available prior to submission. Thus, **I think most academics would consider withdrawing a manuscript from a journal after submission based on impact factor to be very poor form**.
In contrast, some acceptable reasons for withdrawing a manuscript during the peer-review process include the following:
* You submitted to a predatory journal.
* They are taking an excessive amount of time to process your submission.
* Following a revise and resubmit, and you do not wish to make the revisions. That said, if the requested revisions are minor, and you withdraw at this point, this may not be received favourably by the editor.
* You identify a fundamental flaw with your manuscript following submission. That said, minor problems can typically be addressed at the revision stage or by notifying the editor and asking them whether they would like you to correct the error now or at any potential revision stage.
Probably, if it is extremely early in the submission process, it would be more reasonable. E.g., you realise a few hours or perhaps a day after submission that you made a mistake.
Upvotes: 7
|
2017/06/15
| 430
| 1,735
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the process of applying for a Junior Professorship (W1) in mathematics in Germany, and according the the job listing, the required application documents include a CV and a list of publications (among other things).
What should I include in the CV? Personal details, such as date/place of birth, martial status? How about invited and contributed talks at workshops and conferences? And research interests, or language / computer skills?
How long should the CV generally be?<issue_comment>username_1: * In Germany you usually have data/place of birth and martial status on your CV and it is also common to have the number of children there. Also a portrait photo is not uncommon, though not necessary.
* You should state your **academic career**, i.e. where you got your degrees, who has been your supervisor and when you graduated (give BSc, MSc and PhD).
* **Academic and other employments** (where did you do postdocs, internships and such)
* A list of **grants**.
* **Other scientific activities** such as service for the community, public outreach, acting as a referee for journals.
* **(Invited) talks** you gave (may be a selection)
* **Lectures** you gave, possibly your **graduate students**
That's what I had on my CV when I applied for Junior professorships. Was about five pages without list of publications (which can be included in the CV, by the way).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just to add to the great answer by @username_1, it is also helpful to include a couple of references, who the viewer can contact to verify you. It is also common practice to include Zeugnisses (work certificates) in the application package, but not in the CV itself.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/15
| 991
| 4,184
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been working on an article, and for ease of collaboration among co-authors and advisers I have used Google Docs thus far, so I'll likely need to do at least a little post-formatting once in `.doc` format. In addition, I use linux and LibreOffice when I have to, and I generally dislike using MS products.
I'm now preparing the article to submit and the journal I am considering accepts a wide range of file formats: `.doc`, `.docx`, `.rtf`, & `.pdf` (with `.tex` files after acceptance).
I feel inclined to put things in `LaTeX` since I am well-versed and like the idea of having finer control of the appearance of things, but it will certainly take a bit more time and I am ignorant of the layout process journals use when preparing an article.
Is there any real benefit of using `LaTeX` or another format when submitting an article to a journal (in this case PLOS One)?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends a bit on the journal, but after acceptance most journals do the entire formatting from scratch. They may give you `LaTeX` templates, but that's just to give you an idea of what it will look like in the end and how many pages your paper will consist of.
There may be a big benefit to producing it in `LaTeX` though, but this depends a bit on the field you're in. In most STEM fields it is considered more professional than Word, so if you're considering sharing it as a preprint with colleagues this might be a factor that you want to weigh.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: That all depends on the journal you're submitting to. Quite some journals that accept Latex, also provide a template to use. With a template available and knowledge of Latex, it should be fairly easy to convert the GoogleDoc to Latex if you download as HTML and then use eg Pandoc to convert to Latex (explained [here](https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/183358/how-to-convert-a-google-docs-document-to-latex)).
But people who are not comfortable with Latex, are likely better of using another option. Converting from GoogleDocs to `.doc` or `.docx` generally also requires an in-between step using PDF, and will generally give some layout issues, but when a paper is bound to be submitted it's not really the time to learn Latex.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> TL;DR: Two considerations may speak for ***Word***: possible differences between submission and publication requirements, and ease of collaboration and review.
>
>
>
The answers so far have sung the praises of LaTeX, and with good reason, but here is a caveat. You should try and determine whether the publication has a **different requirement for the final version than the submission**, just in case.
This happened to me with *IEEE Computer* last year. I have an article appearing in the July issue. When it was submitted about a year ago, I used LaTeX (despite some of my coauthors being unfamiliar with it), but when the magazine accepted it, they required me to convert it to Word! I found a tool to help with this but it was still a lot of extra effort.
I imagine this requirement arose because the magazine uses a professional editor to revise it prior to publication. Most publications are in *journals* rather than *magazines* and therefore aren't faced with this. (Or perhaps some journals do this too.). But because your question hit close to home and there will be some for whom this is applicable, I'm mentioning here.
Putting aside the question of whether a Word might actually be required, another point is the ease of collaboration and review. In this case, the OP has chosen to use Google Docs to edit, which certainly makes tracking changes and comments easy. Sending around Word has that effect too, whereas LaTeX requires a lot of hacks (macros to include or omit comments, latexdiff to markup changes, etc.) it's not like you're done as soon as you submit: you may quite likely have revisions to deal with.
Bottom line: while I find it easier to prepare initially in LaTeX, if you need to move from Docs to either Word or LaTeX, it seems likely it's easier to switch to Word and continue the submission cycle from there.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/15
| 1,437
| 5,917
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does it help their tenure case to write an expository textbook? I'd be surprised if it does, seeing as writing a textbook on, say, quantum mechanics, is not original scholarly work.
So why would a professor, say an aspiring full professor, write a textbook? Money?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Does it help their tenure case to write an expository textbook?
>
>
>
While I cannot speak for math or physics, in many of the biological and medical sciences, it would likely actively hurt your tenure case. "Why did you spend your time writing a book instead of getting more grants/writing more papers?"
>
> So why would a professor, say an aspiring full professor, write a textbook?
>
>
>
There are a few reasons one might be interested in writing a textbook:
* You have, effectively, already written one. Many professors, having taught a course for a number of years, have accumulated a body of lecture notes, slide figures, exam questions, etc. that might be the foundation for a decent text on the subject. Writing a book is a way to get "credit" for all that.
* There is no book on the subject you're writing, and you want one.
* Writing a well-regarded textbook is a means to influence the direction of the field. For example, if you wanted to push a particular perspective on how one should approach the field, etc. writing a textbook on the topic is a way to do that. Again, not in math/physics, but in my field people are writing textbooks with either a causal inference or systems science bent to them to try to help push those methods forward.
* Simple desire. Books are neat. They *feel* important. Many people are rather fond of them as objects. Seeing your name, and your thoughts, in a proper book on a shelf is an appealing concept. That may be enough.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's probably not for money, at upper-division or graduate level, because one will not make much. Better to work part-time at a fast-food place or coffee shop. Also, not much "prestige" of any sort. And, no, does not count toward getting tenure (and may count against, subliminally).
The real reason (I think, certainly in my own direct experience) is that one simply can't help oneself. This ought not be entirely surprising, since, after all, most people who go into academic mathematics do not do so because the contemporary commodified form of universities and mathematics exactly suits them, but because they like engagement with mathematics, perhaps to the degree that they can mostly overlook the artificial rules.
So, yes, after teaching various versions of a course several times, one may easily discover that many of the traditional textbooks have at least one failing, namely, that they attempt to include too much, to avoid alienating anyone who'd be alienated by omission of their pet topic. Or, oppositely, stay too elementary, to avoid alienating another demographic.
So, yes, one might choose to compose course notes for the courses one teaches, to match one's notion of what those courses should be. No, it is not for external reward, but almost entirely so that one does not have to "battle" with the "recommended text(s)". (Especially before it was possible to easily typeset mathematics, I experienced many episodes of students being unwilling to believe the palpable mathematical truth of what I was telling them, because the recommended text either omitted the topic or had "different definitions". It was annoying.)
Another point is to make a coherent account freely available... which is somewhat orthogonal to creation of traditional textbooks, which are still mostly *not* freely available. However, some publishers (e.g., Cambridge Univ Press) are happy to negotiate details.
And, last, although writing "books" has very little cachet for most purposes, having notes approved by a conventional publisher is slightly higher-status than having no vetting at all. It shows external approval, etc.
EDIT: also, although "by the rules", a textbook is not "original scholarly work", in fact, it easily can be. That is, in addition to the non-trivial questions of what to include, what to omit, and how to treat the things, there is a subtler (possibly not-so-quantifiable... for the current impact-factor sort of ... noise) manifestation of expert-tone, expert-appraisal, and such. So, yes, it is possible to write textbooks that are not at all scholarly, beyond a modestly competent collecting of well-known standard things. At the same time, it is possible to do better, and, to do better requires considerable expertise and judgement, apart from the logistics, and should be (and mostly is, but off-the-record) respected.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Because textbooks are still "evolving". A good new textbook has a lot to offer. It might not be original work, but it might be even better than that! It could be better than the previous books on the subject.
How many times have you caught yourself reading a textbook and thinking, "This layout is horrible!" or "I could explain this better" or "I wish someone could illustrate this in a better way". Not to mention the amount of mistakes one can find in most textbooks.
I imagine there are a lot of professors that want to do just that and improve the quality of the books and make sure that knowledge will be passed on to the next generation of students in a better way.
It could always be about money... then again, an "aspiring full professor" is unlikely to have that motive in mind.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: While the content of a textbook may not contain much in the way of new research, the *organization* and *expression* of that content can be a highly creative act. People write textbooks for the same reason they write poetry or short stories (or sculpt, or play music...): it's an act of creative expression, which is intrinsically satisfying.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/16
| 1,150
| 4,608
|
<issue_start>username_0: A student has plagiarised her assignment. The lecturer gave all students a lecture on plagiarism at the beginning of the semester. The student maintains she was absent that day but the university does not keep records on attendance. However a copy of the lecture is on BlackBoard. Her excuse is that she didn’t realise she was plagiarising. As she is an overseas student a fail in a unit means she risks losing her visa.
What actions should the lecturer take?<issue_comment>username_1: It's hard to imagine a better learning opportunity than this. And anyway, do we want to destroy her life, or help her learn a very important lesson?
Be creative, be effective. For example, in addition to giving her an incomplete and having her re-do the assignment, you could reduce her final grade by one letter (i.e. from B to C), and you could have her write a separate research paper describing three famous plagiarism scandals of her choice.
To quote a [classic story](http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-458195-1.html):
>
> At a certain school in [your region here] some girls were beginning to use lipstick, putting it on in the school bathroom. After they put on their lipstick, they pressed their lips on the mirror, leaving dozens of little lip prints.
>
>
> Every night, the maintenance man removed the prints, but the next day,
> the girls put them right back. Finally, the principal decided that
> something had to be done. She called all the girls into the bathroom
> along with the maintenance man. She explained that all these lip
> prints were causing a major problem for the custodian, who had to
> clean the mirrors every night. This inspired yawns from all the little
> princesses.
>
>
> To demonstrate how difficult it was to clean the mirrors, she asked
> the maintenance man to show the girls how much effort was required. He
> took out a long-handled squeegee, dipped it in the toilet, and cleaned
> the mirror with it. Since then there have been no lip prints on the
> mirror.
>
>
> There are teachers… and then there are educators.
>
>
>
As a graduate student instructor, I encountered these problems occasionally. In one case, as an example, of a student who had not done his own programming, the end result was that he had to take the class again in the summer. He learned to write simple programs, and he learned to hand in his *own* work, not someone else's. And he got a Bachelor's degree.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: If your institution keeps a record of academic misconduct, be sure this gets into the record. If you don't do that, you enable serial cheating.
Do not allow a "do over." The message you send is that there's no penalty for for misconduct, even if one gets caught. Misconduct must have some irrecoverable penalty, however small. It need not be a grade penalty; it could be extra work, but see below about setting a penalty.
Follow University policy if there is one. If you have the opportunity to set the penalty, and I hope you do, consider the magnitude of the offense. A single un-cited paragraph from a work listed in a bibliography is far less egregious than a substantial part of the work copied with no attempt at attribution.
It is not your problem that the student missed the plagiarism lecture. Do not allow the student to make it your problem.
It is not your problem that the student might lose her visa. Do not allow the student to make it your problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Just to offer a perspective on the background of international students, especially those from underdeveloped countries from Asia, the concept of plagiarism is virtually non-existent. More precisely, students graduating from high schools in those country will probably have never heard about how plagiarism is a serious offense in developed countries like such as U.S. Like, they would not have the faintest clue about the gravity of the whole plagiarism issue.
I was one of those students and know for a fact that every single student in my high school never knew how much important citation and biography are when they were writing a paper in high school. This was literally the biggest "culture" shock I had experienced in my first year of studying in the U.S
However, I am not saying that you should not penalize the student. But if a single academic misconduct on plagiarism automatically means the student will lose his/her visa and if the student happens to be from a similar place that I was from, then maybe it would make reasonable sense to arrange something so the visa stays untouched.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/16
| 1,332
| 5,852
|
<issue_start>username_0: A paper that I have just had published in a journal is already starting to generate interest. I am allowed to upload a copy to Academia.edu as long as it is not the copy-edited version (peer review came up with very few changes). On the one hand I want people to read it – and this will also promote my own interests as an academic –, but I also don’t want to take potential sales away from the journal, which I like, and whose staff have been very good to me.
Will uploading it harm the journal or could it generate more interest? I have linked to the journal in the paper page on Academia.edu.<issue_comment>username_1: Making the paper accessible to everyone who can't look behind the paywall might hurt the journal's publishing company a little bit by diverting some demand. However, it won't really hurt the people you have been dealing with. Moreover, the journal has given you explicit permission to publish a pre-print, so you're not going against their stated request.
At the same time, you are providing a service to
* yourself, by increasing the reach of your paper and the citations that it will receive
* the journal, to the extent that the preprint will attract interest to the journal and to the extent that people will cite the journal version rather than the preprint
* the public who would otherwise not be able to look at the research. This applies in particular to readers outside of academic institutions and to scientists from poor countries.
Please upload your preprint to a freely accessible repository.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Adding a personal experience to @username_1's excellent answer.
Many years ago (around 2001) I worked for a company that shall remain nameless, but was responsible for printing the majority of journals worldwide. Although I was only doing reprographics (ie, anything to do with printing / copying that wasn't the journals themselves), just before I left I did some sorting for long term filing (thousands of paper documents being sent off for microfiche scanning).
Being a somewhat boring bit of work, I did end up reading quite a few of them, including a rather interesting email conversation between an editor and the paper's author. Attached were various internal emails where they were trying to find a way around the insistence from the author that they wanted to make a copy available online for free.
End result was basically "the author removed the restriction from the contract before signing, and we can't find any way to force them to change their mind no matter how much we try, so just going to have to left them do it".
While I can't say if there were other similar circumstances with a different outcome, I was going through tens of thousands of pages over the course of several weeks, and visually scanning almost every one, and didn't see any others on that subject. There's obviously also the fact it was around 16 years ago, so things will probably have changed.
While there is a lot of money involved in the journal industry, after basic costs, it's pretty much all profit (that company is sitting on around a third of a billion pounds sterling in the bank, and has well over that in gross profit every year, with well under 50% costs for staff and publishing etc) - but if you want to publish it anywhere else it legally belongs to you, just make sure you only agree and sign to things that you are comfortable doing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: **TL;DR: It is incumbent upon you to make your papers publicly available online.**
---
Scientific discoveries (or useful analyses etc.) should be readily available to researcher worldwide and the public at large, without restriction. We need it - for further research, for product development, for shaping our views of society and politics and so; and most us don't have that paid access to the journals. This is the over-arcing consideration, above those you mention in your answer. So even if...
>
> I also don’t want to take potential sales away from the journal, which I like, and whose staff have been very good to me. Will uploading it harm the journal or could it generate more interest?
>
>
>
... not publishing your paper freely on the web means hiding your results from us - other researchers, people in industry, civil society organizations etc. - which don't have the access to that many journals, if at all. Making your paper publicly accessible would be "very bad to us", to use your own terms.
So - put it up there with no hesitation. And to the extent that the journal or its staff are expecting to have the right to prevent web access to the text - they should just rewrite those perceptions; they are inappropriate and invalid. They have an exclusive right to sell printed copies of the paper, and that's more than enough.
PS - Also consider alternative locations such as arxiv.org when relevant, your university's repository of publicly-accessible research materials, your personal website, or ResearchGate (similar to academia.edu but I like their interface better; they're both kind of annoying with their email nagging though).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Will uploading it harm the journal or could it generate more interest?
>
>
>
You're overthinking this issue. The people running the journal, who have vastly more relevant information than you do to answer this question, already thought about it, and decided to grant you permission to upload your paper to academia.edu - period. That means there are zero ethical considerations here; you should leave it to those people to think about what's good for the journal instead of second-guessing their decisions, and simply do whatever you think is good for you (and for the rest of society, to the extent that that's something you care about).
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/16
| 524
| 2,237
|
<issue_start>username_0: Today I received my first rejected paper.
The committee of 2 people left some good points but at the end they didn't get the point of my theme. It took me 3 months to write this paper for the Requirements Engineering Conference in Lisbon, Portugal.
I talked to 2 PhD students and they said that this takes time and passion. They told me that the average of rejected papers/journals per capita is 7. Do you agree with this average?<issue_comment>username_1: This varies depending on a **huge** number of factors. The venues you select to submit your work, the quality of the work, whether the work is described well or penalized because it is written badly, misses important related work, or many other factors. And it no doubt depends on field as well.
I would however say that the idea that you submit 7 times for each time you get something published means you're setting your sights too high. In Computer Science, for instance, probably most conferences have an acceptance ratio of 4:1 or 5:1, perhaps 6:1, at worst. But then many others have much high acceptance ratios, so I would think the mean acceptance rate is 4:1 or 3:1. In my own experience most papers have gotten in either the first time or the second. One took 3, and another time I stopped trying to publish the work, but the average would be around 1.5-2 at most.
Whatever the ratio is in your field, by all means don't get too stressed over your first rejection. It's part of the process! And work with your advisor to find appropriate targets that are realistic.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I generally agree with username_1, and 7 resubmissions seems high.
However, it is important to note that the link between acceptance ratio of journals and the number of tries that are needed is not straightforward for many reasons. The review process is not random, the resubmissions are not independent trials, and you are supposed to improve your paper between submissions based on the reviews. So for example if someone keeps submitting to journals that are out of scope, is not skilled in writing, or refuses to consider reviewer feedback, they might need to submit as much as 7 times before getting a paper accepted.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/16
| 302
| 1,294
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my article to a journal on 12.01.2016. I asked many times about status of my paper. I have not received a reply from the editor even though my article has been evaluated since 17 months. what do you think about unethical situation?<issue_comment>username_1: If they're not answering emails, that is a very worrying sign. I would suggest sending an email to the editor (cc'ing the editor-in-chief and any other relevant people at the journal) saying that you are very concerned that they are not answering your emails, and that if they don't answer this email, you intend to withdraw the paper.
Then, if they don't answer the email within a reasonable time, send them another email withdrawing the paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: While the course of action suggested by Peter is certainly correct and appropriate after a long wait, I don't think it's appropriate in your situation.
You said you have asked the editor many times and never heard back for 17 months (even if they have difficulty finding reviewers, they can at least let you know). That's **utterly unaccaptable** and never occurs with any good journal. Therefore, I suggest to without further delay **withdraw** your paper and **re-submit to a good journal** instead.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/17
| 421
| 1,735
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I have recieved few emails from conference organisers to become a member of conference technical program committee. Three of them are international conferences and going to held in China and Thailand.
I am a fresh PhD is it good to participate in low quality conferences as TPC member?
it will have a positive or negative impact in my resume?<issue_comment>username_1: I strongly suspect that these are fake conferences, ultimately designed to scam you, other researchers and/or grant agencies for money. Any voluntary association with such events is a sign that you are rather clueless as an academic, and should be avoided.
There, however, plenty of small, very specialized conferences with high acceptance rates. These serve more as meetings and get-togethers for their research community than as highly respected publication venues. Being asked to serve on the TPC here is essentially a statement by your community that you are a respected member of this community, and would be a nice addition to the CV of a recent graduate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I am a fresh PhD is it good to participate in low quality conferences as TPC member?
>
>
>
No. It is *never* good to associate yourself with unreputable people and activities. Your reputation is determined by the things you do and organizations and people you associate with. If you want to attain high reputation, only get involved in reputable projects.
>
> it will have a positive or negative impact in my resume?
>
>
>
Negative. To me, activities like this on a resume signal someone with poor judgment, and/or who doesn't have more impressive activities to report, neither of which are good.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/17
| 744
| 3,204
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a lot of respect for my supervisor; I get very good feedback from them, they are very knowledgeable in their field and I feel that they want me to do well in my reseach. When I submit written work, my supervisor adds comments and then returns, which I think is fairly standard procedure.
Short Version: Is it appropriate after receiving comments on written work to respond with: "I've addressed 90 of these comments but would like to discuss the remaining 10, which I was unable to resolve."
Long Version: I find that comments on written work usually fall into the following four categories:
* The comment is justified and I can resolve and close it. (~90%)
* The comment asks for clarification of the text. (~4%)
* The comment is not justified due to them misunderstanding my text, due to my text not having been written in a clear and/or unambiguous enough manner.(~3%)
* The comment is not justified and the text is clear. (~3%)
For the first two types, I can usually just update my work and move on. It's the last two that I'm not too sure how to deal with. Do I ignore or flag for discussion (as well as clarifying where relevant)? I have been flagging these but feel that I annoy my supervisor by doing so (likely since they are very busy with other work). The alternative is to ignore but then I worry that my supervisor will notice later that I haven't applied the change. Another option for the second (and third) bullet is that I clarify my text and move on and I do do this sometimes but on other occasions I feel it requires further discussion in order to convey the correct meaning.<issue_comment>username_1: I suppose that not all comments of the third and fourth type are equally important - normally, some of them will be minor misunderstandings, whereas others will have broader implications for the work.
If so, I would ignore minor comments where you're sure that it's a mistake on their part, and focus on resolving the major ones by discussing them in a face-to-face meeting with the advisor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: A more polite response might be "I've addressed 90 of these comments. I would like to meet with you to get further advice about the remaining ten."
If your supervisors comments are 90% useful and 10% junk, your supervisor is doing a great job. As <NAME> said, if your supervisor's comment indicates they did not understand the text, it could be that the text is poorly written. Or it could be that your supervisor was distracted for a moment, and made a mistake. The only way to find out is to ask for more information.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It is an important acquired skill to know when to gently push back against your supervisor or referees in your field of study.
You should not implement suggestions you are not comfortable with without asking for clarifications. You need to know when to hold ground and defend your position in a courteous but firm way, and this might as well be in discussions with an open-minded and competent thesis director: you may have to yield in the end but in many cases gentle arguments are synonymous to constructive discussions.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/17
| 342
| 1,514
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently published my first research paper and have already received a request to review a manuscript. The journal's impact factor is low, but it is open access, and the paper's topic is relevant to my field of study. What factors should I keep in mind when deciding whether to accept or decline the request to review? What level of expertise is typically expected from a good-quality review?<issue_comment>username_1: Writing peer reviews is a vital part of academic life and you should eventually partake in such *service* to the community. In order to write a good review, you need
1. time to actually read the manuscript and write the review;
2. sufficient scientific expertise in the relevant field;
3. some idea of what constitutes a good review;
4. confidence in your own judgement and in your critique of (potentially much more senior) authors.
Reviewing is always much easier and pleasant if the manuscript is good. When there are problems with the manuscript, that's where it becomes tricky (unfortunately, many submitted manuscripts fall in the second category).
You should definitely discuss this with your supervisor.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Grad students can certainly review papers. Most likely there will be something like 3 reviews, and the others will be faculty or other more experienced reviewers. If you think you know the area, go for it! Need to pay forward the efforts of those reviewing your papers, after all.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/18
| 636
| 2,490
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a math thesis.
I want to provide a result in chapter 2, but formally prove this result in chapter 8. This is because I am introducing a bunch of definitions in between these chapters and they cannot be moved in front of or within chapter 2.
Can I say something like, "as we will see in chapter 8, this result in chapter 2 is true"? In other words, can you allude to the proof of a result that will be given only later in the thesis?
I don't feel like it is good practice because it sorts of destroys the "surprise factor", and it also makes the reader jump 100 pages to see the result. How should I handle this?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is it appropriate to allude to results obtained later on?
>
>
>
**Yes**, please not only "allude" to later results, but make it absolutely clear at any point of your thesis what all the components of your argument are. You can, and sometimes should, defer the explanation of those components to a later part of your thesis. Just don't make your reader think "Huh? Something is missing here".
If you feel it is too much to ask your readers to accept a statement until it is explained in more detail, you can provide a very short and abstract version earlier. But this "preview" should only serve the purpose of making the reader aware of a part of the argument that will be explained later on; it should not be a duplicate explanation. (This could be just one or two sentences if possible, but two or three paragraphs at most and only if necessary.)
**A thesis is not a suspense story.** A crime novel aims for surprising plot twist; a thesis aims for a natural flow of the argument. If your readers are surprised at any point, your writing is not consistent enough.
This is also why in the standard format of research papers in most disciplines, the last part of the introduction is an outline of the entire argument.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Can I say something like, "as we will see in chapter 8, this result in chapter 2 is true"?
>
>
>
How about: "Thesis outline: In Chapter 1 we will etc. In chapter 2 we will present the first main result of this research, the Foo theorem. In Chapter 3 we will develop some machinery for etc. etc. etc. Having done (whatever), in Chapter 8 we will utilize (something) to prove the Foo theorem described in chapter 2."
[Refer. Or refer not. There is no "allude".](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No)
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/18
| 1,650
| 6,907
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a CS undergrad in my senior year(last week!). I've been working as a part-time research assistant in a research institute. I didn't think twice when I took the job, as I just thought it would be fun, and because it's not a school, I never thought I'd continue my research in this field after this job-at least not there.
However, recently I've decided to go to a graduate school, and I want to pursue a master in a different field. I still want to finish my work and hopefully publish my current project, which would probably take 6 months to 1 year more.
During a lunch, I told another RA(graduate student) about my plan. He said that I should quit my job immediately, or otherwise it'd be abusing resource. I'm very confused right now as to how should I take this situation. Is it generally considered unacceptable or unethical for me to not quit my job?<issue_comment>username_1: It is definitely not unethical. Many undergraduates interested in medical careers do research in, say, biology labs, since it looks good on their applications. It is common practice in the field, and no one considers it abusive.
More importantly, oftentimes people take up RA positions specifically for a purpose like yours: to figure out whether or not graduate school is right for them and, if it is, whether they want to stay in the same area or switch to a different one. Being an RA is one of the best ways to try out a particular line of research without a long-term commitment. That said, **once you decide that you want to pursue research in a different area during grad school, it definitely doesn't mean that you should immediately resign** (especially since you are planning to publish your work). Even though you are not planning to stay, you can still make a contribution!
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'd say: it depends.
You most definitely may (and should) wrap up your work, finish and publish it. *Otherwise* it would be a waste of time and resources - including yours, of course. You are to some degree obliged to present your results to the scientific community.
The assessment of the current situation might get a little bit more difficult if (and *only* if) you would be "hogging resources for exclusive use" right now, *and* there are many people "waiting in line", "reduced to inaction" *until* you resign. If this appears to be the case, you should try to wrap up your work *without any avoidable delays (or extensions)*.
But in any case you should wrap it up. This will be in the interest of the institute's chair, too.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Adding to [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/91016/21166): Given that the cat is already out of the bag (you told the "secret" to someone on the team who obviously opposed the idea and might thus leak that information to the rest of the team or your supervisor), it might be wise to prepare a sound explanation of your future plans should the discussion come up with your supervisor. In fact it might even be advisable to approach your supervisor directly and put all your cards on the table. There is nothing wrong with your plan to finish up the project and publish the results. Just convince your supervisor that you can still make a worthwhile contribution. One could argue that you already know all the ropes of this project whereas a new RA might have to spend some time on training and familiarization with the topic.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The grad student that you spoke to has no idea what they're talking about. As long as you are doing the work you've agreed to do so for the supervisor, you are fine ethically. You are likely paid by a grant, and the grant was for a specific research objective -- it almost certainly wasn't to force an undergraduate to make a commitment to spend their life in a particular field. Quitting immediately would just disrupt the project, and generate extra work for the Principal Investigator.
The graduate student who you were talking to probably knows almost nothing about how/why research is funded, and is just being a jerk. I certainly didn't know much about funding when I was a grad student.
If you are thinking about shifting fields, you should probably bring it up with your faculty supervisor. They might think of ways to adjust the work you are doing to help with that transition. I think as long as you stay focused on their project while they are funding you there is little chance they'd ask you to leave.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: No, it is not unethical. If this were unethical most human adults would be considered unethical. Not many people truly do the job they really want to do (e.g. rock star).
You may laugh heartily at this RA person, for they are a fool. If anyone is being unethical here it is them, telling someone to quit a perfectly good job for no good reason.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Then it would certainly have been most unethical of [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig#Mathematical_statistics) to do his PhD thesis in statistics, given that it was not his principal field of interest and he had merely confused unsolved problems in that field with homework and handed in a solution.
The opposite is the case: it would have been unethical to bury what he had been able to contribute.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: There is nothing wrong with spending time studying a particular discipline in great depth and participating in research opportunities therein, and then going on to do something else. Society has moved on from the paradigm of "one profession/career/employer/job for life" (despite the attempts of some out-of-touch unions to cling to the old ways); I know or know of many highly skilled professionals who have embraced seemingly counterintuitive career changes (e.g.: an archivist becoming a restaurant manager; a lawyer becoming an academic in the fine arts; a museum director becoming a church minister). In the arts & humanities, it is actually quite common for students to go on to study or work in a completely different field. Does that mean that the degree/research was a waste of time? No, of course not. For many people, undergraduate study/research is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to engage with a discipline in great depth unfettered by administrative and financial obligations (and believe me, these get really onerous and distracting **even if you do end up becoming a researcher in the same field**).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: "I don't know anything, but I do know that everything is interesting if you go into it deeply enough". <NAME>
I believe that the unethical attitude would be leaving the project that you have started unfinished.
Do your best with the remaining part, and i hope that it will be a great experience for you.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/18
| 542
| 2,298
|
<issue_start>username_0: Do advisors typically fund PhD students for travel to events other than academic conferences? Examples include:
* Seminars at other universities so the student can promote their
research
* A Technical Program Committee (TPC) meeting
* An industry conference where the student hasn't published anything but is there to promote their work in a talk or demo
These events are not *directly* related to the bottom line of publishing papers, but are helpful for the overall career of the students.<issue_comment>username_1: Of course this primarily depends on the funds available, but in my experience:
* unless the seminar is directly related to the research topic and the cost of traveling there is very low, then NO;
* unless you're a member of that committee, NO;
* maybe, if the conference is topical and there is funding for this.
Keep in mind that, in some disciplines, professional researchers (faculty, postdocs) are not necessarily reimbursed if they attend a conference but do not have some form of presentation (usually a talk although this may depend on the conference).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: All work related travel that has been assigned to you by your advisor should be funded. That's a general rule (also outside academia, at least in Germany).
You may also ask your advisor if they'll refund travel costs for the things you mentioned. In this case your advisor may ask you to check for other funding resources (travel grants for conferences, possible refunding by the university that invited you…). More concretely for your examples:
* **Seminars at other universities**: If you are invited to give a talk but the other university is not funding you, then I'd hope **yes** but **no** for just attending that seminar.
* **A Technical Program Committee (TPC) meeting**: If you are a member of the TPC then **yes** (however, for the TPCs I know, the member usually have their own funding).
* **An industry conference where the student hasn't published anything but is there to promote their work in a talk or demo**: If you have a talk or official demo at the conference then I'd say **yes**, if you only want to go there networking then generally **no** (unless there are some funds that are going to expire).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/19
| 220
| 864
|
<issue_start>username_0: What are the pros and cons of dealing with a very large amount of qualitative data as a sole researcher?
Obviously, required time and resources come to mind, but what else?<issue_comment>username_1: If the proper big data processing is done, you have more data to use. The con is that 'big data' is still a relatively new thing, and the resources may not be available for you to use easily.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: There are no pros or cons just as there are no pros or cons to having $1,000,000 versus $1,000 to work with. You are less constrained. That is just a fact. The range of things you can do goes way up. If you don't like things being larger, you can voluntarily choose for them to be smaller by sampling. If you have a more specific question regarding methods, you should ask it on Cross Validated.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/19
| 544
| 2,120
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am studying at a university that provides with a CGPA (as mentioned on mark sheets) but they are not a curve.
The thing is, although my cgpa is 7, I am fourth in the class from a total of 40 students. I am worried that it might be taken negatively when I apply for Graduate Studies. How can share this information across the admissions committee?
I am studying in a not so top university from India. I am studying computer sciences and will be applying for the same.<issue_comment>username_1: If you believe the CGPA data your university provides does not make your performance clearin your application package, it is your responsibility to clarify in your personal statement or try to achieve this through reference letters.
"My academic performance places me in the top 10% of my class."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In different countries, the score or grade award systems are different. Moreover, it does vary with the universities as well. As far as I know, in India, the universities follow two different grading schemes:
1. Absolute grading
2. Relative grading
In the absolute grading scheme, the papers are graded as per a predefined range allotted to each grade. For example, A+ grade would follow the range 90-100, A- would follow 80-90, and so on.
In the relative grading scheme, the papers are graded as per the university rules or the faculty in-charge of the course. Usually, they follow a scheme mark distribution where each score is checked against a cut-off, not like the absolute grading scheme. Here the A+ might follow the cut-off as 77 out of 100, if the top score is 82 (example).
In the grade or score card, the CGPA system is mentioned (usually at the back side of the card). So, there would not be any issue with this.
Further, you have not mentioned in your question, which grading scheme your university follows. So, assuming any of the two above, a CGPA of 7 is not that bad to be ashamed of.
Moreover, as mentioned in username_1's answer, it would be wise to mention explicitly in the application itself.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/19
| 425
| 2,000
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a very general question. Say I have written 10 papers, published them independently in different journals over the years - could I then just take these papers and make a book out of them and publish that, or is there then a copyright on the published papers which would prevent me from doing that?<issue_comment>username_1: It is very likely that you would have assigned to the journal publishers the copyright to some or all of the papers you published, so you would not be allowed to publish the book without getting permission from those publishers. With that said, book anthologies of previously-published scientific papers are fairly common, and my understanding is that journal publishers are generally inclined to give their permission for a paper they hold the copyright to to be published in such an anthology.
A separate question is who would want to publish your book anthology. Unless you are a famous academic, I don't think such a book would be of interest to mainstream academic publishers, regardless of whether you need or can get the necessary permissions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you just want a compilation of your published papers in book form, I don't see how that's publishable, since it's all already published. You could probably find someone to create such a work, but not one that could be officially published.
If instead your intent is not to copy and paste the papers as a simple collection, but rather synthesize your corpus into a coherent, complete review, that's different. Nothing would prevent you from doing this - pretty much anyone can publish a book these days, though more established publishers would be preferable.
You'd need to get reprint/copyright authorization from the journals who own your papers, but only if you plan to reprint figures or in some cases, large sections of block quotes. Otherwise, a synthesis is a novel piece of work no different from anything else.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/19
| 741
| 2,688
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it possible to publish a paper when the research was done a number of years ago?
For example, can I write a paper from my Masters thesis which was done in 2011 and try to publish it in 2017?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, **IF** the research is still relevant and novel.
When you publish a research paper you never write *when* was the research performed, you merely describe the research and explain why it is relevant. If the research is still a new/different method, then it doesn't matter when you did it. No one is going to ask. If the method was novel then, but now several people have published about it and you can not add anything to the current literature, then it is not worth publishing.
Just follow the same criteria that you would use if the research was done last night to consider if its worth of publication.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_1's answer: Yes, check the relevance of your intended publication against the current literature, as you would do for a publication about "contemporary research" performed recently. Equally check to which extent you may / have to cite your master thesis as literature reference, for example if it deposited on a open-access repository.
Such a delays happened in the past, for example because the results were judged of military importance. H. C. Browns publications eventually leading to a widespread use of boranes as reducing agents in organic chemistry are one example, as some precursors were suitable high-density materials foreseen for rocket engines:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BJZSxm.png)
([source](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01097a049), *J. Am. Chem. Soc.*, 1953, 75, 186–190; doi: 10.1021/ja01097a049).
Or an other ([doi 10.1021/ja01097a055](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01097a055?journalCode=jacsat&quickLinkVolume=75&quickLinkPage=209&selectedTab=citation&volume=75)) in the same journal, citing a thesis at the University of Chicago submitted in 1946, expressing his hopes that (in 1953) "It is anticipated that this article will soon be published in a more accessible form."
Instead of an embargo, a considerable delay between recording the research data and publication may occur even today. Imagine, for example, you want to publish your results in a journal *after* successfully filing for a patent application. Hence, in agreement with your patent attorney, you may send the compuscript to the publisher to gain "academic priority", but with the request to delay the publication intentionally up to a date that is convenient for the patent.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/19
| 889
| 3,990
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it possible to publish the same article in multiple journals published in different languages? For instance, I have a published SCI journal article, but I want to publish the same article in a domestic journal for a local research community as well and vice versa.
Will it be consider self-plagiarism?
How do I deal with the copyright issue, considering the publishers of the journals are different?<issue_comment>username_1: As I suggested in the comments:
Regardless of whether or not this is an ethical thing to do, self-plagiarism only exists if you do not state that you have published this before.
***If*** the local journal accepts a translation of the paper as a submission **and** you do not break any copyright agreement with the original journal, as long as you do say that the original work is somewhere else, then it can not be plagiarism.
Plagiarism implies intentionally hiding that part of what you publish is not original at the time of publishing.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Here, **self-plagiarism** would be to give the impression that you have two articles in a situation where you just have one article in two languages. In order to avoid this, one article should clearly be marked as a translation of the other, probably already in its title (ie something like " (Translated from in Journal)".)
The journal publishing the translated version obviously needs to be aware that they are dealing with a translation, rather than an original article. Moreover, you need to make sure that you either retained the right to publish a translation in your dealings with the original journal, or receive their permission.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: When the paper is submitted and accepted you are still the Author, but the copyright may be transferred from you to the publisher, see the copyright details in the contract.
Therefore, your question is not about plagiarism rather about copyright.
You have to have official permision to publish the paper elsewhere from the actual copyright holder(s) and the terms must be approved by the second (third, fourth,...) publisher as well. It is allways good to inform all the groups involved. Asking the owners is a must.
Regarding the self-plagiarism; you have to refer to the first paper. The later one(s) can be referred only as translations of the first one.
There are four options what you can be accused of:
* Nothing: All owners and new publishers are informed and granted the permissions and you clearly state that the later papers are just translations of Paper #1;
* Self plagiarism: All owners and publishers granted the permissions but you are referring the papers as separate works;
* Copyright violation: The owner of the copyright of the original paper is not aware of the translation but you refer to this paper in later papers stating it is translation only;
* Self plagiarism and copyright violation: You hide the information that paper #2 is just translation of #1 to all owners, publishers and society.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There are three seperate issues, copyright, academic integrity and critera for publication.
First the copyright thing. Traditionally many journals insisted on a copyright transfer. Nowadays some will let you keep the copyright but there is still likely to be an element of exclusivity in your contract with them.
Secondly academic integrity. The default assumption with journal articles is that they represent new work. Publishing work in journals twice without aknowlaging that fact is considered "self plagarism" so you should make sure that the second publication clearly indicates it is a translation of the first.
Thirdly critera for publication, the general policy of journals is usually to publish original work. Some may make an exception for translations others may not.
So IMO if you want to do this you should ideally approach both journals about it as early as possible in the process.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/20
| 2,246
| 8,678
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just got an email from Academia.edu saying that my name has been mentioned two times (Edit: now up to 150 papers!), but to see the mentions you have to upgrade to a premium account at 8.25AUD/month.
This seems very unlikely to me, because
1. The name being mentioned is my nick name (and a very uncommon nick name!) and not my proper/working name
2. I'm not an academic, and haven't published anything! I have done undergrad research and a little bit since then, but nothing published, and also nothing really worth referencing.
Is the "mentions" feature basically a scam?
---
I just noticed that the mentions page now says this:
>
> We search for mentions of the name "<NAME>", "<NAME>", "<NAME>" or "<NAME>" in 20 million papers, books, drafts, theses, and syllabi on Academia, and around the web.
>
>
>
Which means that their count of mentions (currently fluctuating between 137 and 152 for me) must also include all of the David Willises, <NAME>, and <NAME>. What a joke!
---
Edit:
By searching on Google for my name in quotes and site:academia.edu I did find one paper that referenced a very old blog post I had written (and forgotten I had written!) But that's only one reference instead of two.
I guess unless anyone else has more data on the illegitimacy of this feature I'll have to call it real. But still a waste of money of course!<issue_comment>username_1: I'm a software engineer at Academia.edu. We have a feature which allows users to see which papers mention which users.
That feature is only available to premium users. During the first month, you can email us to cancel and we'll refund you. So users can test-drive the mentions feature, and if they decide they don't like it, they can cancel. We think it's useful, and we don't want users to be coerced into using it.
Also, we do make mistakes. Sometimes we mistake a user for another academic with the same name! But Google finding only one paper with a name on academia.edu does not mean that there is only one paper that mentions that name on the site.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is so clearly a hoax, trying to get more subscribers. Please, Academia.edu software engineers, do not try the "we make errors" card, as it is not believable.
I do believe they are legit, but this mentions baiting reeks of **dark** **patterns**. If they continue doing this, they will lose credibility with the public, and end up losing the one thing people are willing to pay for, especially in research: a **trusted reputation**.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: **This is definitely a scam.** (+1 for username_2)
I registered 7 years ago, and haven't logged in for many years. I'm definitely not a premium user. Still I have received several of such emails from `academia.edu`. The latest one comes just today:
>
> A paper published by a member of the Department of Nematology
> department at Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources mentions
> the name "<NAME>"
>
>
>
Sometimes, the emails include the words "famous", "well-known" or something like that, such as: a well-known researcher of ABC has mentioned the name "<NAME>".
This is really a stupid scam because I'm in Computer Science, and I don't have time to check the dictionary what is nematology or whatever.
My name is very rare in my country (Google returns only 3 other results and none of them are doing research). Moreover, I added a hyphen to my name in publication, since our language consists of only one-syllable words. So I highly doubt that this is just a classification mistake.
I think they want me to pay for my curiosity, but I have only less than 200 citations, and Google scholar tells me immediately when a paper citing my papers appears.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree that the "mentions" emails (1) are just trying to convince me to pay to subscribe and (2) are becoming less and less likely to be true mentions of my name. Today's was "A paper published in Biotechnology and Bioengineering mentions the name "---- --------"." (Using my real first and last names.) But I know for a fact that I am the only person in the world with my name if you include my first and last names, because they are a mix of ethnicities. And that includes all people who have ever lived, until a distant cousin happens to name someone with my first name - which isn't bloody likely.
And yes, I am a researcher, and I have a free account with Academia.edu, but my field is not at all related to Biotech/BE.
These solicitations from Academia.edu have definitely ramped up in frequency and detail in the past month, and it's really putting me off.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I have a college email address that was used when I was researching one paper, so I was easily able to look back at the number of times I get emails from Academia.edu, telling me that my name has been published in a paper.
Essentially, I have gotten the email every three weeks or so for that past two years (since I did my one-off research). I have a very unique name (I'm the only one in the world with it, actually), so to be cited in papers having to do with biostatistics, allergy, immunology, cognitive functions, mental health, and more is beyond ludicrous. My research had to do with food and the arts...
I'm calling SCAM ALERT!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Its not exactly a scam, but it is grossly exaggerating hits. I routinely get emails saying that there are hits on "username_6", but there never are. There are often hits on '<NAME>' but none of them are me. Frankly, I consider this to be false advertising because what is being told in the email is completely false. If the email said "username_6 - when we search on variation on your name we get 15 hits!" It would be true, but not nearly so compelling. So, they chose false advertising over dull truth. Not a good sign for something that calls itself Academic.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I have a unique name (in the world!) and Academia.edu claimed that 109 people mentioned my name in the full text of the paper.
My research is not that interesting or popular.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: **Total scam.**
Since they have a 30-day-money-back guarantee, I have checked out the mentions to my name they have spammed me for years. There were 10-15 mentions of my name and none of the mentions were real.
When I contacted customer support to get my money back. They did a full refund but they have made an odd remark about "It is RARE for their algorithm to list mentions that are ALL fake".
Just put their fake mention emails to the spam folder, that's where it belong.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I get e-mails from a.e every few weeks saying someone mentioned by name, trying to entice me to pay in order to learn more. I already try to keep track of who cites me. It's easy because few people do. :) It was easy to figure out which citations a.e meant every time.
* they were all legitimate. My last name is relatively rare, but I do have some prolifically publishing relatives with the same last name, and even one cousin in Belgium with the same first and last names. Impressively, a.e never attributed other people's papers to me.
* I already know all the citations they found, and quite a few others. They missed quite a few.
* They refer to the same citations differently in different e-mails, as if trying to create the false impression that they have more than they really do.
* I have no plans to pay anyone to search for my citations.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: AE finds mentions of my not-uncommon name, including my first initial instead of my full first name. Across the year or two that I have subscribed, AE has found several thousand mentions (not as many as Google Scholar has) of which about 10% are mentions of my actual name in various forms (first initial instead of first name, etc.). I consider the AE service cost-effective.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: I receive these messages on a weekly basis, with texts like "mentioned in influential papers" or "mentioned in a paper published in The Journal of xxx". I have a unique name, so it is clearly not correct.
I have complained for two years about this scam-construction, but all I get is "I'll be happy to share this with our Mentions team for you" and "We apologize for any inconvenience. Please let me know how else I can help you in the meantime."
I have also asked for just a confirmation that the documents exist, bc I would gladly pay to read them, if my name really was mentioned.
Definitely scam.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/20
| 1,313
| 5,194
|
<issue_start>username_0: Most rankings systems rank math at Harvard quite favorably. Is phd in applied mathematics (control theory) at Harvard as reputable as a phd in pure math at Harvard? (The first is offered in an engineering department while the second is offered in a math department)<issue_comment>username_1: I got my PhD at Harvard in mathematics. Not in "pure math" but just in "math." Harvard does not have an "applied mathematics" department or a "PhD program in applied mathematics." Rather, applied mathematics is one of seven "areas of study" in the school of engineering and applied sciences: see [here](https://gsas.harvard.edu/programs-of-study/all/applied-math). What does this mean? Well, [see here](https://www.seas.harvard.edu/academics/graduate). It says:
>
> In keeping with the interdisciplinary nature of modern research, we do not have traditional academic departments and do not award degrees by specific research area. Instead, graduate students work toward a degree in one of seven subjects—Applied Mathematics, Applied Physics, Computer Science, Computational Science & Engineering, Data Science, Design Engineering, and Engineering Sciences.
>
>
>
Some of these subjects have "PhD model programs," but when you click on applied math, [you find](https://www.seas.harvard.edu/academics/graduate/phd-model-programs/phd-model-program-applied-mathematics)
>
> Due to its highly interdisciplinary nature, Applied Mathematics does not have a specific model program. Students pursuing a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics should consult with their Director of Graduate Studies: Professor <NAME> (fall), or Professor <NAME> (spring), concerning their degree programs.
>
>
>
Interestingly, Professor Amir is an Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics. [Interesting in part because the mathematics department has had only "full" professors for at least 20 years.] Here is a [listing of faculty in applied mathematics](https://www.seas.harvard.edu/applied-mathematics/people) at Harvard: the only other professor who is listed as being solely in applied mathematics is also an assistant professor. This suggests to me that applied math at Harvard may be in the process of becoming more of an academic department than it has been or is now. The time would be ripe, in view of the [record $400 million gift of Mr. Paulson in 2015](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/6/3/record-gift-paulson-seas/).
All that was mostly background. Now I can tell you: when I was at Harvard (1998-2003) there was almost no direct contact between the mathematics department and the mathematics part of SEAS: I knew one SEAS PhD student who was (for some reason) teaching freshman calculus along with the math students. (I just looked him up: he has what looks like a lucrative industry job in Boston.) So the answer to your question is: **No one I know is comparing these two programs**. They are different in every way, with almost no overlap. It's not as though you could choose to do control theory in the math department at Harvard: there is no one there that does that. (There is one professor in the Harvard math department who does what I at least would call applied mathematics: [<NAME>, the Professor of Biology and Mathematics and Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics](https://ped.fas.harvard.edu/martin_nowak).)
It would make more sense to compare the engineering program at Harvard to other engineering programs. US News ranks Harvard's engineering program at #23 currently. If you look at [this page](https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/harvard-university-166027/overall-rankings) it gives you the ranking of a variety of programs at Harvard, and actually it has the lowest rank of the more than 100 programs and subprograms listed there. The math department is currently ranked third [it has been ranked in the top three for many years]. So maybe that is a sense in which "pure math is more reputable," although again I stress that this does not seem like the right way to look at it.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: While Pete's answer is correct in some sense, I think there's another important one. To most people in the world, they will just hear "Harvard," "math" and "Ph.D." and think you're a genius; from the perspective of these people, these might as well be the same. So, if your goal is to impress people who aren't experts, the difference between the programs is basically zero.
If your goal is to be successful in academics, then the overall reputation of the program is somewhat secondary; people won't care how venerable the program is if you can't show something significant you personally did. The overall program is only important because of the networks it gives you access to (both of students and professors) and to some lesser degree the classes you have an opportunity to take. That's maybe a slight exaggeration; having a name like "Harvard" on your degree will probably help you get people to look a little more seriously at you, but it won't do you any good if they don't like what they see. Again, from that perspective, either program will probably serve equally well.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/20
| 6,627
| 30,400
|
<issue_start>username_0: I consider myself a scientist and researcher into a very interesting topic-the most fundamental questions of Life and the very foundations of biology. I'm using the phrase *I consider* myself because in reality I have no publications in any journals with real impact factor and all I have managed to "publish" up until now are a few short excerpts in my native language in printed medias (I really couldn't even call them journals) for a general "scientific" (but more likely for everyone interested in science, than in any particular field of science) audience and from conferences (also in my native language) I have attended. I managed to write about it here and there on the Internet, too, but as you could see there is nothing deserving the title of a real scientific publication, so I don't give those attempts any merit.
Of course, I tried, and am still trying, to manage to write a publication for a "real" journal in English language with an impact factor greater than 0.01 (which is what I think the publishers in my native tongue have) but I have not been successful. I'm either out of scope or don't meet their academical standards. The reason I think is I'm not used to write papers. Of course, I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of papers and am fond of reading them but am not good at actually writing them. So, I think I need some professional guidance here.
But what I think is the greater issue here is the fact that my object of investigation has become so far "off" the current hot research topics in biology that it might have turned into a field in of itself and am having considerable difficulties communicating it to my colleagues. I had such problems ever since I started dealing with these topics about 10 years ago when I was in the middle of my BC in Molecular biology, but what this "deviation" had now turned into something entirely different from all current discourse in all the major fields of biology as far as I can see and I am having really big trouble trying to go "back in track" with my colleagues.
My field used to be a combination of biochemistry and microbiology in the context of theoretical biology with an emphasis on the origins of Life (at least this is where I started from) but as time went by I delved ever deeper into an intersection of biology and philosophy very different from what modern philosophy of biology is about, too. I also touched on various aspects of physics, chemistry and even engineering through the years and in the end came up with a terminology I find seems unintelligible to any field in particular. This is why I feel like I'm stuck with my own concepts and my own terminology and I really can't get anyone from any particular field to look into it with understanding. I guess this is what you get when you go A-wall from every other field or researcher and get into something all by yourself. But, yet, the question remains as to how could I communicate my ideas for evaluation to anybody?
When I started I was planning to use the little I knew from biochemistry and microbiology to develop my own definition of Life and proceed to see how it can fare. This was around 10 years ago when I still was a bachelor student in molecular biology. That time I had the idea that the answer for distinguishing Life from non-Life was its ability to keep a process necessary for its existence outside the causation of external factors. In order to understand me I will give a simple example-consider a vortex in a waterpool. As long as there is strong enough current the vortex is *caused* by the flow of the current through a particular geometry shape of the bottom of the pool. So there is an *external* causation responsible for the existence of the vortex. As long as there is this current flowing though this particular shape on the bottom of this particular pool this vortex will result from it. However, if the vortex was to somehow "come alive" and dramatically change its behavior it will start to display patterns of behavior unpredictable by neither the strength of the flow through the waterpool, nor the shape of its bottom. I decided that in order to distinguish Life from non-Life we should concentrate on those pattern which give rise to a behavior impossible to explain by the mere sum of the laws determining the behavior of the system.
Now, that isn't any entirely new idea and in fact I was later able to find many papers pertaining to it, but what is important is that it started a passion I could only enjoy and drove me further and further on a path very different from any of those of my fellow students and peers. While most other students pursued carriers in a well defined fields like physiology, biochemistry, microbiology and so on I ventured on a journey in "no-man's land" where the borders of physics, chemistry, biology and philosophy merged into a single subject existing on the "fringe" of what can be considered a valid scientific enterprise. Or at least that is what some of my peers told me.
My research interests started to get me in troubles with my teachers who preferred narrowly specialized interests which could be channeled into an already existing research programs in the well defined departments of the university and my too broad and unclear (for them, for me what I wanted to do was always crystal clear) topic wasn't anything they were willing to invest their efforts in. This is why they sent me to the philosophy department and was forced to introduce myself with the philosophy of biology. It wasn't my initial desire as I had always considered myself a scientist first but this is what they preferred to call me. So I found an expert in philosophy of biology and started to read up about the field. However, the more I read the more I understood it wasn't my place either.
My concept was centered on the inevitable interconnectivity between emerging organization and the direction processes arising from this organization were heading to. The common element of all Life according to it is its *direction*, its *path*, its "*strive*", not any particular combination of factors or conditions or even characteristics which distinguish it from inanimate matter. If you search genetics journals for papers about the difference between Life and non-Life you could find a few attempts to distinguish a minimal cell from a mere artificial chromosome by the number of genes it needs to contain. That is so because for a geneticist a living organism is mere "list of genes" and if you manage to *score* the right combination you get a cell, not a mere chromosome. If you ask a biochemist Life emerges when a particular combination of molecules and their interactions manages to build up a closed system of interdependent reactions which reproduces its constituents (this is known as metabolic closure). If you ask a philosopher he or she may give you a list of properties which distinguish a living entity from a mere mechanical object but I surely guess that among the first on the list would be the concept of *agency* or the ability of an entity to act on its own behalf. All at all it is safe to say that every expert would give you a definition from its own background and it's sometimes very tricky to be able to distinguish one definition from another. But that isn't what I had.
In my view there is a *common background* behind all and every attempt to characterize life and it comes from the innate ability of living organisms to determine their own behavior and characteristics **by themselves**. That actually means that any attempt *centered* to produce a definition of Life from any particular background is destined to fail precisely because it comes from a particular **background**, e.g. from a particular pool of ideas and methodology for analyzing reality that is *external* for the object being analyzed. So there would always be some other pool of ideas and some other methodology which could give similar results but makes statements *contradictory* to the statements made by the first one. The reason is that while both are legitimate paths to discovery in their respective ways what they are trying to analyze is no subject in either of them, therefore when we try to overlap one methodology with the other the end result wouldn't be a perfect self-consistent core of ideas but a "fuzzy" border caused by the impossibility of the core ideas and the results of the application of the methodology of the 2 fields to completely even themselves out. For example if we try to use a genetic definition of a minimal living organism based on the minimum number of genes which can form a metabolizing cell we may come up with very different combinations of synthesizable macromolecules than if we use a biochemical approach striving to produce a self-reproducing pattern of chemical reactions and neither of the 2 could claim their respective results could have all the attributes of a living organism. This is a simple illustration of a fundamental problem in any attempt to characterize Life-when we head from any *limited* point of view of any particular subfield of science or methodology we always end up with a result which could be considered either too general and will include systems which are living organisms but aren't included in this definition or things which obviously aren't living organisms but are included in it. There is virtually no complete overlap between any 2 separate attempts to determine what constitutes a living organism.
However, the idea that I had was to use an ***internal*** "background" to construct a framework of characteristics distinguishing Life from non-Life and to further use it to try to answer all those questions pertaining to Life which can be suggested to be a problem of biology and not any other science. In order to do so I defined **self**-causation as the distinguishing property of Life and tried to create a list of all systems which could express it and compare it with all those system we *perceive* as living entities. It was **an incredible match!**
Instead of creating a short list of characteristics like n number of genes, m number of proteins, membrane boundary etc. to define a living organism I decided I had to focus on only a **single issue** to distinguish any form of organization from a biological one. It was the idea of a process being *the cause of **itself***. I named this self-sustaining change although that over the years I started to think this naming I now inappropriate and prefer the Latin phrase *autocausa sua* or what in a "rough" a cause by itself of in itself. The real meaning of these phrases is the ability of a process to serve as a reason for the continuing of the *same* process only by its own existence. Let me give an example-if there is chemical reactions network constructed by the combined interactions of the reactions which constitute it after a certain point in time the reaction network becomes *self-sustaining* and what is more important **self-modulating**, e.g. after this point any quantity of raw materials coming into the network will get "distributed" over **all** the reaction pathways of the network and not increase the quantity of only those reactions directly utilizing this raw material. I'm sure you can see where I'm going to because if a living organism changes its diet the new food materials don't go only to those cells and tissues who have the enzymes to process that but are turned into "common building blocks" for all cells to process it. And what is even more important is that any changes in the respective topology of the reactions comprising the system start to have *global* impact on the entire system, not only to the reactions directly connected with them. I don't want to go into greater detail but what is important here is that through the auto-causation definition I managed to come up with a bunch of criteria to describe the topology of networks of chemical reactions and understand how and **why** certain networks can support what we perceive as living organization and why others can't.
Furthermore the self-causation of determinable processes implies a search of *general* processes that can be prescribed to the entire system to define Life instead of any particular characteristics. That means that if we want to determine whether a certain entity is alive we need to get a look at its *dynamics* and not in any particular list of characteristics it **constantly** has. For example, I'm certain that almost everyone would agree that a dry seed isn't alive but also almost anyone would strongly disagree if we call it "dead". The big difference in a self-causation based definition of Life comes from the fact that we will be looking at **the process** which builds a certain structure, like the seed is an example of, **not at the structure itself per se** to determine is the entity displaying that particular structure alive or not. Thus, if we can show that *the same process* which builds this structure is *itself impossible without the structure it builds*, then we have the reasons to consider it a living entity. This criterion actually means that alive are always only things which can't be produced by other processes and that inseparable connection between the process that it makes possible and the structure build by that process is **THE** hallmark of Life. Just like seeds can come only from other seeds and trees come only from other trees, so cells come only from other cells and even we could argue that things like viruses and viroids are alive as long as they require an uninterrupted non-replicatable process for their creation. Actually the auto-causation concept goes further because it states that those structures which can support processes which in turn can build the very structures that support those same processes are the **only** examples of Life possible and that the structure and the "function" in Nature are actually the very same thing because they are different aspects of a same phenomenon-self-sustaining autocausation spreading in the Universe any way it can.
Now, I understand that if you aren't a philosopher of biology all that may seem to you very vague and you may even wonder what is the point of all that wording but the truth is that this is a major departure of any style for describing biological phenomena as far as I know and it constitutes an entirely new approach to many fundamental biological problems. I don't want to venture into details because than this question would get all the way too long but I should just mention that the "standard" philosophy of biology doesn't "work" that way. The common approach is to tackle particular biological question through the prism of particular philosophical school of thought or methodology of investigation and in the end to come to a conclusion of the various relevance of different philosophical concepts to a particular biological problem. What you see here is **not how philosophy of biology usually proceeds**! Actually this is a very unusual line of investigation and although it may look like "something philosophical" it's not what you will come across in most papers on philosophy of biology. And this of course creates quite a mess with the editors. And here come phrases as "unclear", "out of scope" and "inappropriate for our audience". But the big problem is the unique thinking employed to arrive at criteria for the distinguishing between Life and non-Life here and the concentration on a single particular thinking pattern which is given not only priority, but outward superiority over all the others. And this isn't something often used in philosophy. It's something used in science.
Furthermore, straight out of the concept of self-causation comes the idea of goal-oriented behavior or teleology as it's known in philosophy which has always been a hot topic of debate. Now, this concept manages to crisscross the boundaries between science and philosophy and at the same time to touch on the "hot" issue of whether or not we can say a living organism has any goals in mind internally and consistently with its very definition. This is something which creates problems for both biologists and philosophers because it ties 2 very important questions altogether-the definition of a living organism and its teleology and that mean double grounds of doubts and double difficulty at conveying the reasoning behind this approach because it now has to touch upon not only on those who doubt the ability to define Life altogether, but also the validity of teleology in biology. And needless to say I had a lot of trouble with people who prefer biology to stay biology and philosophy-philosophy instead of building bridges using radical concepts.
However, the problem is I think **reality** might has other opinions and the very idea of causation, be it self- or not, also implies a *direction* where this cause forces the entity to head into and this directed development is the very definition of goal-oriented behavior. Thus, the defining cause of the process which constitutes Life actually *set goals* for the entity to follow and those goals are exemplified in the behavior it exhibits in order to ease the sustaining of the process which constitutes Life itself for this entity. That way I think teleology can be embedded very deep into a foundation of biology and stem out of the very definition of Life itself. However, I'm meeting serious objections from philosophers not inclined to believe in such an easy explanation for the place of teleology in biology and am having hard time publishing for that audience.
Furthermore, I managed to demonstrate very interesting relationships between the ideas of structure and function in biology using my idea of self-causation as a basis for the definition of Life and the concept of hyperstructures in biology. This idea states that there are special structures created by vital processes for any living entity and the Life of that particular entity is practically impossible without them. Like for example the DNA-replication, transcription and translation complexes, the cell membrane, mitochondria and other structures which could vary in size from a supramolecular complex to an organelle. Even the cell itself can be considered a hyperstructure. This isn't very popular idea and actually here are very few biologists who are familiar with it but I immediately saw the potential to integrate it into the reasoning I managed to develop with mine ideas of goal-oriented behavior arising from the particular processes needed to be supported for their own continuous existence and so, I came up with the idea of interdependence between the vital processes constituting the self-sustaining and self-causing process determining the living state of an entity and the hyperstructures we could find in the same entity. I believe there is a clear and easy to determine relationship between large-scale organizational features of the living organisms and the processes which together constitute the self-causing self-sustaining process defining Life as such. I also believe this is precisely what determines both the organization of a living organism and its evolution and place in the environment and using this line of thought we could establish not only a particular definition of Life but a true General Theory of Life which could eve spring a new science of the fundamental organization of the living organisms and **why** it is such. This is the content of the publication I want to publish.
I have been working on this paper for almost 7 years I think and I have managed to amount what I consider huge amount of evidence that using the interrelatedness of the concepts of self-causation for a definition of Life and of hyperstructures as the "physical manifestations" of the processes together comprising the self-causing process defining particular form of Life it's possible to create a consistent body of concepts to explain virtually all fundamental characteristics of Life and its behavior. I believe we could touch on the questions what constitutes biological organization and why it is so, why Life needs to evolve and how the different mechanisms of evolution relate to each other, how to distinguish the minimal organization necessary for a living organism and many other questions if we consider the implications of the self-causing and self-sustaining processes materialized through hyperstructures into a real tangible physical organizations. This is what I want to present the world as my General Theory of Life and may be manage to build a solid base for further investigation of the most fundamental questions of biology into a single theoretical framework.
But the deeper I went into that direction the more I distanced myself from virtually all the experts in my field and eventually reached a point where I couldn't communicate neither to biologist, nor to philosophers. I also started to develop my own terminology which was inapplicable to any of the fields I was deriving ideas from and my research took a turn very different from what any of my peers had expected it to be. Needless to say, that meant I was going further and further off track from what any of my colleagues was doing and found myself in various conflicts with my peers. It came to such a point that I wasn't able to proceed following my ideas in the university any more and decided that there wasn't the right place for me. I also had some personal issues at that time and the spending for science in my country was very low. That meant only research which could deliver immediate result was preferred for funding and my far-fetched and difficult to communicate ideas had no chance no matter would they turn out to be true or not. I did manage to came out with a more "moderate" version of my ideas and to actually propose a valid research project but it was nonetheless too far away from what could be funded that time. This is why I eventually decided academia wasn't the place for me and went on to search other jobs. And this is actually pretty much what I'm still doing today. I have managed to pursue my ideas further for years outside of academia and frankly I think I managed to develop a very unique concept that might help us connecting many problems in life sciences by a common "theme"-the very definition of Life itself, so, I don't think all that time and effort had gone into waste.
However, I'm still having one hell of a problem convincing ANY journal to take my manuscripts. As you can see my research has great promises at hand and can build bridges where nothing else as far as I know can, however it uses a brand of thinking and directions for investigations which aren't touched upon by no one as far as I know of it and even the closest thing I can relate to-the concept of autopoiesis in biology is very far away from my ideas of "materialized" self-causing self-sustaining processes by hyperstructures. I have a really hard time making anyone "buy" it, so I have decided to come to this site, tell my story and ask you for advice could a blog help me out. At least do you think anyone would be interested in reading about such ideas as the ones I present here in a blog over the Internet and try to help me find an appropriate publishing medium? Do you think I can draw enough attention to my research by posting it on the Internet for free and people who are interested in how it all can relate to modern biology could advise me where and how to present it?
Actually my biggest problem is that my ideas are very unique and for a lack of a better word-distinct from what anyone else has presented before, so, that is why my colleagues and probably the editorial boards of journals as well are unwilling to invest their reputation on them. At least this is the most obvious conclusion I have come up with. I couldn't find anything "wrong" with my ideas per se and although I did managed to present them to experts everything I managed to get from them was uneasy stance of neither accepting them, nor being able to deny them. Of all the people I have talked with no one has been able to deny me or prove me wrong. I hear way too often that I'm out of the "hot" topics in modern biology or that my concepts are unordinary but I never managed to get anybody to actually **deny** their validity. That is why I'm so fervorant to try to push them through any way possible. I really don't see anything misleading or incorrect about the Nature of reality in them, only people who are either too specialized in their respective fields or aren't comfortable with my position. But as you may come to understand whether we like or hate something doesn't mean this thing isn't real or not. I'm not able to see any fundamental mistakes in my research, so I want to see how it can go into the wider world but the inaccessibility of academic journals makes it quite difficult, this is why I want to explore my options and would like to ask you what do you think about it?
I really don't do it for the money I could make or the jobs I could take if I get my work published. There was time in the past when I was thinking about that but this isn't the case any longer. I just want to present my work **any way possible.** I don't mind if I get labeled or called names if I have to as long as the community is **forced** to at least take a look at my ideas and make a stance on them. What I'm fed up isn't the lack of acceptance for my ideas or the decline to pursue them. It's the utter lack of communicability with both the biological and philosophical communities who seem to be aiming at each in its own subjects of investigation and the lack of intelligibility by their respective journals to consider me seriously. Even if I got **proven** wrong I will celebrate it as long as the other side actually looks at what I'm presenting and use **facts** to argument its refusal. But what I do not tolerate is the mere refusal to even engage in discussions about my ideas which is precisely what I'm seeing right now. If people could use their knowledge and expertize to point out **mistakes** in my actual ideas I would be content but if they just blindly deny me the platform to express myself and the media to present my ideas I really don't know what to say. Or should I ask if modern science has become such "close-circle" enterprise it's now impossible to even present your ideas if you aren't on a payroll in academia?
I just want to get your advice what should I do. I think I managed to present my story and ideas in a detailed enough manner and was able to put up the reasons why I'm having such a difficult time publishing and why I just couldn't go with the "normal" way of convincing experts in the field to publish me in journals. So, I'm now wondering what will come out of my blog and could I get enough attention through the Internet to actually drive some real experts to my ideas and manage to spread them in that way? In the modern world the Internet had proven to be much faster and broadband environment for spreading ideas that the "classical" academic publications could ever have been but at the same it's also had proven to be a medium of much lower standards for information than it. So what my question actually amounts to is whether I would be able to attract enough attention from people who are actually deep enough in science and philosophy to manage to help spread my ideas in the respective fields and eventually give me advice where to publish it "for real". What do you think about that? How are my chances of success? Or would I be "engulfed" by the enormous rubbish of the Internet to the extent when only people without any background would be the only readers I could get and my ideas would be doomed to never enter the academic discourse?
By the way, do you think even if most of my readers are profane they could create enough "buzz" to eventually force a reaction from the professional biologists and philosophers? I mean if something gets popular enough to actually make people talk about it a time comes when the experts in the field can't really ignore it and must devise a response. Or at least I think so. After all they can't just ignore questions forever, right? Could they? So, even if the people I get to read my ideas aren't scientists or philosophers if they could create enough "commotion" to spread them do you think a time may come when the community is simply obliged to take them seriously even if only to try to disprove them? I mean I really don't want to go that road but if the experts aren't willing to even take a look at certain ideas just because the authors don't have affiliations could they be "pressured" to do so by the general public spreading those ideas? What do you think?<issue_comment>username_1: Go for it!
No. I have not heard of anyone whose ideas entered mainstream through a blog, but then, i have also not heard of anyone who claims he has a general theory of life.
Given that the internet is a recent phenomenon, it makes sense that there are no successful examples. But do you have any problem in trying to become that example?
It also makes sense that since the final answer to the fundamental questions about life will involve multiple fields, an expert from any one of the field might not be able to understand you. So what you experienced from your peers is predictable.
You can also try vixra.org. Or you could self publish a book describing your ideas on Amazon or Smashwords. Although blog will be more freely available.
Such attempts will atleast establish priority.
Go for it. The internet is full of garbage. I would rather prefer to read a blog trying to describe the secrets of life.
I would love to read your research. Sounds interesting... Share the link of the blog in the comment...
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: No scientist is going to take your blog seriously. If you want to convince non-scientists of your ideas, you might have some success (if you manage to write much more clearly and concisely than in your question here). But your blog will not give access to any remotely mainstream science, and if anything it will harm you; scientists looking at your blog will conclude that you are a kook, and will actively avoid anything you have to say in any forum.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/20
| 957
| 4,123
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am interested in what is the role of peer review in journals. I have read the [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review#History) which discuss much about style and criticism but few to purpose. I don't know if initially it already came with comments to improve articles (more in favor of peer review for increase the quality of articles) or where simple recommendations to editors to not printing an article (in favor of filtering articles).
I am curious because my first contact with peer review history is the anecdote of an Einstein article beeing peer reviewed and Einstein refusing the review around 1905.
There were three main factors of adopting peer review as listed on a [post](http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/):
* The increasing specialization of science
* The enormous increase in the number of scientific papers being published
* There are technologies for copying papers
It seems that increasing the number of journals (and having less/no general journals) could have solved those problems. (which may indeed happened)
However it is unclear to me the purpose of the peer review. Is peer review (or/and was) used to increase **quality** of articles published in journals? Or "simply" to **filter** out articles to keep few (and more important) articles per issue of the more specialized journals?
Of course peer review might be doing both effects and having both purposes.<issue_comment>username_1: It is the editor who decides not the reviewers, so peer review does not filter articles on its own. However, the reviewers do advise the editor on whether or not to accept the article. So peer review definitely has a filtering aspect. A review typically also includes suggestions to the author, so it also has the quality aspect to it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It's a method to inform journal editors about the [soundness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) of any arguments, their originality, and the correctness of any data used in the submitted work. This enables them to keep a good standard of published work (and helps the authors to improve their manuscript to achieve the required standard).
Thus, it serves as a **quality control** mechanism. Without it, editors would have to review on their own (which is still some form of peer-review, though not anonymized). This was standard in Einstein's days, but is completely impractical today for three reasons.
1. The sheer amount of submitted manuscript has grown substantially.
2. The scientific community is much more diverse with less overlap of personal areas of expertise, such that no single editor can judge more than a fraction of the manuscript they receive.
3. Allowing reviewers to stay anonymous avoids biases and provides a fairer process.
So, the editors' expertise must now be to find expert reviewers and to interpret their reviews appropriately (rather than being experts themselves as 100 years ago).
Admittedly, the mechanism does not work 100%, i.e. sometimes good work is rejected and sometimes poor work is accepted (depending also on the community and journal), but their appears to be **no viable alternative**.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Imagine there was no peer review (a situation become all more real today with open access forums).
Not only would there be a significant increase in the number of papers to digest, but an overall reduction in the quality of papers in general.
In the limit, you're reading dozens of papers half way before realizing the design is flawed...an enormous waste of time. Crap papers that slip through the cracks guide others in dubious pursuits, wasting grant dollars and precious time of graduate students and junior faculty trying to get tenure. Moreover, all journals would be essentially equal, having no process in place, so 'quality' journals wouldn't exist.
While I agree the system has serious flaws, you can be assured that the recent article in Science you admire has gone through extensive quality control, as username_2 pointed out.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/20
| 3,336
| 14,491
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a state university adjunct I get a fair number of students who start classes are finding themselves unprepared, have unforeseen events (job, home, personal), which impact their ability to complete the course in a timely fashion. I tend to offer an incomplete as a way to permit the student to complete the work, and achieve the best results possible. Normally, I do not ask for "proof" of the excuse.
Recently, I had peers admonish me, with the argument that my approach was reducing revenue for faculty. It was argued that normally, the proper way is to let the student withdraw, and then re-enroll the next term. That way there are two instances of the faculty getting paid to conduct the course.
In my case, the normal incremental work for me to handle an incomplete is rather small, and I have been perhaps a bit liberal in the interest that the students get a good value from their academic experience. I have taught at three universities, and pretty much had the same practice at each. However, I have getting considerable flack, so thought I would get additional input from a diverse community.
How is the assignment of an incomplete grade practically handled at your institution, and what are the thresholds for qualification for that grade? Is it appropriate to offer incomplete grades without requiring a particular level of hardship or requesting proof of that hardship?
Thank you.
Addendum #1
There is no clear cut answer to the question I posed, but there is value in understanding the perspectives of others. And in this case, there is no right or wrong response. However, to add clarity, I will provide two examples of recent incomplete grades, so that the context is more clear.
Before I do that, I will add, with some reservation, additional general details. The bulk of the students I teach are distance learning students. The majority however, are in state. My institution is part of a large state university system, and tends to serve more non-traditional students, and certainly students in non-traditional settings.
The first instance is Beth, who has been a student of mine in the past. Beth works as a clerk in a public institution and is married with a 2yo girl. When I first had her as a student, I was told by her adviser that she was an excellent student. My experience confirmed that. The third term that I had Beth, she was taking four courses, trying to complete her degree soon, working full time, and raising a 2 yo girl. She was taking two advanced level technical courses from me, and our meetings were conducted on the phone. Somewhere mid-term she mentioned that she was pregnant and would be delivering in a couple of weeks, but would make up the work immediately. She probably would, but I told her that she had a lot on her plate, and as far as I was concerned she had a few more important things than her weekly assignments, and that should it make things easier for her, an incomplete would be possible, and explained how it would work. Her words were that she would not need that, but thanks for the offer. I told her that since the end of the term was getting close, that if I didn't hear from her for some reason, unless she objected I would assign her an incomplete in both courses. It turns out she had the baby, underestimated how tired she would be, and the demands of two children. I didn't hear from her until the last week of the term. It turns out that her other two instructors were unwilling to cut her any slack in deliverables, so my two courses took that hit. Fine by me. Within three weeks of the term being over, all of Beth's work had been submitted and was exemplary.
I was chastised by two peers, who pointed out that Beth knew she would be delivering a baby mid-term, and that she could have lowered her course load or even eliminated going to school for that term. I countered that in a job setting, a pregnancy is a medical matter, and I knew of no employer who wasn't expected to give time off for a new child.
Shortly after the situation with Beth, another student, Burt, who was doing good work for the first 4 weeks of the term, contacted me and apologized and said he would have to withdraw from his course. I suggested that we have one more phone conference to discuss things. Burt, like more than half my students, is an immigrant, and is struggling to learn, obtain credentials, get a better job, and well, we all know the stories. So Burt had signed up for 5 courses, and was overloaded (no kidding). But Burt's wife's hours had increased, and she couldn't say no, because he had lost his job, and she was the sole means of support. Furthermore, his wife's sister who had been nannying their kids, had to go back home on short notice. So Burt was suddenly unemployed, working a course overload, trying to make ends meet, and now watching two young children. He was overwhelmed, and didn't think he could get all his coursework done. From my perspective, he had learned a valuable lesson in over-committing. In Burt's course, he had completed the first phase, and the remainder of the course was three research papers and a final exam. I offered an incomplete, explained how it would work, and pointed out that our need to meet, and his need to use online materials was reducing. We could schedule the exam when he was ready, and he could write the three papers and submit them as he was able. The long and short was that Burt finished the other four courses, and received good grades. He completed the work for my course within 8 weeks of the end of the term. He did well in my course, and his papers were well written. He continues to work on his degree, and told me he will never sign up for an overload again.
In both the case of Beth and Burt, I did not feel that I had students shopping for incomplete grades. I did feel the students were financially strapped, time limited, resource limited, and that by offering incompletes, they were able to convert a situation which would probably cost them more tuition, cause their degree to take more time, and have an element of discouragement to their academic efforts.
The relationship between educators and students can be a special one. Kind of like a doctor-patient relationship. Or it can be a rather quantitative relationship of assignments, rubrics and graded outcomes. Having worked in the scientific and aerospace community for four decades, I have had a large number of relatively new hires working for me. Many come ill-prepared for work in industry. So in my courses, I have exercises which are similar to what they might encounter in industry. While I don't have specific exercises for how to treat people, I figure that a certain percentage of them will be supervisors, managers and leaders, and I want them to have developed judgment and experienced being "human." So I try to set an example and treat them as I would a valued employee.<issue_comment>username_1: At my institution, a part of the University System of Georgia, a grade of incomplete is allowed "only when the student has done satisfactory work up to the last two weeks of the semester, but for nonacademic reasons beyond his/her control is unable to meet the full requirements of the course."
Both the "last two weeks" part and the burden of proof required are at least somewhat subject to interpretation by the professor. The worse the non-academic event, the more liberal I'd probably be about timing. We do have a hardship withdrawal process for truly difficult circumstances.
Personally, I am very sparing with grades of incomplete. The last one was several years ago, for a deaf student who didn't *tell* me he was deaf, so I did not arrange accommodation for him.
I expect students who *start* a class unprepared to withdraw; a student who is failing at mid-term shapes up or fails the course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I tend to follow your general idea. We don't have a specific "incomplete" grade at our university, but students can be "lawfully absent" on an exam and can take that exam later on. This is especially for people who get ill during the exam period or who have serious life events like the departure of a loved one.
But there is an important difference in our approaches: I do request at all times proof for the circumstances. Otherwise any student who didn't feel like studying and fears he/she isn't going to make it, will attempt to get an incomplete. So I reckon part of the slack you get, is because you appear pretty naive in your approach. I can guarantee you that students know those things, and students will try to get an incomplete because they know you give one easily.
So that would be one way of dealing with the criticism while still giving your students a fair (and not overly expensive) shot at getting a grade.
On a sidenote: I teach in an advanced masters course, so many of our students are already on the job market. Therefor we also give all students a chance to change the date of their exam to a more suitable one **well before the exams actually take place**. Again, the point is to facilitate the students, not to give students without proper commitment another chance.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Recently, I had peers admonish me, with the argument that my approach was reducing revenue for faculty.
>
>
>
It is you who should be admonishing your peers, not them you. Your responsibility in deciding whether to give a student an incomplete grade is to do what in your estimation will lead to the best educational outcome for the student, subject to practical constraints on your time, availability etc. No other considerations should play a role, certainly not the desire to maximize the institution's revenue even when that goes against what you perceive to be the interests of the student. Frankly, I find your peers' argument to be blatantly unethical, and their willingness to not only admit to such an attitude but to even admonish you for not having it yourself to be quite disturbing.
>
> How is the assignment of an incomplete grade practically handled at your institution, and what are the thresholds for qualification for that grade?
>
>
>
At my institution, the [criteria for an incomplete grade](https://registrar.ucdavis.edu/records/grades/incomplete.cfm) are described as follows:
>
> According to Academic Senate Regulations, the grade of Incomplete ('I') may be assigned when a student’s work is of passing quality and represents a significant portion of the requirements for a final grade, but is incomplete for a good cause as determined by the instructor; good cause may include current illness, serious personal problems, an accident, a recent death in the immediate family, a large and necessary increase in working hours or other situations of equal gravity.
>
>
>
The key phrase is "as determined by the instructor".
>
> Is it appropriate to offer incomplete grades without requiring a particular level of hardship or requesting proof of that hardship?
>
>
>
Yes, it is appropriate (at my institution at least), though perhaps not wise, depending on the situation and the nature of the hardship claimed.
Finally, I should add that in my own experience, giving someone an incomplete is usually not the big favor they think it is, and in fact often ends up being a disservice to the student. Count me in with those who think incompletes should be given very sparingly, but for educational reasons rather than those cited by your colleagues.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: At my previous university, two similar departments put together online masters programs. From my understanding the programs were launched with the goal of teaching people that are currently have a 9-5 job and want to do school part time. But, these online programs were also launched under the guise of being highly profitable for the departments, as similar online programs had been. I'm not sure of the perspective of your peers, but they could be thinking that the goal of the program is one of profit not necessarily student success.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: The Associate Dean called yesterday, and this topic came up. The guidance I received was that he recognized the effort I made in assuring favorable outcomes for students, and encouraged me to take all liberties within policy to do so.
He went on to state that the institution incomplete policy left the decision solely with me, and that he supports and agrees with my decisions.
Furthermore, he stated that while some faculty may have opinions as to how students who encounter difficulties should handle matters, the fairness and benefit to the student should tilt any actions. He acknowledged that he had received "a couple of" complaints, and that he dismissed those, and encouraged those to work harder at student outcomes. He went on to state that student retention is more important than an additional "click" of tuition.
This isn't intended as a competing answer, as I am merely reporting an outcome at my institution.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: At my institution, [a grade of Incomplete indicates that the student has received an extension **from the dean of their college** to complete final exam or other requirements of a course](http://studentcode.illinois.edu/article3_part1_3-104.html). Individual instructors cannot give Incomplete grades directly. Instead, the student must submit a petition to their dean, with the instructor's signature indicating their approval, and the dean makes the final decision.
In practice, approval for an Incomplete requires serious extenuating circumstances (like Beth's pregnancy or Burt's family crisis in the original post). Poor performance in the course is not sufficient.
Incomplete grades automatically become Fs after the eighth week of the following semester if the student is still enrolled, or after one calendar year if the student leaves the university.
However, faculty also have the ability to [request a grade correction](http://studentcode.illinois.edu/article3_part1_3-106.html), and these requests are routinely granted—even years after the course has ended—as long as the new grade is higher than the old one. Thus, there is an informal mechanism for instructors to offer extensions and/or makeup work beyond the end of the course (or the eight-week deadline for clearing an Incomplete). In practice, at least in my department, very few students exercise this option.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/20
| 383
| 1,630
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied for a postdoc position in Denmark and was invited to an interview. The interview includes a ten minute presentation "of yourself and your research" targeted towards master students (the entire interview is 30 minutes). Presenting my research is expected and not a problem. But what does it mean to give a presentation of myself in such a context?
I have met one of the interviewers during a conference and discussed the position briefly, but the other is not familiar to me.
The interview is through Skype and I assume no master students will ever be exposed to it, in case that matters.<issue_comment>username_1: I can only guess, but from my own experience I think the phrasing "present yourself and your research" is an informal way of saying:
* Briefly introduce yourself, including your career/professional development and your research interests,
* thereafter devote the major part of your short talk to explaining the research that you want to pursue at the institution at which you are applying.
Good luck. The hearing for my current postdoc job was also via Skype, but it was much longer.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: That sounds like something HR added.
In other contexts I'd advise you to spend some time discussing your love for tennis and 18th century poetry, but in this scenario you want to focus on your academic achievements. Just lead with a sentence like 'Ever since I was a child, I've loved the idea of quarks...and so I'm excited today to fulfill that childhood dream and talk to you about my novel work in subatomic particles...'
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/20
| 6,995
| 29,480
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a 5th MSc semester mathematics student at a local German university. Since fall, I have been working on my thesis, which is the only remaining task for finishing my studies.
I had not had particular difficulties during my studies, apart from the usual struggling and doubts I suppose every student undergoes: before my masters studies, I had spent 7 semesters at another university on two BScs in physics and mathematics. I am paid by a public scholarship. I had decided to change the university for my master's half for personal reasons and half in order to have a greater choice in courses held. My average score is 1.5 at the moment, which also had been my final score for the two BScs.
Now that I have started my thesis, nearly everything has changed: I am working with a professor whose courses I took several of, all with good grades, so she did not object to supervising my thesis. Although I have not had severe problems with my studies before, I am getting nowhere with my work now:
For understanding a single paper I am supposed to work on I sometimes need weeks, let alone the questions posed to me to think on, which I sometimes spend weeks without any serious results I could present. I have the impression that I am lacking creativity, intuition and a sufficient knowledge which I think I should have acquainted during my courses.
My problems have driven me into particular personal problems: I have lost contact with most of my former colleagues I used to spend every weekend with, partially because they seem to have lost interest in spending time with me, and partially because my mind is governed by thinking of my inferior scientific performance and the conviction no one wants to have to do with such a poor student. I cannot enjoy leisure time since I permanently have to think of the open problems that haven't worked out over a long time. I cannot claim to have chosen a university where I am competing with the best.
For 1½ months I have been taking antidepressives and having psychotherapy, which barely helps to soften the biggest peaks of auto-aggression and contemplating self-harm, but have not yet helped me to find another view on what I'm doing.
**TL;DR**
Although my university performance seemed sufficient for me not to worry much about it, starting working on my master's thesis has revealed a vast lack of mathematical knowledge and poor mathematical working capabilities. The longer I work on it, the more I lose any self-esteem.
**Question:** Where should I have foreseen my problems? Which signs did I ignore? Where did I miss to put things on the right track? And: how shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else?<issue_comment>username_1: Nothing you've described sounds like a serious *academic* problem. Taking weeks to understand a paper, and working on a problem for weeks without results, are entirely normal in research mathematics. And there is always a large gap between what you learn in coursework and what you need for research.
Trying to get better by just working harder or longer can be counterproductive. It is important to spend time on other things, even when you feel like you're way behind.
Clearly you have some problems with mental health right now. I'm not qualified to advise you on that, but it's good that you're getting professional help, and it's only been 1.5 months - such issues don't usually get "cured" as quickly as that. Even if it takes time to get better and delays your academic progress, that's not a major problem. Academia works on very long timescales and several months of low productivity is nothing in the big picture.
At the end of the day, maybe you'll decide you just don't like doing mathematics research. That's okay too, there are lots of other things you can do with your life. Math is particularly difficult in this regard, in that math coursework has a very different flavor from doing research (exercises with short elegant solutions, versus long messy problems with awkward solutions that only accomplish half of what you really want). Liking coursework is not necessarily a good indication of the same for research, so a lot of people do leave the field at this stage. Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
Professional mathematicians tend to be people who really do enjoy doing mathematics research, and they tend to describe the work in terms that make it sound like it is *inherently* enjoyable and anyone that doesn't like it must be broken somehow. But that's not true. If you get better and discover that you enjoy it, great. If not, that's great too.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not in the business of remote diagnostics, but you sound like you are suffering from (mild) **burn-out**. You also sound like you are trapped in a vicious circle: setting (momentarily) over-ambitious goals, failing, losing trust in yourself, trying to prove yourself by setting over-ambitious goals -- rinse, leather, repeat.
Break the circle by taking a long vacation and find something that you enjoy. Perhaps other goals outside work, but maybe even better: A real treat that has nothing to do with achievement. Something just for you to feel good. You might want to involve your supervisor to some extent, at least by telling them that you are exhausted and need to take some time off in order to recharge.
But most of all: **Seek counsel**. Pick up the phone and talk to those old friends. Find out who is in charge of social-psychological counseling at your university (mostly "Sozialpsychologischer Dienst" at German universities) and make an appointment *now*. You are already in therapy, which is a great, if overdue decision. This will help, but it takes more time than nine weeks to change those harmful cognitive and behavioral patterns that you might have become accustomed to. You need some patience here.
In addition to resolving some more deep-seated issues through therapy, you might want to consider private coaching to address more technical problems. I had good success with a writing coach when I had a bad case of depressing writer's block during the last stage of my PhD.
You might also want to **team up** with others more often when reading difficult papers. It makes the thinking easier, and it's less lonely. Finally, many papers are just really hard and even bright students need weeks to figure them out. Don't beat yourself up; just try to adjust your expectations. Also in this regard, teaming up with others helps as a reality check.
Related questions:
* [How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student)
* ["I've somehow convinced everyone that I'm actually good at this" - how to effectively deal with Imposter Syndrome](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/ive-somehow-convinced-everyone-that-im-actually-good-at-this-how-to-effect)
* [How do you come to terms with the fact that you might never be among the best in your research community?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/87668/how-do-you-come-to-terms-with-the-fact-that-you-might-never-be-among-the-best-in/87669#87669)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, *you're doing the right thing by reaching out* and asking the community for the best way to proceed. There are people out there to help you! Many, many students have gone through similar situations and have found a way out. But first, let me address some of your questions.
>
> Where should I have foreseen my problems?
>
>
>
It sounds like one of the reasons you're struggling is being relatively new to research. Trying to discover something new is very, very different from taking courses, since you're working at the frontier of your discipline. That means it's hard - for everyone. In theory, you could have learned the difficulty of doing research by trying it out earlier (when the thesis wasn't hanging over your head) - but it's definitely not too late to adjust!
>
> Which signs did I ignore? Where did I miss to put things on the right
> track?
>
>
>
When you're spending weeks of your time feeling that you're not making any progress, it's probably time to talk to your advisor/grad students/someone experienced and ask for their advice. This is far better than struggling on your own and feeling worthless.
>
> How shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself
> incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else?
>
>
>
Regaining self-confidence is really important. **The fact that you've been struggling does not mean you're incapable of doing research**. I can think of several reasons why things have not been well, none of which are impossible to overcome:
* You might not have the necessary background
This would explain why reading papers takes so long. Start by identifying general topics discussed/used in the literature you need to understand. It's really hard to understand them from the work itself (I've been there), so I would recommend looking for more general resources like textbooks, online courses, etc. Once you understand the fundamentals, it will be much easier to understand what the authors are trying to do. And no, you weren't necessarily supposed to get it all from your courses, since some of the topics may be specific to your particular area of work.
* This particular area is not your calling
Many scientists change research areas and even disciplines several times before finding the one they like. If you are not excited by your work, that's ok! It might or might not be too late in the year to switch to a different area altogether, but in either case, the fact that this particular line of work has not been successful does not mean others will not be much easier/better suited for your interests.
* The problem you're working on is really hard
Since you're not an experienced researcher who has spent decades in the field, it is expected (by most people, at least) that you cannot just jump in and start cracking complicated math problems people have been working on for years. Maybe your problem is just really difficult! I'd say, at this point the most important thing for you is to finish your degree without completely destroying your nerves and your ability to perform research at any point in the future. That means - pick a problem you can solve! Even if it's really small, this little personal victory might help you remember what it's like to actually solve something. Then, think of the smallest possible set of problems you need to solve in order to put together a thesis. If you can do something other than what you've been doing, that might help. If not, get the background knowledge you need (see the first bullet point), break down your tasks into small parts, and ask for advice if you run into roadblocks!
Most importantly, don't be too hard on yourself. Research is hard, and you've experienced that first hand. And remember, you are not alone. I've found [MIT graduate student blog](http://gradadmissions.mit.edu/blog/browse/category/fear-and-failure/) to be very helpful, since oftentimes students share their own struggles - and how they learned to cope. So definitely check it out and best of luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Any or all of the other answers may be correct, but here's one additional idea: You said you are on anti-depressants. This implies that something physiological is messing with your brain. If so, it may also be interfering with your ability to concentrate and reason. Some anti-depressants can also have that effect.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think the first to address are your health issues. Depression makes it really hard to concentrate on work. When I was on antidepressants I remember reading and re-reading papers with no other result than increasing frustration. In my opinion, you shouldn't even work while on antidepressants. It's like trying to run with a sprained ankle confident that it would work since the joint is immobilized.
As others pointed out, your depression could be a consequence of the burnout. Many of us have had the same issues you describe. And we got upset for not making progress, for not having time to go out with friends, etc. The wrong answer to this is to work longer ours and to worry about your fitness for an academic career. Unfortunately, many do just that, and end up either depressed, or they simply leave the academia. And it has very little to do with their actual potential as researchers.
To get things under control, I'd suggest what doctors suggested me to in order to keep my mental illness under control: develop healthy life routines and re-socialize. For example, keep waking up at the same time and try sleeping the same number of hours at night, eat the meals at the same hours, start and finish work at the same hours, and religiously take your medicines. The second part is to set aside time to go out with friends. They have to trust you that on certain days you will always be free to spend time with them. If not, try hanging out with your current colleagues.
You also talk about taking a lot of time to understand papers. In my field, there are two ways to read a paper: a) just get the information on what the paper is about and what new result is reported, b) study the paper carefully, so you can reproduce their result and use the techniques developed there in your own work. Needless to say, b) takes the longest, so a few weeks to a few months is understandable. But, a) can be also frustrating if you are new to a field and you have trouble even with the terminology.
You shouldn't worry if there seem to be gaps in your knowledge. The more you learn, the more you realize that those gaps are infinite abysses. Your job as a researcher is to venture into those abysses and find beautiful and exotic things no one has seen before you. Course work, reading and your own work, only serve to give you some support. Again, it is counterproductive to question your academic ability. It is better to look for ways to improve your efficiency and work quality. And for that, do not hesitate to talk openly to your colleagues and adviser.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I am not in the field of mathematics myself, but as an outsider, I think mathematics is very hard and what you are describing sounds pretty normal for a mathematician. Only I think you set a bar way too high for a master thesis. Five semesters for a masters program sounds pretty hardcore to me. This is not a PhD. Your mindset at this point should be to "get it done!". Focus on getting your diploma as fast as possible and getting it over with. Masters courses are not designed to get students to make scientific discoveries. If you want that, go for a PhD after you get your masters degree.
Also, check if your meds have dizziness, drowsiness, etc. side effects. Those will chemically turn your brain off. I can't do intellectual work even if I take cold meds.
Finally, if you haven't seen it yet, watch [A Beautiful Mind (2001)](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268978/). As you do that, remember the main character there is arguably the greatest mathematician ever, he is doing a PhD in a world's top university, and he is still struggling.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As a current student studying computer science, sometimes when working on bigger and more serious projects, I as well feel like creativity is missing and the knowledge that was lectured by the professors is not enough. The first step to those type of problems (this is entirely in my opinion) is to stop and to acknowledge that what you got is not enough. You will need to dig harder in order to succeed in your projects. On my recent project that took almost 6 months to develop, 2.5 of those months were like a hole. Nothing I was doing was productive but took some time to reflect and plan exactly step-by-step what I needed and I got it done. My advice to you is that you need to plan small steps to achieve the final goal, which in your case is the thesis, and the time where you think you're not productive nor creative don't think it's negative, by the contrary, it's normal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I have spent lot of time in research projects. So what you are going through is completely normal. As it is research, you need to go through lot of material, digest them and wrap your head around them and then spend lot of thinking time to apply them to your context. There will be lots of ups and downs, failures, restarts, feelings of inadequacy when you are unable to think through. You need to accept this as part and parcel of doing research.
How I coped with this? When doubts came, I reminded myself that people saw something in me which made them accept me for such work. The more time you spend doubting yourself, the less time you have to think with clarity on your actual work. Secondly, I consumed myself with reading - the more I realized I didn't know, the more I read.The more doubts I had, the more I experimented. That way I found so many ways of not doing something. The process of elimination leads to the right way. There is always light at the end of the tunnel. Thirdly, I spent some time doing what I liked whenever I had any mental block.
Research is overwhelming but as you have been accepted for it, that itself is a great affirmation that you can do it. My advice is avoid the pitfall of negative thinking and promise yourself that you will not waste a single minute entertaining thoughts which are not related to your research.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: TL;DR: Be superficial with papers. Most of them aren't important anyway. Try to catch the broad idea or the reason why you don't need them. Focus on few important ones and don't worry to spend weeks on each of these.
Follow any idea you get.
Cut your topic in parts some of which are easy to solve. Discuss the partition with your prof.
Don't focus on psychology but on mathematics and some fun.
---
@username_1 said "there is a large gap between what you learn in coursework and what you need for research." I want to deepen this because it might give you some hints where your mathematical thinking might still be too much student-like and too less researcher-like.
As a student, you are focused on achieving your exercises and exams. Both are closely connected to the matter of the respective lecture, so the lecture's content always gives hints on how to solve the tasks: The intended solutions often apply a theorem from the lecture or mimic a proof of such a theorem. There is few incentive to use knowledge from other fields, because such problems would be too hard for students that happen not to have (yet) studied the other field. So "exam knowledge" is often detailed but narrow.
Research questions don't give such hints. In fact, innovative and cool research often consists of applying thoughts from an alien field to an old problem. So for research work, your mathematical knowledge needs to be a broad overview without focusing too much on details. You need to know what is in your mathematical toolbox. You don't need do know how each tool works in detail, since once you find a useful tool-thought, you can and will easily afford some months to work out the details in a rigorous way.
This leads to another important skill for mathematical research. It is that paper reading you are struggling with. You say you take too much time to understand them thoroughly. But this is normal. Therefore, nobody (well, except the peer reviewers, I hope, and the ones who want to improve exactly its result) ever tries to understand a paper thoroughly. Most of the time a superficial understanding is sufficient to know why you don't have to consider a particular paper any more. Find brief words of this superficial understanding for the discussion with your prof and later for your thesis and then move on to the next paper. In the end, there will be only a handful of important papers for your thesis. Once you have them identified, don't worry about some weeks to study each of them thoroughly.
If any paper triggers some --maybe unrelated-- idea to you, feel free to follow this thought for some hours. Make some notes about it, they may come in handy later on. Also this way you exercise getting ideas apart from the guidance of a lecture.
Unfortunately, many professors aren't aware that paper reading is a skill students might need help to get accustomed at. So tell your professor what you understand and what not. What does she think of a paper you both read?
Another important research skill is to cut your overall research topic in separate small chunks and find the specific research question to answer (in this order!). Half of the chunks are ideas you have already in your toolbox, half of them are "real work" you'll solve somehow. Discuss these things with your professor. On some things she'll give you some hints ("I know this is not feasible because...", "yes, this might work with the idea in paper ...") and on some things she'll show you that you aren't that bad as a researcher because she doesn't have a clue as well.
So your questions: "Which signs did I ignore?" -- In one of my final exams, the professor asked me about the broad idea of a theorem without formulas. I knew the mathematical proof but I wasn't able to "proof by picture". This worsened my grade but taught me an important lesson about research thinking I am still thankful for. Maybe you happened to miss something like that.
"Where did I miss to put things on the right track?" -- You did not. It's still the right time to adjust your way of working as mentioned above. Also, reiterating the other's answers take breaks, do some sports, meet friends. This "rearranges" your thoughts. I get many of my ideas cycling in the countryside.
"How shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else?" -- Focus on mathematics, not on your psychological condition or on the treatment. That's the psychologist's job, not yours. If you want to solve a mathematical problem, your sorrows about "value in yourself" is of no concern, it's rather a distraction.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: **It is completely normal to feel stupid when doing research.** Often, you cannot see how to solve a problem right away. Sometimes it takes a long time to even figure out what the problem is. This is part of doing research. It is maddening at times. It is depressing at times. You are creating new knowledge and mastering new knowledge on the edge of knowledge advancement.
It is not at all like learning at an undergraduate level, where the answers exist somewhere and have been filtered through textbooks, better explanations, real applications, and analogy.
I recommend this short essay article from the Journal of Cell Science: [**"The importance of stupidity in scientific research"**](http://jcs.biologists.org/content/joces/121/11/1771.full.pdf)
I also recommend <NAME>'s new MOOC [**"Mindshift: Break Through Obstacles to Learning and Discover Your Hidden Potential"**](https://www.coursera.org/learn/mindshift)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: There are a lot of very good answers here, especially the suggestion to take a break, but I would like to point out one important take away from my personal experience: **Return to your motivation**. Research in general is not only difficult and frustrating for everyone (even those who put on a good face), but also is constantly evolving be nature, which makes people who are at any given moment *not* moving forward feel like **[imposters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome)** even though this non-differentiable progress is part of the process. Use the knowledge of this psychological paradox to ease your mind, and then review your motivations.
I also double majored in physics and mathematics, and I earned a masters in computer science afterwards. I then worked for 3 years at an R&D firm and am now back earning my PhD in Robotics. I changed my field a few times, albeit in small moves, because as I reviewed the problems I was taking on I realised that my original perceptions oI can tell you with certainty that through this entire process I have gotten into a rabbit hole with my work more than once, and there are a few solutions, but the most helpful one for me is to return to the original questions. Ask yourself:
* **What problem was I originally trying to examine? and why?** I know as a masters student you don't often have a lot of say in what you are doing, but you often have more control over how you do it then you think.
* **Why was I interested in this, were my original perceptions about what made this problem interesting correct, and what has changed about my understanding of the problem given what I know doesn't work?** This question is extremely important because if you return to the original problem with your new-found knowledge you will likely find that, given what you now know, you would have probably taken a different approach.
The answers to these questions will make you feel a lot less "boxed in", and if you end up wanting to continue pursuing this question, it will give you a lot of clarity on your next steps.
To your specific questions:
* **Where should I have foreseen my problems?** Realistically, you couldn't have. People who have success anticipating and avoiding failure fall squarely into 2 categories: people who are *lucky* and people who have *failed a lot* and pulled themselves up. Anyone who seems otherwise is masking the truth, or you don't know their whole story. Remember, all research is like 5% success, 70% failing and moving on, and 25% failing and trying again. You should never feel alone, as you aren't. We researchers are here with you :)
* **Which signs did I ignore?** In all likelihood, none. I have a huge problem with this aspect of research; that the results are all that is exposed to the outside world, and the process is so separate from everything. I suggest it to everyone, but you have got to read **[The PhD Grind](http://www.pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir/pguo-PhD-grind.pdf)** by <NAME>. This guy graduated from MIT with incredible success, went to Stanford for his PhD, and a few months in immediately felt his world collapsing around him. He documents his struggles, his good times and bad, and how he eventually came out after taking the time (much longer than he expected) to figure out what really drove him and how to live his life in spite of feeling like his ideas didn't always pan out. It is what motivated to go back to academia after I left, and could really help (its free, and a very quick read!)
* **Where did I miss to put things on the right track?** Common misconception: there isn't a *right* track, it just feels that way because you see other people and think "Thats where *I should* be. That is right" It isn't (see the first bullet point), it is just there track, and you have yours. Not to get too philosophical, but we are here for a limited time, and there is no knowing how what we do will effect the future. As such, the "right track" for you must be a more holistic gauge; **continue trying things, continue caring about yourself and the world around you, do not remain idle, and you will find that you will be able to look back on your "track" proud of the path you took.**
* **How shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else?** Finding value in ones self is a hard pursuit, and do not pay attention to those who trivialize it or propose a quick "silver bullet" answer. I believe firmly, however, that you can find value in action (see above). Pursue life relentlessly, and you will find that the question is not about finding value in general, but finding it in what you *do*, whether you succeed or otherwise. That might be this research, it might be different research, and it might not be research at all (never forget that there are many companies that would kill for your skill set), but as long as you continue *pursuing* value and *pursuing* your path, there is value in the pursuit itself.
I also would like to say that while it may seem as though you have "lost everything else", not only is all that is lost recoverable, but as you are a masters student there is so much more life that you will engage as you continue forward, no matter your field or interests. You say you are a poor student, but objectively you aren't as your studies demonstrate (see above, research is hard!). You say that professors don't want to work with you, but I assure you that professors are very willing to give students a chance with little background (else how did we all get started?! :) ). Lastly, you say that your colleagues are disinterested, but remember what people want from each other: engagement, empathy, sympathy, and support. The minute you stop letting your rabbit hole swallow you whole and you **reconsider your motivations**, you will find not only clarity in your problem and your path, but you will also find that separating yourself from your work is just as important as doing work. Good luck, and never stop asking for support and help.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/20
| 535
| 2,312
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm studying Bachelors in Computer Science.
I've taken a course this semester where the professor requires us to write research paper inorder to complete the course. High quality papers from this course are published in journals like Springer.
So I was wondering - how will undergrad research effect my application for masters or my career further down the road?<issue_comment>username_1: It's always hard to tell exactly what people think of your application, but I was accepted to a masters (and PhD, one semester later, after I dropped the masters) in chemistry, and I am reasonably confident that I would not have been if not for the 2 semesters of research I had on my resume, as my GPA was kind of weak (2.95, but 3.3 if you ignore the first year).
It's a common saying that "GPA keeps you out of a graduate program, but doesn't get you in; something else does", and depending on what your field is, that "something else" could be research.
Also, it sounds like your course will give you excellent writing practice, which is often unfairly delegated as low priority.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In every program I've been involved in, undergraduate research in some form has been considered a positive, and often the most compelling single piece of an application (the other being letters...especially letters discussing undergraduate research).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Undergraduate research always looks good when you're applying for graduate school. If you already have a research paper, then even better! Everything you can do to separate your self from the pack is good to do. If you do some undergrad research, it can look good on a job application as well because it shows that you were capable of handling many projects at the same time.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: It is undeniably a positive, but perhaps not for the reason you think.
If your undergrad project is similar to the research of someone you plan to apply to, that is certainly a benefit, but more importantly: it demonstrates you understand what graduate school is about. PIs like to know that the students they hire have an idea of what they're getting themselves into. To the extent your project accomplishes that, you will have a leg up
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/20
| 586
| 2,466
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to publish a paper based on my MSc. thesis in software engineering.
I have considered myself, as the first name of the paper, and my supervisor as the second one, since I was the person behind everything. He was much concern about the structure of the thesis, and in scientific contribution, his share was something around %16.
But someone told me, a supervisor should always be the first name, because he has supervised the research. Is it true? But, i think it is not fair?
The questions are:
1- Does the order of authors' names convey some message?
2- Is it true that supervisor should be the first name?<issue_comment>username_1: The answer depends on the field of research. For example, in most areas of mathematics and some of theoretical physics, authors are listed alphabetically. In other fields this is different, and there typically the first author is the one that did most of the work. In such fields the first author position is the most prestigious one. The last author typically has a role more on the background, for example by posing the research project and/or playing an advising role.
I have never heard of any convetion where the supervisor is the first author if they didn't do the majority of the work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In my area of manufacturing engineering it seems to depend mostly on the professor or the cultural perspective. What I've seen in the US is: 1st person that did all the work, last: person that got the money, middle: others. Some of my German colleagues will have to put the prof first I believe, but their university research system is completely different from US systems.
I suggest asking your professor, or look to see what the papers did that you cited.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: As others mentioned, it partially depends on your field, but a general rule (with exceptions) is:
First author is person who primarily conducted the work and the person who wrote most of the paper.
Last author is the PI.
Contributors in the middle.
Sometimes you have 'co-first authors' but even then, order matters.
In the cases I've seen where a PI takes first author, it's been due to two reasons:
1. The PI is junior
2. The student is unable or incapable of writing the manuscript for some reason
The best advice to take away is that authorship should be discussed upfront and in advance. This won't help you here, but will in the future.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/20
| 672
| 2,733
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are our academia research minds just so trained to constantly climb our mental mountains that when achieving some success, one feels, "that was it?", even when the past leading up to the success was absolutely brutal in terms of work load and stress and creative thinking, so that one would think the feeling would be more joyous.
Does it always just kind of feel that way? Does the rewarding feeling dissipate very quickly?<issue_comment>username_1: The payoffs in academia can be just as drawn out as the process needed to achieve them. If you wanted immediate gratification, you'd be in finance....or other.
Watch your h-index. Watch your citation count. Send your papers (unsolicited) to relevant labs. Give talks at conferences. But more importantly, have patience. This stuff takes time. Even a landmark paper can take years to earn citations.
But immediately, **take personal pride** in your accomplishments. Few people get to be a part of science. Every hard-won victory will stay with you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The reward is pretty temporary.
There are definitely dramatic high points in academics- publishing a paper, making tenure, graduating a student, etc. Those are cool, but those are relatively rare occurrences. You can't judge the experience of climbing a mountain just based on how it felt when you got to the top. If you hate the entire experience of climbing up and down then you're spending 99% of your time hating the experience and only enjoying the dramatic moment.
Academics as a profession has no ending point, there's simply a process of continual improvement. No one is ever going to publish the last paper that explains everything and your teaching material is never going to get to a place where it's finally perfect. You're never going to get to the top of academics and declare that you're finished, so the day to day work you do is what you need to enjoy in order to feel fulfilled. This is true in most careers.
You need to define success clearly for yourself. What does it mean for you to be successful? Is it publishing so many papers in a year? Is it solving some problem close to your heart? Is it getting tenure? Is it becoming an editor of a journal in your field? Is it making a lot of money? Is it having time with your family?
Success is something that feels good when you're doing it. Everyone has hiccups, doldrums, or other low points in their career. That's normal, and not every day will be a good day (or year, or project, or paper, etc.). But, your routine work should be something you feel is enjoyable and fulfilling. If not, you're going to burn out sooner or later. This is true for any career, not just academics.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/21
| 2,406
| 10,435
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am not seeking a masters or PhD degree, but I would like to do a research paper and have it peer reviewed academically? Is this possible? If so, where and how to do it?
**Addendum**:
Thank you for all your comments and answers. These have clarified many aspects to this project. I have several research projects to pursue. The one where I would need the most specific direction would be the following.
**Feasibility of using mosquitoes for large scale inoculation and/or medication of mammal (hopefully human) populations.** We all know how effective these insects are as vectors for spreading disease. There is no reason I can think of why this ability cannot be exploited for said positive benefit.
I approached a local pharmaceutical firm about the research project but have not received any response. I don't think most pharmaceutical firms would be interested in this research unless they can figure out a way to eventually get compensated for the gratis mass distribution of their pharmaceuticals if the project goes beyond research and successfully applied. Although these and other challenges are significant, none are practically insurmountable and can be resolved. The potential benefit from eventual application of the project should make the research worthwhile. Indeed, part of the research would be the cost/benefit analysis from several perspectives.
I have searched on the Internet and have not found such a project. I have found some information on genetically engineering mosquitoes for faux mating to eliminate mosquito populations such as [this one](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dengue-case-for-genetically-modified-mosquitoes/) .
Genetic engineering should not be necessary for said project since we are utilizing the already natural modus operendi of this insect, but another aspect of the research would be the potential benefit of GE for said goal.
one would be marking the mosquitos genetically to distinguish from the rest; making them glow maybe.
I hope spelling out the specifics of the research didn't compromise the scope of topic for this forum. If so, I welcome comments from moderators as to which SE site may be more appropriate. Thank you for your comments and answers. I look forward to reading more.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure about a Thesis, since there you need to have the backing of an Academic Institution as far as I am aware.
But as far as a research paper is concerned, you could get the support you need from within any organisation which invests a decent amount of resources in Research and Development. Organisations such as Microsoft in IT publish [papers](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/fast-training-of-support-vector-machines-using-sequential-minimal-optimization/?from=http%3A%2F%2Fresearch.microsoft.com%2Fapps%2Fpubs%2F%3Fid%3D68391) under [Microsoft's](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/) name.
I think it depends largely on your area and organisation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's not impossible, but in this day and age it is **extremely rare** for individuals unaffiliated with research institutions (academic or commercial) to *successfully* publish scientific research papers on their own (without research-institute affiliated co-authors) in good journals (bogus journals publish almost anything for a fee).
The main reasons are that in order to pursue cutting edge research, one usually needs
1. access to all relevant publications;
2. regular exchange of ideas with other researchers;
3. access to hardware (for performing the research tasks).
4. a living and financial support for the research (including possible publication charges)
Points 1&2 are more fundamental, since if you don't know where the cutting edge of research in a particular field is (or don't know the relevant terminology), then you cannot contribute.
I should also note that there are quite a few *unsuccessful* manuscript submission from unaffiliated persons, but many are often not even considered for peer review by the journal editors for two possible reasons: (1) because the manuscript does not appear to meet the standards and (2) because the editor strongly suspect it doesn't, because of the author's affiliation. So there is another potential hurdle: editorial bias.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I would like to do a thesis or research paper and have it peer reviewed academically? Is this possible? If so, where and how to do it?
>
>
>
Can you do the research all on your own?
If yes, go right ahead with writing a research paper on your own in your own home and send it to the editor of a scientific peer-reviewed journal you deem appropriate for the content. Follow the author guidelines and under affiliations just insert your own address. It's probably a good idea to follow the style of other scientific publications. If the editor and the reviewers deem your research paper good enough you'll get a peer-reviewed research paper. If it gets rejected, you can still submit it somewhere else. In principle, there is no difference between being a private person or coming from a prestigious science factory (although in practice there might be some difference).
A thesis is usually a requirement for an academic degree. Since you are not interested in academic degrees I advice you not to pursue a thesis (which would also likely require some studies before), but concentrate on research papers.
You cannot do the research all on your own?
Contact a suitable person, research group leader, ... state your interest in a collaboration and negotiate as a goal the writing of a research paper. If you can find someone, do your part and give your home address as affiliation when writing the paper.
It may be harder to write a research paper on your own than when being employed as a scientist but it is also not forbidden and the process of getting the paper peer-reviewed and published is exactly the same.
P.S. Some journals charge you for the publication of a research paper with them. If you do the research and publication on your own, you'll have to pay these fees. In you are in a collaboration, your partners from academia will likely pay these fees, so this might be the cheaper variant.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It can also depend (as others have said) on what governing bodies or institutions play a role in your field. In my field, a dominant accrediting body has strict guidelines and ethical bylaws covering field research. You have to submit your proposal and consent forms to a board before even getting their blessing to go ahead with the research (and part of being in compliance is being accredited aka a postgrad degree). If not you'll be automatically rejected. You could probably do a meta-study or survey without it in this field, but no hard research.
I like Trilarion's answer best though. Worst comes to worst you write a kickass paper and don't get published. That would only put you in the same boat as almost all degree and non-degree holders out there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I am going to assume that you have access to a strong set of journals through an academic library and that you have more than sufficient resources to carry out the research. If that is the case, then yes you can do it on your own. Your greatest challenge is the challenge a person with a doctorate faces when doing research outside their discipline, which is reading and understanding the literature.
For my own work, I found myself at the edges of my discipline and in the edges of another discipline. In the end, I took graduate courses to do catch up. I needed to learn about Borel tribes, Greenian functions, analytic functions in the complex plane and the residue around a singularity or pole. Without professional guidance, I would have probably come to the wrong conclusions. There are little things in the literature that turn out to be big deal, but they are not prominent in the literature because everyone with a doctorate in the field knows about them.
As you move up the literature of a field you get further and further away from an undergraduate level of discussion. Because academic papers are judged, in part, on the observed writing level of the author, you may have a limited ability to avoid being "desk rejected."
Desk rejection is a journal editor's tool to prevent low-quality articles from reaching reviewers. It also prevents high-quality articles, that also would not be of interest to the journal's audience, from reaching reviewers. You cannot just send your papers to any journal, they have to match what the audience is looking for.
If I were you, I would go back to a professor I had in college and tell them what you are wanting to do. I would ask for some time to talk about what the research is, why you are motivated to do it, and what obstacles you are likely to encounter. The bulk of research is planning. The actual results and so forth take up very little time usually.
There are a couple of advantages to this. First, your research may already have been done. It may even have been done repeatedly. Second, you may find that there are known problems in the field that researchers spend a lot of time accounting for that you know nothing about.
Let's imagine your data normally suffers from heteroskedasticity, you cannot just run some computer program to correct for it because you will need to know which type of computer program to run for it. Heteroskedasticity is caused by different things. You may have a functional form for it, or you could have to use something like ARCH or GARCH.
If your type of data is known to suffer from heteroskedasticity and you do not address this in your paper then you are going to be desk rejected because you obviously don't know enough about your field for anyone to take the time to carefully look at the paper.
Yes, you can submit a paper for peer review, but you will be held to graduate level standards. If you decide to do this, go get help first. Even if this is research in history, get help. If your thesis is far away from the field because it already considered your idea and discarded it, then unless you have amazing new raw data, such discovering a treasure trove of new letters by <NAME>, then you will also get desk rejected.
Sincerely, I wish you the best of luck and go get support from someone.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/21
| 1,409
| 6,253
|
<issue_start>username_0: My regression tables have coefficient estimates, standard errors, and significance stars indicating the range of p-values (e.g. two stars means p < 0.05).
A reviewer wants the exact p-values. I personally think it would make the table more cluttered than it already is, and I have 12 regression tables.
Should I adopt the reviewer's suggestion, simply because they are the ones who will play a big role in determining whether my paper is accepted? Or should I attempt to explain, saying that the p-value can be calculated from the coefficient estimates and standard errors (besides, the significance stars already give a good guide to the p-value?)
=====
Edit: I decided to get rid of the significance stars and insert the p-values. Thanks for the feedback! (Interestingly, the paper was accepted, and the reviewer recommended the paper for acceptance, but they suggested I have both the significance stars and the p-value. But I didn't take their comment)<issue_comment>username_1: In general you are not obliged to comply with all reviewer wishes in your revision, unless maybe the editor has mentioned such a point explicitly in the decision letter. If you don't want to follow a reviewer's suggestion for revision, just explain in your response letter in a factual way why you choose to do so, and see what the editor and reviewer think about it. You have good points for such a response in your question already.
I would nevertheless suggest to make the reviewer's life as easy as possible. Even if you don't want to have them in the paper, you could maybe add a list of p-values to the response letter for exactly that comment, stating that for the convenience of the reviewer you calculated the p-values from the data given in the paper (instead of expecting the reviewer to do this). You could also offer to put such a list in any supplementary material if the journal has such and the reviewer thinks it's important that readers see that.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Something like this should not influence the final decision of the editor. Further, this is not a fight worth having with the editor/reviewer so you should be flexible and accommodating.
You should check past issues and see what the format is. If p-values, regression coefficients, and standard errors are typically provided, you should probably do that. If only 2 are provided, go with those. Assuming regression coefficients and standard errors are typically provided, in your rebuttal letter a statement along the lines of
>
> Following what we think is the standard format for *Journal Title*, we have only included the regression coefficients and standard errors. As the p-value can be estimated from these values, there is no loss of information. We would be happy to make a change if our understanding of the standard format is incorrect or if an exception should be made in this case. For your convenience we have attached a copy of the tables with the p-values included to this letter.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the suggestions to include the exact p-values to make the referee happy, I also want to add that including the p-values explicitly (rather than making your readers calculate it themselves if they want to know) will make your readers more happy as well.
When I read a paper, I hope the author has included as much information as I need to understand what I need to from the paper without having to do a lot of footwork myself.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Explain that the table would be too cluttered **and** include a full table with the p values in the response.
Sometimes requests like these are there to determine if the values (p values in this case) are acceptable in all cases. "I want to see the values" does not always mean that they *must* be in the paper. He/she might literally mean that he/she wants to *personally* see the values for review purpose.
As a reviewer, I have asked extra info just to see if everything is alright and as an author I have provided reviewers with extra information on the reply to assure that everything is alright and missing things are really not there only because it really does not fit into the page limits.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I understand your objection to putting in redundant information, but are your tables as-is really all that cluttered? With just coefficients, standard error, and some coded asterisks, along with a label for each row, that sounds like just 3 columns (no need for the asterisks to be their own column).
Unless I am missing something, I'd recommend just adding the p-values to appease the reviewer in your revision. If it causes a problem with typesetting and organization, you could ask the editor for their preference, which might overrule the reviewer or result in a movement to supplementary material.
Just as a personal preference, I'd usually rather see coefficients and confidence intervals rather than standard errors, p-values, and significance stars, if we are limiting to just a couple items. Confidence intervals are much more flexible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: **Subject Matter Answer:**
You should do as the reviewer asks. Regression stars are vague and non-specific, and amplify differences that are actually trivial. They are a coarser version of the same information, and considerably less useful.
I'm also skeptical that the difference between "\*" and "0.46" is what's going to make your table too cluttered.
If anything, the most defensible answer based on "the p-value can be calculated from the coefficient estimates and standard errors" is to drop both.
**Academia Answer**
The answer to what you should do will depend very much on the reviewers, and how big a deal they want to make of this - as well as the journal's stance on it. There are journals I review for where this objection (and indeed, the p-values generally) are likely enough to derail the entire paper. There are others where this is of less concern.
The question then becomes "Is another round of review worth potentially not having to reformat my tables?"
I can't imagine a circumstance where I would answer "Yes" to this, but YMMV.
Upvotes: 4
|
2017/06/21
| 1,883
| 7,592
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. On the first round of review, 3 reviewers had different comments and I tried my best to answer them. On the second round of review, two of them were almost satisfied but the third one had an aggressive tone and asked some questions that were completely answered in the paper or were basically wrong questions.
I answered the reviewer's comments and sent the paper, but one of my friends told me that it was better to ask the editor-in-chief to change the reviewer. I want to know, is that possible? How?<issue_comment>username_1: Certainly you can ask. It's not impossible that the editor would agree, though it's pretty unlikely.
What you describe:
>
> the third one had an aggressive tune and ask some questions that were completely answered in the paper or were basically wrong question.
>
>
>
is normal. Many reviewers take an aggressive tone. Often they ask questions that were answered in the paper. The correct response to "an aggressive tone" is to reply in a professional tone, and the correct response to a question that is answered in the paper is to accept that you were not clear enough in the paper, and to improve the explanation.
(Note, by the way, that this one short sentence I quoted has three grammatical/spelling errors. If this represents how the paper was written, it's not surprising that the paper was unclear, and the reviewer's annoyance is perfectly understandable.)
As for the "basically wrong question" ... [here's an illustration of how common the "reviewer number three" syndrome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY) is.
I'm not saying it's good that one out of three reviewers is borderline incompetent. I'm saying that this is part of the territory, this is something every scientist has to deal with, and we don't, can't possibly, all write to the editor and demand they remove Reviewer Number Three. Instead, what we all do is extract the useful parts of the review, accept that if the reviewer doesn't understand something it's mainly our fault for being unclear and fix that, and work as best we can with the reviewer's concerns. In your response to the reviewer, you can clearly and professionally explain why the point is mistaken, and explain what you have done to help clarify it.
Editors often (I think; I know it happens sometimes) unofficially deprecate particular reviews, based on their reading. They are just as good at detecting "aggressive" and outright hostile reviews, and know to put less weight on it.
But you can ask the editor to remove a reviewer. They're more likely to listen if the reviewer is not just aggressive, but outright hostile; when the reviewer makes an unambiguous statement that isn't just a minority opinion, but is flat wrong, and you can clearly show that; or when the reviewer is just completely out of their depth.
But the burden is on you to absolutely clearly, professionally, with no trace of hurt feelings or antagonism, show that the reviewer is without doubt incompetent. If you can't do every part of that 100%, don't even bother. Deal with it the way all the rest of us do.
You may want to look at other answers to questions in the "peer-review" tag to get a sense of the community's feelings:
* [How common is it to get one very positive and one very negative review?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69669/how-common-is-it-to-get-one-very-positive-and-one-very-negative-review?rq=1)
* [A frequent reviewer seems to have a grudge against me. What to do?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58622/a-frequent-reviewer-seems-to-have-a-grudge-against-me-what-to-do)
* [What to do if reviewers reject a paper without understanding the content?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5865/what-to-do-if-reviewers-reject-a-paper-without-understanding-the-content)
* [How to proceed when reviewers reject your manuscript but you believe there is no scientific basis for their objections?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/79683/how-to-proceed-when-reviewers-reject-your-manuscript-but-you-believe-there-is-no?noredirect=1&lq=1)
And many more.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Well, of course it's possible to ask the editor-in-chief to change the reviewer: you would do that by writing to the editor-in-chief and asking them to change the reviewer.
However, I disagree that it is a good idea to do this. Although it must happen every now and then, changing the reviewer on request of the author is (in my experience at least) highly irregular and sounds like a "a big ask." In order to grant this request, the editor would have to understand and agree that this reviewer's comments are totally out of line. But an editor who feels this way is prepared to not hold this reviewer's comments against you anyway. And the converse is not true: I think many editors would rather keep a reviewer and not hold (all or some of) their critiques against the author than go through the formal procedure of finding a new reviewer upon the author's request.
Instead I recommend that you carefully consider all of the reviewers' comments, make changes when you think they are appropriate, and send along a document describing the changes you made and also explanations for why you didn't make certain requested changes. If you feel that you are right and a reviewer is wrong: say so, clearly, factually, and politely.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it possible to ask editor-in-chief to change a reviewer?
>
>
>
In your situation, I think you are asking the wrong question. The "right" question might be something like: How do I deal with an "annoying" referee?
In this case, I suggest addressing, in a professional manner, this reviewer's comments as you have before. Additionally, send the editor-in-chief a separate note describing your concerns about this particular reviewer so that the EiC
1. is made aware of the situation and
2. can weigh the reviewer's comments and your responses to those in a more objective fashion.
Again, you want to be professional in your communications to the EiC.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As a past editor-in-chief of an IEEE magazine, I never had an author ask for this, and as an author of several journal and magazine articles, I've never thought to request it regardless of how much I disliked or disagreed with a review.
Instead, I think authors should play the cards they're dealt. [@Pete\_L\_Clark's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/91160/41302) makes the point that you should simply respond to reviewer comments, and push back on those you might disagree with. I'll add to this that if you make a strong enough point about why a reviewer is mistaken, I think an editor will either push back on the reviewer or opt to go to someone else in re-review. This of course assumes that you get a revision outcome of some sort; if it's rejected because of the review you disagree with, you really have no recourse other than submitting elsewhere.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think Tail of Godzilla needs at least one level deeper an analysis of the problem than is shown in the question. It should be possible to tell from the nature and wording of the obstreperous objections being posed what the problem is.
It could be ideology, professional jealousy or personal academic rivalry, stupidity, or occasionally even an actual question about the content of the paper under review. Each of these is different and calls for a different plan of battle.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/21
| 1,811
| 7,250
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a manuscript recently accepted to a journal, I just realized I neglected to mention that I centered a variable for an analysis. How crucial is this detail to correct, and what's the best way to go about doing it?<issue_comment>username_1: Certainly you can ask. It's not impossible that the editor would agree, though it's pretty unlikely.
What you describe:
>
> the third one had an aggressive tune and ask some questions that were completely answered in the paper or were basically wrong question.
>
>
>
is normal. Many reviewers take an aggressive tone. Often they ask questions that were answered in the paper. The correct response to "an aggressive tone" is to reply in a professional tone, and the correct response to a question that is answered in the paper is to accept that you were not clear enough in the paper, and to improve the explanation.
(Note, by the way, that this one short sentence I quoted has three grammatical/spelling errors. If this represents how the paper was written, it's not surprising that the paper was unclear, and the reviewer's annoyance is perfectly understandable.)
As for the "basically wrong question" ... [here's an illustration of how common the "reviewer number three" syndrome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY) is.
I'm not saying it's good that one out of three reviewers is borderline incompetent. I'm saying that this is part of the territory, this is something every scientist has to deal with, and we don't, can't possibly, all write to the editor and demand they remove Reviewer Number Three. Instead, what we all do is extract the useful parts of the review, accept that if the reviewer doesn't understand something it's mainly our fault for being unclear and fix that, and work as best we can with the reviewer's concerns. In your response to the reviewer, you can clearly and professionally explain why the point is mistaken, and explain what you have done to help clarify it.
Editors often (I think; I know it happens sometimes) unofficially deprecate particular reviews, based on their reading. They are just as good at detecting "aggressive" and outright hostile reviews, and know to put less weight on it.
But you can ask the editor to remove a reviewer. They're more likely to listen if the reviewer is not just aggressive, but outright hostile; when the reviewer makes an unambiguous statement that isn't just a minority opinion, but is flat wrong, and you can clearly show that; or when the reviewer is just completely out of their depth.
But the burden is on you to absolutely clearly, professionally, with no trace of hurt feelings or antagonism, show that the reviewer is without doubt incompetent. If you can't do every part of that 100%, don't even bother. Deal with it the way all the rest of us do.
You may want to look at other answers to questions in the "peer-review" tag to get a sense of the community's feelings:
* [How common is it to get one very positive and one very negative review?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69669/how-common-is-it-to-get-one-very-positive-and-one-very-negative-review?rq=1)
* [A frequent reviewer seems to have a grudge against me. What to do?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58622/a-frequent-reviewer-seems-to-have-a-grudge-against-me-what-to-do)
* [What to do if reviewers reject a paper without understanding the content?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5865/what-to-do-if-reviewers-reject-a-paper-without-understanding-the-content)
* [How to proceed when reviewers reject your manuscript but you believe there is no scientific basis for their objections?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/79683/how-to-proceed-when-reviewers-reject-your-manuscript-but-you-believe-there-is-no?noredirect=1&lq=1)
And many more.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Well, of course it's possible to ask the editor-in-chief to change the reviewer: you would do that by writing to the editor-in-chief and asking them to change the reviewer.
However, I disagree that it is a good idea to do this. Although it must happen every now and then, changing the reviewer on request of the author is (in my experience at least) highly irregular and sounds like a "a big ask." In order to grant this request, the editor would have to understand and agree that this reviewer's comments are totally out of line. But an editor who feels this way is prepared to not hold this reviewer's comments against you anyway. And the converse is not true: I think many editors would rather keep a reviewer and not hold (all or some of) their critiques against the author than go through the formal procedure of finding a new reviewer upon the author's request.
Instead I recommend that you carefully consider all of the reviewers' comments, make changes when you think they are appropriate, and send along a document describing the changes you made and also explanations for why you didn't make certain requested changes. If you feel that you are right and a reviewer is wrong: say so, clearly, factually, and politely.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it possible to ask editor-in-chief to change a reviewer?
>
>
>
In your situation, I think you are asking the wrong question. The "right" question might be something like: How do I deal with an "annoying" referee?
In this case, I suggest addressing, in a professional manner, this reviewer's comments as you have before. Additionally, send the editor-in-chief a separate note describing your concerns about this particular reviewer so that the EiC
1. is made aware of the situation and
2. can weigh the reviewer's comments and your responses to those in a more objective fashion.
Again, you want to be professional in your communications to the EiC.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As a past editor-in-chief of an IEEE magazine, I never had an author ask for this, and as an author of several journal and magazine articles, I've never thought to request it regardless of how much I disliked or disagreed with a review.
Instead, I think authors should play the cards they're dealt. [@Pete\_L\_Clark's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/91160/41302) makes the point that you should simply respond to reviewer comments, and push back on those you might disagree with. I'll add to this that if you make a strong enough point about why a reviewer is mistaken, I think an editor will either push back on the reviewer or opt to go to someone else in re-review. This of course assumes that you get a revision outcome of some sort; if it's rejected because of the review you disagree with, you really have no recourse other than submitting elsewhere.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think Tail of Godzilla needs at least one level deeper an analysis of the problem than is shown in the question. It should be possible to tell from the nature and wording of the obstreperous objections being posed what the problem is.
It could be ideology, professional jealousy or personal academic rivalry, stupidity, or occasionally even an actual question about the content of the paper under review. Each of these is different and calls for a different plan of battle.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/22
| 493
| 2,250
|
<issue_start>username_0: I used a commercial tool created by a small company to perform quantitative analysis of medical images for a study that I did. I was very conservative in my statistical analysis and consulted with a university-employed biostatistician throughout the process. The results were negative. I presented the results at a conference and have submitted the paper to a journal where it is currently under review.
The problem is that the founder of the company whose tool I used came up to me after the presentation and started to interpret my results differently, putting them in a more positive and hopeful light. He is an engineer and is, of course, highly knowledgeable about the tool we used since he developed it. However, he wants to help us re-analyze the data since he 'saw some interesting results' in my presentation. I feel uncomfortable about this since I believe there is a conflict of interest at play if we were to work directly with him. I think he has a clear economic incentive to promote his analysis tool, and I can see how the results of our study might influence the perception of his product.
Am I overthinking this situation? What level of cooperation with this person would be acceptable from a COI perspective?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't see a problem. Many people create a tool, use it to analyze something, then publish the results. Many companies that produce products publish papers that try to put their products in a good light. It is the job of both the authors and the reviewers to do all this in a rigorous fashion, but it doesn't mean such papers are disallowed.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It appears there are two stages of the analysis. First, that of individual images, which is done using the commercial software tool. Second, the statistical analysis and interpretation of a sample of the first. So, in which of these two is said person proposing a re-analysis? Clearly, their realm is only the first type of analysis (though they may have some well-founded ideas about the second part). If they offer to re-analyse just the first part, I don't think there is any problem, as long as you apply the same statistical scrutiny in the second phase.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/22
| 395
| 1,626
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some journals require keywords besides the abstract to 'describe' the published article, some don't. See for instance with keywords <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X16301788> and without keywords <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12313/full>
I was wondering whether there are guidelines or recommendations how to choose such keywords? For instance, has each journal a list of keywords that you can use or recommend scientific societies/associations a certain standard of 'how to set up meaningful keywords'? Or do paper authors just make up their own keywords?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't see a problem. Many people create a tool, use it to analyze something, then publish the results. Many companies that produce products publish papers that try to put their products in a good light. It is the job of both the authors and the reviewers to do all this in a rigorous fashion, but it doesn't mean such papers are disallowed.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It appears there are two stages of the analysis. First, that of individual images, which is done using the commercial software tool. Second, the statistical analysis and interpretation of a sample of the first. So, in which of these two is said person proposing a re-analysis? Clearly, their realm is only the first type of analysis (though they may have some well-founded ideas about the second part). If they offer to re-analyse just the first part, I don't think there is any problem, as long as you apply the same statistical scrutiny in the second phase.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/22
| 549
| 2,329
|
<issue_start>username_0: Next month I will be graduating from university in the UK with a Master's degree in Astrophysics and in October I will be starting my PhD at a different UK university.
I have seen some academic CVs that list the PhD supervisors that person had, alongside the usual information such as the institution and start/ finish date.
I suppose the advantage of including your supervisor's name on your CV is so that a person reading it can get an idea of the kind of work you're doing (if you don't have any publications of your own yet and if they know what your supervisor's research interests are) and how you fit into their network via the supervisor.
As someone with currently a very short academic CV, is it ok for me to include the names of my Master's and PhD supervisors? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?
Note that I know who my future PhD supervisor is.<issue_comment>username_1: Additionally, your supervisors might have written you letters of recommendation for grad school (or could in the future for other grant applications). Thus, mentioning your former supervisors is a form of acknowledgement and transparency for other researchers or research institutions.
I totally agree with the former comments that in 90 %, it won't harm you.
In case you are completely unsure, you could ask your former supervisors whether they are okay with it (but I would be surprised if there is an academic scholar who says no)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Unless your Supervisor(s) are well known in the field, it would not help much to add them. Since every PhD has supervisors, it won't add any more value to the CV.
Also, if your Supervisor(s) enjoy any degree of clout, authority, cult status, following, awards & recognition like Fields/Nobel/etc, it would add a lot of value to your CV.
It would, however, be a good practice to add their names to a separate 'References' list at the end of your CV with contact information. Supervisors are great go-to sources for information on a scholar's work ethic, performance record, 360-degree assessment, etc and providing transparent references instead of 'references will be provided on request' can send a signal that you have nothing to hide.
All the above are very subjective, however.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/22
| 1,242
| 5,231
|
<issue_start>username_0: Plagiarism software will not detect assignments that use [Spinbot](https://spinbot.biz) or other paraphrasing software. How do you prove a student is doing so?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you would need to know the particular source text that you believe it was modified from. In that case, demonstrating identical structure ought to be sufficient: **a sentence-by-sentence comparison ought to show convincingly that the exact same ideas have been used in the same order**. This absolutely falls under the definition of plagiarism (whether or not it was done in an automated way by a spinbot), and provided the text is of a decent length, it would be unreasonable for the student to claim that they happened upon the same structure by coincidence.
If you don't have the original text, I'm not aware of any tools you could use to search for it - that would seem to be a very complex (though maybe not insurmountable) AI problem. But if you don't know the source text, how would you suspect it in the first place (unless you'd caught the student in the act)?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You don't need to prove it. A mechanical paraphrase is no different from a paraphrase written by the student. What makes plagiarism is the absence of a citation. I've found that it is generally luminously clear when (undergraduate) students have copied without citation, whether paraphrased or not.
If you can recognize the original source, then paraphrase without citation is clear. If not, asking the student for more detail about the idea that the student claims as his own will generally demonstrate the misconduct. Whether you can take formal action in the latter case depends on the rules and culture of your institution.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Well, a good clue would be sentences that don't actually make sense, like the classic:
“I could hear the charlatan of the ducks in the distance,” and other examples stolen from:
<http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/08/writing_clearly_in_student_papers_the_right_click_thesaurus_and_rogeting.html>
Unfortunately, the only way I can think of to identify this automatically would require custom-written software, and a decent amount of work. Essentially, you could take chunks of text, throw it into a spinbot repeatedly, and then see if you turn up matches. This seems like a computationally difficult problem, since you have to test (number of synonyms)^(sentence length) options - you could only do this for short sentences. Maybe it's possible to cut that down by going to more-common synonyms first. Sounds a little like a problem where testing a proposed match is a *lot* faster than actually finding the match. Maybe you could get some interest from folks on <https://cs.stackexchange.com/> to see if defeating spinbot plagiarism is NP-Complete!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: A method that might be useful is contextual analysis. A statement that used jargon that seems out of place, or whose meaning doesn’t tie into the larger narrative lends weight to the possibility that the words were not the authors own.
If you ever do in person reviews of papers, you can cross examine the author on his or her knowledge and intent of including the statements.
If they are able to defend themselves, then the possibility shifts from suspected plagiarism to authentic knowledge.
If not, then you’ll know.
Nevertheless, it will be up to you to determine how much time resources you want to devote to authenticating the work of your students.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Could you tell us more about your assignments, your suspicions, your students, and your grading scheme? For my answer, I'll make a simple assumption but please straighten me out if this is wrong.
I'll assume that the plagiarism problem comes up primarily because you are assigning some standard homework problems for which other students have posted solutions online. Example: <http://www.amandalscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Amanda-Scott-PRL-102-Final-Fall-2015.pdf>. This is a homework assignment that a student submitted for a class two years ago and then uploaded to the web. Who knows why!
The assignment comes from a standard textbook. This very same assignment is given to large numbers of students across the country every semester.
If this is the type of situation you're facing, as an instructor... I think the solution lies in modifying the assignment. Then if the work submitted doesn't hang together, you grade it accordingly. Let's suppose your student tried to cobble something together based on a homework submission someone else turned in and posted on the web, for the homework problem as it appears in the textbook, which is a slightly different assignment than the one *you* gave. If your student learned something from the submission s/he found on the web, and then did a good job of cobbling; OR if your student did not do a very good job of cobbling -- in both cases, just grade the work the way you would normally do. Does the prose have good structure and readability? Do the ideas flow with good logic? Does the document hit the important points? Not too short, not too wordy? Etc.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/20
| 2,182
| 9,911
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a teaching assistant for undergraduate engineering classes. I will be in charge of running lab sessions, helping students, and assigning grades. I have an extreme and insurmountable personal problem with one of the students in one of my lab sections scheduled for next semester and am concerned with my ability to grade them fairly. I will be talking to the Professor of the course about the issue and would like to approach them with different options that would be beneficial for both myself and the student in question. Ultimately the question is:
**What can I do if I have a massive personal problem with a student in one of my lab sections?**
edit: the nature of the problem is that the student violently assaulted my girlfriend, I retroactively see why the nature of the problem is important to the answers for the question. Charges were filed and I stand by the seriousness of the accusation.<issue_comment>username_1: Update:
With the edit of the OPs Question I have to update my answer as the content of that edit changes the situation completely.
There only option you have here is to contact the appropriate staff (most likely HR) Get your conflict of interest documents taken care of and to work out with HR what you should do next.
The fact that there is a legal situation already in play make it that much more important to get the COI documents taken care of.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Create objective criteria and not subjective. The grading part should never be "subjective" as that creates personal bias instead of true academia. If you have objective criteria for grading then there isn't an issue. Naturally the subject will depend on the approach, but there should always be a way to create a purely objective criteria grading approach.
As far as personal situation, that is personal development and emotional maturity development in dealing with difficult people and circumstances. Look at it as an opportunity to grow in emotional and inter-personal maturity so that you are able to handle the extremely difficult situations and not be concurred by them.
**Edit based on clarification in question**:
Under the circumstances mentioned I would go for a restraining order approach and make it legally impossible for the person and me to be in the same location like that. The school would need to make special accommodations and since the charges are against the student then the penalty should be there and not on you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The crux of this is if you are able to stay professional and leave your personal bias out of it. Don't feel like a bad person or unprofessional if you aren't able to in this case, that is what disclosure of conflict of interest is all about. Research your facility's conflict of interest policies and procedures. **Follow the procedure to the letter.** On the off chance that a professional academic organization does not have a conflict of interest policy, ask your professor how conflicts of interest are registered and handled.
Following this path provides the student with a fairer chance to education and protects you from allegations of unprofessional behavior. It is not worth risking your career on failing to disclose anything that may introduce bias.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Not knowing the nature of the personal problems makes it more difficult to answer, but in general this is what I would do.
First, try to swap with another teaching assistant so that you are not in the same section as the person you have a problem with. Do not tell them the name of the student when you ask if they can swap with you.
Next discuss with the professor and see if he or she can arrange a switch or use someone else. This may result in less income for you if they have to hire someone else in your place. This may be the best choice though if the relationship is truly bad such as an ex-husband who abused you.
If the situation is such that the person is someone you intensely dislike but are not afraid of, consider behaving like a professional and leaving your personal feelings at the door. You could look at things like making the projects/tests/quizzes be submitted with only a number (someone else can keep the key until you have to submit grades), so that you don't know who submitted which ones until after all the projects are graded. You could ask someone else (like the professor) to review this particular person's grade to ensure you were being fair. That could help keep the grades fair.
You will also have to help this person if help is requested. Stay at a safe distance if need be, but answer the question exactly as you would handle it for other people. The perception of being fair is increased if you can say things like, "good question" when the person asks, so that you are not the one appearing negative even if the other person behaves in a hostile manner. A little praise can go surprisingly far when trying to defuse a personality conflict.
If the person dislikes you as well, then he or she might try to make you look bad by asking difficult questions. If you dig in and learn the subject far beyond the level that is covered in the class, then you can answer these questions easily and thus look knowledgeable when the initial plan was to make you look stupid.
If the difference is political or religious, don't bring up those subjects at all unless the course material requires it (hard not to discuss religion in a course on comparative religion). If the other person brings up those subjects, deflect by pointing out those are not appropriate topics for this class.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> the nature of the problem is that the student violently assaulted my girlfriend [...] Charges were filed and I stand by the seriousness of the accusation.
>
>
>
The fact that there is a criminal case involved makes this situation much more serious than just disliking someone. It doesn't matter whether you think you could behave impartially or not, the *appearance* of a conflict of interest is what is important, and that is most certainly present here. If the student is doing poorly, the student could accuse you of unfair treatment regardless of your behavior, and there would most likely be an investigation. It's better to avoid that possibility entirely.
**You need to talk to your professor immediately.** Depending on the status of the case, tell your professor that your girlfriend and the student are on opposite sides of a criminal case. This should convey the seriousness of the conflict without disclosing too many personal details. Keep in mind that there are privacy issues with saying too much about your student's personal life, in particular when it comes to criminal charges.
Work with your professor to figure out what the best solution is, whether that means switching sections with another TA, switching the student to another section, or putting in place defined procedures to prevent bias on your part (such as anonymous grading). It may be a good idea for your professor to involve an ethics adviser from the university, since the conflict of interest is so clear. Regardless of the outcome, by officially reporting this potential issue ahead of time, this will reflect positively on you in the event that the student does make any complaints.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: As mentioned by other answers, the first thing you absolutely must do is speak with your professor about this.
However, you also asked for options to present to your professor. These options depend on exactly how much you feel you will be able to do fairly. For example, if you feel you will be unable to interact with this student in a fair and appropriate manner (which, by the way, is understandable), you may need to recuse yourself entirely from your current position (as you'd be unable to do any of the required responsibilities).
Here are a few options, however, which may help avoid a complete recusal:
* Anonymous grading. This will only work if you believe you can act appropriately in regards to the other responsibilities required. And, of course, your professor's willingness/ability to implement this. Keep in mind that such a system is often not trivial (it depends heavily on the subject matter, etc.). If all assignments are handed in on paper, perhaps suggest that each student uses their university ID number. I had a class where we all chose monikers (which we reported only to the professor) to use throughout the year to use on assignments.
* Ask for or supply your own co-instructor. Keep in mind that this should NOT be a friend of yours who could similarly be biased, nor at any time should you inform the co-instructor of the circumstances. Your professor may not be interested in paying for two instructors for one section, but perhaps you could work something out with another lab instructor to split the pay 75/25 (or something similar) for the hours required, as s/he will not actually be required to do anything.
* Your university undoubtedly has a legal/HR department to whom you can speak about this. I highly recommend checking in with them, as they would potentially be more likely to step in and swap your teaching times with another lab instructor without simply letting you go (as the professor may be wont to do).
* Through a mediator, ask the student to switch to a different section. As you noted, it's important to recognize that as much as the student in question is the scumbag, you're the one with the conflict of interest here. As such, should he choose to refuse, it's ultimately your responsibility to resolve the situation.
Kudos to you for recognizing such a situation and taking the appropriate steps to avoid it. I think many would have a harder time not punishing the student for his behavior while feigning innocence.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/22
| 713
| 2,736
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been confused with the present status of my manuscript whose status follows the following timeline:
1. Manuscript **initially submitted** through Editorial Manager (Springer): 25 Jan 2017
2. **Under Review**: 27 Feb 2017 till 9 Jun 2017
3. **Reviews completed**: 10 Jun 2017 till 22 Jun 2017
4. **Editor assigned**: 22 Jun 2017
The journal is in the field of Computer Science and Computational Mechanics (Applied Computer Science).
My inferences from the above strange timeline:
1. *The reviews have been completed and the system administrator or the journal manager assigned the editor (who is assumed to be associated with it earlier) to take care of the review reports and make a call.*
2. The number of review reports is not sufficient. It would be re-reviewed and handled by another editor.
3. It is a software issue or a bug.
I have the following questions:
* Whether is my inference correct?
* As one can see, it has been 6 months already. Is it too early to send a gentle reminder to the editor-in-chief to look after my manuscript?
* Is such a timeline of manuscript 'strange' at all? (Although it is difficult to answer this unless the editorial manager software is understood properly.)
Related posts and questions:
* [Manuscript status changed to editor assigned after under review, what could be the reason?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/72550/manuscript-status-changed-to-editor-assigned-after-under-review-what-could-be-t)
* [Editor of manuscript assigned after reviews were completed](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/83268/editor-of-manuscript-assigned-after-reviews-were-completed)
* My question is different as the timeline does not follow the traditional journal workflow as discussed in the question [What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like)<issue_comment>username_1: Your interpretation seems correct. There's nothing strange with your status. In fact, it seems to be progressing normally. It is ok to contact the editor but I would wait a bit more, given that the system shows that it is progressing and you should expect a response shortly.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think @ShakeBaby might have nailed it in the "whatever" comment. Best guess: **reviews came in after all this time but were inconclusive**, and "editor assigned" is the default state when needing to get more reviews and no reviewer has actually been assigned. In ScholarOne this would be like having it set to require 2 reviews, then when the 2 reviews come in, changing it to require 3.
Certainly not a very informative status.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/22
| 838
| 3,658
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am at the beginning of my Ph.D. My research lies at the intersection of cognitive neuroscience and psycholinguistics, meaning that I will interact with a variety of researchers from several different fields - which should substantially broaden my horizons. However, reading the literature strictly related to those areas means I'm far less likely to keep track of developments in other areas, such as biology, physics, or computer science.
**My question:** how well aware should I be about major science developments that are not directly related to my area? How useful is this information for your own work?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on your actual research project. Some PhD projects are quite interdisciplinary in the way they are designed (regarding topics, data, method(odology) etc.) while others 'just' talk to their own specific community (although I think, this is rarely the case).
So, to a large extent, it depends on your specific research design of your PhD project how you take into account research from other disciplines. Nevertheless, and based on my experiences as PhD student, I have found it helpful to look into other research disciplines by either talking to people who do research which might be eventually of interest for me or skip through the main journals in the related fields.
For me, (doing my PhD in political science) reading papers from Human Geography, Psychology or Computer Science is quite stimulating from time to time and shows me how other researcher think about issues that I am also interested in. I hope this comment helps you to find a middle ground of helpful interdisciplinarity and getting lost in it.
PS: I found this blog post helpful, reflecting on this issue: <https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/feb/19/interdisciplinary-research-universities-academic-careers>
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Ideally, it would be good to be able to keep up with fields, but practically, I don't see how it's possible. There is so much new work constantly being produced in any one field that it would be quite challenging (though possible) for you to keep up with your two fields of cognitive neuroscience and psycholinguistics, so I think it would be very difficult to keep up with more than that.
Of course, you can skim abstracts in any number of fields that you want, but you have to really decide on how to balance or prioritize depth versus breadth. Yes, breadth is important for interdisciplinary work, but depth is critical if you want to make new contributions to knowledge, as required for a PhD. If you have an insufficiently deep understanding of cognitive neuroscience and psycholinguistics (because you've been trying to keep up with other fields, for which you have only a shallow understanding), I don't see what meaningful contributions you can make to any field. You might creatively try to combine disparate ideas, but you would quickly reveal to experts in the related fields that you don't understand any of the fields sufficiently.
My recommendation is to focus on keeping up with cognitive neuroscience and psycholinguistics and on gaining deep understanding in these two fields. For any other outside field ("such as biology, physics, or computer science"), just be an intelligent, aware person (which you seem to be already), and don't try to "keep up" with them. Rather, enjoy the fact that knowledge is so vast that no one can keep up with everything, but that at least you can meaningfully contribute to expanding knowledge by your deep interdisciplinary knowledge of two fields.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/22
| 1,157
| 4,650
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am teaching a course in calculus. Things are generally going quite well, but since this is the first course I've ever taught I'm certainly not doing a perfect job. As a result, I sometimes come across lecture topics that don't go so well, either because:
1. I didn't do a good job of explaining in lecture, typically because I made a mistake or glossed over something or
2. The concept itself is just difficult, and requires a lot more time to understand than I can devote in lecture.
In these situations, I make sure that I communicate to the class that there was an issue, and I often look for or create resources like video lectures or supplementary documents that clarify things.
If I want to be 100% sure that the message I deliver is in agreement with how I'm teaching the course, I make the material myself. For instance, if there are multiple, conflicting definitions of the same term, I tend to make my own material and post it for the class in order to ensure that my definitions are consistent throughout my entire course. I've done this several times and my resources are well received.
However, there are resources out there that are just clearly better than anything I can whip up, at least in the time I have. Khan Academy is particularly fantastic and has great videos, activities, etc. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I will provide links to these resources when the topic is either not critical or where the resource aligns very well with how I've taught the concept in class. I always make sure to properly give credit and do not take credit myself for things I did not create.
I'm not sure why, but somehow this feels like "cheating". I'm also concerned that it will be perceived as laziness on my part by the students. So the questions:
1. Is this cheating? Should I be making my own material, in order to 100% guarantee that what my students see is consistent with how I'm teaching it?
2. If not, is there anything I should be doing to ensure that students understand that these resources are just one part of the course, and shouldn't be exclusively relied on?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are new to teaching, then I give my highest recommendation that you read <NAME>, *How to Teach Mathematics*, published by the American Mathematical Society. From the 3rd Edition, Section 2.7, "Handouts":
>
> It is tempting to write up a lot of handouts for your course. If you
> give a class hour on Stoke's theorem and feel that you have not made
> matters clear, then you might be inclined to draw up a handout to help
> students along. You also might suspect that this extra effort on your
> part will improve your teaching evaluations and, in particular, that
> students will appreciate all this additional work that you have put
> in. Well, it won't and they don't. Only prepare a handout when it will
> really make a difference. Students feel that they already have enough
> to read. Inundating them with handouts will only confuse them...
>
>
> What I can do is examine my own conscience and tell you what I see. If
> I give a lesson that is not up to snuff, or if I do a poor job of
> explaining what curvature is, or if I goof up a proof in class, then I
> can salve my conscience by writing up a handout. It takes about an
> hour, it is a way of doing penance, and it is a way of working past
> the guilt of having screwed up in class. In my heart of hearts,
> however, I know that what I *should* do is strive to give better
> classes.
>
>
> Just speaking for myself, I find it more comfortable and convenient to
> put ancillary material for the course on the Web. This seems to be
> less "in your face," and the students think of it as a resource that
> they can consult if and when convenient. Class emails are also a
> useful device for supplying extra information or small corrections.
>
>
>
For myself, I would say you certainly don't have to feel guilty about directing students to outside resources. Possibly we don't do that enough in our discipline. It is definitely not "cheating"; it is simply being a professional and knowledgeable scholar. On the other hand, I might also argue that real-deal mathematics does involve *reading*, and to wean students away from crutches like videos that will only get them so far.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Giving an extra resource from another properly referenced and acknowledged source gives an explanation with a different flavour - I do this and so do my colleagues - do all students use or appreciate - no but some do, so it's worth it. Best of luck you have a good attitude.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/22
| 877
| 3,169
|
<issue_start>username_0: How do the grades of higher degrees math up with undergraduate qualifications, in terms of quality of work? I'm in the UK. At my current institution, where I'm sitting an MA
* 70+ -- Distinction
* 60+ -- Merit
* 50+ -- Pass
* < 50 -- Fail
At undergraduate, again in the UK
* 70 -- 1st
* 60+ -- 2.i
* 50+ -- 2.ii
* 40+ -- Pass
I would very much like to know if the ***standard of work*** matches up to the same percentiles, in the UK. So, not how well someone is doing *on the course*, but if an undergraduate dissertation could be handed in and get the same mark on a Masters. This seems unlikely, of course.<issue_comment>username_1: If you are new to teaching, then I give my highest recommendation that you read <NAME>, *How to Teach Mathematics*, published by the American Mathematical Society. From the 3rd Edition, Section 2.7, "Handouts":
>
> It is tempting to write up a lot of handouts for your course. If you
> give a class hour on Stoke's theorem and feel that you have not made
> matters clear, then you might be inclined to draw up a handout to help
> students along. You also might suspect that this extra effort on your
> part will improve your teaching evaluations and, in particular, that
> students will appreciate all this additional work that you have put
> in. Well, it won't and they don't. Only prepare a handout when it will
> really make a difference. Students feel that they already have enough
> to read. Inundating them with handouts will only confuse them...
>
>
> What I can do is examine my own conscience and tell you what I see. If
> I give a lesson that is not up to snuff, or if I do a poor job of
> explaining what curvature is, or if I goof up a proof in class, then I
> can salve my conscience by writing up a handout. It takes about an
> hour, it is a way of doing penance, and it is a way of working past
> the guilt of having screwed up in class. In my heart of hearts,
> however, I know that what I *should* do is strive to give better
> classes.
>
>
> Just speaking for myself, I find it more comfortable and convenient to
> put ancillary material for the course on the Web. This seems to be
> less "in your face," and the students think of it as a resource that
> they can consult if and when convenient. Class emails are also a
> useful device for supplying extra information or small corrections.
>
>
>
For myself, I would say you certainly don't have to feel guilty about directing students to outside resources. Possibly we don't do that enough in our discipline. It is definitely not "cheating"; it is simply being a professional and knowledgeable scholar. On the other hand, I might also argue that real-deal mathematics does involve *reading*, and to wean students away from crutches like videos that will only get them so far.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Giving an extra resource from another properly referenced and acknowledged source gives an explanation with a different flavour - I do this and so do my colleagues - do all students use or appreciate - no but some do, so it's worth it. Best of luck you have a good attitude.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/23
| 1,597
| 5,520
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by <NAME> and <NAME>.
I refer to them both several times, as several of <NAME>’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and <NAME>’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using.
This dataset is commonly called *The Smith Corpus*.
Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):
>
> We use the **Smith** Corpus (**Smith** 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
>
> This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by **Smith** (2010).
>
> It is also used by **Smith** et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).
>
>
>
Where the all uses of *Smith,* except the last refer to <NAME>.
Only *Smith et al (2016)* refers to <NAME>.
Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people.
But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style.
So on a casual reading, one might expect the dataset in question to have been introduced in one of <NAME>’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, <NAME> (whom I also cite), then later by <NAME>, and <NAME>.
Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the *Smith Corpus* in his paper – without qualification in any way.
Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?
---
The ~5 page style guide for this conference says
>
> **Citations:** Citations within the text appear in
> parentheses as (Gusfield, 1997) or, if the author’s
> name appears in the text itself, as Gus-
> field (1997). Using the provided LATEX style, the
> former is accomplished using `\cite` and the latter
> with `\shortcite` or `\newcite`. Collapse multiple
> citations as in (Gusfield, 1997; Aho and Ullman,
> 1972); this is accomplished with the provided
> style using commas within the \cite command,
> e.g., `\cite{Gusfield:97,Aho:72}`. Append
> lowercase letters to the year in cases of ambiguities.
> Treat double authors as in (Aho and Ullman,
> 1972), but write as in (Chandra et al., 1981)
> when more than two authors are involved.
>
> ...
>
> We will reject without review any papers that do
> not follow the official style guidelines, anonymity
> conditions and page limits.
>
>
>
This level of guidance is typical for CS conferences in my field.
While I can of-course decide to make up my own rules for what to do in this case that is not covered clearly by their style guide -- and they probably won't desk-reject for it -- what additional rules *should* I use (if any)?<issue_comment>username_1: I would go with:
>
> We use the Smith **C**orpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
> This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by **Fred** Smith (2010).
> It is also uses by **Bill** Smith et al (2016), and Otter et al (2016).
>
>
>
'Smith Corpus' is the name of a dataset, not a person, and is to be found in the paper referenced as 'Smith 2010'. The other two instances of 'Smith' are names, not references. The reference is in brackets afterwards, and is made up of just a date because the name part of the reference is not required when the authors have just been named in the sentence.
If this feels a bit too odd, you could add in 'Sam'.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Check your style guide. Many surname-year styles, such as APA, have provisions for exactly this problem.
>
> But do you know how to proceed when a reference list includes publications by two or more different primary authors with the same surname? When this occurs, include the lead author’s initials in all text citations, even if the year of publication differs (see the sixth edition of the Publication Manual, p. 176). Including the initials helps the reader avoid confusion within the text and locate the entry in the reference list.
>
>
>
<http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2014/01/when-to-use-author-initials-for-text-citations.html>
In your case, this would lead to:
>
> We use the Smith corpus (**<NAME>** 2010), as prepared by **Johnson et al.** (2015).
> This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by **<NAME>** (2010).
>
>
> It is also uses by **<NAME> et al** (2016), and **Otter et al** (2016).
>
>
>
Note that since "Smith corpus" is a name of a corpus, rather than a citation, it can remain without the initial.
Also note that in APA style, *all* citations to any Smith papers have to have the initial. So even if this is the only time you mention <NAME> et al 2016, all of your references to F. Smith 2010 have to have the initial. This is a little annoying but nicely unambiguous.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: The way to handle this is to refer to <NAME> and <NAME> explicitly in the text. The editors will probably not like it but you can point out to them that adding the first initial removes any confusion about which author you are referring to.
I had so deal with a similar situation many years ago, and after clarifications the editors let me use the first initials (indeed I used both the first and the middle initial) even if it was against the "house rules".
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/23
| 449
| 1,796
|
<issue_start>username_0: My paper was accepted at a good conference after 3 reviewers cleared it. After proof reading for the publishing, I sent it to the editor with approval.
However, now I have realised that there are 2 mistakes in the paper: 1. One of the equations dependent on time is using `t` instead of `t+1` 2. One of the equations is using `best` instead of `best_i`.
The editor has told me that the paper has been sent already for printing, and nothing can be done anymore. Can someone suggest what might be the best course of action now?<issue_comment>username_1: What you need to do is to request for a Corrigendum (some journals use erratum to denote Author originated mistakes).
A corrigendum refers to a change to their article that the author wishes to publish at any time after acceptance. (from [Elsevier](https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/policy-and-best-practice-errata-And-corrigenda))
The Conference proceedings journal will have a page left empty for errata and corrigendum.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: As you wrote yourself:
>
> The editor has told me that the paper has been sent already for printing, and nothing can be done anymore.
>
>
>
Given that the editor decides how a publication runs, there is nothing you can do. "Normal" journals usually publish errata but conference papers often do not have that possibility.
Don't worry about it too much: everybody makes mistakes/typos and it is not a big problem. The intelligent reader will spot the mistakes and not mind too much because he gets the point anyway, the other readers will not spot the mistake so they won't care either.
Just make sure you learn from this: next time double check everything and ask a meticulous, friendly colleague to do the same.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/23
| 729
| 3,037
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been working with 2 faculty members on the same project. I took a class from each of them, and the three of us meet in person on a weekly basis. I think it's reasonable to assume that they've seen the same level of research ability from me.
I am planning on applying to graduate school, so I was wondering if it's appropriate to ask them for a joint letter? My motivation behind this is
* the two of them mentor me on the same project, so 2 separate letters may have unnecessary overlap?
* applications typically require 3 letters (I already have 2). For schools which you can submit > 3 letters, I would think they still value quality > quantity
* may be slightly less work for both of them (?)
I don't want to come off rude by asking the two of them to co-write a letter of recommendation for me. Is it generally deemed appropriate to ask two faculty members to do this? I think this is quite uncommon because on applications I only get to designate one writer per letter of recommendation (i.e. provide just one name, his/her title, email, phone, etc). If so, how should I phrase the question of asking both of them to co-write a strong letter of rec for me?<issue_comment>username_1: To be honest I have never heard of such a thing. Even when getting letters from professors who co-advise all their students (such as husband and wife profs), I have been given distinct letters.
I would recommend picking one of them. If in their letter they were to say that they're working with you along with Professor Plum and the letter writer believes Plum shares his/her sentiment, that would be fine. But co-signing does seem very unusual.
PS. If you were applying someplace that required exactly one letter, there might be some stronger case for combining them. Given that there are 3 but you've already allocated 2 of them, I think it would be really odd to try to have the 3rd cosigned: it's like you're cheating to get 4 people to recommend you when you're allowed 3.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I have received applications that have had such a letter in them (well, at least one). It came from a lab director and the applicant's immediatiate postdoc supervisor in that lab. I thought the letter conveyed the student's experience in that lab very well, provided a nice bottom-to-top view, and it was more clear than if it were two letters, as I didn't need to put the connection between two letters together in my own head.
The letter did not raise any eyebrows, and it seemed entirely appropriate to me.
It's probably not the right thing to do more often than it is the right thing to do, but when it's right, it's right.
To directly answer the "how do I ask" question, something along the lines of "given the limit on the number of recommenders allowed, it occurs to me that there may be certain advantages to getting a joint letter from you and Dr. X, especially because ... [reason goes here]. Do you think this is an OK approach, and are you amenable?"
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/23
| 602
| 2,380
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a phd student, I am in phase 0 of my research and I download many papers everyday. I have archived the names and the specifications of the papers in a spreadsheet, but that does not really help.
How can have I an efficient interactive archive/database of all the papers I download every day?<issue_comment>username_1: Absolutely begin using a reference management software. If you're planning on writing in LaTeX (which you will if you're in many sciences and engineering fields), something that manages Bibtex files is essential. I tried several more sophisticated programs like Papers (which is made to work like iTunes) and Mendeley, but I now use a very simple program called Jabref. Now when I get a new paper, I go to Google scholar, copy-paste their Bibtex entry (they have one for pretty much every published paper) into my master Bibtex file. Then when I'm working a separate project, I start a smaller Bibtex and copy references over when needed. Personally, I didn't like programs that tried to offer an "all-in-one" experience with built-in PDF reader, file management, etc.
My other tip is to name your files in a logical manner to make local search easier. I use "First few words of title First Author Year" E.g. "Stochastic Relaxation Gibbs Distributions Geman 1984"
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Props to you for seeking to resolve this now and not down the road. I'm a third year (nearly fourth year) PhD student and I've just started using BibTex with Org-ref and Emacs. I also sync references and .pdf's with Syncthing. In the past I tried Zotero, Mendeley, and a custom system where I created my own templates and stored entries in a MongoDB databse (this was a horrible idea), but all had some shortingcomings. Endnote was not an option for me as I don't use Microsoft products.
BibTex/Org-ref/Emacs/Syncthing has been a life-changer and is everything that I want in a reference management system. This specific setup, of course, requires that you use Emacs (which is an entire life path of its own). Emacs has been worth it to me but is definitely not for everyone. There may be similar setups that avoid Emacs.
<NAME> (the creator/maintainer of org-ref) has created a helpful [demonstration](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t925KRBbFc&t=149s) of org-ref that shows how powerful this setup can be.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/23
| 808
| 3,237
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently at a Top-20 engineering school in the US. I am making great progress on my PhD and have an excellent relationship with my advisor.
My advisor is transferring to a Top-3 engineering school and wants to bring me.
I am concerned because I'm afraid that the Top-3 school will reject me (average undergrad GPA, crappy GRE, etc.). The good things I have are a fellowship with 3 more years of tenure, a high quality paper and a few talks.
Anyways, when advisors move does the new university just automatically accept students? I'm afraid that my bad undergrad GPA and GRE score will keep me from following my advisor and doing the research that I love.<issue_comment>username_1: Go with him.
Seriously heed this:
*Go with him*
Reasoning:
You seem to *want* to go. The adviser *wants you* to come with. Gird you loins and make it happen. Put in the work.
No, it is not normally automatic\* that a university will admit existing graduate students but it is probable that your professor can pull strings to help you get on board.
(\*for the few schools I'm aware of, anyway. For the official answer, you need to read up on admissions rules for the target university.)
Do **not** be an orphan student. This is very frustrating and lonely. If you do not choose to follow, find a new adviser.
(I speak from personal experience. I should have followed.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The other school is hiring your adviser because they think they'll be a good researcher and faculty member. This means that at some level they trust your adviser's judgement.
It's not impossible, but it'd be highly unlikely that they would refuse to admit you against your adviser's request. The more likely situation, if they're concerned about your ability, is that they would ask to have you repeat some courses or milestones like an oral exam or portfolio review.
When they hire your adviser they're essentially saying that they're impressed with their research program. It'd be a little self-defeating to hire that person but say that they can't bring substantial portions (the students) of that effort.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If your adviser wants you, it is unlikely that the graduate hiring committee at the new school would get in his way, particularly if you have your own fellowship and have already published.
Another reason to go is to have continuity of your PhD, i.e. the same adviser and the same thesis.
Then, it is a stronger school. You might forge collaborations with highly successful researchers (if you don't spend too much being in awe of their accomplishments). You can learn a lot from those people. Also, a PhD from there improves your chances of getting a good job after graduating.
Your argument against is that you may not be good enough for that place. Top places can be highly competitive and there are brilliant people who work there. The real problem is not how good you are, but how well you adapt to the academic environment there. For that, you need to do the standard things: communicate with your colleagues, ask questions, ask for help, work hard, and try to ignore the feeling that the school is too good for you.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/24
| 638
| 2,722
|
<issue_start>username_0: Why do some professors arrange meetings to give updates about their ongoing work? The updates are certainly exciting, especially for the other people who have been in the lab for awhile and was involved in the work in some small way. But these meetings are also open to visitors, and visiting professors and post docs come too. Isn't there a fear of outsiders (or even insiders) scooping the ideas and beating them to publication? Although I highly doubt that, but I'm curious to know.<issue_comment>username_1: The main reason is to attract interest to their current and future work, in terms of both public interest and potential students, scholars, and postdocs who might want to work with their labs. Talks are a good way of accomplishing this. Research isn't meant to be conceived, designed, done, and published in a cloistered off world. Anyone who believes this shouldn't be in research.
If the point of research is to advance/exchange knowledge and to improve life, then it deserves to be made a public, accessible resource. Perhaps even work that hasn't been completed. It's important for researchers to be transparent about their work, rather than trying to hide it, especially when they accumulate so much funding, some of which often comes from public, taxpayer sources (i.e. government funds).
You might think visitors are outsiders, but it's important to keep sight of the fact that they likely helped fund the research in some way, and more importantly, that they're part of the people your research should be trying to help -- and there shouldn't be such distinctions on this account between outsiders and insiders.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Science is a human activity. There is no point in doing research if nobody reads it. Your research becomes relevant once you can engage with *people*. <NAME> has an essay on this, focused on math, but I believe it can be extrapolated to many other areas: <https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9404236.pdf>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Professors giving Update , under an okay from institute /university / funding society is to be viewed in a positive way. Too often scientists have been criticised for working in splendid isolation (sometimes meant ivory towers ) and with lesser accountability to public at large. Ongoing research projects of a larger dimension and duation do require an internal review periodically ; this being made more open and transparent should not ideally invite objections. However , this is best left to professors themselves , as an option to share ; making a rule or compulsion carries am apprehension of becoming counterproductive. Prof ME Yeolekar , Mumbai.
Upvotes: -1
|
2017/06/24
| 1,491
| 6,366
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been involved in a research lab for a while now. I have a set of peers who work on related, yet non-overlapping fields.
I find myself uncomfortable when other's works get accepted in some research venue (journal or conferences). And, so do I believe that others feel the same when my work gets accepted.
However, though it might be common in the research labs, I feel it is not a good sign and it, in some way, restricts me to open up my discussion on my ideas on any problems. Further, others also do not discuss much on their own ideas and their working problems. It is obvious that discussion among peers could lead to better research and outcomes.
* Is it common for others who have experienced such behavior during their graduate studies? Or, is it a paranoia?
* How to handle such uncomfortable feeling inside the lab and feel positive?
I did speak with some of my professors and still, I can not let this useless feeling go away from my brain.<issue_comment>username_1: I share an office with several grad students in a similar situation of non-overlapping fields. The problem extended to the PhD students of the program in general.
*Is it common for others who have experienced such behavior during their graduate studies? Or, is it a paranoia?*
In my experience, it is completely normal, but as you say, not desirable. I have heard that programs with less pressure to publish experience it less. I remember learning that a Masters student had entered the PhD program with a publication and felt like I had been punched in the gut.
*How to handle such uncomfortable feeling inside the lab and feel positive?*
To echo some of the comments, a lot of it seems to boil down to openness and collaboration. Here are some options that have helped me and my fellow grad students reduce negativity and increase the quality of our research:
1. Reading about the publishing process and ways to get better at it, like with [How to Write a Lot](http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4441010.aspx).
2. Start or join a weekly [writing group](http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/writing-groups/) with your lab mates to mutually support one another. For me, this was the game changer. We talk about the good and the bad, as @Stefan\_W mentioned.
3. Find a supportive community outside the lab where you can discuss your feelings. For example, in Barcelona, we have several city-wide communities of early career researchers from every discipline.
4. Similar to Point 3, participate in the associations of your field. For example, I attend events for the British Academy of Management. Not only do they hold seminars for grad students, but they generally require me to bring a work in progress, which has a motivating effect.
At my university, we went so far as to start a student association. We hold regular social events, mock conferences, organize writing groups, and participate in community events. These have started us in the direction of a feeling of shared victory (instead of resentment) when one of us manages to publish, and of course it gives us a place to turn for support in the case of rejection. In the beginning there were just a few of us in a weekly writing group, but eventually we got more organized.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Firstly, congratulations for being able to openly express your feelings, being so honest, and asking for advice.
Very important: understand that those feelings of jealousy are totally normal in that environment and at that stage, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with you.
No matter what people try to sell you, particularly the ones who already have a position where they don't need to compete, a research lab is a highly competitive environment and you are constantly being evaluated. There is constant pressure. People work there to accumulate merits and build a CV, so it is normal that you believe, at first glance, that this is a zero-sum-game and when someone accumulates a merit, they have moved a position in the game and you haven't.
Many people will try to make you feel bad about those feelings, but that's how it is and most of us have experimented it, particularly at the beginning of our careers and in very competitive areas. It's just that most people will never reveal those feelings, or only do it with people they really trust, because people immediately tag them as "negative", "jealous", etc... and no one wants to be called that.
Jealousy is the basis of competition and free market and it leads to great things, like better ideas and products, when managed properly. There would be no great thinkers, companies, or products, without jealousy.
So, the key is to learn how and where to focus that energy.
My advice would be the following:
1. Try to forget about what others are doing and focus on things that you like / think are worth researching. Are you really jealous about that guy that published something about a topic you couldn't care less about? I don't think so.
2. Be very careful about collaborations. Particularly at the very beginning of your career and when you are under constant evaluation, it is frequent that misunderstandings occur. You still don't know the rules of the game, so only collaborate with people you trust and try to clarify everything since the very beginning (responsibilities, authors, order, etc). This is one of the biggest points of resentment at the beginning of a competitive career.
3. Focus your energy on becoming a good researcher. As suggested above, read books on how to research, how to write, do a god job, and be proud about it. The number of publications a person has, their length, or even the journal or venue, is not automatically a guarantee of quality and hard work. Sometimes, it turns out to be the opposite. You will get that pretty quickly.
4. Surround yourself by the people that you truly "envy" because of their capacity and hard work, ask them questions, etc... good researchers are usually willing to help and teach others.
5. Run away from those who you feel are getting merits unfairly or have dubious ethics, or you will either become like them or have a hard time. You know: groups where one person does all the work but others are automatically added as co-authors, etc, etc.
In any case, congratulations again for your honesty, and good luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/24
| 3,201
| 13,229
|
<issue_start>username_0: For grading exams, I usually assign points to the exercises in such a way they sum to 100, and then I correct the exams by giving partial points based on such assignment.
Lately, I feel this is a poor choice: students which obviously don't get the topic sometimes get acceptable grades (because they sum some points for every exercise), while some students who understand the topic get bad grades (because they didn't do all the exercises, but some exercises they completed very well). Is there any resource (i.e. book or article) discussing this methodology of grading? What are the alternatives?
I think I'd like a grading methodology that analyses the whole of the exam not as the sum of the parts, but first I'd like to read about pros and cons.<issue_comment>username_1: If good students who understand the topic well are getting bad grades because they don't do all the problems, you should think very carefully about whether you've made the exam too long.
If this is what is happening (and I suspect it is), there is a very easy way to fix it:
>
> **Assign fewer problems.**
>
>
>
Then you don't have to worry about coming up with a new kind of grading scheme that looks at the test as a whole, and which the students who get low exam scores will undoubtedly complain about.
If you designed the exam by looking at exams that professors had set in previous years, they probably also made the mistake of putting too many problems on the exam. It's a very easy mistake to make. I've heard the guideline that professors should be able to solve the problems on the exam in one third of the time that you give students, and I'm not at all sure that it shouldn't be less.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Lately, I feel this is a poor choice: students which obviously don't get the topic sometimes get acceptable grades (because they sum some points for every exercise), while some students who understand the topic get bad grades (because they didn't do all the exercises, but some exercises they solved very good).
>
>
>
There are two aspects in this:
### The combination of your assignments and your points scale does not yield results proportional to the skill level of participants.
The assignments in the exam may indeed be designed in an unfortunate fashion.
For instance, I have found it to be problematic if different points weigh very differently. In particular, if in each assignment, some points count for effort, while others count for thinking, students that totally lack any understanding of the topic might still get through reasonably well by gathering all the effort-points.
There is no general rule of how to achieve a uniform weight there (because it depends strongly on the particular topic and tasks), but try to check your points scale against "personas" with different strengths.
### Results of your systematic grading scheme contradict your gut feeling about a student. Learn to distrust your gut feeling.
I have experienced plenty of cases where students that I thought had written mostly nonsense ended up with not that bad a result, and other students that I thought were "almost perfect" were actually just in the middle field at best.
Whenever this occurs, after summing up the points from each assignment, I am surprised by these results, and I sometimes re-check some of the graded assignments, just to be sure. I usually do not find any mistakes in the grading, and if this has taught me anything, it is that using a fixed1 grading scheme that breaks down assignment into pre-defined steps or solution parts, each of which yields a point is a *good* choice.
Without it, my grades might be totally off, significantly distorted by things like my general impression of the student, the regularity of the pattern by which correct statements appear in the student's exam among incorrect ones, the ratio of correctness versus completeness of answers, etc. In other words, the grade would be biased by individual factors that I was not planning to evaluate at all.
---
1: Well, more or less. You can never quite predict *all* the out-of-the-world solutions for some of the simplest tasks that some students find.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I usually assign points to the exercises in such a way they sum to
> 100.
>
>
>
In addition to the other answers, you may want to consider whether points summing to 100 is really necessary. How many points is it per problem? Are there really that many discrete steps on which to assess? If not, then this may possibly bias you to giving too much partial credit (like maybe half-points) for any random scribbling, which inflates the scores for the under-proficient students that you seem to be observing.
Consider: The [New York State Regents](http://nysedregents.org/) mathematics examinations for high school have short-answer questions (Parts II, III, and IV) each of which are worth either 2, 3, or 4 points (respectively). I think the same is done for PARCC tests used nationally with the Common Core curricula. The tests do not add up to 100 points each.
I follow the same basic protocol in my community-college tests. Short-answer questions up to college algebra are worth 3 points each. In sophomore statistics I may have larger problems, up to 6 points each. The tests may sum to 20 or 30 points (which gets scaled to a percent automatically in the online learning management system).
I write out a complete solution to every problem before giving a test, analyze the length, adjust the problem if necessary, and decide on what section of each problem earns a point (for example: college algebra problems tend to run about 6 lines each, so I'm awarding 1 point for each 2 lines of algebra); i.e., effectively a grading rubric. That also makes for a simple, clear, and fast decision process when grading papers. It may also possibly result in fewer partial-credit points (e.g., compared to some time before I did this, early in my teaching career). If scores are overall too low the first time I do this in a new class, then I may give a one-time linear scaling to all the papers and adjust problem length or difficulty in the next semester.
See also this excellent argument for a [5-point grading system by <NAME>](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/a/14412/5563).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Continuing an aspect of @PeterShor's answer above, and @PatriciaShanahan's comment, (that too long exams test quickness, which is probably not tightly related to subject matter master, and that you may also be in-effect testing students' choices of coping strategies for too-long exams...):
A specific way to have a too-long exam test something perhaps tangential to the subject matter, is to in-effect require students to do a lot of new thinking in real time (as opposed to more-or-less recollection of their thinking during the presumably longer period of study prior to the exam). This is obviously somewhat related to raw quickness, but also related to some sort of sense of "composure", much as being able to extemporize while speaking in public... which is a good thing, but may not be a criterion for underlying sense, etc.
Yes, in mathematics, for example, there is a tradition (I think somewhat misguided) to pretend to test peoples' "problem-solving ability" on exams, by coming up with "interesting" questions. My objection is that this does not well test capacity to deal with routine situations (which could be "remembered" rather than figured out in real time), and not only tests quickness and composure, but can contribute to stress and distraction from the routine questions. For example, students may not be able to distinguish the two, due to self-doubts, etc., thus sinking too much time into non-routine questions.
Both at undergrad and graduate levels, I am *first* interested in whether students can do the routine, cliched, universally-useful things... *not* whether they can improvise in real time, etc. The latter is not really essential to be a good mathematician, for example.
In reference to the original question: exams are probably too long. *Also*, probably require too much thinking, rather than recollection from (presumed) previous preparation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: My CG professor in college had similar worries about grading, especially because many students would develop a subpar understanding of either theory, algebra, or low-level programming, in that they would be particularly weak in one of those topics, which eventually hindered their progress in the course.
His approach was breaking down every question into three grades, one for each of the criteria he wanted to evaluate, and then applying **geometric mean** among them. It punishes incomplete answers more harshly while also being a bit more forgiving of small mistakes. Of course, this was transparently disclosed at the very first class, so we knew what we were getting into and could opt out if we wanted to.
He also made his exams **shorter in size**, but **deeper in detail**, which is something that you should take a look at, regardless of grading issues. If students who clearly don't get the topic end up doing more questions than good students, this seems to stem from poor time management. If completeness of solutions is more important to your subject than their speed, then you should allow them more time to display the results of their learning.
There's another issue you need to solve, now. If I was your student, I wouldn't feel comfortable focusing on your course. If I can get a better grade by just giving incomplete answers, there's not much point in making your subject a priority.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> some students who understand the topic get bad grades (because they didn't do all the exercises, but some exercises they completed very well)
>
>
>
As others have addressed well in their answers, you can opt to ask fewer questions to mitigate this issue.
>
> students which obviously don't get the topic sometimes get acceptable grades (because they sum some points for every exercise)
>
>
>
To counter this issue, I assign relatively higher weights to more challenging portions of the exam. Here is my typical exam grading flow:
* Divide up my exams into grade-able chunks;
* **Weight each chunk such that the more challenging chunks are worth more, and the more trivial stuff is weighted less**;
* Grade each chunk on a { 0, 2, 5, 8, 10 } scale (10 is "perfect," 8 is "minor error," 5 is "half-way there," 2 is "got started, made some progress, but took a wrong turn somewhere," and 0 is "no answer" or "very, very wrong");
* Combine the chunk scores with their associated weights to get an exam score out of some arbitrary total (e.g., 100 is a popular choice).
Students who don't really know what they are doing will do well on the trivial stuff, but they don't do well overall since the parts they knew how to do wasn't weighted very highly.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: In maths at Oxford they used to square scores on exam questions before summing them, to encourage complete answers to fewer questions rather than partial answers to many.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: If you want to favour finishing some problems over nibbling at every problem, you can simply change the way you "give partial points" to each problem to be more convex.
If we take the sale from @MadJack,
* no answer or very, very wrong,
* got started, made some progress, but took a wrong turn somewhere,
* half-way there,
* minor error,
* perfect
Then instead of ranking those (for an easy example, out of 8) as 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, you could do 0, 1, 2, 4, 8.
This is exponential, so maybe an extreme example, but any convex function would do to shift the reward from equally attempting any problem to finishing problems.
Alternately you could reward the introductory "parts" with 1 point and the final ones with 3 points, so the grades would be 0, 1, 2, 5, 8.
To find the right function for you, it depends on your preferences (whether to force integer scores, how to weight different levels of completeness of the exercise, etc). I guess you should experiment a little maybe on the previous tests you had to see how it would modify the grade based on what you do, as well.
*The main take-away is that the rewarded strategy for a convex scale is to finish exercises.*
---
A different example of this is what one of my teachers used to do: grade 7 questions out of 5, starting from 5 and getting -1 per unanswered or wrongly answered question (until you reach 0, no negative grades).
If you look at it by adding points instead of subtracting them, the (cumulated) points that each successive (correctly) answered question grants are: 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, which is indeed convex. If this is applied to an exercise in a test, the answering strategy becomes to finish every exercise you start, but only attempt those where you feel you would get more than 2 questions right.
This specific scale is a little harsh however - so I wouldn't really recommend it - and was meant for questions on definitions and such that everybody was expected to know.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/25
| 629
| 2,637
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm curious as to how long postdoc positions in math usually last for. I'm far away from thinking much about this myself but all my grad student friends seem to be telling me they only last a year or two. Now I know people don't want a postdoctoral position that's too long, but I'm getting the sense that postdocs in math are both less common and generally shorter than post docs in other areas. I'm wondering if this is true or if I'm just getting the wrong idea as an undergrad from a relatively small pool of graduate students. Primarily I'm just curious as to how long these positions usually last in mathematics.<issue_comment>username_1: While it is hard to say anything completely precise, your friends would generally be correct if they were speaking about postdocs in Europe (at least in my branch of pure math).
I have looked through a lot of math postdoc positions while looking for one myself, and at least in Europe they rarely last more than 2 years.
This is not to say that there are no 3-year postdocs, but they are far between, at least in pure math in Europe.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This varies considerably from country to country. In the US, the "gold standard" is typically a 3 year position (just a quick look at MathJobs reveals ones at [Baylor](https://www.mathjobs.org/jobs/jobs/8988), [Dartmouth](https://www.mathjobs.org/jobs/jobs/9924), [Northeastern](https://www.mathjobs.org/jobs/jobs/10307), and that was just on the first page of listings). Note that some will say that they are shorter with a possibility of extension to 3 years; the extension is generally just a formality. There are even occasionally 4 year positions. There are also a mix of shorter positions: one semester or one year appointments at institutes like MSRI or IAS are usually intended to complement specific programs, and generally taken as a supplement to a longer term position. Sometimes there are shorter grant funded positions, though in most cases I know in the US, the department will be able to step in to extend the appointment to 3 years. "Postdoc" is also a kind of porous category; sometimes departments will hire shorter term positions when they just need someone to teach a few classes which fit somewhere on the continuum of postdoc to adjunct positions.
In the rest of the world, positions this long are much less common, due to some mix of cultural and economic factors, but certainly not unknown. Generally positions outside the US are funded by grants, and it is hard to get enough funding to support a postdoc for 3 years (in most countries).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/25
| 542
| 2,362
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of my friends had a pretty good relationship with their undergraduate professor; however, the professor decided to retire and no longer teaches at that university. In a few months, my friend is deciding to apply to graduate school, and he is wondering if it would still be appropriate to ask his retired professor to write him a letter of recommendation?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, I think asking them is ok, with a few caveats.
I think it's ok provided the professor has only recently retired (within the last year, say). Any longer ago than that leaves a chance that the professor has forgotten who your friend is and means that the quality of the letter may be diminished.
Another thing to consider is if the professor is still affiliated with a university or institution. When I was applying for PhDs, some universities required the reference letter to be submitted on official letter-headed university paper (or the electronic equivalent). This may not be possible if the professor is no longer affiliated with any institution.
As to whether or not it's actually *appropriate* to ask, your friend should consider how much the professor is enjoying their retirement and whether they would welcome a request for a reference and all the associated admin or not. This is something only your friend can judge, based on his previous relationship with the professor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If the faculty is retiring to emeritus status then they can still write on letterhead. Many emeritus still maintain an active research profile or use the time to write, but in any case they might be willing to write for you. Many enjoy keeping one foot in the teaching/advising world.
There's nothing to be lost by asking.
And from the perspective of people on admissions committees, a strong letter from an emeritus faculty who compares this student against their thirty or forty years of other students can be very persuasive.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I'm a retired math/cs professor and love getting reference requests from former students. I'll always tell the asker what kind of letter I would be able to write (depending on how good the student was and how much I remember). Then s/he can decide whether to include me.
I've no problem writing on university letterhead.
Upvotes: 4
|
2017/06/25
| 693
| 3,161
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am middle author of a manuscript that has been submitted and received reviews asking for some additional analyses. Two of the authors (including the PI) prepared the revision, sent it to the other authors (5-7 in total), asking for comments and suggestions.
I had a very different interpretation of the results of the additional analysis, and in my opinion, the conclusion in the revised manuscript is wrong, due to the authors (i.e. those that prepared the revision) ignored the results of the additional analysis. I pointed this out in an email to the other authors, and gave my interpretation of the results. There was no direct reply to my email, however one week later the "updated" manuscript was sent to me, and submitted to the journal the same day. There was no proper chance to react to this "updated" version, and obviously, the submitted revision was not approved by me. More importantly, the "updated" version contained the same mistakes, ignoring the results of the additional analysis, and thus, ignoring my comments.
Any suggestions how I should deal with this? It feels like contacting the PI/corresponding author won't lead anywhere. Should I contact the editor directly?<issue_comment>username_1: I feel it is too lithle too late. Let the first author learn from the rejection instead. Or, you will have another round of revision and have a chance to revise the analysis. Otherwise, move on!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I have had this kind of conflict before, and I believe the issue is much more common than reported. I believe most colleagues in your position would (i) not have offered a different interpretation from that of the PI; (ii) not protest in case others ignored their suggestions. This is generally what was suggested in this thread by "move on".
I however do not agree with this passive approach if you are truly an author involved in the manuscript. I think all co-authors should reach a logical agreement over the results. My suggestions in this case are based on a personal choice based on details I cannot evaluate:
(A) **If you believe their interpretation might be right** even though you (and reviewers) see facts in a different way, just let them have it their way. "**Move on**". You can make your different views public later on in a subsequent publication or even post-publication peer review discussion forum. Your career is longer than this study.
(B) **If you believe** there is an obvious flaw in the PI's thinking **that will be ridiculed** by your peers after publication, **ask to be removed** **from the authors** list of this manuscript. I believe once you make this decision known to the PI there will be a moment of crisis, especially since this person submitted a revised version without your consent. However it will be a lesson for everyone, you will be not doing anything harmful to anyone (your name can be moved to the acks section without major issues prior to final publication), and everyone's career is longer than this discussion.
By now you have probably made your decision, but I hope this answer helps others decide.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/26
| 1,014
| 4,485
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are there any **standard rules** by referring to which you can claim authorship? Or do the rules **differ from lab to lab** and depend on the PI?
I have worked for almost two years in lab X on some project. After that I joined lab Y. After that the PI from lab X drafted a manuscript (based, in part, on my work) and submitted it for publication. When I inquired about my major role in that paper, they told me that "since you have left this lab, you cannot claim authorship"... Does this happen in every lab?
**What is the ethically right approach in such situation?**
*Edited*
I was involved in data analysis along with the first author of the manuscript. I agree that manuscript drafting and writing is major task for claiming an authorship.. But I was not even invited for it..<issue_comment>username_1: If you would have qualified as an author otherwise, the act of leaving a lab should not disqualify you. However, make sure you would have qualified as an author under normal circumstances before confronting someone about it. Most journals and universities have their own authorship policies. You could use these policies as a starting point to talk your lab mates about being included as an authors on this paper.
For example, the IEEE authorship policy: <https://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/authors/author_ethics.html>
You can look up your own university's authorship policy.
However, be aware that most policies place a much greater emphasis on writing/drafting, and higher level design or analysis work than they do on low-level activities. Just working on a project for two years is not necessarily enough to qualify you for authorship on any paper related to that project. The kind of work you performed and it's relation to the published paper is what is really crucial here.
For example, simple data gathering is usually not enough to qualify one for authorship under most policies. Spending time doing tool-building or building an experiment that you did not design are also activities that probably don't qualify you for authorship on their own. Designing an experiment included in a paper does qualify for authorship. Spending time with the other authors comparing and contrasting competing explanations of data might qualify for authorship, depending on your overall role and contribution in the project.
In my experience I have seen people not have authorship when they spent a significant amount of time testing and validating an experimental setup that they did not design. In this case they were more of a paid technician than a researcher, even though they were working with research equipment and contributing to a research project.
I contrast, I know a guy who did get authorship for simply coming up with a really good idea and doing zero work. He was a graduating PhD student and had a great research idea that the others in his lab implemented and evaluated. Even though he did zero work on the project or paper his colleagues thought that the single original idea was enough of an intellectual contribution to grant authorship.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As pointed out in the other response, check out the legal / specific issues first, but take for granted that your role as an author, ethically and professionally speaking, does not depend on your affiliation but on your contribution. What they told you, honestly, looks more like bullying/retaliation to me than anything else.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This is an old problem. It happened twice to me as a postdoc, later when I had become a professor myself, I asked them why and if we could not fix it. But the answers were, there is nothing wrong and get over it. It is true I was quite ambitious and at times, I got my fat with people who do not like to be overtaken, or not liked me, or wanted not to share. I try today to involve people who left my lab in articles they belong too. It is true with some people you have not an easy stand and it is sometimes almost nobody's fault, we are all very different at times. I try nevertheless to work with all, also with those who leave the lab. Try yourself to be a giver in this matter and then you are better off in front of your mirror. The consequences of not accepting you as co-author can be as bad as many other unfortunate conditions. But there is a place for the hard working despite ugly things we have to phase from time to time.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/26
| 729
| 3,265
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to use, in a journal manuscript, a figure for which the original source (a website) no longer exists. What can I do?
I found the figure in a Ph.D thesis, the author of the thesis is however not the copyright holder of the figure. But the website of the figure's reference no longer exists, and is also not saved in the internet wayback-machine.
I have a copy of the figure, but i do not see any possibilities on how to ask permission to use the figure.
Any suggestions on how to proceed?
I don't want to make this question too case specific, because I think it is a problem that could occur often, in different countries and settings. But of course I would like a practical resolution: the specific source indicated in the Ph.D. thesis is A2Engineering.com retrieved march 2010.
I already looked a lot on google, also using reverse image search, and I could not track the copyright holder, or their nationality or country of residence. The difficulty is that there are many companies with similar names, but their field of interest does not seem to match with content of the figure.
Is there any chance that i could still use it, based on the idea of "fair use"?<issue_comment>username_1: As many commenters have pointed out, I would recreate the figure and state something to the effect of "similar to source X" and include a citation.
If you've got through all reasonable steps to get permission, this should be adequate - you're providing proper attribution and not claiming it as your original material. While this clearly meets the standard in my country, I acknowledge it may be different from location to location.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: We have a serious problem, worldwide, with copyright now. To protect yourself and your reputation, I think you are better to assume that you cannot use the figure or a recreation of it unless and until you can determine positively that you can. Copyright differs greatly by country now. Unfortunately many works have been abandoned by their authors but copyright law generally makes no provision for that. Fair use and "use for research" differ greatly by place.
My suggestion is to give a reference to the original, even if it cannot be found and to create your own figure separately from this one, using, if possible, different data. Don't try to make it similar. Don't try to disguise the original. Make a new figure that illustrates the point you are trying to make in your own work.
I would do something like presenting my own figure illustrating the point I'm trying to make and the note that author X made a similar point at Reference Y, including illustrative figures (without reproducing them). Your readers are informed. The previous rights holder is respected. You have done the best you can do given (possibly unreasonable) restrictions on sharing.
Whether or not you would be "caught" or "challenged" in reproducing something without permission, your own reputation can suffer. It is better to be conservative here.
But it is also better to use whatever position you have to work toward more sensible copyright rules that deal with abandoned works and with scholarly research without having the original rights-holder suffer.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/26
| 2,718
| 11,725
|
<issue_start>username_0: My supervisor does not allow me to use commercial software for my project. I believe that they want to reuse, modify and build upon what I do and thus are interested only in tools/libraries that are widely-accepted in the scientific community (which I do not intend to pursue a career in).
The commercial software products license costs are not an issue as students can either officially use the software for free or licenses are quite cheap (e.g. less than 5 Euro for students). As I know which tools are used in the kind of jobs I want to get in, I do not need the supervisor "to guide my software decisions" to help me in this aspect. I am also already quite proficient in one of the commercial software tools I want to use, but I feel my supervisor is not (and also has no interest in learning more about it - I do not blame him for this).
When signing up for the project, usage of commercial software was not explicitly excluded. The topic of the project itself is actually interesting, it is just the software that we cannot agree on.
How might I persuade them to change their view? If impossible, how can I make the most of this situation?
*[This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13916/is-it-acceptable-to-require-a-student-to-use-the-supervisors-preferred-software) is related to what I am asking about, but it is more normative in nature.*<issue_comment>username_1: The student license can be cheap, but the standard license is probably not. If the chair doesn't have funding for a standard license, or they are not interested in this specific software, the lab will end up with an unusable piece of software as soon as you leave. This is certainly not in the interest of the lab.
>
> What would you advise me to do?
>
>
>
There's not much you can do: either accept the chair's choice of software or go find a project in a lab which uses your preferred choice of software.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: Tool development (perhaps on top of some open codebase) could be an important part of your training (and mark) in many fields. The supervisor also has to be able to supervise the project, and if they're not familiar with your choice of software but you ask for help, guess who's stuck -- you. That's two reasons why it may be in the interests of a typical student to learn to stitch together the standard tools.
It's not an exact match because of the licence costs and other factors, but if someone started on a project I help run and then said "actually I don't want to write it in Python, I want to use Labview" they wouldn't get very far (their bit can be done in about 100 lines, most is handled by library/demo code).
In response to some of your comments: ***Viewers*** are available free would be a huge red flag to me, indicating a company that tries to suck you into a commitment to their software. Research is based on building on each other's work. If the research group only *view* your work in the future (and only while the software company supports it) the group is effectively committing do doing the same work again or paying for a licence if any changes need to be made. By not working with the academic standard software you're doing your colleagues and yourself a disservice. Sometimes commercial, even expensive, software is standard in academia, so I'm not saying we should always use FOSS, but we should be careful.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: You can propose to write your project in both the supervisor's preferred software (which you'll have to learn) and your preferred software at about the same time. Assuming that the bulk of the difficulty of your project is in what you're doing with the software, rather than how you do it, then keeping both versions in sync should be reasonable. The flexibility this approach would demonstrate might even look good on a resume/CV. In the worst case, you can simply use your preferred software on the side, for your own benefit, without needing to tell your supervisor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: You are confusing your academic training, which should focus on instilling in you a good understanding of the theory, with the practical training which you will pick up through working or spending your own time learning a specific tool. While I do appreciate the need to make yourself as employable as possible, I would also say that it is important for the academic community to utilize tools that can be freely used by anyone in order to ensure that future research doesn't get locked into specific commercial toolsets.
Also depending on your area of work you may find employers these days are moving more towards open source anyway (certainly the case in data science).
My suggestion is to do the work using the tool your tutor suggested but pick one part of your project to replicate in the commercial tool. Employers understand why the academic community may not use commercial tools (as they grapple with the question of licensing costs themselves) but will be impressed by your willingness to go the extra mile to learn a tool.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Unless I've missed something, you haven't mentioned what the subject matter of your Masters is. It may be that your supervisor wishes you to develop some software that does some specific job, in which case the use of commericial software is inappropriate.
At my institution where I am studying a masters in applied maths, I had the choice of using C programming language, FORTRAN, Python, Maple, Matlab or Mathematica. The advantage of C was that I have a linux machine at home with lots of free software. Unfortunately at university if I wanted to use C I had to make use of Cygwin at university and had problems doing some of the things I needed to do so I eventually opted for Maple.
In part this was because one of my modules was Maple. As well, because my supervisor made use of Maple, if there were any programming issues I could approach him.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Writing code, even if it "reinvents the wheel" also proves you have true understanding of the principles and theory involved, something that often is not necessarily true for a tool operator (even a solvent one). The goal might be not only to get the job done, but to demonstrate you've gone through it following a methodical, rigorous and valid path.
For the project, you should do as your supervisor asked you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I don't think that you're going to persuade your supervisor here. There are two kinds of arguments that you can make.
One is that you are entitled to use the software of your choosing. I don't think that this is true and even if it is, then it's not worth the fight. Your relationship with your supervisor will be strained from the get go. You're better off doing what is asked of you and re-doing the analysis in the commercial software to learn how to use the commercial software. This will cost you less time and energy.
The other argument is that you have to convince your supervisor that is in his best interest. I don't think that that is true here. It will be more work for him to build on your work and to supervise your work. And I don't think that you can compensate him for it any shape or form. Again I would suggest learning how to use the commercial software on your own time.
There is the additional point that learning how to code up the analysis is a valuable skill and exercise. It will teach you a lot about what you're doing and this will make writing up your work a lot easier. In addition, it is also a valuable skill to have in the market place. Not because you can code, but because it's another way of becoming more experienced in breaking down a problem into small parts so that a computer can solve these. The breaking down of a problem is what is valuable.
Now I might be wrong about you being able to convince your supervisor. But if you really want to then you have to ask yourself how he will benefit from it. If he won't, then I don't see how you are going to make him happy. My advice is therefore to learn how to use the commercial software in your free time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: My experience is that most terms of use agreements for student versions *do not include* most forms of research, and are often limited to coursework. If you go through the terms of use for what you want to use, and it doesn't allow research, you should reconsider your position, or convince your supervisor to buy a full license if it would increase lab productivity.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: You can argue that you are not very proficient in the standard software, and if your supervisor wants you to use it they should send you on an intensive training course funded from your research budget. Highlight how much valuable time will be spent by you learning to do the same things all over again in different software, therefore contributing nothing towards your project.
Also investigate whether your data or calculations can be converted to a more open format from the commercial software (in an example from CAD, your colleagues might not be able to use a SolidWorks file but a STEP or IGES is readable by most CAD software). That might be a good compromise.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: If I were your supervisor, not only would you not be allowed to use commercial software for which my lab doesn't have a license, I'd also likely discourage you from using tools or libraries that aren't ones commonly used by the lab.
Why?
**Because research software is a living thing**. You're viewing this project as "I finish it, I get a job, and away I go." But if this is intended for anything other than a closed, one-off project that will be *entirely* wrapped up the moment you leave, research software has to be usable and maintainable into the future. Your supervisor has to be able to look at the project and understand what's been done. They may need to extend it, etc.
There's also some red flags for me in your question:
>
> As I know which tools are used in the kind of jobs I want to get in, I
> do not need the supervisor "to guide my software decisions" to help me
> in this aspect.
>
>
>
There are aspects to any project beyond "Can Unit Root get a job?", and you seem to be utterly ignoring all of them. That's not a great perspective to have when joining a research group.
>
> I am also already quite proficient in one of the commercial software
> tools I want to use, but I feel my supervisor is not (and also has no
> interest in learning more about it - I do not blame him for this).
>
>
>
You are setting yourself up for a situation where if you run into problems (hint: it's a research project, you *will* run into problems) your supervisor will either be unable to assist you, or it will be a great deal of work for them to do so. The reasons why this might be a bad thing should be obvious. And this may occur even if you are very proficient in the use of software - one of the most fiendish problems to solve in my PhD work emerged from software I had been using successfully for 5 years.
>
> When signing up for the project, usage of commercial software was not
> explicitly excluded.
>
>
>
Approaching this like it's some sort of contractual arrangement with clearly defined terms and conditions is not likely to be a productive way to manage a relationship with your supervisor.
The short of it?
>
> How might I persuade them to change their view? If impossible, how can I make the most of this situation?
>
>
>
You shouldn't. You should do as they ask, do the research, and expand the breadth of your experiences.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/26
| 1,821
| 8,017
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a doctoral student who is trying to graduate. The requirement at my university is that students write 3 publishable manuscripts. Because my adviser knows that I don't want to stay at my current university for a post-doc, she wants me to submit my manuscripts before she'll let me graduate. I spoke to the assistant chair of my department to ask if this was normal, and she said that it's understandable because if a student leaves and doesn't publish, the adviser has to "take responsibility for finishing and publishing the papers." This sounds weird to me - shouldn't I be able to decide if I want to publish my dissertation work? Obviously, I'd like to get them published, but it seems unreasonable that my adviser could take my papers and publish them herself if I don't do it in the time frame she wants.<issue_comment>username_1: No, not without your explicit permission. However, she can make it hard for you to graduate.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If the requirements at your university are that you write three "publishable manuscripts" (I assume in a peer-reviewed journal or conference?), your advisor can clearly ask for exactly that. Now what makes a manuscript publishable? I see three reasonable ways to ascertain that:
* The manuscript is in a state such that it could be submitted for peer review (evaluated by someone who has a good judgement of that, maybe your supervisor).
* The manuscript has received favorable reviews from peer review.
* The manuscript has been accepted for publication after peer review and revision.
Asking you to have your manuscript submitted instead of just ready for submission does not seem over-stretching the first option, and it is actually already the weakest of the three. In fact it seems understandable that your supervisor would not see a real difference between a manuscript that is ready for submission and one that has actually been submitted. This is a few hours of work apart at most.
It doesn't sound like your advisor would want to finish the papers without you, but if she'd be willing to, I wouldn't see any problems with that. Of course she has to retain your name on the paper, but certainly only one of the authors can handle all the correspondence with the journal in the name of the other authors. Also any revisions in principle should be approved by you, though as long as you find a working modus that is ok for everybody involved it could also be handled more flexibly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I think there's a disconnect between what the assistant chair means when they say "*take responsibility for finishing and publishing the papers*" and what you're interpreting it to mean.
What I imagine they mean is that your advisor would have to do all the editing to get the results into a publishable format, tying up loose ends of experiments, submitting the paper to the journal, etc. -- coordinating the myriad things needed to get a body of work into a publishable form. I don't think she's talking about taking the paper, removing your name from the author list and submitting it behind your back. -- You'd likely be informed about the submission, even if it's merely at the level of your advisor emailing "here's the finished manuscript, any comments before we submit?".
You're absolutely correct that you, as author and a person who did the work, have a say in whether something gets published. And you're also correct in saying that it's unethical for your advisor to ignore you and publish without your consent (either with or without your name on the author list). However, it'd also be unethical for you to hold up publication of an article for non-scientific reasons [1]. As such, it's normally expected that any research work you do is probably going to get published, and if you don't do it yourself someone else is going to do the legwork to make it happen. (Giving you the appropriate credit [2].)
So it's all about how much "with[out] me" you're thinking about. Once the results are done, coauthors can have very, very little to do with the actual publishing of the paper. Other authors can do all the work of collating the results, analyzing them, writing, formatting, etc., and the coauthor can just look at the manuscript and say "Yup, looks okay to me!" and that counts as permission to publish.
---
[1] If you have scientific objections to the article as written, that's one thing - work with your advisor to address them. But if you think the article is scientifically sound but disagree with publication because you no longer care about it, or you want to hurt your advisor, etc., that's another.
[2] "Appropriate credit" drops off the less involvement you have in writing the paper. In certain circumstances, not actually writing the paper could knock you off of "first author" status. (For those fields which order authors by contribution amounts.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm a professor. It would be considered unethical even for a thesis advisor to publish the work of a graduate student without the student's implicit or explicit permission. Usually, quite a bit of the advisor's creativity and work goes into advising a student, and that part is ultimately owned by the advisor. If I tell a student of mine to take this and that data set and do this or that to it, if then the student does so, but then refuses to work with me in publishing the results, then I am justified in doing the work myself or let someone else do it, and then publish the results. It becomes involved because when two or more people work together, attribution of ideas and insights is tremendously difficult, but academic custom dictates that all intellectual contributions (unless they are completely trivial) are contributed, usually through authorship. Therefore, in this scenario, I might have to someone acknowledge the possible contribution of the previous student. But this scenario is very far-fetched.
Profs at a research university get evaluated including on the number and quality of published articles with students.
You should talk with your advisor about your plans. It is in both of your interests to get published, independent on whether you are staying at this university. It would be wrong to go to another place and then publish your results without acknowledging your professor's contributions and it would hurt her / his career.
Since both advisor and advisee benefit from publishing, there are usually few problems in this area. In case a student is leaving for the non-academic world, it is normal but not normative for an advisor to see publications through the process.
You have to give your advisor three publishable manuscripts anyway in order to graduate if that is what the department demands. There seems to be at least an
implicit expectations that publishable manuscripts are indeed eventually published, so if you object to publishing, the Ph.D. committe is (probably) justified in not promoting you to doctor. (If you have a scientific disagreement with the article or its contents, then you open up a new can of worms. Usually, the department will then assign a committee to sort it out.)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: A dissertation is the student's work. The outsourcing of committee work to journal referees provides a convenient way of passing the buck; but is it good for academia? Advisers guide and lead the student. Does one ask for part of the salary of an undergraduate alumnus who benefited from a faculty members guidance and leadership?
The natural course of things, barring human difficulties, is that the student-adviser relationship is a close one and after graduation, they will work together. What we see with the modern trend toward making coauthored publication a requirement of dissertations is a lot of students who do not succeed once they are no longer just implementing the faculty member's next notch in the belt. We should be developing the student's scholarly ability.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/26
| 3,020
| 11,502
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently been appointed as a [lecturer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecturer) in a scientific department. This is a permanent position. The responsibilities of the position include: teaching, conducting high level research, administration tasks, mentoring and supervising students. The teaching load is 100 hours/year, which I found a little bit excessive.
My question is: are 100 hours of teaching a heavy load or is this common in academic institutions (universities)? In particular, scientific departments (chemistry, mathematics, physics ...).<issue_comment>username_1: The load seems reasonable for an established lecturer, but is a little heavy, by UK standards, for a first year lecturer. It might be worth asking for a partial teaching (or marking or tutoring) release for the first year.
Many universities, including those in the UK and US, talk about the split between research, teaching and admin. A split of time of 40% research, 40% teaching, and 20% service is not atypical at a UK Russel Group university. In the UK, the work year consists of about 1800 hours (37.5 hours per week times 48 weeks a year). With a 40% teaching load, you should be doing 720 hours of "teaching". I have never heard of a Russel Group university with a teaching load lower than 30%. The non-Russel Group universities I am familiar with don't go above 60% teaching time.
Teaching obviously consists of more than just standing in front of students lecturing. My UK university work load model credited us with time for supervising undergraduate final year project students, our mandated office hours, marking, tutorials, and lecturing.
We typically had 40 office hours (2 hours per week of the two 10 week semesters) and 150 grading hours. This left about 530 hours of traditional teaching time (tutorials, lectures, and practicals). For every hour of tutorial and lecture, we are given either 4 or 8 hours of prep time depending on if it is new teaching or not. This means an established teacher would have 132.5 hours of lecturing a year and a new lecturer would have 66.25 hours of lecturing a year.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My teaching load is not measured in hours, so I'm not sure if it compares directly with yours. In any case, my "blackboard time" is about 130 hours per year (4 classes). On top of that, preparing assignments and exams, marking exams, office hours, mentoring of graduate students, committee work, and a research program.
Many departments I know have a lighter load, that would imply close 100 hours per year.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: From a Spanish perspective, 100 hours per year is tiny. In the University of Barcelona, most full time lecturers are expected to deliver 240 blackboard hours a year. Even part time lecturers teach up to 180 hours a year. The only kind of lecturers that teach less than 100 hours a year are those in the lowest ranks of part time lecturers, who just teach 2 or 3 hours a week (60 or 90 hours a year).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: That's not much, to be honest, many university lecturers in India are expected/made to deliver 100 hours in 2/3 months.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Davis. Here are the typical "blackboard" hours per year (9 month positions):
Research Faculty (60% research, 30% teaching, 10% service)
* 1st year: 84
* 2nd and on: 126
Teaching Faculty (70% teaching, 20% research, 10% service)
* 1st year: 210
* 2nd and on: 252
Full time lecturer (100% teaching)
* 378
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I would suggest to compare this workload within your university and with those closest to your situation(recently hires, salary, benefits etc). If this workload turns out to be same as everyone else's than accept it. Good luck with your job.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: In China's practice, the main part of the work of a lecturer in an institute of higher learning is to teach, so 100 hours is only the workload for him within a semester. The good thing is that at least the teacher can have more exchanges of ideas with the young people.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: At my university, a typical teaching load varies from 200-300 hours/year. If you are worried that 100 hours is excessive, being a lecturer may not be the right fit for you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: In institutes of technology in Ireland a lecturer currently delivers 17 contact hours per week for two semesters of 13 weeks each, giving 442 contact hours per year (this applies in institutes that are semesterised, which is the majority of them). For several years until recently the weekly load was 18 contact hours.
There is also the more junior Assistant Lecturer grade in the institutes of technology, which basically means that there are an extra 2 contact hours per week, giving 494 contact hours per year.
I should clarify that these are hours in a classroom in front of students: preparation time and setting, marking and administration of exams and assessments are separate from this, as of course is research.
Contact hours in universities in Ireland are another story and they vary somewhat beween universities and departments. When I lectured in a maths department in one of them, I typically had 6 contact hours per week giving about 156 contact hours per year.
So 100 contact hours per year would probably not be considered excessive by an Irish academic.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: In New Zealand, in my department, we also have 100 contact hours per year. These hours only include lectures and not tutorials or laboratories.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Since this is turning into a big-list summary of practices in each country: in **Italy**, the typical load is:
* **120** or more hours/yr for a professor (full or associate)
* **70-80** for a tenure-track position
* **60-66** for a junior research position.
80 and 66 are hard limits, at least in my institution, 120 is not --- some take more hours of teaching (kind of) voluntarily, and some get away with fewer --- especially those that have administrative roles. This applies to all university staff; in the Italian system there is no separate lecturer position focused on teaching.
Our system, though, requires you to spend more time on **exams** than in other countries; for instance, for some courses I have to offer the students up to **8-9 attempts** per year to take the exam.
This, plus lecture prep and office hours (which are not counted in these calculations) means that you spend more time teaching than those numbers seem to imply.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: My problem is that there doesn't seem to be an international standard to compare teaching loads of university staff on an international level. For US faculty, I have often read about the X-Y scheme, where X denotes the number of courses taught in spring, and Y the number of courses taught in fall. But how much workload or classroom hours does "one course" imply? Most people here talk about hours of teaching per year - but how do they spread over the year, considering semester weeks and breaks, preparation time and actual classroom hours?
In Germany, we talk about classroom hours. University professors typically have 9 classroom hours per semester, professors at universities of applied sciences 18 classroom hours. One such hour equates 45 minutes and is only to be done during semester. There is two semesters per year, lasting approximately 15 weeks each. Preparation times and exams are in top of those classroom hours. In other words: a university professor would face about 200 classroom (60min-)hours per year and is still expected to mostly focus on research, while preparatory/exam time comes on top of those 200 hours. A professor working for a university of applied sciences would look at 400 hours with almost no research obligations.
Is this anyhow comparable to the amount of hours discussed above?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: The bare data of "100 hours" is not very meaningful. In **France** (continuing the big list), the legal workload of a lecturer or professor is **192 hours** of teaching per year, in all departments in all universities. There are serious caveats:
* This number of hours corresponds to a number of "travaux dirigés", which google translates as "tutorials". It is understood that 1h of lecture is equivalent to 1.5h of tutorials. Therefore a professor (presumably in extremely good standing with their department) could theoretically teach 128h per year, assuming they focus on lectures and nothing else.
* It is also understood that 1h of blackboard time corresponds to roughly 4h of total work time, including preparing the course, the exams, proctoring, grading, etc. Because French universities are dramatically underfunded, this also includes idiotic stuff like filling Excel tables with students' grades or booking lecture rooms yourself. So 192h is really 768h in theory. Multiply by 2 to account for research (the people who wrote the law are probably idealists) and you get 1536h, which is almost equal to the annual legal working time in France (1607h).
* This workload has no provisions whatsoever regarding supervision of students: undergrad projects, master's theses, PhD theses. We do all this pretty much on a volunteering basis. Or it counts as "research", who knows.
* Some administrative duties - heading a lab, a research team, a department, being responsible for a degree, a very large course, being on the administrative board, and so on - carry a teaching reduction. The reduction is somewhat laughable compared to the amount of work necessary for these duties.
* Someone reasonably senior and with a good research record can get access to teaching buy-outs using grants or special kinds of sabbaticals that I don't feel like detailing. I know people who haven't taught the full 192h/year in years.
Having been appointed lecturer in France some time ago, I can only say that I *wish* my teaching workload was only half of what it currently is. I'd have to say that 100h/year is a rather good deal.
A humorous anecdote: in a committee constituted of international experts evaluating candidates for a three-year grant (that contained clauses for the aforementioned buyouts), a German colleague asked if the 192h mentioned on the applicants' files were referring to the entirety of the grant's duration, which was already funny in itself. For comparison, this third of 192h/year (64h/year) is what we ask of PhD students here.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_14: My experience in UK Russell group university engineering:
* Every Lecturer is expected to teach 2-3 modules. Each module has ~35 contact hours (lectures, tutorials, labs). So, 100 hours sounds about right.
* In addition, we have 10-12 undergraduate/graduate(MSc) project supervisions that we need to meet on a weekly basis.
* We also have weekly tutorial meetings (some academic some pastoral).
When you bring funding, you buy out teaching and this goes down.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_15: I am a lecturer in the UK, and my teaching load is 200 contact hours per year. I think this is higher than average in the UK because our university is post-92 and quite teaching-oriented. This is also (supposedly) lower than average in our university because I have an additional workload allowance for research.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/26
| 691
| 2,863
|
<issue_start>username_0: Here's my challenge: I took a suspension of studies about a year and a half ago from my UK PhD program (in ancient history) and moved back to the US after my funding ran out, and now have to decide whether to pony up for part-time tuition or just drop out entirely.
I have no hope or interest in pursuing the PhD for a career; I've got a career in an unrelated field. But my subject and my thesis add something to my life that I don't want to give up. But I'm not eager to dump $10,000 for just part-time tuition when right now that would be a doable but poor financial decision, especially since I doubt my rate of progress would improve. I've finished about 50% of my thesis.
Is it possible to just quit and then reapply again in the future? It's never been stated outright, but the vibe from the university is it's finish or quit forever. I don't really care if it's at the same university or not. (As long as it's not in the US; I have no interest in a longer than 3 or 4 year program).
Has anyone else left a program only to complete it or another one years later?<issue_comment>username_1: Whether your university (or another) will allow you to pursue your course in a particular fashion is something you will have to ask them.
The key question to consider though is how your research will be impacted by the delay. I guess ancient history may move slowly enough that it's unlikely someone else will do the research while you are waiting. But how well will you be researching while doing something else/after you haven't thought about your topic for a long time?
A more common approach in your situation would be to transfer to a shorter qualification (some sort of masters) that you can complete reasonably easily using the work you have already done.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There is at least one high-profile example of someone who put a UK PhD on hold for three decades to pursue a career in another field: the rock star [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_May#Scientific_career) suspended his studies due to the success of his band, and then resumed them 32 years later. His research was in astrophysics, but in a subfield which hadn't advanced so far in the interim that he couldn't catch up and complete a novel thesis, which seems parallel to the situation you expect with your field.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Two students completed their Ph.D.s under my supervision after a multi-year gap. They had taken all the necessary courses and passed all the necessary exams before the gap, and they returned much later to write their dissertations. If I remember correctly, they had to apply to the graduate school for readmission. Of course, the fact that this worked at my institution (University of Michigan) doesn't necessarily imply anything about other institutions.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/27
| 1,334
| 5,662
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know it is fairly common to review the same paper twice. However, I want to ask whether this can be unfair to the authors.
I recently had a paper rejected in two very prestigious applied math journals. Both times I received one very good review and both times I received *the same* very negative review (with minor adjustments to accomodate for the improved manuscript).
The problem is that the negative review is blatantly wrong and off the mark, criticizing everything and not suggesting anything specific. It seems to be a very peculiar opinion about my paper, written by someone that can only appreciate his own views of the subject.
It seems unfair to me that one single person was able to ruin my chances in both journals, with a possibly odd opinion. When I was at the other end of this situation, I denied to review the paper for a second time, as I'd want the authors to have a fresh judgement of their work.
So, can it be that our common policy of giving multiple reviews of the same paper, especially when we don't propose any improvement to be done, is unfair to the authors as we can be the ones wrong?
And can I, as an author, do something about this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: If you have concerns that the reviewer isn't being fair or just, you can always contact the editor and ask for a new reviewer. It is not entirely uncommon, I know of researchers that have a "blacklist" of people that they do not allow to review their works.
But consider that the reviewer might have a point. I know it is not your case, but I get really disappointed when I get the same paper twice and it is exactly the same text. Regardless if is the same process or not, a proper review would most likely improve the paper, so to see that not even the typos got fixed (in my case) is hard.
More to the point, how did you change your paper to make sure nobody else reading it would reach the same conclusions as this reviewer?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, like almost everything in life, it's possible that it's unfair, e.g. for the reasons that you describe. Often, though, it's an advantage:
* It puts less pressure on the system in general, since fewer reviewers are required per paper. It's much quicker to get up to speed on a revised paper if you've read a previous version before.
* It's almost always possible to find something wrong with a paper. If it's sent to a new reviewer each time, they won't see the improvements being made and will simply identify new things that need changing. You'll get caught in an endless cycle of revisions.
And consider the alternative: if papers were sent to a different set of reviewers each time, authors would be more able to play the odds, and simply keep submitting until they happen to get a favourable set of reviewers. As the most suitable reviewers are used up, it gets sent to people with less expertise until the paper's (possible) flaws get overlooked. This is still unfair, just in a different way.
Finally, bear in mind that a reviewer cannot accept or reject a paper, that job lies with the editor. Therefore, the editor provides a check against possible rogue reviewers: if the reasons for suggesting rejection are unreasonable, the editor is at liberty to ignore them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> So, can it be that our common policy of giving multiple reviews of the same paper, especially when we don't propose any improvement to be done, is unfair to the authors as we can be the ones wrong?
>
>
>
I don't think it's unfair. Moreover, I have a feeling that if it was the *positive* review of your paper that you got twice from the same reviewer, you wouldn't come here to complain that this was unfair. This reminds me of the joke about a professor who had a student who failed the final exam in his course and had to retake it. On the second attempt, the professor gave the exact same final exam, and the student failed it again. He then went to the professor and said "professor, I think it's unfair that you failed me a second time." Incredulous, the professor says "but I gave you the same final exam and you still failed it!", to which the student replies "exactly - I already failed that exam so it was unfair of you to give the same one; you should have given me a different exam!"
Jokes aside, what *is* potentially unfair is to get a negative review from someone who clearly hasn't understood your paper or even bothered to try. Even then there is an argument to be made (that has been made here by various people in connection with past questions) that that means your paper is at fault for not making it easy enough for the referee to understand your results. In any case, whether it's unfair or not, the unfairness is the same whether that lazy/ignorant/mean-spirited referee reviewed your paper once, twice, or any other number of times.
>
> And can I, as an author, do something about this situation?
>
>
>
Yes, you can. You can write the editor a polite email in which you give your best attempt at explaining why the reviewer's report doesn't make sense and should be ignored. You should have done that already after the first submission, but you can equally well do it now after receiving the same negative report the second time. You can also point out to the editor that this is the second time you're getting the same referee report, but personally I don't think that's a valid argument that should sway the editor's decision. My advice to you is to focus on the substantive issue of why the report is not a useful one, and not the number of submissions it was used in.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/27
| 1,654
| 6,759
|
<issue_start>username_0: My university requires applicants to have some sort of Master's or PhD degree to become a professor and teach.
But really, how is PhD related to **teaching**? My high school "teacher" graduated with a Bachelors of Science, and he is one of the most knowledgeable and best people I know. His **teaching** is amazing.
A professor is how different? A teacher marks, a professor may mark, A teacher teaches, a professor definitely teaches, a teacher will create exams, professors do the same.
I don't see how the role of a PhD in **order to become a lecturer/professor** plays a role? Everything that you can learn is online, and everything that you can teach is also online. What exactly does a PhD prove?
A professor is a teacher at their most basics. They impart knowledge into the students, and a good professor is indicated by their teaching, as a teacher is. So, what does a PhD even mean?
I asked my professor this. I asked him, "what did you want to do after graduating", and he told me "I wanted to become a professor. So I fought through grad school, wrote a thesis that has no impact on the world, and here I am, teaching you as I've always wanted to".
It looks like to me that my professor just did his PhD "because he had to". So,
My two questions are:
1) Why do professors need PhD's, if they are no different from teachers, but only teach harder subjects?
2) Personally I myself think that I can **teach and educate students** just fine without a PhD. Why the PhD needed?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> 1) Why do professors need PhD's, if they are no different from teachers, but only teach harder subjects?
>
>
>
If you start from the premise that professors "are no different than teachers", then guess what, your conclusion will be that the qualifications required to be a professor are the same as that for a teacher. This is [circular reasoning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning), so one answer to your question is that your premise is wrong. Professors *are* different than teachers in that they both teach and do research, and (some, though not all of) the subjects they teach are sufficiently close to the forefront of human knowledge that to teach them effectively actually requires being an active researcher.
Another error your question makes is that you say professors "only" teach harder subjects. That "only" hides a major difference between the subjects that professors teach and the subjects that schoolteachers teach, and having a PhD is precisely the sort of qualification that makes it possible for someone to teach well at that "only harder" level. The term for the kind of fallacious rhetorical device that you're using with your "only" (and a few other parts of your question) is [loaded language](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language); you might want to avoid using such language in future questions.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If you believe that the job of a university professor ought not to be bound by the first and last page of a textbook, then a good professor with a Ph.D. will usually bring breath and depth of knowledge that someone without this degree does not typically have.
Certainly we all know PhDs who are terrible instructors while others without are gifted and inspirational teachers, but such situations are exceptional rather than commonplace.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: For teaching it isn't enough to be one lesson ahead of the students, you need to know how the material you are teaching will be used in practical terms to give the class the right focus.
In principle, you may think this would only be necessary in the most advanced courses, say the last couple of years of the whole degree; but the truth is that ideally, this should start from the first courses. As an example, the most fundamental mathematical tool in quantum mechanics is the decomposition in eigenvectors and manipulation of subspaces. So, a first year linear algebra course for a physicist shouldn't just teach eigenvectors to an operational level, but it should give them also a good intuition and understanding of how this plays together. The same course for a mathematician or an engineer would have to be different, because their requirements are different.
Another part of the story is that from the first course, students have to learn how to think. In my case, the course that taught me the most how to think like a physicist was calculus in one variable, first semester of first year. A mathematician, an engineer, or a good teacher could have perfectly taught me as much calculus as my professor did, but they wouldn't have been able to teach me the physics intuition behind it.
What is the role of a PhD behind all this? Being an active researcher is a way of ensuring that you know the end goal of your course, and you can teach the students how to think. And by the way, in more applied fields, like engineering, I think not everybody should need a PhD, and some of the instructors should come from an industry background (as it happens in many universities).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Why do professors need PhD's, if they are no different from teachers, but only teach harder subjects?
>
>
>
While your question is (understandably) from the student point-of-view, I have to wonder: have you thought about what PhD holders bring to the table for their academic employers?
Now, while some institutions hire those with only a Master's degree into faculty positions, quite a lot of tenure-track positions require a PhD. For those that require it, institutions benefit from hiring PhD-holding faculty in a variety of ways; here are a couple to consider:
1. Tenure-track hires can boost their department / institution profiles by being awarded competitive research grants, publishing groundbreaking results, etc. How do you become a competitive, successful researcher without a PhD? (Not impossible, but not likely, either.)
2. In some disciplines, it is desirable for academic departments to seek accreditation of some sort for their programs of study. I realize this is a big [citation needed] moment, but (at least in engineering): departments with faculty having PhDs are not scrutinized by accreditation boards as heavily as those that don't. (I'm on the tenure-track in an electrical engineering department, and have participated in several rounds of accreditation activities.)
>
> Personally I myself think that I can teach and educate students just fine without a PhD. Why the PhD needed?
>
>
>
Alas, teaching and educating students is only part of the position requirements for professors. Other answers have addressed this point fairly well, so I refer you to those answers.
Upvotes: 0
|
2017/06/27
| 500
| 2,012
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently got several postdoc offers and two of those were really nice. I have accepted one of them and I am thinking whether I can make some use of the second one that I have turned down.
I traveled quite a long distance to give a job talk, that was pretty successful, and a famous professor in my field made me an offer. Maybe the fact that this famous professor was ready to hire me would make my CV look better (I plan to apply for permanent positions in Academia in Europe/America(s) in future).
So, the question is: would it be helpful and generally acceptable to add to my CV words like "job offer from "Professor\_Name" lab, refused in favor of anther offer"? Or it would look like an act of excessive inappropriate boasting?
In general my CV is quite OK even without that so these words would not make a crucial difference anyway, but still.
UPD. My field is applied mathematics/computational neuroscience.<issue_comment>username_1: I've seen a *few* cases of people in my field (linguistics) turning down competitive funding offers and listing them in CVs with "(declined)". Some of these happen to be tied to postdoctoral positions, especially ones offered by governments and/or prestigious granting agencies.
And depending on field/location, it might be possible to list job talks as 'invited talks' for particular departments.
Beyond that, I think referring to job offers you have refused is inappropriate and likely to look only like showing off.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **TL;DR - No, but it depends on which country.**
Your CV lists the "course of your life", and that definitely doesn't include the courses you refrained from taking in life. As someone who has read people's CV (albeit not in the US) I would find it highly weird / somewhat inappropriate for you to list *anything* you've declined.
However, as @OlegLobachev suggests, in some countries (e.g. Germany) this is more common and perhaps even expected.
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/27
| 474
| 2,089
|
<issue_start>username_0: If you have been working on projects independently and not under a professor, does compiling your work on a personal website/blog also serve as a good reference for an admission committee looking to select a graduate student for a Master of Science program? Or should a professor always vouch for the work you do? Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: Depends :) If your pet project is `gcc` or some part of the Linux kernel (to give a computer science example), or something else which is well-known and actually in use somewhere, or a successful commercial product, it might serve this purpose well. And of course it's interesting to get to know the candidate a little bit.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be overly impressed by most *un-reviewed* work. (Incidentally, this includes work of professors and workgroups, too.)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: **No, realistically a list of external projects will *not* make up for not having letters.**
Letters are typically not, or not primarily, used as a description of projects you have done, but as a subjective evaluation of your potential as a PhD graduate student. Letters *may* include a discussion of undergraduate research, but will also include a discussion of your personality, especially your strengths and weaknesses as a researcher. It is evident that this cannot be learned from a description of projects alone, especially given that this list is curated by yourself.
Incidentally, this is also the reason why senior professors are considered the "best" references - admission committees assume that the best judge of prospective grad students are those you have seen many grad students succeed and fail, i.e., senior professors.
**Edit:** as username_1 correctly notes, the question is about master rather than PhD applications, but at least for a master by research, this does not change the spirit of my answer. For masters by coursework, I think most universities don't really employ a competitive selection procedure anyway (at least the ones I know don't).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/27
| 696
| 2,709
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing my thesis and I want to emphasize that the importance of energy, especially electrical energy, has increased tremendously and we are living in an information era which is fueled by electrical energy.
How would I make this sound credible?<issue_comment>username_1: It is often quite hard to state the obvious in a scientific context without making it sound like an unfounded opinion. The best thing to do is search for citeable literature. In this case I would, for example state that the use of electronic databases has sky rocketed and mention a couple of papers on that, for example :
[De Groote, Measuring use patterns of online journals and databases, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2003](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153164/).
The best thing to do is cite like four of such papers covering a decade or so. Journals like Scientific American are good in this regard, as it is an indexed journal, but covers opinion and popular science based articles from reputable authors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two claims here, one about increasing reliance on electrical energy, the other about the information age. You can operationalize both and look for data that supports the claim. The first claim can be operationalized as electricity consumption (worldwide or in the OECD), over time. There's data published, for example, by the international energy agency. The second claim can be operationalized as [growth in petaflops](http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/12/02/incredible-growth-supercomputing-performance-1995-2010/), available computers or smartphones per household, people having internet access, you name it.
Another, rhetorically nicer but less scientific, at least less scientific-sounding, approach to 'proving' the obvious is to use telling and vivid examples:
>
> When a large-scale electrical storm went through northern Virginia on
> 29 June, electrical load in one of more than 10 Amazon data centers in
> the region failed to successfully transfer to generator backup.
> Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) serving that particular circuit
> eventually ran out of battery power and servers began losing power
> around 8pm PDT. This caused service interruptions for many online
> businesses -- including popular ones like Netflix and Pinterest
> (liberally quoted from [here](http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/colo-cloud/amazon-blames-generator-stabilization-issue-for-outage/66504.article)).
>
>
>
Also, there is this [IEEE paper](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4937762/?reload=true) on worldwide energy needs of information technology.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2017/06/27
| 848
| 3,250
|
<issue_start>username_0: Within the context of research (e.g., research proposal), what makes the Aims and Objectives different to one another?
I am looking for a clear and simple answer. When I look around I often end up more confused.<issue_comment>username_1: This shows up generally in the English language, I've seen the exact same discussion in writing constitutions for not for profits, and similar answer applies.
Consider the context of a military plan:
* Aim: Secure the northern boarder.
* Objective: Increase garrison strength to 150 men
* Objective: Assassinate the neighboring warlord: McBaddie
* Objective: Rebuild border wall
Your aim is "What do we overall want" -- the what,
your objective is "What will do to achieve it" -- the how.
Once all your objectives are complete, then you should have thus completed the aim.
Objectives are also "whats" and so can be the "aims" for subobjectives.
Eg
* Objective: Increase garrison strength to 150 men
* SubObjective: increase recuiting in cities X,Y,Z
* SubObjective: Decrease training times of recuits by increasing hours of training per day by 25%.
So for a research proposal:
say you are in the area of Sports science/mechanical engineering, working on bicycle design.
* Aim: to produce the most efficient bycycle in terms of cadence to power ratio.
* Objective: Develop a sensor accurately measure power that can fit into a pedal casing
* Objective: Determine normal cadence rate for cyclists, and the level they can be trained to vary it.
* Objective: Determine the most effective material to build gear systems out of.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is no simple answer. From what I can tell, these terms were developed by bean counters with the typical description being that the aims are the *what* and the objectives are the *how*. The bean counters then talk about [smart objectives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria) that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound.
The quote I like best is from [NIH NIAID](https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/draft-specific-aims):
>
> start thinking about your planned experiments by first drafting objectives, known in NIH lingo as Specific Aims.
>
>
>
I think this circularity arises from the fact that [NIH grants](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-d/research-forms-d.pdf) typically only have a specific aims section and does not have an objective section. The [NIH says](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm#SpecificAims) the specific aims
>
> Includes the specific objectives of the research proposed (e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology).
>
>
>
I hae always thought the description of the *specific objectives* sound like aims to me since I feel like they describe *what* is going to be done (test a stated hypothesis) and not *how* it is going to be done.
The key thing, regardless of the terminology is that grant reviewers nowadays want to know both what you are going to do and how you are going to go about it.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/27
| 1,188
| 4,975
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the next months I will defend my thesis and I wonder if it is really worth it to write a traditional thesis. Although I have time to write it, I would consider a “waste” of time that I could use continuing my research (or improving some of my results).
On the other side, all my colleagues have written a traditional thesis, that is why I am not sure if a [sandwich thesis](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149/what-is-a-sandwich-thesis) would harm, somewhat, my future career.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm a CS PhD who went into industry after my degree. When discussing my thesis back then (which, by the way, was what you call a "traditional" thesis) it was always in general terms: the ideas in it, not the pages. Similarly, any time I have fielded an application from a PhD, they would put the title of their thesis on their CV, but I *very* rarely would actually go and try and find the thesis. Instead I would look at their published articles in journals and conferences.
So while I can't give a definitive answer -- and I can't say that universities wouldn't scrutinize the thesis more closely and perhaps discount a "sandwich" thesis -- I'm strongly of the opinion that if your university permits it and your advisor supports it, that's what matters. The likelihood of it "harming your career" seems quite low, because in all honesty, who will notice?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It all depends on the quality of the papers and the venues where they were published. A thesis that sandwiches multiple papers from top venues is potentially **beneficial**, since the included material stood a particular rigorous evaluation process.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Regarding your career, don't worry at all. In computer science, it is mainly your publications, conferences, and your code in public repositories what's gonna be valued in real life. No one is ever gonna read your thesis, apart from (if you are lucky) the members of the committee evaluating it.
That being said...
>
> In the next months I will defend my thesis and I wonder if it is
> really worth it to write a traditional thesis.
>
>
>
The question here is: do you have a **thesis** in the research sense of the word (a statement about the world that you believe to be true and you have tried to prove during your PhD years)? From your description, it doesn't look like that's the case.
This would be my personal advice:
* **Case A: You already have a few good publications that answer some questions of a common broader topic.** In my experience, it is worth to compile them, cleaning them out, and adding an introduction and some conclusions to help the reader prove you know what you are talking about, and that you are able to manage the big picture. It helps you clarify your thoughts and your research. That proves that you have a **thesis**, you are responsible for it, and you are able to defend your own research. You might actually learn a lot doing this.
* **Case B: You have been publishing here and there, about different topics, some of which don't actually have much to do with each other, and you don't really have a "thesis" per se.** Then, honestly, don't bother. Just present your collection of publications and get your PhD. You cannot build and improvise a decent thesis in a few months if you don't have one already.
* **Case C: You don't have good publications and you don't have a thesis**. Get your PhD and run away as fast as you can. Try not to recommend that University to anyone in the future.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: tl;dr: Writing a sandwich thesis can further narrow your focus and prevent you from developing a broader understanding of your field.
I have mixed views on sandwich theses that essentially staple 3-5 papers together between a short introduction and conclusion chapters. The benefit of the sandwich thesis is that articles are generally what is important to hiring committees and funding committees. As the sandwich does not include any *sides* it is also better focused and can be quicker to write letting you finish sooner (which has advantages and disadvantages).
The benefit of a traditional thesis where you have a literature review chapter, general methods, a couple of result chapters and a conclusion chapter is that it lets you explore side topics in addition to your main focus. They can be quicker to write since you only need a single literature review, method, and conclusion sections, especially if you put the writing off until the end. A traditional thesis typically has more comprehensive literature review and conclusion sections. Following side projects and writing a really thorough introduction and summary can provide you with valuable insight into the wider field and help you find your next topic. This is not to say that a sandwich thesis cannot include side projects and in depth literature and conclusion chapters.
Upvotes: 2
|
2017/06/27
| 585
| 2,399
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've seen many personal web pages of (US/UK/EU) academics that have a list of all the PhD, MSc/BSc or internship students they've supervised before. Is this allowed or does it break privacy of the students?<issue_comment>username_1: This not only allowed but is a good practice too towards transparency, and is definitely not a breach of privacy.
Supervision is a publically known position, not secretive and the website is only making it known to a wider audience.
If the student's private emails or personal information of their private travel, etc were revealed on a public site, that would be a breech on the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Many professors do this to establish the "academic family tree" of their lab. Most of the students are happy about it and proud. It only documents that you spent some time in that lab/group working on a topic, which I don't think violates your privacy. If you don't want that, you can contact the professor to get your name removed; shouldn't be a problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know in the UK, but at least in Spain these data (at PhD level) are public. Not only student and supervisor, but also committee members, etc. Here an entry of the database: <https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref=1381779>
I wouldn't consider that as a breach of privacy but actually good transparency.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The governing federal law in the USA is FERPA - the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Under FERPA a school may generally disclose what is identified as "directory information," things such as names, email addresses, photographs, etc. However the student has the right to request that their directory information be excluded from public disclosure, so it's possible that they are not covered here.
Note that, as in most cases, individual states may have their own privacy statutes.
If you are really concerned then the prudent thing to do, regardless of legal jurisdiction, would be to ask the student in an email whether they are OK with the posting of their name and potentially other information. The email provides a reasonable level of proof that you did your due diligence prior to posting student information.
US DoE guide to FERPA: <https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html>
Upvotes: 3
|
2017/06/27
| 1,672
| 7,234
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a research meeting I mentioned I was doing some peer-review for a conference and disclosed the general topic it was about, without any further details. Immediately my colleagues demanded I disclose information about details of the paper, authors, and they even suggested I should share the paper with them immediately, and they swore "they would not share it with anyone".
I refused and said this was unethical behavior. They all got really angry and took it personally, saying that sharing a manuscript under review was completely normal and ethical, and even recommended and the problem was simply that I did not "trust them".
What is your experience with this? What are your thoughts?<issue_comment>username_1: Sharing articles like this does happen, sometimes it's fine, but it probably happens more than it should. If in doubt, the simplest course of action in this situation is to get in touch with the editor for whom you are carrying out the review. Ask them if they are happy with you sharing the manuscript, or selected details from it, within your research group. You then don't have to shoulder the blame if the answer is "no", you can just blame the editor.
Note that some journals provide specific guidance. The instructions for a review I carried out recently included this:
>
> [I]f you are planning to get help with your report from a colleague (e.g., as a way of providing mentorship and training with reviewing), we do ask that you keep any such consultation to a small number of people (1 or 2) to respect the confidentiality of the review process. On rare occasions you may also want to consult with a colleague outside your group to gather additional input, and in such situations please contact us beforehand to verify that there would not be a conflict. When you submit your review, we will give you an opportunity to acknowledge anyone who did assist you to give them credit for their contribution.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: **Do not share this manuscript**.
It is one thing for you to solicit input, under an agreement of confidentiality, when you recognize there is another expert who can help with the review.
It is totally different when someone demands that you share it, not because you are getting help with the review, but for their own edification. The manuscript is confidential. Keep it that way!
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: Echoing the other answers: *NO*, "sharing" is not ok, especially with people whose interest is manifestly acquisition of information, rather than helping you give an expert review. Obviously. For that matter, this episode should cause you to seriously question the morality/ethics of the people who tried to bully you into "sharing". They are cheaters... sorry. Yes, we all have to learn how to "get along" with cheaters, but/and it is important to know who they are, ... and now you know, sadly. My sympathies.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Unless there's some explicit okay to the contrary, you would normally regard a review as completely confidential. Even if it weren't a formal requirement, in my mind it's what the author(s) have a right to expect. If they want to share it ... there are often ways to do so, and if they haven't done it, it shouldn't be your choice to share it.
On occasion I have shared the general *topic* of a paper under review where that was relevant. That is, I have once or twice said something like "Oh yeah, I agree topic X is becoming more popular lately - I refereed a couple of papers on it just recently".
By contrast, anything that would give explicit details of the contents of a paper or identify its authors (even with blinded reviews it's often pretty obvious who the authors are) would contravene the either the near-universal expectation of confidentiality or more typically a journal's explicit requirement of it.
In short -- don't share it. If you think there's a *really* good reason to, *ask the editor* -- who will almost certainly tell you no, and for good reason.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The above answers are valid and I support them fully. By the sound of it your co-workers were demanding to look at it, whilst the review process is indeed a strictly confidential process.
Nonetheless, I just wish to add an exception to the rule:
Sharing a manuscript under review is fine when inviting others to look at it too **as part of the review process**. Typically, the big chief honcho of a research group is constantly flooded with review requests and often they can't handle it on their own. In this context, it is actually great when busy folks share this burden, because multiple parties benefit:
* The department's head as it reduces workload;
* The postdocs, grad students *etc* who are helping out with reviewing as they learn how to be a good referee;
* The manuscript's authors as they will receive a much better review because multiple people have looked at it, instead of just a super busy head-of-department who hasn't have the time for it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: My PhD advisor was reviewing a paper and wanted me to look at the math (it was complicated); **he still got editorial permission first.** I did look at it, and I found a simple problem (the paper's authors used a $log\_2$ result as if it were a $log\_{10}$ result and got a [beneficially] wrong answer).
I was 'raised' to never share anything about a paper under review, including the topic! Plus I have known an unethical professor that used an idea *from peer review* to write a very similar paper. So suppose the paper you are reviewing is rejected at this journal for some reason, but the author still should retain all rights to his idea. He may get it published elsewhere.
But by showing it around you have effectively published his idea behind his back in a way others can steal it. One of the people interested in this can write their own paper, and perhaps with better contacts, reputation or just better writing, get published and steal the credit from the original author.
That is not fair or ethical. Even telling somebody about the topic or the title could trigger interest in the problem that did not previously exist, along the lines of "Hm, that gives me an idea..." That leads to pre-emption also.
I think the only advantage you can ethically enjoy, as a reviewer, is that IF the paper is accepted and GOING to be published, you have a significant head start on following up based on any new insights in the paper; giving proper credit where credit is due.
You should never share what is supposed to be confidential without permission of the editor, not even with friends you trust -- because the friends **they** trust may not be people **you** can trust.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Your collegues complained, among other things, that your unwillingness to share the paper demonstrated distrust on your part --- and well it should. Had you been willing to share the paper without permission, you would have been giving the author reason to distrust you. Your collegues demonstrated remarkably unethical behavior and, to refute their claim, have proven they cannot be trusted.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/27
| 628
| 2,630
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am about to submit a 3.000 words article. It needs to be submitted soon, and I will have to submit it, but I know that I could flesh this out much more, and arrive at something with around 7.000-10.000 words, if I had more time. However, the **basic** idea would remain the same. It would be much more detailed, but I would not be making a completely different point.
Could I publish the 3.000 words article in journal A (if accepted), and then later this year publish the 8.000 words version in journal B?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on what you mean by "flesh out". If you mean "waffle a bit more, add some detail to the introduction and discussion" then the answer is an emphatic **NO**. If you mean "add some further analysis that uses the original manuscript as a starting point and explores a different, previously undiscussed angle", then the answer is a hesitant *yes*, but it begs the question of whether it would be more effectively presented as a single, comprehensive paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that you can answer this question yourself if you can answer the following question.
If you would find that a 3,000 word piece had been published before on this topic, then would you be able to publish a longer 8,000 word piece given that you have to cite the other piece?
If the answer to this question is no, then you can't. If it is yes, then you can. You don't get any special treatment for being the author of the original piece.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the comments posted to date that it depends in part on whether the new article would stand on its own. In addition, you would need to check whether the intended venue has particular guidelines about originality. I suspect this is a domain-specific question. In Computer Science, my experience is that there is a hierarchy: workshop papers (~5 pages) can be extended in conference papers (~10-12 pages), which can be extended into journal articles. Usually there is a requirement of ~30% new material but I'm sure the threshold varies by publisher. I think (but without certainty) that IEEE, for instance, would not accept one journal article extending another journal article.
If you know the venue, perhaps you can ask them the hypothetical.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: In this case, the first short one published might be treated as an abstract with a length longer than usually expected, and the later long one the real article. They can be treated as one whole, or individually, because they serve their purpose respectively.
Upvotes: -1
|
2017/06/27
| 734
| 2,975
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to decide on the journal where I want to submit my article. Besides the ranking of the journal, what I care is the speed with which the journal review articles. OK, I do not accept a super-fast review process from any journal, but sometimes it can be painful to wait too long as many of you have already experienced.
I know that some journals shares information about dates when the articles was first received. I can use this information to make an estimation about the length of review process. But, many others do not share any information about this.
So, I wonder if there are some ways to have an idea to publish an article in a journal before submitting?<issue_comment>username_1: I will find out if I know someone who has published in that journal and ask them about their experience with the peer-review process. They can tell you if it took longer than expected, if there were any problems with the review process, or if there were more than three reviewers (some journals will have up to five, which may lead to a longer review). If you don't know someone who has published in that journal recently, you can always ask a senior researcher if they have heard anything about the journal. Many journals also publish in individual articles the dates of initial submission and final acceptance, which also gives you an idea of the timeline.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Some journals are quite open and self-report submitted texts, rejection rate, time of the review process etc. For instance, one of the leading journals in my field (political science) does this every year [here](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/report-of-the-editors-of-the-american-political-science-review-20152016/EF30854865D74E534721B39C525BDFE8)
Maybe there is something similar in your field of comp. science and educational science?!
Nice overviews about journals and their peer review process can be found on 2 websites: <https://scirev.sc/> - you can choose your discipline or the specific journal. They don't list every journal but in some disciplines, they are quite good. Additionally and more related to open access journals is <http://www.qoam.eu> . As far as I know, on both sites, former authors are invited to assess the peer review process and so on. This often gives a good insight into the *real publication time*
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In mathematics, the AMS publishes an annual report in the AMS Notices with data on how long journals take from submission to final acceptance (in addition to other things). The most recent edition of this is [here](http://www.ams.org/publications/journals/notices/201610/rnoti-p1194.pdf).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Check the website [Academic Accelerator](https://academic-accelerator.com/Review-Speed/ACS-Nano). I think this Review Speed database includes more than 30000 Journals.
Upvotes: 1
|
2017/06/27
| 1,081
| 4,413
|
<issue_start>username_0: Springer's self-archiving policy states:
>
> Authors may self-archive the author’s accepted manuscript of their articles on their own websites.
> Authors may also deposit this version of the article in any
> repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months
> after official publication or later...
>
>
>
<http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/self-archiving-policy/2124>
Many other journals specify a similar embargo period.
My question is, **what counts as the date of "official publication"?** This could refer to:
* date of *acceptance*
* date first available *online*, or
* date article first appeared in *print*
This may seem like a nitpicky question, but for some journals, publication online precedes publication in print by 6 months or more.<issue_comment>username_1: From [Nature Neurology Reviews](http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/info/about_aop.html) (bold is my emphasis):
>
> What is the 'official' publication date?
>
>
> Many journals, and most abstracting and indexing services (including Medline and Institute for Scientific Information) **still cite the print date as the publication date**. This is an evolving standard, however, **and the trend now is for publishers to state both the 'Online Publication Date' and the 'Print Publication Date'**. Nature Publishing Group currently publishes both dates for its own papers, and we hope that the scientific communities and abstracting and indexing services will recognize these dates.
>
>
> For the time being, the reference lists in our papers will continue to follow the standard convention of citing by print publication details if they are available. We expect, however, to review this policy regularly as community standards evolve.
>
>
> For legal purposes (e.g. establishing intellectual property rights), it is our assumption that online publication will constitute public disclosure. This status is, however, for the courts to decide; our role as a publisher is to provide clear documentation of the publication history, online and in print.
>
>
>
In summary, it seems like the print publication date was originally the standard, but now it is becoming more common to treat the online publication date as a form of official publication as well, as online publication becomes the norm. It's probably up to the journal how they exactly define official publication for purposes of repository deposits, however, and you will have to check with the journal for clarification if it is not already clear.
The US National Institutes of Health requires that NIH-funded research must be archived in their PubMedCentral database 12 months after "official publication." Their [FAQ on the matter](https://publicaccess.nih.gov/faq.htm#4060) defines this as follows:
>
> NIH determines the official date of publication for the public access policy based on information received from the publisher and the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The official date of publication is listed in the PubMed citation display for a paper immediately after the journal title abbreviation.
>
>
> NIH uses the official date of publication for determining the public access compliance status of a paper and calculating when a paper should be made public on PubMed Central. An "epub ahead of print" date for a citation in PubMed is not considered the official date of publication, and these papers are still considered in press.
>
>
> Note that when only partial publication dates are available (e.g. Month and Year, Season and Year), NLM calculates the date as the first date of that time period (e.g. March 2013=March 1, 2013). See <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/licensee/elements_article_source.html> for additional information about NLM dates.
>
>
>
Based on these guidelines, it would suggest that it is the print publication date that is important, but it also seems like they leave it up to the publisher to some extent.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to Bryan's answer, I have received a clarification from Springer:
>
> The term "official publication" refers to the First Online date of an
> article.
>
>
>
This *may* be specific to the journal ("Signal, Image and Video Processing"), because, prior to responding, the customer service requested the DOI of my article. But, personally, I think it's likely a publisher-wide policy.
Upvotes: 2
|