date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2018/03/12
| 1,418
| 6,221
|
<issue_start>username_0: It is a doctoral project in engineering, a long, tedious, and grumbling story. I was contracted as a PhD candidate for another project but when I started, the director suggested me to change for the current one (which they just obtained some funds). Later, a co-director was added who has never led a doctoral thesis before and has no ambition in research but is a nice person to chat with given the previous expertise with administrative tasks (it's the truth...) I accepted and began my journey.
In the beginning, it was the 1st director that taught the 2nd director and me the idea of the project. Gradually, I found out that they repeated the same stuff in all the meetings. When I asked for suggestions on choosing a focus of the project, they didn't shed many lights but suggested a topic that is not within the scope of our group. I tried to avoid it but through more and more readings, I came to realize that this topic was unneglectable for the project. Luckily I got some idea and tried to start either with software analysis or experiment. I asked my directors for support in acquiring software license and equipment, they have been "working on solutions" for years without results till now, not to mention the great inertia to keep up with the project. They copied my report as accessing report for me and their comments to my report were usually only correcting the department name...
I did my best to keep it cool and went for an exchange program at another university in another country. There, I got something done, which was not perfect but more persuasive than the non-evolutional system diagram drawn by my director in each meeting. After the exchange program, I realized that there was a lot of room for improvement even corrections which involved concepts/skills in another field. And such improvement and correction is the essential part of my work- how to analyze data and how to link analysis to reality. We happen to have another research group in our university that works in this field but crosstalk is not appreciated especially with the absence of your own directors... Anyway, I convinced them that I need someone who could give me directions in my project. They said that they would try to find a third director for me from that group. Months have passed with me chasing them from time to time. Finally, they found someone and we went to visit this professor together. I received some useful suggestions then I asked my directors if we could initiate the procedure to include this professor as my third director and they replied: "oh, let's see if it's necessary". I told them I need at least to make my papers and thesis "theoretically correct". If there is any fatal mistake that none of us could tell, I will be failed for sure.
I've got the feeling that I have survived many heart attacks and mental disturbances these years. (Compared with my colleagues, who have given up long before talking to these directors: even if their topics are not as "off-topic" as mine, they didn't receive any guidance either...) Now it is my last year or months of the doctoral journey, I have no faith in receiving academic help from my directors. Their reluctance to bring in someone who knows it would make me drawn (everyone should sign a paper to include a third director so I cannot go my way). Probably by the time they agree to sign, I would only have 2 months left... What should I do? Any practical suggestions?
Revised with more specific questions that came to my mind.
1) I may have to accept that I will never have a "useful" director till the end. However, I know 2-3 other professors from different institutions. Is it very much against conventions to ask for their help to review my papers and doctoral thesis?
2) In order to get things done as soon as possible, should I put more effort on the publication or on the final thesis? I have no publication yet and just started writing the thesis... Is the doctoral thesis more like a continuous physical work?
3) How to make use of my own directors? The primary director has had several graduated PhD students. Given the circumstance, it would be unlikely that they even bother to read my thesis. I don't know how they plan to have PhD graduated without knowing anything.<issue_comment>username_1: I am not sure if this advice will help or not. When I started my PhD work I had a vision many great things I wanted to accomplish. I had big plans. I mentioned this one day to may main adviser. He is very accomplished and well known in our field. He immediately, guided my thinking and strongly advised that I change my thoughts. He told me my goal as a PhD student was to get done as fast as possible and that my real research and big picture goals will happen after I earned my PhD. At first, I did not like this advice. Since then I have valued it just about as much as anything I have ever learned. So, is there some way you can adopt this kind of approach towards the time and resources you have left and just figure out how to get done? Sorry to answer your question with a question.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You seem to have a problem of waiting for permission before doing something: you mention that something was "not appreciated" so you didn't do it, then you're wondering about what is within or "out of convention", but who cares about convention? What's the problem of going beyond what is "of convention"? You waited months to set up a meeting with someone who may have helped you (and waited for your advisors to do it), and so on.
Stop asking for permission. Break the "rules" (some of which you may think are rules even if they aren't) and ask for forgiveness later, if even necessary.
Take charge of your PhD and get the help you need: ask these professors at other places to read your stuff. Tell your directors that you're doing it. Ask your directors about publications versus thesis. Figure out what you need to do to not fail your PhD, and if you want to stay in academia, start looking for postdocs with advisors you feel can work with you (but as a postdoc you are expected to be much more independent than you seem to be at this point.).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/12
| 2,299
| 9,479
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a conference paper which is indexed by IEEE by a copyring with the following terms. My paper is an extented abstract without any proofs and details. Now I want to submit the same paper with all proofs and details to a journal. Can I do it
>
> IEEE COPYRIGHT AND CONSENT FORM
> To ensure uniformity of treatment among all contributors, other forms may not be substituted for this form, nor may any wording
> of the form be changed. This form is intended for original material submitted to the IEEE and must accompany any such material
> in order to be published by the IEEE. Please read the form carefully and keep a copy for your files.
>
>
> Paper NAME
> Author's NAMES
> Proceedings of 6th Iranian joint congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Systems
> COPYRIGHT TRANSFER
> The undersigned hereby assigns to The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (the "IEEE") all rights
> under copyright that may exist in and to: (a) the Work, including any revised or expanded derivative works submitted to the IEEE
> by the undersigned based on the Work; and (b) any associated written or multimedia components or other enhancements
> accompanying the Work.
>
>
> GENERAL TERMS
>
>
> The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to make and execute this form.
> The undersigned agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the IEEE from any damage or expense that may arise in the
> event of a breach of any of the warranties set forth above.
> The undersigned agrees that publication with IEEE is subject to the policies and procedures of the IEEE PSPB
> Operations Manual.
> In the event the above work is not accepted and published by the IEEE or is withdrawn by the author(s) before
> acceptance by the IEEE, the foregoing copyright transfer shall be null and void. In this case, IEEE will retain a copy of
> the manuscript for internal administrative/record-keeping purposes.
> For jointly authored Works, all joint authors should sign, or one of the authors should sign as authorized agent for the
> others.
> The author hereby warrants that the Work and Presentation (collectively, the "Materials") are original and that he/she is
> the author of the Materials. To the extent the Materials incorporate text passages, figures, data or other material from the
> works of others, the author has obtained any necessary permissions. Where necessary, the author has obtained all third
> party permissions and consents to grant the license above and has provided copies of such permissions and consents
> to IEEE
>
>
> CONSENT AND RELEASE
>
>
> ln the event the author makes a presentation based upon the Work at a conference hosted or sponsored in whole or in
> part by the IEEE, the author, in consideration for his/her participation in the conference, hereby grants the IEEE the
> unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable permission to use, distribute, publish, license, exhibit, record, digitize, broadcast,
> reproduce and archive, in any format or medium, whether now known or hereafter developed: (a) his/her presentation
> and comments at the conference; (b) any written materials or multimedia files used in connection with his/her
> presentation; and (c) any recorded interviews of him/her (collectively, the "Presentation"). The permission granted
> includes the transcription and reproduction of the Presentation for inclusion in products sold or distributed by IEEE and
> live or recorded broadcast of the Presentation during or after the conference.
> In connection with the permission granted in Section 1, the author hereby grants IEEE the unlimited, worldwide,
> irrevocable right to use his/her name, picture, likeness, voice and biographical information as part of the advertisement,
> distribution and sale of products incorporating the Work or Presentation, and releases IEEE from any claim based on
> right of privacy or publicity.
>
>
> BY TYPING IN YOUR FULL NAME BELOW AND CLICKING THE SUBMIT BUTTON, YOU CERTIFY THAT SUCH ACTION
> CONSTITUTES YOUR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE TO THIS FORM IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNITED STATES LAW, WHICH
> AUTHORIZES ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE BY AUTHENTICATED REQUEST FROM A USER OVER THE INTERNET AS A
> VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITTEN SIGNATURE.
>
>
> Information for Authors
>
>
> AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES
>
>
> The IEEE distributes its technical publications throughout the world and wants to ensure that the material submitted to its
> publications is properly available to the readership of those publications. Authors must ensure that their Work meets the
> requirements as stated in section 8.2.1 of the IEEE PSPB Operations Manual, including provisions covering originality,
> authorship, author responsibilities and author misconduct. More information on IEEE’s publishing policies may be found at
> <http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/authorrightsresponsibilities.html> Authors are advised especially of
> IEEE PSPB Operations Manual section 8.2.1.B12: "It is the responsibility of the authors, not the IEEE, to determine whether
> disclosure of their material requires the prior consent of other parties and, if so, to obtain it." Authors are also advised of IEEE
> PSPB Operations Manual section 8.1.1B: "Statements and opinions given in work published by the IEEE are the expression of
> the authors."
>
>
> RETAINED RIGHTS/TERMS AND CONDITIONS
> Authors/employers retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Work.
> Authors/employers may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the Work, material extracted verbatim from the Work, or
> derivative works for the author's personal use or for company use, provided that the source and the IEEE copyright notice are
> indicated, the copies are not used in any way that implies IEEE endorsement of a product or service of any employer, and the
> copies themselves are not offered for sale.
> Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party
> requests for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use.The IEEE Intellectual Property Rights office must handle all such
> third-party requests.
> Authors whose work was performed under a grant from a government funding agency are free to fulfill any deposit mandates
> from that funding agency.
>
>
> AUTHOR ONLINE USE
> Personal Servers. Authors and/or their employers shall have the right to post the accepted version of IEEE-copyrighted
> articles on their own personal servers or the servers of their institutions or employers without permission from IEEE, provided
> that the posted version includes a prominently displayed IEEE copyright notice and, when published, a full citation to the
> original IEEE publication, including a link to the article abstract in IEEE Xplore. Authors shall not post the final, published
> versions of their papers.
> Classroom or Internal Training Use. An author is expressly permitted to post any portion of the accepted version of his/her
> own IEEE-copyrighted articles on the author's personal web site or the servers of the author's institution or company in
> connection with the author's teaching, training, or work responsibilities, provided that the appropriate copyright, credit, and
> reuse notices appear prominently with the posted material. Examples of permitted uses are lecture materials, course packs, e-
> reserves, conference presentations, or in-house training courses.
> Electronic Preprints. Before submitting an article to an IEEE publication, authors frequently post their manuscripts to their
> own web site, their employer's site, or to another server that invites constructive comment from colleagues. Upon submission
> of an article to IEEE, an author is required to transfer copyright in the article to IEEE, and the author must update any
> previously posted version of the article with a prominently displayed IEEE copyright notice. Upon publication of an article by
> the IEEE, the author must replace any previously posted electronic versions of the article with either (1) the full citation to the IEEE work with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or link to the article abstract in IEEE Xplore, or (2) the accepted version only
> (not the IEEE-published version), including the IEEE copyright notice and full citation, with a link to the final, published article
> in IEEE Xplore.
>
>
> Questions about the submission of the form or manuscript must be sent to the publication's editor.
> Please direct all questions about IEEE copyright policy to:
> IEEE Intellectual Property Rights Office, <EMAIL>, +1-732-562-3966
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: It would be better to write to IEEE (they have an email address at the end), but I do not think you can republish this work, based on this part:
>
> **Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party requests
> for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use.**
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Normally the same paper cannot be published twice. To give the paper and yourself more visibility, your options are: (1) present it in a workshop without proceedings; (2) prepare an extended version that has additional content and publish that in a journal.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/12
| 999
| 4,298
|
<issue_start>username_0: Not sure if this is the place to ask about this. But for lack of knowledge of a better resource, I turn here.
When citing papers which use the different notation for the same model, is it better to leave the notation as is when citing each source, or, to retain consistency conform to one notation?
If I were to conform to one notation, does the more recent source take priority when choosing notation or the earlier source? Additionally how would it be formatted when quoting the source with the altered notation?<issue_comment>username_1: This probably varies between fields, but in my field, mathematics, what I"d do is to explain the notation that I want to use and then express other people's results in that notation. I'd probably say something like "XXX proved [citation] a theorem that, in the notation explained above, says YYY."
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> When citing papers which use the different notation for the same
> model, is it better to leave the notation as is when citing each
> source, or, to retain consistency conform to one notation?
>
>
>
It is extremely important to maintain notational consistency within your own paper; never double-up on notation or give inconsistent notation within your paper. As to where your notation should come from, as a general principle, you should **use whatever notation is easiest for the reader**, whether this is taken from another paper, or your own adaptation or invention.
Bear in mind that established fields tend to have notational conventions that people are used to, so if there are symbols commonly used for particular objects, it is generally best to use these unless there is a good reason to the contrary. When notational conventions from multiple fields conflict (e.g., you are doing a paper on random matrices, and the capitalisation conventions for probability conflict with the capitalisation conventions for linear algebra) you will need to make judgments as to what is easiest for the reader.
>
> If I were to conform to one notation, does the more recent source take
> priority when choosing notation or the earlier source? Additionally
> how would it be formatted when quoting the source with the altered
> notation?
>
>
>
There is no temporal priority rule for notation, but bear in mind that if a new notation is sufficiently well-established, it may constitute the current notational convention (check multiple papers for this, not just one newer one). When quoting a result from another paper, in your own altered notation, you should add some parenthetic remark to make the reader aware of the change:
**Example:** Wilbur (2009) notes that "...if A and B are engaged in exclusive contractual negotiations, and C interferes with this process, causing economic harm to B, then C could be liable for tortious interference" (p. 85, notation altered).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Try to cite the paper with the notation you want to use first and introduce the use of the notation like "following the notation of X, we define ...".
If the papers are very different, you may point the reader to the differences: "In contrast to X, Y defined `A_k` using the Foo operator. Following theorem Z the equivalence can be proven". It is up to the reader to see how the equivalency follows of if he just believes you and reads on.
For smaller differences you may mention them (note that Y is using Einstein notation in theorem Z).
When citing formulas make sure to use the same notation. If they look too different you may include them in the other notation and mention "Theorem Z from Y restated in the notation of X", but in the end the reader should be able to follow *your* notation and you only follow other notations yourself to keep it similar to what the reader already knows.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> is it better to leave the notation as is... or to conform to one notation?
>
>
>
1. Mention both notations once (one in a clearly-marked definition, the other right next to it/after it).
2. Choose one, and explicitly state which one you've chosen (and perhaps even *why* you've chosen it, if it matters).
3. Use your chosen notation consistently throughout the paper.
That's what I would like best as a reader.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/12
| 533
| 2,512
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a second year undergraduate in in Math+CS interested in applying to some CS graduate programs (in the US).
Since I began my degree I purposefully put off taking a series of general education requirements with the intent of instead moving quickly through my main CS and Math coursework so that I could begin doing undergraduate research as soon as possible. If I continue this strategy then by the end of my third year I would have finished all the core coursework for both a Math and CS degree, along with a significant number of graduate courses in both departments. I also am actively working on some research projects which might lead to publishing as a first or second author in a relatively good journal, and some good recommendation letters.
Overall I feel like I could have a pretty competitive graduate application by next fall, except that I would not have the necessary general education requirements to be officially granted degrees by my university.
Would a graduate admissions committees be at all concerned that I did not officially complete my degree? Are there any reasons to hold out on applying until my fourth year (other than the possibility of taking more coursework, doing more research, etc.)?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience they do care, and in the program where I was a graduate director not being close to completion of you current degree would get your application rejected. If you can't be bothered to satisfy the requirements for a your current degree program, why would a graduate committee have a reasonable expectation that you will complete their program?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Short answer: You will almost certainly need an official bachelor's degree.
Long answer: Your main obstacle here is not the admissions committee, but the requirements of the university you'd be applying to. Any university in the US surely has it written down officially in multiple places that Masters and PhD students must hold a bachelor's degree (or its foreign equivalent) before enrolling. I believe doing otherwise may even get the university in trouble with their accreditation board.
Even if there are exceptional circumstances under which this rule can be broken, the university would have to *really* want you. "Pretty competitive" won't cut it. And indeed, why (from their point of view) should they admit you now if they could admit you in a year, after you have more training under your belt?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/12
| 1,108
| 4,564
|
<issue_start>username_0: Consider the following situation. Scientist A obtained a novel cool result and submitted it to a respected journal after putting the preprint to arXiv. The journal started the peer review process which will take 2 years. During this time scientist B drastically enhanced A's achievements thus making them obsolete. B also put his preprint to arXiv, so the reviewers can easily access it too.
What will happen then? Will the journal publish A's work? If not, why?
And what should A do to have any credit for his (pioneer) work?<issue_comment>username_1: There is no way to predict what will happen to your paper or whether
you will get credit you find satisfactory. If B is a decent person
he/she will choose to to make some acknowledgement of your prior or concurrent work.
This cannot be the first instance of such competing claims for priority.
Your journal may have a policy
on handing such situations, and it would not hurt to ask, as long
as your request doesn't appear to put blame on the journal for delaying
your paper.
You don't say what field of science is involved. Does your paper use
different methods than B's? Methods which are not made obsolete by
B's paper and might lead to other developments? Does anything remain
of your paper that is not superseded by B;s? If so maybe you'll be
asked to revise your paper to highlight what has not been 'scooped'.
In some fields I know of cases in which journal editors worked out
an arrangement for one or two joint paper(s), pretty much to the satisfaction of all. Obviously,
that would not always be possible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I’m a junior researcher in CS and this happened to me when I was an undergraduate. To simplify a bit, people are interested in the values that s(f) can take on, where f is a function. There were essentially two known functions that tied for the record for “smallest value of s(f).” I came up with a methodology that lets you construct way more examples, including multiple, unrelated infinite classes of such functions. I also showed how to construct a function with certain desirable properties that also tied that record. I then made a couple conjectures.
I put the paper on arXiv and worked on my conjectures. The professor who was my mentor (but not a co-author) got really busy because he made a travel-the-world-lecturing level breakthrough and my paper fell by the wayside in terms of his priorities. Also, I graduated and took and industry research job so I simply had less time to think about my paper. About two years after I put the paper on arXiv, I get contacted by a conference asking me to peer review a paper. This paper proved some of my conjectures (which I had done, but hadn’t written up), disproved others, and broke the record for the smallest value of s(f). They cited us and credited us with bringing the question to their attention.
Their paper got published and mine still hasn’t. My research mentor hasn’t been very encouraging about publication at this point, about four years after the research was done. From what I understand, there’s no real reason for someone to publish our paper now, except historical interest. I don’t know of any journals that accept “legacy submissions” of unpublished papers that have already been read and advanced by other work. I think the arXiv pre-print has two or three citations now. A side project right now is to combine some of my ideas that didn’t get preempted with new ideas I had after reading their paper (and a few others) into a paper that I can get published. It would be nice to get *something* published out of my old research.
My understanding is that, unless it’s a monumental result, when this happens you take the loss and call it an unpublished preprint. From a resume POV, I got a little luckier than that: I presented a modified version of the results at a peer-reviewed undergraduate research symposium. The purpose of the symposium though is to help undergraduates who do research have a second set of eyes going over their papers before “real” publication, and it’s expects that most presented papers would get published in journals or presented at “adult” conferences.
As I said, I’m a junior researcher and it’s quite plausible I’m wrong. But this has been my experience. If anyone thinks they know a venue that would be appropriate for my paper, I would love to hear about it. If anyone’s curious about the paper, the problem is the Sensitivity Conjecture and you can find my paper [here](https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00354).
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/13
| 376
| 1,586
|
<issue_start>username_0: What are the salient points to watch during a thesis defence?
How do you know if your thesis is up to scratch before the defence?<issue_comment>username_1: Apart from the motivation for your research, a number of other salient points that you must be sure to have addressed/ have answers to, includes the following.
* The relevance of the problems you have identified to your area of study.
* The clarity of your objective and the extent of its scope (is it fit for PhD?).
* What level of familiarity do you have about the state-of-the-art in
the field.
* How does your problem fit into (enhance/add value to) existing body
of literature and where are your contributions hinged.
* The technical rigour of your method and accuracy (benchmarking etc.)
* Reason(s) for choosing your method. Do you have strong justifications?
* The significance of your contribution to your research area.
* The technical ability to interpret your result and what value it adds to
existing body of knowledge.
* Your presentation and how you defend the above mentioned issues
* In some cases, (although secondary)...publications
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your PhD supervisor should not put you up for the viva unless you are ready - this is a discussion that you have with them.
If they feel you are ready and you feel nervous that is normal. But at that point this is the type of advice your supervisor is usually best placed to give.
In some disciplines it is the supervisor who then contacts possible external examiners and sets all in motion.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/13
| 1,971
| 8,436
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose a journal editor rejects a manuscript with only one reviewer’s feedback, but the few comments the reviewer and editor made were almost entirely minor comments (e.g. “use these units for this figure axis”, or “this section heading is misleading”).
Suppose one author shows the feedback to several trusted faculty members at their institution who are familiar with the work, and they say it looks like the reviewer, the editor, or both are feeling threatened by the paper and may be trying to make sure it doesn’t get published quickly, if at all.
A similar question has been asked here ([How to deal with an unethical editor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/61847/how-to-deal-with-an-unethical-editor#)), except *that* question was asking about an editor who was making up comments for a reviewer. Suppose the authors have no reason to believe that the editor is making up comments for a reviewer, as in that question, but do have reason to think the editor may have too quickly dismissed the paper (after only one reviewer’s comments rather than waiting for the second reviewer, and based on very minor details that should have prompted minor revision). Suppose, for the sake of the question, that the editor and perhaps the first reviewer indeed appear to be acting in bad faith, which of course would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove. In other words, what if several experienced researchers suspected real foul play, rather than a grad student feeling miffed about a rejection?
**What options are available to the authors in such a situation?** (This is not a “what should I do?” question.)
Background
==========
This question is most useful to the community when it is asked generally, so I originally omitted details. Several have asked, so I am including vague details here, but **my question is not about my colleague's situation — it's intended to be general.**
I read the feedback. In my colleague's case, the editor rejected the paper based on the feedback from a single reviewer and their own reading of the manuscript — without waiting for the feedback from the second reviewer. Most of the comments were easily addressed (add a sentence here, change units on this figure, rephrase this confusing sentence there, etc.). A comment about some inconsistency in their approach seemed legitimate, and a section title was confusing. The first author, a grad student, sent the feedback to me and the faculty they talked with to see what we thought. There was absolutely nothing about the feedback that indicated it should have been rejected rather than sent back for revision. I'm also a grad student, so I do think much of my own opinion, plus it's not my field. Instead, I trust that the senior faculty who reviewed the feedback and called it highly unusual know what they are talking about. The editor was in a different (tangentially-related) field than that of the paper.<issue_comment>username_1: Probably not what you want to hear, but... There's the option of submitting it somewhere else?
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no appeal possibility for most journals. So the answer is that there is pretty much nothing you can do. If the editor is really and consistently acting in bad faith, then that will eventually be widely known, influence who submits what kind of papers, the quality will gradually decline, and the journal will decline with that. But you will hopefully have tenure by the time that has happened.
Your best course of action now is to just submit the paper somewhere else.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As far as as I know, your options are:
1. Appeal the decision. Many publishers have an official appeal process; typically this will bring the decision to the attention of the editor-in-chief.
2. Submit the paper elsewhere.
3. Abandon the paper. Not a good option if you think the real problem is the editor rather than the paper.
**It is very rarely a good idea to appeal a paper rejection.** Here's why:
* Appeals are very rarely successful. There typically needs to be a very objective set of evidence in your favor. But rejection decisions are often based largely on subjective measures.
* Since journal editors tend to be senior researchers, the editor who rejected a paper often has more experience than the author of the paper. Furthermore, the author's opinion is always colored by personal involvement. It is thus more often the case that the author's opinion of a rejection is mistaken. This is a statistical point, and of course you will believe that it does not reflect your particular case.
* An appeal may negatively impact your relation with the editor(s) of the journal, particularly if they feel it is not warranted or if your emotional attachment to the process leads you to be unkind.
* Appeals are often handled very slowly; after all, the editors (who are typically volunteers) don't want to encourage the use of the appeal process.
Thus, even if you are right and the editor is really wrong, you are usually better served by submitting the manuscript to another journal. This is especially true if you believe that the editor is truly acting in a malicious way, since then you have even lower odds of success.
For reference, here is [Springer's policy and advice](https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/when-to-dispute-a-decision/10285586) on appeals. See also [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19726/paper-rejected-should-i-appeal-against-biased-reviews) and answers to it.
**Bottom line: as @username_1 suggests, you're almost always better off submitting to a different journal.**
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: This likely won't *resolve* the problem, but should put you in a better position to try and do whatever it is you choose to do:
Contact the editor, and ask him/her for the reason for rejection. Say what you've told us, i.e. that the comments s/he and the reviewer(s) had given are stylistic or inconsequential, and that given those comments you were expecting an acceptance.
S/he could then:
* claim those comments are the grounds for rejection - which would make him look quite unprofessional.
* give you an alternative reason for rejection - with which you may or may not be able to do something, but at least it'll be a concrete reason.
* stall or not answer - so you can at least claim you tried clearing things up with him/her.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I have had this situation before (an editor that given 2 positive reviews, continued to get more and more and more reviews until someone gave a negative one, then rejected it). We contacted the editor-in-chief with our concerns about how our review process was being handled, as the editor's conduct against us appeared to go against the policy of the journal.
The editor was removed from the process, the paper was 'unrejected' and we were given a new editor. The paper was published soon afterwards.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Just submit it somewhere else.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Expanding on username_1's excellent answer, the options in this situation are:
1. Submit to another journal, incorporating the feedback received.
2. Submit to another journal, ignoring the feedback received.
3. Appeal the decision, recognizing that this is very unlikely to gain anything.
---
It appears to be a common misconception, held among those submitting manuscripts to scientific journals, that the comments behind a rejection hold some sort of monumental significance. The editors of a journal can reject a manuscript on a whim -- it's their journal, and they have editorial control. If they want to only publish recipes for chocolate chip cookies from now on, that is their prerogative (although the journal's reputation will suffer, and those editors may be replaced by the publisher). The explanation is given to the author as a courtesy, to help the author with any subsequent resubmission of the work. It is not meant to be the first round of a debate.
Sometimes it is very difficult to give a satisfying explanation -- the true answer is "this manuscript is a bad copy of its first draft, which was found written in blood on the walls of an insane asylum" -- but one needs to phrase this somewhat differently to avoid giving offense.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/13
| 1,002
| 3,830
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a medical student working on my thesis... I found a couple of theses online that have relevant info to my thesis subject...
I took this information but rephrased them with my own words and then I copied and pasted the references from those theses! Is that ok?
If not, can I cite those theses?
Or what should I do at all?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you must cite works you use in your thesis.
Failing to do so is plagiarism. Also worth noting: copying and pasting work you yourself have written but for a different publication is also plagiarism (see [*self plagiarism*](http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/65061/What-Is-Self-Plagiarism-and-How-to-Avoid-It#.WqfOGbgpCUk)).
I would argue that one of the main goals of a thesis is to demonstrate that you are capable of *independent research* by *finding, critically analyzing and synthesizing existing information*.
Showing you have done research is part of the point, you show that by citing other publications.
**EDIT** The original comment was edited with more detail very quickly after I started answering; let me elaborate.
Broadly, you should cite anything you use in your work that comes from another author. If you mention another author in your paper, your examiner (and other readers) should be able to find the work you're referencing in your works cited. Think about *where the ideas come from* and *how you're using them*.
More concretely, if the other thesis itself synthesizes works of many people and you are only interested in the broad conclusion, you could cite the thesis.
Suppose the thesis author cites Bayes in their thesis, and you write something like
>
> *thesis author* (2010) is not in total agreement with Bayes (2008)\*
>
>
>
or
>
> *thesis author* (2010) is not in total agreement with Bayes
>
>
>
you need both in your works cited, because that's what *you cited*. You don't want to leave the reader (examiner) saying *"who's this Bayes character?"*
Do you *have* to read all the works the thesis author cites? Very likely not, but it's probably a good idea to read the foundational works the thesis cites in order to understand the thesis itself.
Conversely, as username_2 has pointed out, don't cite a work you aren't familiar with (meaning: if you need to cite it, familiarize yourself with it).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You should at least have a big picture idea about each and every reference you cite. Here is why:
1. Citing a reference without having read it will get you in trouble when you defend your thesis, for example if somebody asks what a reference is about, and you answer wrongly because you did not read it (while they did). This happened to me with my master thesis (and the professor who asked me told me later that it had happened to *him* when he was a student). Never again. :-)
2. At least in my field, you can spot such "never-read-anymore-but-important-so-people-cite-them" kind of articles in the literature, and it's interesting to read them and see how their meaning drifts as other people cite them without reading them. This is another important reason to go read your refs: the work you found them through might have cited them wrongly in the first place!
And of course, as already mentioned, you must always cite everything, i.e. the work you found interesting and the references cited by this work that are also relevant to your own work. When there are too many such "second-level" references, for example because the primary article you cite is a review, you can also cite this way:
>
> for review, see Doe *et al* (2010) and references within.
>
>
>
But use this with moderation; it is too easy to cite reviews without ever reading primary research articles, with the risk pointed out in point 2 above.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/13
| 1,473
| 6,157
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was talking with a faculty member and her strategy is to submit to as many grant proposals even if the quality is not high. And in fact, one of her grants was accepted. Are there any benefits for a researcher or university in terms of number of grants submitted even if the quality is low-medium and they were not awarded?<issue_comment>username_1: There are no direct benefits *if the applications are not accepted*. There might be some indirect benefits, if during the writing process the researcher gains feedback on their ideas and plans from colleagues or reviewers. Or, it might be useful to show evidence to your boss that, in the absence of grant income, you are indeed attempting to secure some.
But one important benefit is mentioned in your question already:
>
> in fact, one of her grants was accepted
>
>
>
You've got to be in it to win it. There is definitely some unpredictability in the grant application process, in terms of who reviews it, who is on the panel, what mood the panel are in on that particular day, etc. So, (all else being equal) the more you submit, the more chance you have.
Importantly, there are also potential **disadvantages** of submitting large numbers of low quality grants. For example, [NERC UK has instigated a "demand management" system](http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/researchgrants/demand/) for its standard grants, such that if an institution's success rate drops below 20% they will be limited in the number of applications they can submit the next year. The NSF (which is tagged in OP's question) places [limits on the number of applications from an institution](https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_sro.jsp) for a number of its grant schemes. For an individual researcher, this means that they probably need to get through an internal review before they can submit a grant application. In both internal and external reviews, it may not go down well with your colleagues/peers if you regularly submit low-standard grant applications, resulting in reputational damage.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The agencies I have applied to ask for reviews, and the applicant gets these reviews. Those can help to improve the grant proposal, to be submitted to another agency.
I would be hesitant to recommend such a "shotgun approach", as the reviews in the agencies I have applied for are not blind. They cannot be, because the reviewers are also asked to rate the applicant. With a shotgun approach I would very quickly get a bad reputation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The more "random" the decision process is, the more benefit does this approach have. So, if rolling dice is a good approximation of how that particular funding body selects applications (or a program committee selects papers, by the way), this is a valid strategy.
Now, let's hope for the best that there are not very many funding bodies and IPCs like this.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: When going up for tenure, junior professors often must show evidence of *attempts* to secure funding. Particularly at R1 schools where having external funding is an important part of the tenure decision, having this documented evidence could mitigate a lack of successful awards. Also, as others noted, a shotgun approach does sometimes work, and the exercise in grant writing helps flesh out one's research program and may suggest alternative paths of inquiry.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: There are a few reasons I have encountered for approaching things this way:
**It's All Random**
There is a perception among some people that, as long as you're writing a "good-ish" proposal (i.e. one that's not appallingly poor in its ideas or written style) that whether or not your grant is actually funded is something of a random process. Relatively low inter-reviewer agreement (see here: <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/27/1714379115>) and scores that jump up and down between revisions helps cement this perception.
If one believes this - and one believes that their normal grant falls in this "good-ish" category, then it's logical to view funding as a function of how many grants you submit.
Similarly, if one believes this, the marginal benefit of polishing a grant vs. writing another is pretty heavily skewed toward writing another once you get it past that "good-ish" threshold.
**I Need to Report Something**
With tenure evaluations at many institutions still relying on funding and (arguably) not having caught up with the idea that junior faculty may be good researchers and *not* have secured a major grant by the time they come up for tenure, one may feel pressure to at least look like you're trying.
Note that this has plusses and minuses to it. I have seen people criticized for not going after the "good" money (NIH/NSF), but I've also seen people criticized for having an extremely low hit rate ("He submitted twelve grants last year and *none* of them got funded).
**Grant Review as a Sounding Board**
Occasionally, it's not clear what's fundable in a particular field - especially if some of the "Big Names" have certain territories staked out already. In those cases, someone pay use the shotgun approach to see if anything seems to catch reviewer's attention. In essence, you're hoping here not to get funded (though that would be nice) but to see if some of the applications get a decent score on the various scientific merit metrics, and if those have a coherent pattern to them.
---
As other folks have mentioned, there's definitely downsides to this, including that the applications aren't blinded, that the researcher or institute might develop a reputation, etc.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: Some universities are not receiving many grants because they are not applying for very many. In one case I saw "submit more grant applications" as a strategic goal. In this case submitting many mediocre applications may help a faculty member get promoted.
Some universities reward faculty whose external grant applications are unsuccessful with internal research funding. There is some quality standard.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/13
| 546
| 2,277
|
<issue_start>username_0: As I want to make my publications easily available for citation, at my website I am offering, together with my references, a citation file. For the moment I am offering a `.bib` BibTeX file with every citation.
The question is, if it is recommendable to use further **citation formats**. I have seen that *Google Scholar* offers 4 possible formats: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RefWorks. Is it recommendable to offer such a variety or it is enough to use BibTeX?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: You can use reference management software like [JabRef](http://www.jabref.com "JabRef") or [BibDesk](https://bibdesk.sourceforge.io/ "BibDesk") to export your BibTeX file in a number of different formats.
In my opinion, a BibTeX file is a great resource that is more than sufficient (provided its entries are strictly better than the ones offered by Google Scholar, ACM, IEEE, or Springer, and many others, which are all abysmal, IMHO).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: My take on how to promote and make accessible your works for citation is as follows:
**For your global library:**
Pick a format. You won't get it always right. Mathematicians and physics will prefer bibtex, biologist and health-related researchers probably will rather have something that works directly on their word (EndNote). In any case, I feel that getting all the citations of an author from his/hers webpage is not that common. People will just pick those articles that are really relevant for them.
If you want to, at least, provide those two and you feel comfortable adding javascript to your personal page, you could use something like [enw-to-bib](https://github.com/japzi/enw-to-bib) to automate the translation upon user's request.
**For each individual article:**
If you don't want to complicate yourself, just add the **DOI**. Most journals have *citation tools* to download in multiple different citation formats. If you want to get creative, this same *citation tools* will provide the links for quite a lot of formats (I guess some journals will offer more options than others).
This option should be that much easier and allow for a more flexible way for your visitor's to actually pick whatever they are really interested in.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/13
| 383
| 1,666
|
<issue_start>username_0: Currently, I have a master’s of science in mathematics and a potential plan to couple my qualifications with a masters of science in analytics. I am actually nowhere close to being retired in the industry. But thinking way beyond the scope of the near future, I am curious if there is any possibility for someone who officially is retired from the industry to contribute to academic research? If so, how should a recent graduate prepare himself to make this a possibility.
Ideally, I would like to contribute to research in machine learning after completing a rewarding career as a data scientist. I have been continually expanding my knowledge by reading mathematical references on the train ride to work each day.<issue_comment>username_1: I've seen a number of professors contribute to their field after getting the title "professor emeritus".
One example would be with [<NAME>](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Terence_Mills/info) who is still producing material on applied time series analysis dispite of being a retired professor.
Based on this it seems that academics can still make contributions to their field regardless of the fact that they are retired.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: A non-negligible amount of people start a PhD after retirement from industry. Depending on where you are in the world, if there are coursework requirements, having a master's may exempt you, so this can give you a fairly unrestrictive but very beneficial environment to do research in. If furthermore you have a comfortable retirement package and don't need funding you will be a very attractive candidate.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/13
| 637
| 2,998
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just submitted a paper to some journal. Since they didn't specify a template, I used the IEEE template. Unfortunately, they immediately rejected my paper because they think I already submitted the same paper to one of the "IEEE Transactions" journals. I know for sure that's not the case. But how I can prove to them that my paper is not submitted to another journal. Is there a database for a list of submitted papers?<issue_comment>username_1: Of course no such database exists - it would be an incredible breach of review secrecy if people could look up what papers I currently have under review.
That said, the much more important question is why you even have this problem. A journal would never assume that a paper is already under review elsewhere without a strong reason. Maybe one of the reviewers reported the paper as double submission (I have done this in the past when I received two very strongly related parallel submissions).
Even if you really are innocent and they just jumped to this conclusion based on the template, there is nothing to do than to move on. A journal can choose to reject your paper for any reason or no reason at all. You can of course contact the EiC and clarify, but if they don't believe you, you don't really have a recourse other than never submitting there again.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no such thing as "submitted paper database".
There is also no method to prove that you did not submit the paper anywhere else - the journal relies on your (signed) statement "I did not submit the paper to any other journal.". If the journal still rejects the paper on this ground without providing any evidence for this claim, this is a red flag. The only thing you can do is to approach the editor and certify again that the paper has not been submitted anywhere else.
I can imagine that the journal may have some guidelines on formatting (but no template) and that your paper would not have been rejected if it would have been formatted according to the guidelines. (It may look weird to use a template specific for one journal but submitting to another, though. On the other hand, many people use AMS templates for preprints…).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If I understand you correctly, they thought it was a double submission because the template you used included the header "IEEE Transactions on ..."?
Email the editor and explain that there has been a misunderstanding. If you make it clear that you only used the template because there was no template specified and you liked that one, a reasonable editor will probably at least remove you from their blacklist, unless they have other reasons to find your submission shady. They may or may not agree to consider your submission after all.
As a side note, "IEEE Transactions" is not even a journal. There are many "IEEE Transactions on ". If the template really only said "IEEE Transactions" you could note this in your explanation.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/13
| 1,013
| 3,734
|
<issue_start>username_0: It seems like PhD theses are way more rare in the Google Scholar index than globally done.
If my assumption is correct they get published as well, is there a primary search engine for that?
Specifically I am interested in comp. science and information systems mgmt topics.<issue_comment>username_1: Aside from a university's own digital archives, you have several options to get copies of dissertations or theses.
A large fraction of the world's libraries list their holdings on [WorldCat](http://www.worldcat.org/), and it's one of the first places I check for dissertations and theses. Ask your librarian if you want to get a copy of something on there via loan or look on your library website for interlibrary loan. I have received many dissertations via interlibrary loan.
You can also find many dissertations and theses listed on [Google Books](https://books.google.com/) or [HathiTrust](https://www.hathitrust.org/), but they rarely can be downloaded. Google Books does not seem to have more than Google Scholar, but it provides links to WorldCat on the left side for each item. I often use both Google Books and WorldCat to do full text searches of books, and I sometimes find dissertations this way.
[ProQuest](https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/advanced) is also a good source of digitized dissertations and theses. The service requires a subscription, but if you're affiliated with a US university then they probably have one.
Usually it's easier to find journal articles based on dissertations than the dissertation itself. So keep that in mind. I usually try to get both if the journal article is important as the dissertation often has extra details or tabulated data (compared against the plots in the journal article).
Few Russian libraries are on WorldCat. So, for Russian dissertations, I've found most I've wanted to be at the [Russian State Library](https://www.rsl.ru/en), but from what I understand you have to be present to read them, or have a library card to download more than the preview for the digitized ones. My university's interlibrary loan service has been able to get abstracts of these after many months of waiting, however.
One last option is to contact the author. I've done this many times and have received everything from no response at all, apologies that they are not able to provide a copy for technical reasons (old document format), to a copy of the dissertation or thesis in question.
Here are some related questions with other answers:
* [Is there a smarter way to search for PhD theses for a specific topic?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/91767/is-there-a-smarter-way-to-search-for-phd-theses-for-a-specific-topic)
* [Worldwide Dissertation Database? or French, German, Italian ones?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/36444/worldwide-dissertation-database-or-french-german-italian-ones)
* [Search all Theses online](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9239/search-all-theses-online)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Searching for PhD theses on Google platforms is very simple. Check these tricks:
1. "in partial fulfillment" -sample -handbook "doctor of philosophy“ filetype:pdf Check the results (125,000)
2. inurl:etd "doctor of philosophy“ -sample -handbook filetype:pdf Check the results (19,300)
3. Visit <https://www.netvibes.com/ircnigeria#FREE_Virtual_Libraries> for links to open repositories of theses worldwide.
Listed on the page are
- Global ETD Search. <http://search.ndltd.org/>;
- ProQuest's open access ETDs. <http://pqdtopen.proquest.com>
- Open Access Theses <http://oatd.org>
- Openthesis <http://www.openthesis.org/>
- ETHOS <http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do>
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/14
| 325
| 1,345
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm finding it hard to understand my lecturers in lectures because they do lecture in Arabic language which I do not know. So please how can I make it to the pillar of success?
I'm currently at Suez University, Egypt pursuing degree in petroleum and mining engineering.
Your advises are highly appreciated
Thanks<issue_comment>username_1: Two options:
1. Learn the language. You should realize that if you choose to study at a university whose language of instruction is something you're unfamiliar with, you are also choosing to learn the language. There's no other way about it. It's unusual that the university didn't make sure you're familiar with Arabic or at least arrange Arabic courses for you before admitting you, however.
2. Study somewhere else. You can self-teach to some extent, but it's not a long term solution and you won't be able to pass the assignments / exams. Apply for a transfer to another university that teaches in a language you do know.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I studied in a second language, but I had at least a good grounding in it... and it was still very very challenging : this was engineering as well (not the same focus and issues as studying languages).
Best option IMHO is to move, unless you can become very proficient in that language in two months.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/14
| 3,530
| 14,621
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs. Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?
For example:
1. "Why do you want to study at this university?" Because this university is in Russia and I approve of Putin's actions as President.
2. "You've worked at this institution for 10 years. Why do you want to leave now?" Because it's in the UK and after the Brexit referendum, I no longer feel welcome here.
Nothing special about these examples; one could equally have "I want to leave Russia because I disapprove of Putin's actions as President" etc.
I tag this with "academic life" because it could apply to any decision to move.<issue_comment>username_1: Once you take it to the extreme, the answer will become an obvious *yes*. Take for example the position of some medical researchers in Nazi Germany.
Meaning that it is acceptable. However, some issues might be seen by others as too small to be of importance, or a bit odd. And of course, your reasons might upset someone else who has a different opinion on a topic, such as the two sides of your Putin example.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A political or ideological answer, albeit honest, is usually a missed opportunity to make a point about the move being a good *academic* fit.
Your goal as the candidate in this kind of exchange is not just to answer the questions accurately; it's to answer the questions accurately while also trying to convince the committee that you are the right person for the position. Virtually *any* question can be used to make a point about how excited you are about the institution you'd like to move to, how much you can contribute given your past experience, etc. A political answer doesn't usually help you "sell" yourself.
For example:
1. Why do you want to study at this university? "Because I'm really interested in the work Professor Twist is doing on basket weaving in extreme underwater conditions."
2. Why do you want to leave your current institution? "Because I am looking to gain expertise in the hot new field of basket weaving in extreme underwater conditions, and your faculty are the best in the world in that area, while my current institution doesn't have anyone working in this field." Or "Because I am really interested in working with Professor Twist, I think that with my background in freshwater basket weaving I could contribute to her research in an exciting way."
So even a completely non-controversial political or ideological reason is not necessarily the best reason to use in answer to this kind of question.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Both of the examples you give in your post involve ideological dispositions in relation to the country a university is located in, rather than the nature of the particular university itself. I would think the more common case where this would be relevant would be where an academic holds to a political ideology that is either welcome or unwelcome in the particular university (e.g., if a university has a strong political culture that is either consistent with or contradictory to the academic's beliefs).
Obviously you can prefer a particular university for all sorts of reasons, including it being welcoming to your political/ideological beliefs. There are many university departments (or entire universities) where a particular ideological culture holds sway, and it is not uncommon for people to self-select along ideological lines to some degree. Notwithstanding this, I think an interview panel would be unimpressed if this was a major reason for selecting their university - it might suggest that you are inhibited or unwilling to work in an environment where your own views are not the majority view.
In view of the examples you mention, it is also worth noting that if you were to state a preference for a particular university based primarily on the political conditions *of the country it is located in* (which might be at odds with the prevailing political ideology of the university), then this would be extremely foolish. Just imagine applying for a position in the sociology department at Berkeley and making a point of telling them, "I really want to work here in the US because I love Trump!"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: username_2 has covered the question from the angle of a PhD student hire, I will discuss it from the angle of (senior) faculty hires, which I think are slightly different in that regard.
If you have already, as you say, 10 years faculty at an institution you are presumably tenured there. When you then apply elsewhere, an undercurrent of the entire application process will be
*"How do we know you really want to accept a potential offer, and not just negotiate with your home university?"*.
Topical fit as mentioned by username_2 is important, but not really a convincingly strong reason in that regard. A political answer may actually be *stronger* here, if convincing to the committee. Your Brexit example may, for instance, be convincing enough, as you can link it to reduced funding possibilities and potentially job security problems for your spouse. The Putin example - well, maybe it's helpful if the committee is full of die-hard Putin fans as well, but that one is more iffy as it does not so strongly impact academic life.
Obviously, a political answer that goes against the belief system of the committee is *never* going to help you. To use a recent loaded example, in most left-leaning universities arguing that you would really like to move to the US because the US, unlike your European home, allows you to buy a semi-automatic weapon with relative ease, is neither a convincing reason for a move nor will it strike brownie points on an emotional level with many faculty members.
So to summarize:
>
> Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs. Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?
>
>
>
Yes, if (a) the reason will appear to be a "big thing" to most people, (b) the committee is likely to share your view, and (c) it can be linked to impacting your academic life.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: I’ve found that, *in general*, scientists tend to be quite accepting of political or ideological motives as factors in career decisions. To some extent, this will even be true if they disagree with your politics.
That said, the cases you present obviously differ, and thus will engender different degrees of acceptance: the first case takes a strong, political, affirmative stance about something that doesn’t affect you personally. Whereas the second affects you directly.
To illustrate using a more direct comparison, consider these two statements:
1. I don’t want to work in the US because, as a muslim, I no longer feel welcome.
2. I don’t want to work in the US because I disapprove of the Trump administration.
Most (all?) reasonable people will accept (1) as a valid reason. Many (in Europe) will also accept (2) but it’s unarguably *much* more divisive (I speak from personal experience): even people who agree with you politically might not agree with such a decision.
Here’s another example: a former colleague turned down a position at a very prestigious institute (in favour of a much less prestigious one) because it would have meant working with stem cells, which she opposed on ethical grounds. I and others strongly disagree with her reasoning but we never had a problem accepting it, and it hasn’t impacted our impression of her as a researcher.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: ### tl;dr: 1. Don't tell your superiors nor HR. 2. Consider staying and being politically active.
>
> Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs.
>
>
>
Are you sure it's impossible to stay - or is it impossible to stay and not get highly active in trying to influence surrounding society? If you've lived someplace long enough, if you've set down some roots, if you feel it's important to you, perhaps you should stay and struggle.
In my public/political activities, especially within academia (mostly union business), I was very exasperated at people who agreed with us just leaving or withdrawing.
For the rest of this answer, suppose that you're leaving and it's final.
>
> Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?
>
>
>
Faculty-management relations, and to a great extent even junior-researcher-tenured-senior-researcher relations are too confrontational in economic class terms for you to be committed to be forthcoming with them. Specific circumstances might differ, but - unfortunately - they're not your friends and are not committed to you and yours. Only tell them what they need to know.
As for personal acquaintances at work - now that's different; it depends on your specific relationship with each individual.
But of course - you could also go for the entirely-public option, if the reason you're leaving really pains you: Making a public statement at some faculty event, publishing an open letter to all faculty and local press, putting up posters as you leave etc. That's again if you think it'll have an effect and are willing to burn some bridges.
Now for your examples:
>
> "Why do you want to study at this university?" Because this university is in Russia and I approve of Putin's actions as President.
>
>
>
Bad example, not buying this at all. I mean, if you said this, people would assume, and be right, that you're just giving them a bad lie, or rather, that you're not willing to tell them the truth and are mocking them instead. Now, that's irrespective of whether you approve of Putin's presidency or not; people who *do* would not move to Russia because of it. So I'm ignoring this example.
>
> one could equally have "I want to leave Russia because I disapprove of Putin's actions as President" etc.
>
>
>
That wouldn't be convincing either. If you were worried about some specific actions of the Putin-led government, that's something else, but this sounds like a lie. Plus, Putin has been in power forever, and you've just decided that bothers you? ...
>
> "You've worked at this institution for 10 years. Why do you want to leave now?" Because it's in the UK and after the Brexit referendum, I no longer feel welcome here.
>
>
>
Yeah, so this is exactly what I was talking about. Try: "It *has* been 10 years - a full decade! I feel I need a change in my life - I'm too settled into my routine." Or tell them it's for personal reasons relating to your family, and say you'd rather not discuss the details. Or whatever works. Better not to lie, either; just list other priorities that weigh in favor of leaving.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Context: I am from Czech Republic, where high tier positions, including academia, were strongly influenced or directly managed by the government fully controlled by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Usually, one needed to be member of the Party to get the position (in some cases it was the only requirement).
You first example will seem odd to me. One seldom decide an instution because of the political system of the target country. The "pros" are usually more broad than the "cons" to say "I have chosen this perticullar institution because of the political system here."
On the other hand the second example you gave, is in "my" context acceptable reason to leave. There is a political change you are not willingfull to accept and you don't find a way how to live with that change. Reasoning that you can no more accept the backgroud you were living in for years is acceptable as well, it may trigger two questions: "Why did you decide it is enough for you at this moment?" and "What did keep you there agains your beliefs for so long?"
There were 3 waves of political exodus in Czechoslovakia in the last century. 1938, when Protektorät Böhmen un Mähren was estabilished, 1948 after communist putch and 1968 after the Soviet invasion terminating the loosen rule of the Communist Party here.
The decision to leave the position after X years of working there doesn't need to be triggered by the change in the country government. The change of the rector, dean or department head is also acceptable reason for a change. Outside the academia, the company merger is also acceptable reason to leave when you do not accept the buyer's policy.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I did my BSc, MSc and PhD in Russia, and I was Russian citizen up until 2020. I left Russia to work abroad in 2011. My main reason was political disagreement with Russian President, Government and establishment.
When asked about my reasons to leave Russia, whether in social or workplace setting, I never hesitated to explain that the reasons were political. If this was an interview talk, I would focus on academic reasons during the interview, but reveal more about political reasons during the interview lunch. I feel that academics generally are curious about the political views of their potential colleagues and like to see that the disagreements over politics won't compromise workplace relations or cause any conflicts. This concerns the views per se, but even more importantly the communication skills and the ability to express your points clearly but diplomatically and remain professional at all times.
In my early days I did feel sometimes that I was not able to find the right moment or the right balance when talking about politics, and it might have had a negative effect on my interviews. As I grew more confident with my communication skills and improved my ability to control myself during the long and emotionally difficult interview, I now believe that a balanced and proportional mention of political views usually has a positive effect, as it gives my potential colleagues more information about myself, which helps them to make a decision.
On reflection, I think that talking about your political views as the reason for career change is not very different from explaining gaps in your career due to illness or childcare responsibilities or other personal factors. People feel that they need an answer, but as soon as they have any reasonable answer, they are satisfied and don't care much anymore about the details.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/14
| 1,546
| 5,445
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've noticed, for citations, that some BibTeX files provided by google scholar are having regular errors (I believe these are errors).
For bib items, there is the "pages" field, in which we could input a range or a number of pages an article has. I've found at least two journals (in a short time span) whose articles have a wrong "pages" field. For instance
```
@article{baffou2009heat,
title={Heat generation in plasmonic nanostructures: Influence of morphology},
author={<NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME>},
journal={Applied Physics Letters},
volume={94},
number={15},
pages={153109},
year={2009},
publisher={AIP}
}
```
or
```
@inproceedings{ammari2015super,
title={Super-resolution in high-contrast media},
author={<NAME> and <NAME>},
booktitle={Proc. R. Soc. A},
volume={471},
number={2178},
pages={20140946},
year={2015},
organization={The Royal Society}
}
```
Similarly, this last paper is not a proceeding, but an article from the journal "Proceedings of the Royal Society".
Probably there are some other mistakes around.
I know that these data are collected automatically, but, is there any way to report the errors to help google scholar to perfect their algorithms?<issue_comment>username_1: **Edit:** the contact us form is no longer available. There is an [inclusion request](https://support.google.com/scholar/troubleshooter/23941?hl=en) form that can be used to request that a specific website / article be indexed with a correct version of the article.
---
**Original answer:**
The obvious place to report it would be the [Google Scholar "contact us" form (dead link)](https://support.google.com/scholar/contact/general). I suspect there is little chance of the problems being fixed (since scholar has been around for over a decade, and I'm sure others must have reported these problems over the years) but you have little to lose by trying.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Pont is right that Google Scholar has a contact form, which is mainly useful if bugs in their own system causes mistakes. I'd hesitate to call this a mistake, however. At least not on their part, as they presumably source their data from e.g. publishers and journals. Contacting the publisher directly may be more productive.
The reason for the pages error you mention is simply that, at least in physics, you usually only include the starting page in a citation. In a list of references, I'd expect those two papers to be listed like this (or similar):
>
> Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 153109 (2009)
>
>
> Proc. R. Soc. A 471, 20140946 (2015)
>
>
>
By oversight the end page then sometimes gets left out from e.g. BibTeX files. If you download the BibTeX file from the [first paper](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.3116645?journalCode=apl) from the publisher's website or from [ADS](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2009ApPhL..94o3109B&data_type=BIBTEX&db_key=PHY&nocookieset=1) it again works this way:
>
> pages = {153109},
>
>
>
which, of course, is enough information to produce the above citation. As for the [second paper](http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/471/2178/20140946) from Royal Society, the BibTex file doesn't even contain a page reference! Still, in the PDF version and their table of contents, they give the citation with just the one number. [The ADS version](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2015RSPSA.47140946A&data_type=BIBTEX&db_key=GEN&nocookieset=1) actually gives a range, but it's just
>
> pages = {20140946-20140946},
>
>
>
(Google Scholar classifying it as a proceeding might be on them though, as the two other sources correctly identify it as an article.)
If you're using a reference style that requires including the end page you have my condolences. Otherwise, for your own sanity, I recommend accepting that "pages" sometimes just means "page information needed to produce the citation". Different databases, different publishers, different journals just aren't fully consistent with each other - especially when it comes to citation data that isn't necessarily required.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: (**Edit:** I am no longer at Google Scholar, so I cannot fix issues for anyone anymore.)
I am an engineer on the Google Scholar team.
Errors in citation data provided by Google Scholar can occur either because of an error at the source or a case that is not handled correctly by our algorithms. We have automated monitoring systems in place to detect errors that occur widely and bring them to the attention of humans, but it is not possible to catch and fix every possible case at the scale at which we operate.
You can use [our contact form](https://support.google.com/scholar/contact/general) to contact us but we do not provide any guarantees of responding or fixing the problem within X business days.
Regarding the paper "Heat generation in plasmonic nanostructures: Influence of morphology", we have provided the citation data as it appears at the source.
```
```
I believe for some physics journals it is standard to cite the first page only instead of a page range.
Regarding the paper "Super-resolution in high-contrast media", it is our mistake that we have classified the venue as a conference instead of a journal. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/03/14
| 719
| 3,116
|
<issue_start>username_0: The situation is as follows: I am a third year PhD student in theoretical biophysics and recently had my first jointly-authored journal paper published. My advisor thinks that I am on track, though to be fair a lot of the credit goes to another student who did a substantial part of the work for the paper. In any case, before working on this paper I was working on a completely different project, which my advisor asked me to abandon in order to work on this paper. We never talked about the previous project again.
Now I am wondering what I should do with the previous project. I have quite a fair amount of results and put several months of work into it. However, it is hard for me to put the results into context and even convince myself that they are interesting enough for a publication. My advisor is not an expert on this particular topic, and I think that to convince him to revive the project I would have to come up with a brilliant idea of what to do next (which I also don't know at the moment).
So I am torn about whether I should put more effort into trying to revive an old project my advisor told me to stop working on or to give up the project altogether. The last option would be a difficult decision, because of all the work I put into it, but if I can do better research instead and it does not hurt my chances of finishing my PhD on time, I would be able to accept it.<issue_comment>username_1: I think this question is difficult to answer without knowing the details of the project, and it's really something you should work out with your advisor. But let me offer two perspectives here that maybe helpful. First, you said that you have spent several months on the project. On the grand scheme of things, several months is nothing. A successful project from start to finish can take 1-2 years (and oftentimes even more). So if I were you I would not fret too much about the time lost to the project, should you choose to simply move on.
Secondly, have you heard of the concept of sunk cost? It's basically an economic concept referring to effort/time/capital spent that cannot be recovered. And the key here is that sunk cost should not factor into future decisions. What is lost is lost, and the irrational desire to recover what is unrecoverable usually leads to more lost time and effort. So you should try to evaluate the merit of the project independent of how much time you've spent. If you find it hard to sell the project even to yourself, as you wrote, then maybe it's time to move on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You really should discuss what to do with your advisor. If you abandoned project A to focus on and complete project B, and B is now completed, it may be natural to go back to A. On the other hand, if you're not sure if project A would lead to publishable results without a brilliant idea, maybe put it on the back burner for now and start a new project C. You never know when that idea would pop up, after all. This way you can do some light reading and maybe get a better idea of the context for your results as well.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/15
| 1,433
| 5,873
|
<issue_start>username_0: Just found one of my very old written manuscript in my backup folder and interested to submit it to some journal.
I had written a Manuscript with 7 co-authors in 2008 just 10 years before. The entire work was dealt with observation datasets until 2008. Although I had conducted all the works independently and wrote the manuscript alone, but my supervisor had given 7 authors's name due to their little helps like suggestions to improve the manuscript, English check etc. However, I counts their contribution to some extent. But one of the co-author (say X) took 5 years to check the manuscript due to perhaps his busy schedule. So finally the manuscript was submitted to a journal in 2013. The reviewers appreciated the work and strongly recommended to update the results with recent datasets i.e. until 2013. It somehow irritated me because I had left the institute long before and was working in different field. Anyway, I updated the results until 2013 and modified the manuscript accordingly.
But all gone waste again, because the same X-author couldn't check the manuscript in the given time-line even within 1 year. So the editor rejected the manuscript. Now it is already 5 years, the same X-author could not send back his revision. I have also stopped sending reminders 2 years before (last reminded in April 2016). Probably I need to update the results again i.e. until 2018 now.
But I would like to remove this X-author's name from my manuscript first and then submit it as quick as possible. Now I am wondering proper sentences to ask the X-author to remove his/her name from our manuscript.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a very difficult situation you are in. One of the good (and bad) thing is that you have many co-authors (7 as I read). This is what you can do.
Don't be in hurry in writing to Prof. X again. He has already wasted enough time of yours. It is time to get a vote. Following the sequence given below.
1. Talk to your supervisor who added those co-authors: Discussion with him all the details and delay in Prof. X's part. He would suggest you something about keeping or removing X from the paper. (This, I feel is not going to result in a good outcome. But, try. Let your supervisor know.)
2. Take a consensus of all the other(6) co-authors of the paper: Ask them politely whether they understand the situation (or forgotten it). If they suggest to keep X, you can't help it. If *all* of them agree to remove X from the paper, then you could follow the step 3.
3. Once step 1 and step 2 are done, explain the situation to X politely and say clearly that you are submitting the paper (whatever the version you have at the moment) to a journal. And, also clearly mention that all other 6 authors have agreed to the submission.
*Update to (1) based on OP's comment to this answer: Since your supervisor does not want to get into the business of ugly friendship, I would advise to not waste time behind this paper anymore. This is because, if you submit without positive consent of your supervisor, in future, it might cause conflict of interests and put you in a messy situation. Another assumptions that I had made (in item (2) and (3)) is that your co-authors are also professors or known researchers. It seems they are your juniors, now situation is really messy. Just stay out of it. You already have spent 5-6 years with it, don't ruin more.*
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I have decided to answer because it is particularly easy. Simply remove X and submit as fast as possible.
For possible cons. You are in the academy since long time. I do not think you have to be afraid. Five authors will be aware of the story, just in case X decide to spread rumours out.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you should be either more or less pro-active.
* This paper is TEN YEARS old! Do you really want to keep writing it? Even assuming it is still relevant ten years later, it seems like it does not really occupy your attention. You should seriously consider just cutting your losses and working on topics that you find more interesting.
* Alternatively, get this finished this month. Make the updates, then call X (not e-mail, call -- or visit in person, if possible) and ask him if he is still interested in being listed as an author (he may not be). If so, then tell him you will be submitting this month, and will require his inputs. Be clear that if his inputs do not arrive by a particular date, you will submit without him. Then, write him an e-mail summarizing what you agreed on. You may want to repeat this step with the other six authors, who may also be uninterested in putting more time into this paper ten years later.
I have no idea why the editor rejected this paper because X didn't review it. How did the editor know?
* If X's technical inputs are essential, then you may want to seriously reconsider moving forward with this paper
* If X is providing grammar help, etc., then you can find someone else to do this
* If X sabotaged this paper in some way, then you may want to be more aggressive about downgrading him to an acknowledgment, or, in consultation with the other authors, removing him. (But again, ask yourself if the paper is worth any resulting political fallout).
Things vary by field, but in general, I would recommend against adding people as authors unless they did a substantial amount of work. Grammar help is cause for an acknowledgement (at most), not authorship.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: When a manuscript is ready to go, the way to deal with a lot of authors is to send an email along the following lines:
>
> Find enclosed the latest version of the manuscript. I plan to submit this version on xx/xx. If you have any comments send them by then, otherwise I will assume everyone is fine with its present form.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/03/15
| 736
| 2,964
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying for different postdocs at the same institution. They hire during the year in different subfields of my main field.
I already read some questions related to my problem ([here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14646/is-it-acceptable-to-apply-for-two-different-postdoc-positions-in-the-same-instit), [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/79129/applying-for-tenure-track-research-position-and-lecturer-position-at-the-same-un), [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12414/should-i-simultaneously-apply-for-multiple-jobs-in-different-ranks-at-the-same-u)), but I think that my situation is little bit different, *because I just keep applying to one institution.*
My situtation, consecutively:
1. I applied for a fellowship to one professor for a specific project. It was not successfull.
2. In the same time, a similar position in a different group popped out. I'v asked the professor what he thinks, and he advised me to apply for it. No success.
3. Several weeks later, the professor told me that he discussed my CV with a different group. They want to invite me for an interview.
4. Now, a new postdoc is available. I am thinking of waiting for the result of option 3 and than apply for option 4. Or should I apply for both at once?
What if they will not hire me now, but a new job will pop out in a few months?
**I would like to know whether they can perceive me as someone who want to be hired to a particular institution and a particular country rather than someone who want to be hired for doing research.**<issue_comment>username_1: Disclosure: I applied for two positions at the same time in the same department and it worked out fine for me.
Clearly, I think doing this is fine. And I wouldn't be particularly worried about being perceived as trying to work in a particular country/institution *if you're appropriate for both positions*. Make sure to write your cover letters appropriately - both of them should speak to your interest and qualifications for that particular job.
You might, however, consider informing the people involved that you have applied for both positions. This lets them discuss you in the context of which position might be best for you, etc. For example, if Option 3 is *super-interested* in you, then Option 4 can take that into consideration. Or if strategically one is having a harder time filling their position, etc.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: While such an inference would not necessarily be drawn, it is *desirable* if they perceive you as a person who would particularly like to work for their institution. The mere fact that you are willing to apply for multiple positions in this institution over a broad range of possible research topics would not be treated as a negative. I cannot imagine any selection panel being happy with your credentials but worried that you are *too keen to work there*.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/15
| 3,307
| 13,331
|
<issue_start>username_0: What are the differences between [viXra.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra) and [arXiv.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv)?<issue_comment>username_1: arXiv is a respected repository for physics and math preprints. In some fields of physics, it is actually the primary venue through which new papers are read.
viXra is a site for people, almost exclusively cranks, who cannot or will not put their material on arXiv. Don't use it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: From [arXiv's website](https://arxiv.org/help/general):
>
> Started in August 1991, arXiv.org (formerly xxx.lanl.gov) is a highly-automated electronic archive and distribution server for research articles. Covered areas include physics, mathematics, computer science, nonlinear sciences, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. arXiv is maintained and operated by the Cornell University Library with guidance from the arXiv Scientific Advisory Board and the arXiv Member Advisory Board, and with the help of numerous subject moderators.
>
>
>
arXiv has a form of moderation. Users must be "endorsed" by people who have themselves posted papers on the arXiv. [(more info)](https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement) Moreover, a team of moderators is able to reclassify or remove content from the arXiv, for a number of reasons: unrefereeable content, inappropriate format, inappropriate topic... [(more info)](https://arxiv.org/help/moderation) It also implements some automatic checks for content overlap between papers.
In some fields (e.g. math) it is the standard way of releasing a new paper into the world. At the moment there are 1,369,674 papers on arXiv.
arXiv has a [plan to ensure its sustainability](https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/arxivpub/2018-2022%3A+Sustainability+Plan+for+Classic+arXiv) and make sure that papers uploaded to arXiv will not disappear from the internet should anything bad happens. There also exists several mirror websites should it even go down.
---
From [viXra's website](http://vixra.org/) (in the footer):
>
> ViXra.org is an e-print archive set up as an alternative to the popular arXiv.org service owned by Cornell University. It has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate.
>
> ViXra is an open repository for new scientific articles. It does not endorse e-prints accepted on its website, neither does it review them against criteria such as correctness or author's credentials.
>
>
>
It was founded by a disgruntled physicist named username_3. It is [unclear who funds the website today](http://vixra.org/funding), and it is not even clear who actually runs it today if you just read the website. Compared to arXiv, there is little moderation ([according to the FAQ](http://vixra.org/faq), a paper can e.g. be removed if it's not science/math, if it's plagiarism, if it's obscene and so on, but not if it is obvious nonsense unless it is computer-generated nonsense) and people can submit papers anonymously or under fake names.
At the moment, there are 22,596 papers on viXra.
viXra has no sustainability plans. If whoever runs it decides to take it down tomorrow or their servers catch fire, I'm not sure what would happen.
Warranted or not, it has a reputation of being an alternative to arXiv for [cranks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)) and to host a lot of junk science, fake proofs or even outright nonsense. It is not recommended to submit something to viXra if you wish to be taken seriously, because the reputation of viXra would probably taint your paper's reputation by association. (Which is not the same thing as saying that arXiv "bestows credibility" on papers found there. It's rather viXra which bestows a bad reputation.)
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: arXiv.org is a multi-institutional e-print repository funded by universities and other research organisations costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to run. It's purpose is rapid dissemination of papers and to provide a permanent open access archive for the professional research community. Submission of papers is in principle open to anyone but those outside the academic world are hampered by a need to be endorsed by an insider. Even when endorsed, papers that do not come from a respected institution are subjected to a moderation process that can result in them being delayed, rejected or reclassified in a generic subject category that may limit how well they are disseminated. The moderation process can sometimes affect professional researchers too if their paper is flagged up by a keyword filter. (Note that it is not known if the institution is used directly by the filter as a criterion but the effect seems to be as stated)
viXra.org is an independent repository intended to cater for those who find it difficult or impossible to submit to arXiv.org or who do not like having their work delayed. It does not require endorsement and there is no moderation process. Some papers may be removed for technical reasons but there is no minimum quality standard. Like arXiv.org its purpose is rapid dissemination and open archiving.
viXra.org is funded by a small group of administrators who run it (including myself) The costs are now so low that funding is barely worth mentioning. It main site runs from a standard GoDaddy web hosting service with another similar mirror site elsewhere. The whole process is almost entirely automated with intervention only being required to respond to occasional emails or technical hiccups. Although its future is not as well assured as arXiv.org it does have a decentralised architecture and replicated shared cloud storage that should make it possible to pass control from one administrator to another when necessary. In my opinion there is a much bigger problem of loss of research papers as small journals come and go but nobody worries about that. viXra already survived an incident where its main server died with a disk failure by quickly re-pointing the DNS to its mirror site. At the time it was using a dedicated server but it was subsequently moved to a virtual server that provides far better robustness at lower cost.
The typical quality of papers on viXra.org is lower than that of arXiv.org because of its open submission policy and because many of its users are independent researchers. However, viXra does have a core of good respectable papers from a diverse range of authors. Many people who look at viXra.org underestimate the amount of quality research it contains because the technical and diverse nature of papers mean that the good ones are only understood and appreciated by specialists while anyone can recognise the low quality content.
Some people advise not to use viXra.org because authors who submit there are "not taken seriously." This misses the point that the purpose of a repository is dissemination and archiving. No repository can bestow credibility on the papers it contains. This can only be done through peer-review, citations, experimental verification etc. Obviously the repository does not discredit a paper either, except in the minds of fools. Should we think that everyone who posts comments on twitter is an idiot just because some others are? I think not. Even arXiv.org does not claim to provide peer-review and most of its papers are only checked for quality by a dumb automated filter. This is why papers on arXiv.org are not automatically considered reliable sources in Wikipedia for example. Even though there is a significant difference between average quality levels on arXiv and viXra, it is still more reliable and easier to judge the quality of a paper in a repository by looking at it rather than by looking at where it is stored.
Some academics strongly disapprove of viXra.org. I think the main reason for this is that they tire of receiving unsolicited emails from "cranks" which they also associate with viXra. The situation is ironic because in fact it is the arXiv endorsement policy that is implicitly encouraging people to try to contact academics in order to get recognition and an endorsement. viXra.org discourages this because it is better and safer to make research available publicly than to send it to people privately. However, viXra.org has no means to police the habits of the minority who ignore this advice.
viXra.org does have some popular features that arXiv.org does not including commenting, download statistics and easy withdrawal or removal of old versions.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: [viXra.org](http://vixra.org/) (arXiv spelled backwards) was founded in response to [the many reports of arXiv.org's censorship](http://www.archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm), victims of which include Nobel Prize laureates and first-class university professors. See their "[Why viXra?](http://vixra.org/why)" page.
[ArchiveFreedom.org](http://www.archivefreedom.org/) (cf. their book [*Against the Tide*](http://www.archivefreedom.org/freedom/againsttide.pdf)) has collected [dozens of such case studies of censorship](http://www.archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm), which they introduce by saying:
>
> In reporting these case histories we do not imply that we are embracing, supporting or endorsing, in any way, the particular ideas, work, principles, or religious and personal beliefs of these scientists. Our aim is to include a wide range of victims, scientists from all over the world, who range from Nobel Prize winners to relatively unknown scientists, those with numerous publications in first rate journals, to those with a few publications in second rate journals, from professors in first class universities to humble scientists working outside academia, from rigorous scientists to those exploring the fringes of science.
>
>
>
Also:
>
> The New Endorsement System: Merely a Smoke Screen
>
>
> In January 2004, arXiv.org introduced an automated endorsement system which was touted by operators of the system as an answer to complaints about the archive's restrictive policies. However, there have been cases where blacklisted scientists have attempted to use this supposedly objective endorsement system and the outcome has been overriden to ensure that their works are still blocked.
>
>
> Another drawback is that most endorsers are fearful of endorsing novel papers because they worry that they could lose their endorser status if their decision runs counter to the tastes of the arXiv moderators. In fact, the arXiv.org website states that the archive administrators reserve the right to revoke any endorser's endorsement status. When one blacklisted scientist's paper was rejected, the reason given by the archive moderator was: "No legitimate endorsements from current users." When the scientist then asked "will you guarantee that persons who endorse me will not be victimised by having their arXiv privileges withdrawn?" no substantive response was forthcoming.
>
>
> The scientist concluded from this that they had refused to guarantee that anyone who endorsed him would not be punished for doing so. Thus one could surmise that the endorsement system is merely a facade to give the false impression that the electronic preprint archive operates in a fair manner.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Some of these negative answers are misleading. viXra can be very useful if you just want to post a paper easily, and share among a small group, or be able to prove priority.
As a source for browsing pre-prints, the quality is very variable, so you might find only about one paper in ten is scientifically interesting, depending on the field.
viXra has a very useful point, because:
1. it is a useful service for many people;
2. it allows a diversity of ideas;
3. if you have academic enemies they may be able get you barred from posting perfectly legitimate work on arXiv—it is open to academic warfare, which is why viXra was started.
However, if you want to advertise your work to mainstream academics, then viXra has very little attention, while most scientists browse preprints on arXiv. (I post some work on viXra to support it as a matter of principle—as it is attacked by bullies—although I get far more real interest from posts on other preprint sites.)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: Publishing pre-prints of your scientific papers gives you the following opportunities:
1. You can confirm your authorship
2. Your work becomes available online (so you can share it for academic or job purposes)
3. Collaboration (you can improve your work chatting with colleagues)
According to these principles, one may prefer one e-print archive to another. Here're the reasons why you should or shouldn't choose viXra (change the sign to get information about arXiv).
Reasons to publish on viXra:
1. The publishing process is fast (plus for 2 and 1)
2. Papers on viXra are easy-structured (plus for 3)
Reasons not to publish on viXra:
1. Bad reputation (minus for 3)
2. The site doesn't seem to be professional (minus for 2)
Thus, generally, one may say that viXra is preferable in the sense of 1.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/15
| 1,031
| 4,506
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've read a certain 'extended abstract', published in conference proceedings, that presents a useful mathematical analysis of a computational problem and uses that to provide a sketch for an algorithm to solve the problem. The sketch lists the general (well-known) techniques on which the algorithm is based, but doesn't explain the algorithm in detail and is in particular not detailed enough to see that the claimed complexity of the running time holds.
The extended abstract is quite old and there's no trace of a publication that completely describes the algorithm from the extended abstract.
I have attempted to 'reconstruct' the algorithm from the sketch, but I've been unable to achieve the claimed bound on the running time and I believe the author has been mistaken in his bound (and that therefore the sketched algorithm is rubbish). When I mentioned this to my advisor, he replied that since there is no 'follow-up' of the extended abstract, the algorithm is probably rubbish. (the author is still alive and in academia, so absence can't be the reason not to publish)
The mathematical analysis was actually quite useful to create *another* (significantly different) algorithm for the same problem, which unfortunately has a worse behaviour than the claimed bound from the extended abstract.
I might be able to publish something related to the problem, but I'm not certain my results will be good enough. Additionally, I *might* be able to prove a lower bound strictly higher than the upper bound claimed in the extended abstract, thereby contradicting\* it.
---
So, concretely, I'd like to know the following:
1. Is there a place where the author could have published a retraction of his claim (of having an algorithm achieving the claimed bound) and how would I find such a claim? (Other than contacting the author, that one is obvious)
2. If I'm *unable* to publish anything related to this, could/should I do anything?
3. If I am *able* to publish something, how should I cover this issue? In particular, I'd like to be able to avoid comments such as "*Haven't you read [extended abstract]? They've found a much better algorithm than yours!*"
Also, the most of my doubts are related to the scientific status of the claim. Is it 'obvious' that it is poorly supported and possibly false, or does this require an extensive argument?
I suppose it isn't completely obvious, as the extended abstract is cited in a paper with the claimed bound (this paper doesn't actually *use* the bound, so there is no risk of 'error propagation' there), referring to a 'clever trick' that isn't explained in the extended abstract. (Perhaps the author of the citing paper had some private communication with the author of the extended abstract?) Of course, the citing author may knowingly be citing a vague claim, but let's apply [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) here.
---
\*: Technically, as this would be a conditional lower bound, it doesn't yield a formal contradiction. But such a bound would at least cast extreme skepticism on the claim from the extended abstract, comparable to when someone claims a resolution on P vs NP.<issue_comment>username_1: The obvious place to look for either a substantiation or a retraction of the extended abstract's claim wold be on the arXiv. Also, since the author is still active, you or your adviser could write to him and ask about the algorithm and its running time. If you still can't get the information you need, then I think you can publish your work and include, in a "Related Work" section of your paper, a citation of the extended abstract and a statement to the effect that you have been unable to find the details in the literature or to reproduce them yourself. Of course, if you manage to contradict the claim in the extended abstract (or to show that it would imply implausible things like P=NP), then you should say that.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If the author of the sketch is still in academia, you can email them and ask. They may confirm that their claim is wrong, or will direct you to the full algorithm or help you reconstruct it. Next step is to discuss the details of the reconstruction with someone (first choice is your supervisor) who may help you locate the mistake: of the original author or yours. In any case, from my experience, many times when my first impression was that someone is wrong, it was me who was wrong in the end.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/15
| 949
| 4,056
|
<issue_start>username_0: I don't know whether this question has been posted previously or not. I just successfully defended my PhD thesis and right now I am unofficially a PhD holder. I have applied to several institutions for postdoctoral research and so far I have been received two offers. One of the offers was from my current PhD supervisor and another one was from a reputable senior professor in my field. Although I really enjoyed working with my current supervisor, I don't think I have challenged myself enough in research. The research I conducted during my PhD study was a "safe" research and nothing groundbreaking was coming from it. My current supervisor is a nice professor who always listens to my problems, understands my plight as a researcher and always acts as a good boss to me. However, she's not a very good expert in my field and sometime she was clueless with what I was talking and she didn't encourage me to go for risky research during my PhD time. She also doesn't open to ideas of collaboration with experts from other countries as she likes to control everything. However, she has been a very pleasant person throughout my PhD journey.
On the other hand, another senior professor from other institution is a very respected professor from my field. He has a very big lab with many PhD students and postdoctoral researchers. However I have heard a lot of nasty things regarding his treatment to his students. I don't know whether I'll be ready to work with.
So right now I am in a dilemma to choose between these two as my postdoctoral supervisor. What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: Have you been offered an interview with the other professor? If so, I would suggest going to this interview: interacting with this person directly will give you a more accurate sense of whether or not you want to work with them than things you "have heard" about them.
Attending an interview will in no way "lock you in" into accepting the position (you might not even be offered the position after the interview). I did turn down an offer after an interview, partly because I realized I couldn't have a healthy professional relationship with this PI, and partly because I wanted to do my postdoc abroad (this interview was in my home country).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> However I have heard a lot of nasty things regarding his treatment to his students.
>
>
>
If you think these rumors are true, do not go work for him. If you work for him, you are endorsing his behavior and his reputation will impact your reputation.
>
> One of the offers was from my current PhD supervisor
>
>
>
There is a general expectation that a postdoctoral job should broaden your range of experience. If your postdoc supervisor is the same as your PhD supervisor, there will be a perception\* that you did not acquire new skills. There may also be a perception that you did not move because you could not find a position that would broaden your skills. It also makes it look like your adviser could not help you find a job elsewhere.
In summary, I recommend you keep applying for postdoc positions. However, if you are one of the most famous institutions in your field, it would be acceptable to stay put, as relocation is less expected in this case.
\*I do not endorse this view because it discriminates against people who are unable to move. But I think it is a widely held belief.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Having continued on with my PhD supervisors for a Postdoc, I would suggest not following that path for too long. Not only will some of your skills/perspectives be limited, but it will be difficult to make your own name in the field and you supervisors will get a larger share of credit for your discoveries. For some of them, it will be hard to see you become more senior and will still think of you as their PhD student. It will be difficult to challenge their views as you grow and are capable of your own scientific opinions.
I'd continue to keep seaching for other postdoc positions.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/15
| 1,446
| 6,024
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a final year undergrad student in mathematics. This is an important detail as usually there are not many mathematics students, and even less in their final (because of the dropout rate). Because of this, the number of students is pretty small, around 12-18, which allows the teachers to notice every one of us, learn our names, habits and etc.
Now, one of the Teacher Assistant seems to dislike me. One of the reasons for this is at the beginning of the semester I spoke too much according to him. I took this criticism with no problem, and made sure to talk as little as possible during the classes, that is I spoke only when a classmate would ask a question based on the problem we were working on.
Yet, he still seems to be irritated by me. I once answered my friends question in a quiet way, to which my teacher responded: "you're such a pain". He likes to ask questions first to me, which no one is able to answer. In a situation where my answer was far from being right he responded: "you would better not answer than give such an idiotic answer". This isn't very detailed, and shows only my point of view, but I wish to fix this situation or at least improve it. I am unsure if this Stack Exchange is suitable for this question, in case it's not, I will delete my question.
Now, I would like to talk to him as I want to fix this situation and to do so I would like to first send an email asking to meet up. I want to know what exactly should I state in the email? I definitely don't want this to backfire me in any way.
So my question: how should I phrase my email to ask for a meeting to discuss this situation while staying polite and very tactiful?
I will accept any advices concerning the handling of this situation.<issue_comment>username_1: As stated in the comments, this situation might not be worth salvaging the interpersonal relationship and be fixed by escalating this behavior. However, I will try to answer the question as it is.
Given that you are both reasonable adults, the main goal is to communicate (I know, it seems trivial). Keep your initial email short and polite, you should just state that you would like to meet for a couple of minutes and inquire a suitable time. The TA might not be inclined to answer and in this case it is up to you whether to pursue it further. If you do, send another polite email, repeat this until you either get the appointment or realize that it is not going to happen. The latter is also a clear and unambiguous outcome.
Once you get to the meeting, your goal is to honestly talk about the situation, be upfront that you perceive a problem between the two of you and that you want to fix it. Be polite and don't argue. Tell your side of the story, listen to his perception of the same events, ask what he would suggest to fix the situation and / or suggest a solution yourself.
If both of you are reasonable, you should be able to improve your professional relationship. Do keep in mind though, that you can't have a rational discussion with some people. This is also a valid outcome and a clear signal to walk away asap and keep any communication with this individual to a bare minimum required by your cooperation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I will offer an alternative solution for you to consider.
Assert yourself. Here's an example of how this can be done in English:
>
> I'm not accustomed to being spoken to that way.
>
>
>
Disengage. If he baits you (i.e. sets a trap with a difficult or impossible question), and you don't feel confident of your answer, just don't answer. If he pushes you:
>
> I don't have a solution.
>
>
>
If he keeps pushing, assert yourself, for example:
>
> I indicated that I don't have a solution. I do not wish to respond.
>
>
>
If he doesn't let go, you could stand your ground, for example:
>
> You are pushing me for an answer. I'm uncomfortable with what you're doing.
>
>
>
If he keeps pushing, gather your things and leave the room.
Finally, check your university policies to see what sort of complaint you could file. Whether you decide to file one or not -- it's a good idea to inform yourself about your institution's policies and procedures.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I disagree with the posted answers and so wanted to weigh in.
It seems you have become the problem student in this TA's mind. I have witnessed this many times, and the pattern seems exactly as you have laid out. The student is overly informal and talkative/particapatory in class. It disrupts the flow of class, making the lecturer lose concentration and taking the conversation down tangents which are typically not relevant to the course direction. Then, rather than have a reasonable conversation after class with the student, the TA or lecturer tries to shame the student into submission by snarky comments during class. Then, because two wrongs don't make a right, both parties are aggrieved. At that point, the TA has labeled you as a "problem" and any even minor infractions are dealt with harshly.
If I wanted to repair the situation as a student, I would stop by office hours and begin by honestly apologizing to the TA for making their job more difficult. Listen to their response and repeat your apology if necessary. Then explain the efforts you are making to rectify the situation and ask if there is anything else you can or should be doing. Listen. Finally, offer an overall explanation for your behavior that might help the TA to see you in a different light. Probably your initial behavior was motivated by misplaced eagerness rather than malice, and if the TA can understand this they can perhaps reframe your current actions in their mind and respond differently.
Yes, this puts the onus on you to fix the situation. However, I think that is somewhat fair, given your behavior initiated the situation in the first place. Hopefully the TA recognizes your olive branch and extends one of her/his own. Good luck.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/15
| 898
| 3,698
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently there have been a few instances of preprints I've seen on arXiv where I felt that I didn't receive due credit (an acknowledgment or at least a mention) for certain things. Here are a couple examples:
1. I mentioned a fact to a collaborator at a conference. It wasn't a deep, just an interesting construction that was surely bound to be useful in certain situations. A year or so later I see a paper by the collaborator on arxiv, where one section of the paper involves developing this construction and applying it (in ways that were certainly new to me). However I wasn't acknowledged or mentioned.
2. To another collaborator I wrote an email, with another construction and a formula that I expected it to satisfy with some strong evidence. Several months later I saw that the collaborator wrote a paper where the definition plays an almost central role and a version of the formula is proved. No acknowledgement again.
Basically my question is what is the best way for me to deal with situations like this? I am a young post doc recently out of Phd. I don’t like to be the one who wants credit for everything. However it does feel annoying when even close collaborators don’t have enough respect for me to not steal my ideas (ok, maybe that’s a harsh wording choice). But the core of it, now that I write this question, is really that I feel disrespected. Especially, since I tend to acknowledge people quite freely. It’s obvious to me that if I was a senior and/or well-known mathematician, they wouldn’t have “forgotten” to acknowledge me. The only options I can think of are:
1. ignore and move on. Don’t change my behavior, just learn to accept this accept of academia culture.
2. Ignore and move on. Be more protective of my ideas in the future. Be more proactive about writing down and publishing my ideas as soon as possible. Choose different people to collaborate with.
3. Confront the people in question and ask them to acknowledge me. I don’t like this option because I’m a non confrontational person. And I don’t want to damage good relationships. Also, i don’t want to get a reputation for being someone who asks people to credit him with things.
By my nature I’m leaning towards option 2. But it saddens me to realize how cynical I become since starting my Phd when I imagined the mathematics community to be so kind and generous.<issue_comment>username_1: In my opinion, aknowledgements are not important enough to get bothered about. Very few people would have even noticed the acknowledgement, and your career would not have been helped in any measurable way.
But at least in your second example, which was more more of an "idea for a paper" than a "helpful comment," I do consider it a breach of etiquette for your collaborator to write the paper himself without offering to involve you as a coauthor. Perhaps in the future, you could phrase such helpful emails as more explicit invitations to collaborate. That way you won't have to be stingy with your ideas, but you'll still get credit.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Ignore and move on. Don’t change my behavior, just learn to accept
> this accept of academia culture.
>
>
>
This one. If a *single* person remembers you as a helpful, insightful or otherwise useful figure and thinks highly of you at any time in your career, that is likely more valuable than any "credit" that emerges from the acknowledgements section of a paper.
Though
>
> Be more proactive about writing down and publishing my ideas as soon
> as possible.
>
>
>
Isn't a bad habit to get into. It's hard to be "missed" in the acknowledgements if you're in the author list instead.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/15
| 458
| 2,139
|
<issue_start>username_0: Should I present future research directions in a separate section while writing a scientific paper? Or to mention it in its related section?<issue_comment>username_1: You can discuss future directions in related work if related work section comes at the end of article i-e, just before the conclusion section. If the future work discussion is long, then I recommend adding a separate section before conclusion section; otherwise, discussing it within the conclusion section will be better choice.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Anything is Okay. I have seen the future directions in both ways: mostly I found it in the related section, however it is rare in a separate section. So choice is yours. But keep one thing in mind. Your future direction should not be too long unless your presenting results and discussion are enough to be accepted by the reviewers. Otherwise, reviewers of your paper may feel the future directed works are important part in your present paper and may give a comment like "why didn't you conduct same work for this paper?"
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In most of the good papers I have read, the directions for future work are typically mentioned in the conclusion and/or a discussion section (if it exists), and sometimes partially in the related work section if relevant.
The conclusion section is quite apt for this because you can closely link it with a summary of your main proposal and/or results.
I think it largely depends on individual author(s') choice, you general organization of the paper, and also on the type of paper you are writing.
Is it a survey paper (of the state of the art) or a paper detailing your novel contributions? In the former case, it may often be prudent to have sections or sub-sections under each section (e.g., if there's a section per theme you survey the SOTA for). In the latter case, it is typically done as part of Conclusions; some elements of the future directions may also appear in a separate Discussion section (if any) that critically analyzes the core contributions you've made in the paper until that point.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/15
| 3,499
| 14,394
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying for a Statistical Programmer position at a commercial research organization (CRO), and I am wondering if it is unethical to omit my PhD in Statistics from my resume?
All of my degrees (Bachelor's, Master's, PhD) are in Statistics, and I am just wondering if it would be ethical to just list my Bachelor's and Master's degree on my resume, and indicate my experience as a RA while I was a PhD student as my "work experience"? (Since this Statistical Programmer position only requires Master's degree plus some years of experience)
I am asking this question because I do not want to do anything unethical/cause me troubles later on.<issue_comment>username_1: Do you think that such a deception will help you significantly in landing the job? Several years of “work experience” at a university is going to look very suspicious and will probably raise some flags.
In general, you’re always better off stating the truth. There’s a smaller chance of things going sideways down the road if you do.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know what exactly defines "ethical," but I think a good rule of thumb is to ask the following question. **If I get the job and later my employer finds this information out, how will they react?** I think your potential employer would be very surprised to discover that you didn't list your PhD. I don't know if you would be in serious trouble, but it doesn't sound normal.
More importantly, why do you want to omit this information? The fact that you have a PhD should be a good thing. Exceeding the minimum requirements for a job is a positive.
It sounds like you want to trade off the PhD under "education" for RA work under "work experience" in your CV. It's quite common to list both and I think that's the appropriate course of action. You can use your cover letter to argue that you satisfy the requirements.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I have a rather unique position in this regard as I work as an Adjunct at my local university in addition to working for a private employer exclusively for Government clients. As such, I have a foot in all three camps, so to speak. My experience with people employing across these fields is a little different to the conventional academic, and as such will differ from the other answers here.
Your PhD qualification (in the private sector) may actually be a hindrance to you getting employment there. A controversial guide to professional hiring in the private sector is called [Smart and Get Things Done](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/06/05/smart-and-gets-things-done/) by <NAME>. In his essay, he suggests that PhD graduates are certainly smart, but not always able to 'get things done'. As I said, this is a controversial book but this one view from it seems to be an element of the book that is seldom a dissenting point.
I've worked with a lot of people with PhDs and I have to say that I'm one of the few who is a dissenter. Those that enter the private sector know what's involved and operate accordingly. Those same people however also don't make a song and dance about their qualification. Generally speaking, the practice is that you only use 'Dr' in your name when you're presenting at an industry conference or standing in front of a client that is looking to you for advisory services; anywhere that requires an 'eminence agenda' to be satisfied.
The other thing to remember here is that the private sector is NOT staffed according to qualification. You will find many out there in positions of responsibility that have worked their way up from nothing within the company and find people with qualifications a threat.
I would actually recommend some research; go on linkedin, find out what you can about the person or people responsible for the decision on whether or not to hire you. What do they list as their qualifications? If there's no PhDs in that group, then you need to make a decision about whether to list yours.
Ultimately, the question mentioned in username_2' answer holds true, even if my perspective on it is different to his. What will your employer do if they find out later? Well if you've proven yourself at the job and demonstrated that you're an asset to them, nothing. They *might* be a little pleasantly surprised, not because you have a PhD but because you have a PhD AND get things done.
Now for the question of ethics; I've 'dumbed down' a CV before and I don't find the practice unethical at all. Your CV isn't a report card; it's more like a business card. It's meant to represent you in the best possible light to your potential employer. Many (including myself) have a practice of producing a customised CV for every job application, tailored to what I know about the company, the job description, and the people who will ultimately be interviewing me.
I'm not advocating lying on your CV by the way; that would be *highly* unethical. In the modern world though, CV's are not meant to be a complete history of your work experience. They're meant to showcase that part of your work experience and qualifications that are *relevant* to the role. Your Masters degree is sufficient to show you're smart, but what in your work experience shows that you can get things done? It doesn't need to be a complete list but it does need to showcase what (recent) experience you have that's relevant to the role, and it should present that in a manner that the interviewers can relate to.
There's no hard and fast rule here, and you'll note that I'm going to great lengths to ensure that you don't infer a YES or NO answer from what I've written. Ultimately, every employer, every PERSON will be different in how they relate to a PhD qualification. Some employers advertising for Masters or higher will value the PhD if you include it. BUT, I've also seen people removed from candidacy because of a PhD and a perception that you won't relate to their workplace.
So to summarise, my view is that not including your PhD is NOT unethical, but the final decision has to rest with you after you've done your research on the role, the employer and the decision makers within that business.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: List it as both a work experience **and** a PhD.
You've been **working** as a research assistant **and** you've **also** been doing your PhD. It's really not much different from having a job at a firm and attending a master's degree program.
I suggest you don't try to pass it off as something other than it is. Also, it's widely known that research assistants will often try and get a PhD, sooner or later. So, excluding the PhD might prompt your recruiter to think that you've given up on it and are now aiming for easier goals instead.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Many people think of an application as being a simplex operation. That is, the employer takes all the information and makes the only decision.
As an retired Director of IT and former Director of Undergraduate Studies at a UK University, let me assure you that it is a duplex operation. You must interview the company as much as they interview you. You must disclose everything because you should only want to work for a company that wants people like you.
It is probably unethical to hide your qualifications but, more importantly, it's being dishonest to yourself.
One life. Live it honestly and to its full.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: You're expressing the fact that you think PhD might be a Con for this position.
Whether it's ethical or not to hide it is not really relevant. Instead, you should ask yourself why it would be a Con. If the jobs requires a master degree, it does not says it requires absolutely no PhD. Instead of lying or hiding informations on your resume, I think you should 1. show it and show reasonable pride for it 2. find why it would be a con, and counter arguments before they even come into the discussion.
Is it because your potential employer may think you're a thinker instead of a doer? Tell him about the things you did and how much you wanna do this. Is it because he may think you want a salary above the position's budget? Tell him about your expectations. Is it because he may think you lack experience? As someone said already, use it both as qualification and experience in your CV. Etc.
It really should be at your advantage, so be proud!
If it's a blocker, for real, you don't want this job anyway, because it will take at most one week to find out that you lied for this, and if there is one thing that you should morally worry about, it is to start a relationship (the one with your employer) on a lie.
On the opposite side, if you're the employer, you're really looking for persons who humanly fit your organisation. It'd be a really dumb move to halt discussions with potentially good candidates because they have a diploma you did not mention in your job desc. They wrote the job desc, but then, they talk to *humans*. None will fit exactly. Prove that you're the person they're looking for (and that *should* include you being honest, hiding such informations would be a no-brainer sign to "no-hire" for me).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: The issue of ethics always leads to a gray area so don't expect definitive guidance on that aspect. I think the more important question you should ask yourself is do you think this position is really a good fit for you ? You've invested a lot of time pursuing a doctorate and you are considering omitting that factor in applying for employment. Why did you want to earn the Ph.D. in the first place if not partly or solely to utilize it professionally in a capacity that would benefit an employer ?
Unfortunately, I've seen this practice become institutionalized where I live and work in California. I know of people that have retained a particularly employment headhunter locally that specializes in finding clients jobs with the state. He goes through a process of "dumbing down" their CVs by removing references to advanced degrees in order for them to qualify for a broad range of postings. The sad part is many of the people that use his service are more than happy to take a job that they are vastly over qualified for in order to get the security, benefits, pension system, etc. offered by employment with the state government.
This mindset will almost invariably lead to job dissatisfaction and regret. It's better to find the job fit for your level of qualification without compromise.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: Your resume is a marketing tool not a biography. There is no required format. Omitting your PhD is not hiding it. It does not imply you are ashamed of it.
When I read resumes (and I think many people are the same), I tend to read only the first paragraph. It is extremely unlikely that I will read to the end of one page of resume. So if you want someone like me to read your resume, keep it short. Eliminate anything that is peripheral to your goal of getting me to green light you for an interview. If your PhD does not support your application, then don't mention it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: You probably don't need to hide the PhD. What's really important instead is that you write a strong cover letter that explains exactly how your experience applies to this job, which is probably a little harder if you try to omit how you got it. A good cover letter can also give a satisfactory reason for why you are going for a job that doesn't seem like a match on paper. (Although I don't know that you have to go into that in your case, your qualifications seem close enough.)
Another thing you can do is list your experience first, and your degrees at the end. If the PhD is on the last quarter of the page, they may overlook it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: There is such a thing as being [overqualified](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overqualification). The solution is to remove items from the resume that don't pertain to the job. Since you're not lying about your other degrees it seems like a fair thing to do.
Older people often leave out jobs that they had 20 years ago so they appear younger. This is how people deal with unfair [age prejudice](http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2012_chunk_g97814051243317_ss1-23).
A friend of mine from Africa I met in college changed his name from Saeque to David to avoid [black prejudice.](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews)
If they mention that you might be over-qualified, say "Well, I'm older and not as smart as I used to be. So instead of being a genius, I'm now merely very smart and above average."
To sum it up: **Do what you need to do to get a job. Let me say it in a more ethical way: Try various resume strategies and perform statistical analysis on the call-back percentage to pick the best resume.**
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: Maybe you are very skilled in work related to your second-to-highest degree. Skills that you have honed while pursuing the PhD. If you disclose your PhD degree many employers will probably assume you will want to work with things related to your PhD and that you will not settle for other duties. Then by not disclosing it, you might avoid being marked as overqualified for duties you actually are a better fit for.
As long as you indeed intend working with those duties you can probably produce more value for a company if they hire you based on your next-highest degree rather than hire you for your PhD into a research managerial or administrative position where you may suck.
If judging ethics by what creates most monetary value for the company, then yes surely it can be an ethical thing to do so.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_12: It may result in a situations that *appears* unethical later on down the line.
If you apply with your highest listed degree as master's, that's what people on the hiring committee will remember. If you later decide you want to take a PhD level position and update your resume to reflect that you have received a PhD, this could look extremely confusing to someone who was familiar with the earlier version of your resume, or talked with someone who was familiar with your earlier position in the company.
To them, Occam's Razor would suggest that you are now lying about having a PhD.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/16
| 739
| 2,746
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently applied to a PhD program, now accepted and planning to attend, in my CV I entered my GPA as 3.8 although the true value is 3.78.
Will that be a problem when I send the hardcopy transcripts to school?<issue_comment>username_1: Being a professor, I will not supervise any student who lie to me in his/her resume. So, yes you may face problem from supervisor side, and probably from admission committee as well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends on *why* the GPA on your CV reads "3.8" as opposed to "3.78".
If the committee decides the discrepancy is due to you willfully "puffing up" your resume, then they would be justified in rescinding your offer of admission. If, instead, you simply missed the "7" key on the keyboard while entering it and didn't catch it while proofreading, you might be able to convince them of your honesty by proactively pointing out the issue and asking for forgiveness. Even if they believe you, they might still decide to rescind the offer because **you have a responsibility to ensure that everything on your CV is accurate.**
On the other hand, they might not see that 0.02 difference as qualitatively different, and maybe they'll overlook it. But at the very least, it will leave a bad taste in their mouths. You would not be well-served by letting them discover that issue on their own.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As pointed out in the comments, you didn't lie. Your actual GPA was a 3.8. By contrast, it'd have been a lie if you claimed a 3.80.
I suspect that reviewers who see this may have one of three reactions:
1. **No concern.** They'll see this as entirely correct rounding and not bother thinking about it any further.
2. **Concern about fudging.** They'll wonder why you chose to report your GPA on your CV to just 1 decimal place, as this is a bit atypical, and coupled with the fact that it resulted in a round-up, it may come off as a bit of fudging.
3. **Think it dishonest.** Committees in STEM fields should really understand that a 3.78 *is* a 3.8; that's basic numeric literacy. However, if you're applying to a field that doesn't use math, they may perceive it as dishonest.
Personally, if I read a *3.8*, I'd have taken it as implying anything from a 3.75 to a 3.84999..., such that the revelation of a 3.78 would be entirely expected. I'd have found your decision to report only 1 decimal place to be dubious, but I'd have already judged you for that upon seeing your CV. Seeing the transcript confirm that the GPA was on the lower end of the spectrum would strengthen the suspicion of intentionally trying to fudge the numbers, but since I'd already have been suspicious of that, it wouldn't really change much.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/16
| 2,744
| 11,211
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my undergraduate Physics courses, I have heard from my Professor last semester that he got in trouble from the physics department for passing too many students.
This semester, the TA in the lab portion of my class (who grades our lab reports) came flapping around a memo he got, also from the Physics department, stating that the average grade needed to be 75% and he will now be grading accordingly, after a few weeks of normal grading.
I typically spend up to 4-5 hours on these reports, typing up formulas and doing analysis, calculations, etc. I have gotten a 100 on *every* lab report in my first semester and up to that point in the second. Now, after the ultimatum, I'm losing points for things I didn't before, and being asked for *additional* analysis that has never been required. I already spend as much time as I can, and this harsh grading feels out of nowhere and undeserved.
**Questions:**
1. Is this normal that teachers have quotas?
2. Should it affect students who actually put in the work?
3. Does this seem like an ethical issue of arbitrary grading that I should bring up to the department or my professor?<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, the universities and colleges are run by managers and not only by academics. In ideal world, all students' work should be marked according to its merit; for example, if all mathematical problems are solved correctly, then the paper deserves 100%. Academics usually understand and share this view (apart of a few strongly believing that "no work ever deserves 100%").
Unfortunately, people who manage universities, are not always guided by common sense or mathematical reasoning. They seem to invent some obscure metrics and force them on the rest of academic staff. Academics do not think it is correct, but they have to play by the rules which are set by non-academics.
Unfortunately, students become a collateral damage in a clash of two cultures: academic and management. If you want to query this, best ask not your professor, but a Dean (anonymously or as a part of larger group). The misguided policies arrive from the very top; your professor has not much power against it.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, this is (unfortunately) fairly normal in the sense that it is done at a number of locations.
The places I've heard it done, the main concern is at a department level, with courses of many sections, in which instructor difficulty has high variability; some instructors are "hard" and others "easy". Admittedly, this causes some initial level of unfairness in the luck of the draw as regards who each student gets for an instructor. The fixed-statistic doctrine forces the harsh instructors to scale up grades to look more like other sections, and so forth (this reduces student complaints to the dean/department). The resulting counter-unfairness is that if lots of legitimately strong students all get in the same section at once, they will be effectively penalized... however this becomes somewhat masked because the grade-data is now mangled, and all you have left are subjective student complaints that are likely ignored. I know that I've had multiple sections of the same course in a semester, taught identically, with wildly varying outcomes (40% passing in one section and 80% in the other).
I think the gold-standard way of handling this would be to have joint tests that are team-graded (i.e., same one or two professors grading each problem and verifying each others' judgement). However, that is logistically expensive and rarely done by tenured academics, I think.
My father had a similar down-grading in a college class, for similar reasons, circa 1966 and he hasn't stopped complaining about it yet.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I've been out of circulation for a while, but I can tell you for example that in a chemistry department at a prominent US university, the target for all exams was 50%, because this would give a symmetric bell-curve distribution. Then letter grades were given based upon standard deviation.
The more well-spread the grades are, the fairer it is to good students.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: While it sounds like your professor may have originally been grading too easy, increasing the difficulty of assignments and grading on a curve are different.
**If it is on a curve**, on the topic of ethics I'd make the following argument against grading on a curve, which may give you some traction if you try to get this policy changed:
---
Grading on a curve turns grades into a [zero sum game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game), which penalizes group study and makes the class competitive rather than cooperative: the better you do, the worse off I will be. It's now in my best interest not to help you (and to actively harm if I'm so inclined: peer reviews being a prime candidate), because that will maximize my ranking on the grading scale.
This actively harms all student learning, as [teaching others is one of the best ways of learning material](http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-33312-001) and this disincentivizes students from helping/teaching one another: Those who would be willing to teach should, if working from their best interests grade-wise, not. Those who need additional help are then less likely to receive it.
One of the articles I most agree with around the web on this topic is [Why We Should Stop Grading Students on a Curve](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/opinion/sunday/why-we-should-stop-grading-students-on-a-curve.html) which covers this topic with more depth, to include that this idea of life being a zero-sum game is ultimately to the student's detriment.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: It's probably not *unethical*. (Note: Don't infer this answer to mean it's *good*. Or *bad*.)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious that no one else desires to, grades serve 2 roles:
1. To evaluate how well the student has already mastered the material.
2. To predict how well the student is likely to learn and apply such material in the future.
This means:
* Giving everyone an A indicates that every student learned what the instructor was trying to teach, but does not at all indicate whether two students from that class will perform similarly if faced with different (but related) problems in the future.
* Similarly, forcing the lowest grade to an F and the highest grade to an A fixes the second problem, but does not at all indicate whether the students in fact learned the material that was taught.
So, basically, what we have here is a "multi-objective optimization problem", which generally implies there is a trade-off and no single mathematically optimal answer.
(You'd think we could give 2 separate numbers for these 2 things rather than just 1 number, but the real world probably isn't very open to this idea.)
This means it is at the instructor's/department's/school's discretion to figure out how to combine these 2 measures into 1 measure, and *that is something students must fundamentally accept*. So your notion of being "ethical" must hinge on more than merely you disliking where the professor struck the balance between these two objectives.
So now we get to the particulars of your situation, which boil down to this quote:
>
> I'm losing points for things I didn't before, and being asked for additional analysis that has never been required.
>
>
>
If I understand this correctly, this means one of the following:
1. You were marked down for not performing analysis that were not required.
2. You did analysis that were not required, and were marked down for mistakes in those.
Unless the analyses were blatantly off-topic (such as analyzing Shakespeare's plays after solving your linear circuits, which I assume they were not), in the first scenario, what has happened is that you have done less thorough and/or less correct work compared to your peers, and your professor has deemed it necessary for this to be reflected in your grade. Presumably this has happened either because he thinks it is a likely indicator that you didn't understand the material as well (reason #1), or that it is a likely indicator that you would not be as correct or as thorough about such material in the future (reason #2).
In any case, I hope you can see that there is nothing *unethical* about this behavior. It is clearly a judgment call, but it was quite clearly done in good faith and completely within his discretion and responsibilities as an instructor. You're welcome to claim that it is a poor judgment call and complain based on that, but I see no evidence for the claim that it is *unethical*.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Let me take the possible situation you're in to an extreme. Imagine your TA had a marking rubric that consisted of "5 marks out of 10 for putting your name and assignment number on page 1, and 1 mark for each page submitted." 5 pages, good format: 10/10. Not only would you get 100% on every lab, so would the rest of the class, except for a few who only submitted 4 page reports. The department would not feel that your TA and prof were doing a good job preparing you for future courses or for work, or evaluating your competence, if that was the actual marking rubric. Furthermore, it's pretty easy to argue that this imaginary rubric is unethical.
So in a department where someone is doing that, it's not unethical to tell them "you have enough students in your class that your distributions should match such-and-such a pattern, and your average should be X." While it's **possible** that much higher or lower averages in a class are caused by happening to get a much smarter class, or the prof being an amazing instructor, it's far more likely to be caused by easy marking. Easy marking feels fun while it's happening. Everyone likes getting 100%. Even when you make mistakes (leave things out or do things wrong, you're not clear) you like getting 100% anyway. Where it's not so much fun is next year, when you get a hard marker. Or when you realize you don't actually know how to do certain things that everyone assumes you learned how to do in this course.
Having quotas is a way that departments try to rein in both easy markers (who you like, but are actually treating you unethically because they are not teaching you everything you need to learn) and hard markers (who crush your spirit with their nitpicking and unfair expectation.) It is not normal for everyone who "puts in the work" to get 100% on everything. And marks are not assigned as a way to be fair and recognize the time you put in.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: I cannot answer as to whether or not this is common, however I can say that in my first year at university a 'pass' for physics depended on one (4hour) exam at the end of the year. We were told before the exam that regardless of marks, only 50% of the students would be given a 'pass'.
It was a long time ago but with dim recollection I think that for my year you needed to get at least 75% right to scrape through.
Fair? No. The system was set up purely to only pass as many students as they could admit to second year.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/16
| 455
| 1,655
|
<issue_start>username_0: Lets say I have 3 different methods. I am trying to find the best technique to represent similarities (or differences) among these methods.
One way I thought of is to create a table and create my own correlation methodology (e.g., high, medium, and low). However, I am not sure if this is the best way to do it.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TcSoA.png)
Here is the corresponding LaTeX code I created (just in case):
```
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\begin{document}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& Method 1 & Method 2 & Method 3 \\
Method 1 & High & High & Low \\
Method 2 & Medium & Low & Low \\
Method 3 & Low & Low & Low \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Level of correlation among different methods}
\end{table}
\end{document}
```<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that you put characterizing features in the rows or columns of your table. For the descriptions, you can put simple explanation to the advantage or drawback of the $feature\_i$ in $method\_j$. Something like, **faster timer**, or **heavy memory usage**. It depends on the field.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I assume that the high, low and medium corresponds to some analytical values and are dependent on various factors. So how about to assign some values to all constraints and so to this high, low and mediums also. Then finally show as an shaded matrix plot e.g.,
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OHVIi.png)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/16
| 1,919
| 7,656
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have written my Statement of Purpose (SOP) for the graduate programs that were Ph.D. or M.Sc.+Ph.D. (the American doctoral programs), but I am also applying for some only M.Sc. programs. They often require a shorter SOP, and even if they don't explicitly mention a word limit, my presumption is that they find a full 2-page SOP (just below 1200 words) to be too long. I am wondering what are the least important points for an M.Sc. application, so I can cut out those parts from my SOP.
Given the programs I'm applying to, it seems to me that they care a lot about the courses I've done, and not only a few important ones, but almost all relevant coursework. I also know that they don't really expect any research experience, but I thought my research experience is what could make my application stand out in the pool of applicants to those M.Sc. programs (a lot of whom have little to no research experience). There is also a part about my interest in the subject and my long-term plans, where I explain my research interest (since I'm definitely going to do a Ph.D. after my M.Sc. and pursue an academic career). I don't know how necessary it is, but I think they might care about why I wanna do a master's degree at all (this is separate from the part where I write about their program in particular). The rest of it is about my educational background and skills.
Which one of these parts do you think is the least important so I can exclude it?
(I list the paragraphs here: )
1. My interest + view on the subject + long-term goal
2. Background from college 1
3. Background from college 2 (I've
transferred from 1 to 2)
4. Skills and other important points about
my background
5. Research experience 1
6. Research Experience 2
(I've briefly described the project too.. is it necessary to do that
for Master's programs?! )
7. Short-term plans
8. Why this particular master's program<issue_comment>username_1: This is impossible to answer without seeing your SOP (which you should not post here). I'll give some general advice about what's important and not in an SOP.
Your mileage may vary of course, but on average, SOPs are very poorly edited. For the average student in your position, they could keep all the content and save 30% just by eliminating unnecessary detail. Common offenders:
* Stuff that's in the CV.
* Pointless stories about their childhood
* Lectures about their love of their chosen (sub)-field, or pontifications about how important the subfield is
* Complicated verbiage (a good editor can really help you here, but can be hard to find).
* Technical detail -- choose one or two specific challenges you had and how you overcame them, don't describe everything you've ever done
* Therapy sessions about a traumatic experience they had (unfair professor, etc.) -- SOPs are not the place for this
To your paragraphs:
>
> My interest + view on the subject + long-term goal
>
>
>
Your first paragraph should be an attention getter (bonus points if it's humorous). Make sure you aren't pretentious about your "view on the subject." You should state your **research interests** -- what you've researched and what you want to do next. If your long-term goal is to be a professor, omit this (everyone would like to be a professor in the same way that every basketball player would like to be in the NBA).
>
> Background from college 1
>
>
> Background from college 2 (I've transferred from 1 to 2)
>
>
>
Good, focus on challenges, in particular program-relevant challenges (lab work, most difficult/enjoyable class, etc.)
>
> Skills and other important points about my background
>
>
>
Skills should be in your resume. "Important points about my background" sounds a little suspicious, but of course I do not know what you plan to say. If you keep this section, it should be about any major accomplishments during college that do not fit elsewhere (teaching, sports, career, etc.).
>
> Research experience 1
>
>
> Research Experience 2 (I've briefly described the project too.. is it necessary to do that for Master's programs?! )
>
>
>
The project should be on your CV. Here you should describe what you did, what you learned, challenges/highlights of the project, and how it affects your career trajectory (e.g., interest in doing more, wanting to do something else).
>
> Short-term plans
>
>
>
I assume your short-term plan is to go to the master's program, not sure what you plan to say here. Consider omitting this unless there's something really interesting.
>
> Why this particular master's program
>
>
>
Yes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: By way of background, I am an admissions tutor for a competitive MSc and read around 400 personal statements each year. @username_1's answer is great and already says most of what I would offer as advice. Especially, it's worth repeating: avoid biopic fluff about your earlier years. Sorry, but if I have to read 400 of these statements in 2 weeks then I don't care that you enjoyed your first chemistry set.
---
What I would add to @username_1's answer is that
>
> It might be helpful to think of your personal statement as a piece of **evidence** of your suitability for the programme.
>
>
>
The key question is how can that that evidence be made more convincing? One important way is to minimise the amount of *cheap talk* and maximise the content that is *specific, verifiable, and credible*. Cheap talk is something anybody could write, regardless of whether it is true or not.\*
For example, suppose that you are trying to evidence the claim 'I have a long-standing deep interest in the subject matter of the degree'.
A story about how the subject has been your lifelong passion since childhood, however well written, is cheap talk. You could have made the whole story up to try to schmooze your way onto the degree. There's no evidence! On the other hand, if you write about how a couple of specific papers/books you read shaped your thinking then there is verifiable evidence that you have engaged with the topic before. Someone who isn't interested enough to make time to look at the literature couldn't possibly have written about what these papers say.\*\*
Another way to evidence the same point would be to write specifically about interesting things to have come out of your earlier academic experiences. For example, maybe you had a lab internship where an experiment produced some unexpected results. Writing about what you did about this, how you reconciled the results with your expectations, etc. is verifiable evidence that you have been actively and intellectually engaged with the subject matter, whereas writing in general terms about 'how great the internship was' is cheap talk.
Likewise, if you want to argue that 'I am invested in the idea of continuing on to research in the future', how might you provide evidence? Talking vaguely about interesting topics is cheap talk (anyone can say it's interesting to study lipids or the spread of fake news without putting any thought into it). But talking about *specific* research questions you'd like to answer, methods that might be used, or gaps in the literature you'd like to fill is evidence of individual thought. It would be impossible to do that unless you genuinely spent time thinking about what the interesting open questions are, so it is a credible way to signal that you are serious about research.
---
\*Ironically, my claim to be an admissions tutor is cheap talk.
\*\*You'd be amazed how many people who already have an undergraduate degree in a subject can't even do this in a cogent fashion!
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/16
| 703
| 3,062
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last summer I asked a professor if I can try my hand at doing research under him in his field of interest. As I was an undergrad student (*I still am*) taking taking summer courses and working (*I wasn't getting paid for the research*) at the time and lacked a lot of skills/creativity to help in with what he was doing, I feel like I was not very successful in being very helpful with putting together a proper research report.
This being said, nearly whole year has passed since then, with no plans this summer for courses, I have an idea I want to do original research that could be helpful to his field (*I didn't find anything written on the matter, so I'm not 100% sure if it's a good one, but I sincerely think it should be tried if it hasn't to verify its validity for his field*) and I in turn gain from his guidance, and possibly get a paid position with him.
Is it possible for me to get back to doing research with him after having a rough time last year? If so, how should I ask for it? Should I simply write an email asking if its possible for me to try doing research with him again or compose a formal research proposal and give email it to him to demonstrate interest in the field? The risk in turn of that would be that I would waste my time writing a proposal that would never be read or rejected where my efforts should be elsewhere.<issue_comment>username_1: This is somewhat field-dependent, but a lot of undergraduate research is not really for the professor's benefit. If they needed help, they'd enlist graduate students or postdocs. Working with undergrads is more about giving the student a learning experience.
You don't say anything about feedback from your professor, but in any case, I see nothing wrong with asking to work under him again. As for your idea, it's definitely a good idea to run it by your professor before investing much more effort, as he is in a better position to judge whether it's feasible, whether it's been done before, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Consider the game theory. What's the status quo now? I'm assuming awkward. If you ask him and he says no, then things remain awkward, nothing lost. If you ask and he says yes, that could really help you. So, I would ask him.
I do not recommend put effort into a "research proposal" -- better to just talk to him. I'd start by sending an e-mail saying that you have enjoyed working with him, regretted being oversubscribed last summer, have no such time commitments this summer, would like to spend 40 hrs/week doing research with him, and ask for a meeting to discuss an idea you have.
Having had students like you before, my guess is that his answer will come down to whether there are other students who want to work with him. If competition for research spots is tight, he will likely give the chance to someone else. If not, he is likely to give you another try; as others have said, undergraduate research is more about teaching than about getting help (except for manual labor type "research").
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/16
| 352
| 1,541
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it possible to do a second Masters Degree in Biostatistics if I already have a Masters Degree in Statistics?
During my first Masters Degree, I took one Biostatistics course for my elective, and I found the subject really interesting. I thought about taking a PhD program in Biostatistics, but to me PhD is too long and I have some doubts on whether I will be successful as a PhD student. I am particularly interested in Masters degree in Biostatistics that has co-op option, so that I can gain some work experience as well.
But is it possible to take a Masters program in Biostatistics when I already have a Masters degree in Statistics?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is generally completely permissible to do so. Universities often have rules precluding people from getting degrees that they have already earned at another institution, but not ones that preclude highly overlapping degrees. For example, I know many people who have math and CS degrees that overlapped so much that the theses were on the same topic. I think such determinations are usually made based on the name of the degree, and not an analysis of the similarity of coursework.
Wether or not this is encouraged or a good strategic idea is a different question, but most schools won’t have a rule-based problem with this.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think the answer depends on the graduate school requirements (that you are applying to). Usually schools mention required background for applying.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/16
| 1,159
| 4,357
|
<issue_start>username_0: I didn't have the chance to wear my [academic stole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_stole) or [honor cord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_cords) during my undergraduate graduation.
**Question:** Would it be appropriate to wear the academic stole and honor cord to my doctoral hooding and convocation?
**EDIT** I should mention that at least one of the items was earned during my graduate career, if that has any bearing.
I can't find any guidance from my university.<issue_comment>username_1: Formal regalia for convocations are highly stylised - even the [side to which a tassel falls](https://resources.gradimages.com/when-tassels-should-be-turned-at-commencement) can have [meaning](https://www.shutterfly.com/ideas/how-to-wear-a-graduation-cap/). It would not normally be appropriate to wear representations of achievement that are unrelated to the degree you are about to receive.
If the honor stole/cord has particular significance to you, you can write to your university to explain your situation and to ask for permission to wear it at your convocation. You should then abide by their reply.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Aesthetically, wearing a stole or cord with a hood seems unappealing. Practically, there is a slight chance it would complicate the hooding process. (It is surprising how hard even simple things like processing down an aisle can become when it's for a big life event, so making sure the hood goes on symmetrically and doesn't get caught on a stole or cord might be hard.)
Honestly, if I were you I would not consider wearing the stole and/or cord **unless they have a deep cultural meaning to you** (e.g. African-American stole of kente cloth). If they're purely academic or about undergrad activities--say, you did not wear an honor society stole for your baccalaureate graduation because you were embarrassed and now regret that--then don't look like you're bragging about your old undergraduate career while getting your Ph.D. You can take whatever pictures you want with the old stole and cord on your new gown, but focus on your current achievements at the ceremony.
If it is something deep--cultural recognition, perhaps recognizing a deceased parent--I describe next how to figure out the rules and a then a possible alternative.
**Figuring out what the rules are and/or how to get permission.**
- For the doctoral hooding, talking with your advisor and the department staff in charge of this may work best. Above all, if the person hooding you (likely your advisor) disapproves, then do not disrespect them by insisting on it. The department staff will probably also know the rules for convocation.
- Have you attended a prior graduation at your institution, and/or can
you find pictures? I did not attend my own convocation for my
doctorate, but many people (esp. undergrads) had decorated hats,
inflatable toys, signs, etc. A meaningful symbol would not have been out of place.
**Alternatives**
* You could probably wear a small pin (especially enamel, like a lapel pin) on the front of the robe.
* You may be able to decorate your hat. I haven't seen Ph.D. students do this, but many bachelor's and master's students do.
* Have family/friends bring something to put on right afterwards, like a meaningful stole or a flower garland. (Flowers would NOT survive if put on before the hood, anyway.)
* Wear the stole under your gown and open the gown later when you take pictures. You may even be able to set it up to poke out of your gown, as the collar of a dress shirt would.
* Wear something meaningful that shows despite your gown. For the sake of example, kente cloth pants, traditional footwear, a flower behind your ear, etc.
Congratulations! You're almost there!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I went through my doctoral hooding ceremony today, and wore my honor cords. No one asked or cared one way or the other. I saw a handful of other people (there were several hundred students being hooded) who also wore honor cords, medals, etc. So, I will answer this question by saying that I doubt that if you wear something unique that anyone will really care (as long as it isn't somehow rude or offensive), but to still ask if your university, college, or department have any guidelines. If not, make the most of it!
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/17
| 2,217
| 9,559
|
<issue_start>username_0: As an undergraduate student majoring in physics, I intend to apply for a Ph.D. in experimental particle physics. I have known that working as physicists in this field is kind of different, as they are always affiliated to a collaboration (like CMS in LHC) and may appear as authors in loads of related papers, resulting in high citations. Therefore it seems traditional evaluations of a researcher (focusing on the citations or h-index) do not work when assessing an excellent and famous experimental particle physicist.
Thus I am asking:
* **How are particle researchers assessed in reality,** in the case when a Ph.D. applier is searching for and comparing professors in the similar field, or when a researcher is going to find a position as an assistant professor? Does the specific role of a scientist in the collaboration (say, the group leader) matter in this evaluation procedure?
* **How does university ranking play into this?** What are the probable differences between professors in particle physics who work at a higher-ranked institution (ranked by physics major) and those who work at a lower-ranked one – given that they are both affiliated to some big collaboration. This question comes to me since it seems one cannot distinguish a famous particle physicist by the conventional method which is performed by university ranking.<issue_comment>username_1: I happened to be a member of my college's executive committee when an experimental particle physicist was being considered for promotion to tenure. She was, indeed, a member of a huge collaboration, so a typical paper of hers had perhaps 100 co-authors. The papers provided no information about what, specifically, she had contributed (and we know better than to pay much attention to citation counts and impact factors). The information we needed, about the quality and quantity of her work, was provided by numerous letters from external reviewers. ("External" means not in our university.) Ordinarily, the college requires that most external letters come from senior researchers who are not co-authors of the candidate's papers, but an exception is allowed in areas, like experimental particle physics, where only co-authors really know about the candidate's work. My recollection (about 15 years old and therefore somewhat vague) is that the letters gave us very detailed information, not only about what the candidate had contributed but also about how efficiently she had done her part of the work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: HEP PhD here.
What matters for a permanent position?
* By far the most important factor is the "physics." You need to have innovative ideas about how to discover particles. On the small experiments, this can mean new approaches for detectors, analysis, etc.; on the larger experiments, this usually means new analysis techniques.
* Another important factor is "leadership" -- you need to attend lots of meetings and make substantial contributions at all of them.
* Though it's understandable that universities want to hire the highest-impact people possible, this does lead to a slightly toxic environment. There are endless meetings where everyone argues over factors of epsilon, and everyone wants to be involved in dozens of things but not put time into any of them. Skills, teaching, and knowledge of other fields/subfields don't count at all.
How is this measured?
* The most important way is the letters of recommendation. You will need 3 for post-docs and up to a dozen for a faculty position.
* "Official" positions such as analysis lead, sub-convenor, etc. help a lot.
* Awards and grants also help, though there are not many of these for grad students.
* As you say, publications don't count at all (at least directly), since there's no way to tell who really worked on what, everyone's name goes on everything (this is seriously different than most other fields, and introduces serious drawbacks).
Finally, let me point out that here are ~10 US HEP faculty jobs per year and hundreds of HEP PhDs produced each year (and the lack of new particles means that hiring is unlikely to accelerate). So, there is some element of randomness.
As for university ranking: more prestigious universities get more qualified grad students (or even post-docs), which tends to make their groups more productive. But at the faculty level, people tend to go where the jobs are; there will usually not be meaningful differences in the qualifications of faculty at the #20 school vs. faculty at the #80 school.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: H-index is a simple metric - and as it goes for simple metrics, they are mostly used by people who are not in the field, or funding agencies. As you say, h-index just does not work in particle physics, where h-index naturally grows over time, just because you are a member of a collaboration. To give you a feeling, the average PhD graduates with an h-index around 40. I met a young researcher that changed experiment twice in his PhD career and because of bizantine rules continued to sign papers from all three big collaborations. His h-index was around 70 before his graduation. One particle physics collaboration puts the main authors at the top of author list. Some had the main authors only listed on a publicly accessible webpage that explains the measurement. Most of the time, a great deal of effort is spent masking who the lead authors actually are. While experimental particle physics represents the extreme scenario, other fields share similar issues.
**How are particle researchers assessed in reality,**
So, h-index is mostly meant for outsiders. People in your field - any field - judges by reputation. Reputation is built by being consistently successfull in leading original work, being a good disseminator, a respected leader, etc. How to measure things without looking at papers, you might ask?
1. *The institution that awarded your PhD*. Having a PhD at MIT or similar institution is the earliest sign of outstanding skills, and it is probably the one that sticks with you the most.
2. *Your PhD supervisor*. If you graduated with someone who is already famous in the field, and he/she highly admires you, that is the best walking letter of reccomendation you will ever have.
3. *Talks/seminars*. Great research work leads not only to highly cited papers, but to invitation to present your results at seminars at key institutions, or talks at key conferences. A hiring committee member will be able to map the (selected) papers you display on your CV to the talks you gave. While talks/seminars are important per se, it is probably the networking the follows that matters the most.
4. *Breadth of research*. In particle physics, that means working both in "hardware" - building/operating the detectors - and in "data analysis" -
producing the measurements themselves. If you collaborate on theoretical papers, that's a plus. By the way, "hardware" and theoretical papers have "normal" authors list, i.e. list only the main authors.
5. *Prizes/awards*. Admirers will nominate you for prizes. You will feel you have a shot at winning awards, and will apply to all of them. Prizes and awards lead to more prizes and awards.
6. Reputation prompts invitations to *lead scientific efforts*, that produce higher returns than working solo. Leadership in turn prompts additional reputation boost.
7. *Luck*. As pointed out, the number of High Energy Physics opening is so limited, and the number of PhD awarded so high, that you are most likely to get invited to interviews if somebody in the hiring committee already had a chance to encounter your work directly, and/or was impressed by a public appearance of yours.
**How does university ranking play into this?**
With this question you actually meant how to rank established professors. Established professors reputation works as for younger researcher - basically the points 1) to 6) above. You can replace *Luck* with *Group size*. Group size is basically a proxy of how a professor reputation gains her grants to hire postdocs, and aura to attract students.
As you can see, most of the above is actually pretty general, and holds for most field. What characterizes experimental high energy physics is the complete lack of interest in h-index (which would anyway just be a poor-man proxy for the points highlighted) and the extremely competitive scenario, that puts additional emphasis on visibility, networking, and a bit of luck.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Disclamer: I am a ex Expertimental Particle Physicist
In addition to the above answers...
Like any other social endeavor - and yes working in very large groups of highly intelligent people is a social skill rather than scientific; all the ills of the society at large also occur here. This includes all sorts of discriminations, politics, backstabbing, sleeping your way to top, plagiarism etc. It is just like corporate rat race but between very competent people who are motivated and have a whole lot to loose. Anything goes. Most of it is hard to prove.
You can present results and make a name only if you are allowed to do so. Every tiny career step will be hard.
If you keep your head down and learn and absorb everything this is the best real education you can have. Your are sharing room with Nobel prize winners and can see then in action. Hopefully you can learn their thought process. You can also be happy that at least for a short while you followed your dreams before life interrupts.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/17
| 1,592
| 6,891
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a third-year PhD student in Computational Algebra with a B.Sc. in Computer Science.
While doing my research, I often need to check my old textbooks for definitions, and I am concerned that I may not be adequately prepared despite having done the course work seriously. Due to this to me I feel like I should read a textbook for 2 weeks then start doing the research.
Others have suggested to only read a book when you need a particular lemma/proof/etc., however I am conflicted on whether this is good advice.
**Question:** What should I do?
Please note that my supervisor told me that you know enough for research. Is this kind of feeling common among PhD students?<issue_comment>username_1: To expand a bit on the comments saying this is a normal feeling (which it is): learning something in a class is well and good, but many things will not truly click until you have to *use* them. To take a random example, I learned and understood the proof of the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem in my third year of undergrad, but I thought it was just a neat result. I certainly forgot the statement and proof multiple times, and had to look it up. It wasn't until halfway through grad school that I realized this theorem (and/or the idea behind it) underlies pretty much every compactness theorem for function spaces, making it (in my judgment) one of the most important theorems in analysis. After that, it was not so hard to remember.
>
> Due to this to me it feels I should read a textbook for 2 weeks then start doing the research.
>
>
> Others have suggested to only read a book when you need a particular lemma/proof/etc., however I am conflicted on whether this is good advice.
>
>
>
Some subjects you'll need to know in detail, others you can pick up on the fly. With experience, you'll get better at distinguishing one from the other, but for now your advisor can give you guidance about this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is definitely a normal feeling. To address the *feeling* of not being prepared, you might want to realistically revisit where your skills and comprehension were a few years ago. If you can feel the progress you have made already, you may be more likely to believe that you will make the progress from the confusion you feel right now to having defended a dissertation.
* Do you ever have a chance to tutor undergraduates in upper-level classes? Could you sit in on an instructor's office hours for classes you took at the end of undergrad? This might help you see that you have made a lot of progress.
* It may feel like your colleagues are ahead of you. You might have a few of them who truly are, who know their own specialty and everyone else's specialties at an expert level. If you look at the rest of your cohort who are not doing Computational Algebra, though, you probably know more about the details of your field than they know about it.
* You can remind yourself of what you do know. Map out some of the big concepts that are related to the work you want to do. Actually draw a picture about how ideas link up. This can be half brainstorming, and half a chance to see that you have a much broader knowledge of your area, and how things fit together, than you used to. (You can come back and do this at the end of every term, perhaps, and you'll see how your picture changes and grows.)
You've chosen to surround yourself with smart, talented peers and professors. Comparing yourself to them may make you feel like you're behind, but comparing yourself to **yourself** will remind you of your ability to learn and grow.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, it is common and it is completely OK. Here is an article that is worth reading: [The importance of stupidity in scientific research](http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If your primary symptom of concern is that you lack an encyclopaedic knowledge of your subject matter then I wouldn't worry - it would take a rare specialist with a very special brain to have that level of knowledge of an academic subject. Checking definitions is common in research and it is rare to memorise academic material in a level of detail that would render checks unnecessary. For most academics it is usual --over time-- to develop a solid knowledge of key concepts and results, with the ability to check more tangential matters, or particulars of definitions and proof, by reference to academic texts and papers.
The best thing you can do is to **prioritise the importance of concepts and results** in your field, and try to commit important core concepts and results to memory as well as possible, while making note of where you can get information you are likely to forget. Unless you are going to become a specialist mathematician it is generally unnecessary to memorise proofs of theorems, and even for people in this category, they might know a few proofs off by heart, but for most they will remember that a certain technique is used, without remembering all the details. For mathematical work it is useful to remember the *substance* of important theorems and remember the *techniques* that are applied to prove them. It is perfectly okay to forget the exact conditions of theorems or the exact details of proofs, but if they are really important, you should try to remember the substance of them, and have the capacity to find the details when needed.
Over time you will find that you learn your field more comprehensively and you become more used to the methods and techniques used in that field. For a mathematical subject you will usually find that most things are proved with variations of a relatively small kit of proof techniques, and you will start to recognise them well enough that you can remember roughly how to prove things without much cognitive load. As a result of this you will find that you can absorb material faster and so it will become much quicker to refresh forgotten knowledge with textbooks and papers. A refresher that took you two weeks at the end of your PhD might take only a single morning once you are an experienced researcher. **That takes time!**
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Your research answers a few questions about a certain problem. In other words, you are giving one or more solutions to the problem your research is all about. When you have enough answers to these questions or problems you are done.
On the other hand, reading the whole book is not wrong for learning to be more confident about basics in your field. What you read more serves you as a researcher in a certain field. Therefore, the more you read, the more you become expert and have good background. But for Ph.D. you only read what helps in answering or solving the problem you aim to solve in your research.
Hope my answer was helpful.
Have a nice day!
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/17
| 706
| 3,072
|
<issue_start>username_0: The website of the journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research says:
>
> This site only accepts invited submissions.
>
>
>
In general, what is an invited submission? Is this how special issues of journals are published? Why would a journal invite submissions? How does publishing as an invited submission look compared to a normal submission?<issue_comment>username_1: An invited submission is as the name implies, something which the editors of the journal invited. You have probably seen this kind of invitation email - "we would like to invite you to write something on [this topic]. Are you interested?"
It may or may not be related to special issues. Special issues are entire issues formed around that single topic (or conference). If the journal is inviting for a special issue, it will say so in the invitation - "we are publishing this special issue and you're an expert on the topic, so we would like to invite you ...". However it's also possible to be invited for regular issues.
A journal invites submissions for several reasons:
1. If the journal can get big names to write for them, it raises the profile of the journal as well as (hopefully) generates citations. Other researchers are more likely to submit if famous researchers also submit to the journal. This is the most important reason.
2. The journal may lack papers. The big journals may receive more papers than they can publish, but there're also a lot of small journals that struggle to fill their issues.
3. The journal may want to expand. This could be its author pool (invite people who've never published in the journal before), its author country pool (invite people from countries who rarely publish in the journal), or its issue count (increase in issue count is a reason to charge higher subscription prices).
Finally, in principle, invited submissions are more prestigious than regular submissions. That's because the author can safely say that someone out there thinks they're an expert in the field. It's especially good if the invitation comes from a famous researcher. However: many poor-quality journals will also resort to invitations to solicit papers. Their aim is merely to get papers, and they don't really care who is writing or even what topic the paper is on. You will have to use your judgment. In my experience, a personalized email coming from an established researcher in your field is the best kind of invitation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The value of an invited submission for your CV or tenure review may vary based on whether that journal still subjects it to peer review and/or whether the journal and the editors inviting you are well-regarded (as username_1 alluded). As mentioned in [a Chronicle of Higher Education online forum](http://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=79269.0;imode), invited submissions are sometimes "not subject to regular peer review," while in other cases, they are still peer reviewed, as in [this protocol from ACM TODS](https://tods.acm.org/ICDTPapersPolicy.cfm).
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/17
| 1,156
| 4,454
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm applying for Master's degree in France and have learned that there are two different ones - M1 and M2. I read the answers to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69002/what-does-masters-2-level-mean) and a few websites with general explanations, but couldn't quite figure out which one is more suitable for someone who is going to do a PhD after their master's, and intends to work in academia.
Would studying a 4-year or 3-year undergrad make a difference? I've done my undergrad in the American system (4-year bachelor, but a relatively broad education), with a few extra courses that were more advanced (graduate-level courses), but I still do need to take courses to prepare for Ph.D. Can I take introductory (but graduate-level) courses in an M2, or the courses in M2 are all very specific? Do I stand a chance for a direct M2, or is it the case that a 4-year US undergrad is not considered as qualified as a 3-year French undergrad + M1?<issue_comment>username_1: The [Bologna process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process) was implemented in Europe in order to facilitate the exchange of students within the European Union with a uniformed educational system at the university level. Among many other things, it was stablished the system 3 + 2 + 3: three years for an undergraduate degree, 2 years for a master's degree and 3 years minimum for a doctoral degree.
The master's degree is composed by two very distinct years. The first year (called M1 in France) has a high load of lectures and usually the students do not have time to focus on research. The second year (M2) is dedicated for doing research and the writing of the thesis.
In France they use this nomenclature in order to facilitate the equivalences between the degrees before and after the Bologna process. For example, they say that Bac+4 (3 years + M1) is equivalent to the diploma *"maitrise"* pre-bologna. Take a look in [this link](http://etudiant.aujourdhui.fr/etudiant/info/master-bac-5.html) for a further explanation.
So, as you can see, the nomenclature M1 and M2 is used for the same program. They expect you to finish the 2 years of a typical master's program if you want to do research at the doctoral level. However, they could give you equivalence in the M1 if you took similar courses in the US, but you need to contact the university to check.
You could have doubt about the professional and research master's program in France, but in this case the nomenclature is pretty clear I think (*Masters professionnel et Master de Recherche*).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are different kinds of masters in France. But this is not what the M1/M2 distinction is about. M1 and M2 literally mean "first year of master" and "second year of master". They are not degrees, they are years, like "sophomore" or "senior" in the US. The master's degree is the combination of these two years. You cannot apply for M2 if you have not completed the equivalent of M1. What qualifies may depend on the university, but US undergrad certainly does not, as it would be the equivalent of a license degree (L3, third year of license - see how it works?), even if you did it in four years.
The different kinds of masters that exist are teaching, professional, and research. If you want to work in academia, you probably need a PhD, and to apply for a PhD in France, they usually ask for the equivalent of a *research* master's degree. A professional master prepares you to work right after getting the degree, while a teaching master prepares you to be professor in middle/high school.
So research M2 is the one you need to do. It will involve taking classes but also an "internship" during which you will have to write a "memoir", kind of like a mini PhD thesis. In most fields, the teaching and research master's degrees are the same in the first year and split in the second year. Thus if you only have undergrad education, then all you can apply to is a common M1 year in the field you want, and next year you will be able to apply for a research M2 year.
---
Perhaps to drive the point home: you typically need to complete the M2 to apply to a PhD. But you need to complete the M1 to apply to the M2. So the question cannot be "which is the one for academia". It would be like asking whether 11th grade or 12th grade is the one you need to complete to enter a college. You need to do both.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/18
| 3,619
| 15,695
|
<issue_start>username_0: ### Background
In my academic surrounding, we follow the following approach for supervising the actual writing of a bachelor’s and master’s thesis:
Whenever the student has written something more than a page, they can give it to an advisor (PhD student, postdoc, or professor) and they will quickly receive extensive feedback. Later, they hand in entire chapters, and eventually their entire thesis will be criticised – before being submitted.
The idea of this is that the students can refine their writing step by step and learn by actually applying what they learnt from critique.
Also, they do not have to revise the entire thesis with respect to basic issues that can be spotted from one page of writing.
Finally, this process is less exhausting for the advisors, as they usually never have to read a mess of a thesis.
We make all of this clear to students in the very beginning of their thesis and usually later on.
Note that this is not compulsory: If a student does not wish to receive any feedback but just submit a thesis at the end, they are free to do so (though it usually doesn’t turn out well).
### The problem
For nine out of ten students, the above works fine¹. The remainder follows the following scheme:
1. They hand in their writing as we suggest.
2. They listen to and seem to accept the critique and suggestions. In particular they get to keep their annotated writings and make notes themselves.
3. They do **not** amend their existing writing or change the way they write new material. Note that this includes very straightforward changes such as fixing typos.
4. They continue handing in revisions.
5. They seem to understand and accept it if we tell them that what they are doing is detrimental to them and annoying for us², but they still do not change anything.
6. They eventually hand in a mess of a thesis.
There are three striking aspects of this phenomenon:
* If it happens, it is very consistent in the way it happens. The students in question do not deviate from the above scheme by stopping handing in their work or change their ways in light of criticism. I also have never observed an intermediate case between this and a normal supervision.
* There is no apparent correlation (or anticorrelation) to the quality of the student’s scientific work, their work morale, language proficiency, or how well they respond to feedback on their scientific work. If it happens, it comes out of the blue. In particular, this also happened to students who were otherwise very motivated and delivered good scientific work.
* This is independent of who is the student’s primary advisor, i.e., the person who first gets to criticise their writing.
These suggest to me that there is a common underlying cause of this problem that can be addressed.
### Question
So far, we addressed the problem with typical procedures for badly performing students – i.e., we tell them that their behaviour is problematic and why, explain our general approach to supervising writing, ask them where the problem lies, etc. –, which has lead nowhere so far. Thus I am looking for alternative approaches.
While my ultimate goal is to prevent or mitigate the above problem, the first step to this is understanding it.
Thus I am asking:
* What are possible reasons why students react like this?
* Is this a known and ideally scientifically described phenomenon?
---
¹ or in rare cases doesn’t happen at all because of the student having general difficulties with supervision and working on a thesis project.
² in particular, if they make us read the same material with the same problems twice or have two advisors read the same material and tell them about the same problems, which they then ignore.<issue_comment>username_1: First, that's a great system for getting students to write and seek feedback. It sounds like it makes writing and seeking feedback a habit, rather than letting students wait and worry. Though we often think of "writer's block" as about being out of ideas, often it's about anxiety, and it might be what you are seeing with the students who don't look at the revisions. Here are some things the [Purdue OWL recommends for writer's block](https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/567/01/) and I found ["The 7 Secrets of the Prolific: The Definitive Guide to Overcoming Procrastination, Perfectionism, and Writer's Block"](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/098364540X) to be helpful during my thesis.
If your school has a writing center, they may have a workshop or resources aimed at graduate students, and they might also have insight from the students they see.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: One could speculate on all sorts of possible causes for this behaviour (see e.g., comments to the original post), and much as I would prefer not to answer a question that was not asked, I think the more important issue here is to establish the proper limits of responsibility over a student who does not wish to avail him/herself of expert advice. With great respect to the questioner, who is obviously interested in helping, in my view it is pointless and counter-productive to embark on a speculative psychological exercise designed to understand the failure of a student to act on repeated expert advice about their work. The job of academics is not to play amateur psychologist to their students --- it is to teach clearly, provide proper academic assistance, and assess work using appropriate objective standards.
This attitude of the nursery-school campus, where all responsibility is on the academics and none on the students, has been creeping deeper and deeper into academia for decades, and it seems to be currently at its apex. *How can we better motivate this student? How can we make this class more "relevant"? How can we encourage this student to follow advice and instructions? What are the causes for this student not doing his work? Etc., etc.* In the particular case at issue here we are not speaking of early undergraduates in their late teens (who might be expected to have some bad working habits as a hangover from high school), but in this case even some Masters students with their undergraduate education already under their belts.
If a student has been repeatedly advised of defects in their work, and declines to correct these, that is on the student. If an inquiry is to be made into the deep psychological causes of this behaviour, *it is for the student to undertake that inquiry*. Academics should not devolve into (untrained) psychologists for their students.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I have no experience or evidence to support this, but wanted to share one uncomfortable possibility because it fits the symptoms and the apparent incongruity so well:
* The feedback never reaches the writer.
If your first bullet point describing the problem is in error, and the reality is that
* Students hand in the work of a ghostwriter.
it would surely explain your observations.
I realize that your system of piecemeal submission and early feedback is supposed to prevent this, but nothing stops the students from pulling sections out and submitting them as if the writing were an ongoing process.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I recognize the problem from supervision (also at graduate level), and remember it from when I was a student myself - saw several fellow students who acted like this. I have no golden solution, but here is what I often find efficient.
Some people are poor at receiving criticism. There can be many reasons for that. One that is quite common is that the person receiving the criticism misunderstands criticism of *their work* as criticism of *their person*.
At some point we all needed to learn how to write a paper. Some people have a hard time understanding that they can't write a thesis, simply because they have not learned to yet, and that *this is completely ok*. This does not necessarily correlate with academic performance. You can have good students, who have simply not learned to write an understandable scientific text. And since they are used to acing everything, the fact that they get a lot of criticism, puts them in a place they are not used to. I must say, though, that I find this problem much more prevalent with students who are otherwise also not stellar. It is not surprising that there is a correlation between students who can't write a text, and students who are otherwise poor performers.
My (ours, I should say) attempt at a solution is to be very open with the students about this. Tell them that it is uncommon to have students who are good at writing from day one, and their first returned drafts will be red with ink. This does not mean that they are bad, it means that they are learning. Sometimes TA's needs to be reminded about this as well, in order to not take away the students' motivation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: It may be just a form of communication problem.
The student probably learned that is polite to listen and nod, but actually, they either disagree with you or (more likely) consider your points to be of minor importance, to be fixed sometime later if there is time.
I know that some people consider formatting, structure, typos etc. as waste of time because it is "just about the content", and "clear enough".
Furthermore, it is sometimes astonishing that some people just don't understand a sentence that normal people would consider to be a pretty direct request NOT to do something.
I would actually try to be really as direct and clear as possible, like "if you hand in a thesis with a structure like this, you will fail", not something like "I would strongly prefer if you fix the structure first."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I can think of a few ideas (I fully admit, these are just guesses, although based on remembering my own experiences and experiences of people I went to school with).
First, in the general space of a **lack of motivation**:
* One of the comments in the comment thread suggested this could be a form of burnout, where the students have worked hard on the project, and are tired and do not have the motivation to write it up. I think this is plausible.
* Another plausible, related explanation is that some students toward the end of a degree have lower motivation to focus on their studies ([senioritis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senioritis)).
* Students may enjoy the technical aspects of solving problems, but find the writing aspects boring and simply not *want* to do it, or not think it is really important, and therefore not put as much effort into it.
Second, in the area of a **lack of experience**:
* It's tempting to focus on major issues first and then move onto "easier" issues later, whereas at least I've found as I've gotten more experienced that it's actually better to fix the easy things first.
* A lot of work at the undergraduate and masters level is "personal", in that it only really affects the student (you are responsible for your own grade, for example). At higher levels, work is more collaborative. So, when they turn in messy work, they may only be thinking about how this affects their grade, and not thinking about how they are creating more work for you, or that this piece of work is meant to be read by someone and communicate information. I realize that might sound silly, but I think there is a mindset shift that has to occur in at least some students between "I am turning this paper in for a grade" and "I am writing this paper because I want to communicate ideas to others."
* Students have probably never written a document of the scale of a thesis before, nor one that will be read as carefully. Perhaps they have bad habits from skating by in courses with writing assignments. (Even talented students can develop poor writing habits that "work" for some courses but eventually do not). It is always difficult to change bad habits, and now they are in a relatively high-pressure situation to produce a thesis, which can only make it more difficult to change those habits.
* In computer programming, there is an idea called [technical debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt). If a programmer chooses an easy and fast, but ad hoc solution, they accrue some "technical debt" that must be repaid in the sense that eventually that code should be rewritten in a logical and coherent way. Eventually, if one waits too long to pay off the debt, the code becomes a disjointed mess that is difficult to maintain and costly to convert into something more streamlined. A student (especially one who wants to minimize the amount of time because of burnout or lack of motivation) may feel that the most important thing is to produce *text*, and accrue some "writing debt" by saying that they will fix "trivial" issues like typos and references later. They don't realize that this writing debt can quickly build into a lot of work -- for them, and for you. Perhaps they even intended to fix typos, but produced a lot of text accruing a lot of writing debt, that they did not have time to pay off before the deadline.
The common themes in these scenarios (which, I admit, are just guesses) are an overall lack of motivation to deal with writing issues, a lack of planning, and a certain degree of self-absorption to not think about the effect this has on the people reading their thesis.
In terms of how to produce better behavior, as always there are "carrot" and "stick" options. The "stick" options are probably more obvious (but also likely to increase anxiety, which could be a factor, as another answerer pointed out), and include things like
* Explaining clearly that their grade will suffer if they don't fix the issues.
* Refusing to accept written material with a lot of typos and broken references.
* Confronting the student during feedback meetings to explain your disappointment in their work. "I expected more from you.", "Do you think this is acceptable?" etc.
The "carrot" options (which probably require more work on your part to be creative and to implement, and thus might not be practical, and might also be considered unnecessary coddling by some people) might be things like
* Rewarding behavior that you want. ("I noticed this section was well written compared to the others, nice work, please apply this to the other parts of the text.")
* Offering to check in with a struggling student before their next draft is due to see if they are accruing writing debt, and offering advice on what to focus on before the next draft is due.
* Take one chapter draft and ask them to focus on the writing aspects for a given draft, even if that means they don't fully complete all the content for that chapter. You want to see a polished draft of *something*, just to force them to work through the writing steps. The idea here is that they can use this draft to build up the writing skills they may be missing that they can then apply to other sections. At least they'll get an idea of how much time it takes.
Another "off the wall" idea could be to have students read and critique chapters of each others' thesis. I took a course in grad school where everyone was a reviewer of everyone else's paper. This could create some positive peer pressure to create a good version of the draft. And, making someone give feedback on someone else's work, can make them think about what someone is looking for in their work.
It may be that some students just don't want to do the thesis, and nothing you can do will help them write a better thesis. However, as an optimist, I have to believe that if there are such students, they occur at a rate far below 10%.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/18
| 713
| 3,380
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing economic analyses of natural resources based on processes seen in the real world (geology) for my PhD thesis. The model I have built is mostly inspired from an already well-established model in the literature, but my approach on getting economic values is quite different.
In details, the original model consists of 7 study cases for which data were taken from literature. The research estimates a type of resource to be explored/exploited worldwide. The concept is not really innovative and contains many approximations. Also, the assessment methods used to calculate economic values are basic mathematics. However, it is built on strong scientific bases and requires lots of understanding of natural processes.
My own model (inspired by the prior work) focuses on 4 of the same study cases, but I have made estimates for half of the worldwide potential occurrences for the same type of resource (plus another one). My study has better accuracy and uses different assumptions to get the economic values. My calculations for 3 of the study cases are different, except for 1 (I use different data and get different results though).
**Question:** Is it conceivable to publish my economic results, even if the modelling concept is similar to or inspired from someone's work?
I have cited the original research for comparing my results. The research is from a worldwide specialist who is well-considered in the scientific community. I would not want to have any conflict with him in the future.<issue_comment>username_1: In theory, there is nothing wrong with improving upon the methods of previous research; and since this sounds like a methods paper, it's also fine to have used the same dataset as a well-known study (arguably desirable, actually) as long as you have made an original and substantial contribution in terms of the methods (not necessarily the data itself). So, the question of whether it is publishable hinges on the size of the new contribution *you* are making, not whether this contribution comes in content (data) or form (methods).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Incremental improvement of research methods is a major part of the purpose of academic research, so **yes**, an improved variation of an existing method is absolutely a publishable result. From your description of the research, it appears that you have undertaken a comparison of predictive accuracy for the original method and your variation, and this has good results.
Make sure your paper gives a good introduction and literature review, with a fair summary of existing methods and your points of departure for these methods. It is okay to put your method forward as being superior to the original method it is varying (assuming you can back this up with predictive results or other relevant evidence), but obviously you would write this in a way that is respectful towards the progenitor of the original method. There is nothing offensive to a researcher in taking a method they have developed and varying it to improve its performance. As long as you are not unduly critical of the original research, I see no reason that your research would set you in conflict with the original researcher of the method. It is probably even worth listing the author of the original model as a suggested referee for your own paper.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/18
| 330
| 956
|
<issue_start>username_0: According to Wikipedia, [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson)
>
> was awarded an honorary doctorate in 1765 by Trinity College Dublin and in 1775 by Oxford University.
>
>
>
Also, apparently people referred to him as "<NAME>" back then.
May I put "PhD" after his name now, for example, in a caption? Like this?
>
> <NAME>, PhD (1709–1784)
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: No.
He was an LL D of Trinity College, granted 1765; and a DCL of Oxford, granted 1775.
See <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Samuel-Johnson>
Note:
DCL= Doctor of Civil Law.
LL.D.= Doctor of Laws, that is of both the Civil and the Canon Law.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I am not sure why you would want to do this, but it seems both anachronistic and misleading. Johnson was not awarded a PhD by either institution, and the degree he was awarded was not equivalent to a modern PhD.
Upvotes: 5
|
2018/03/18
| 590
| 2,700
|
<issue_start>username_0: Grant proposals can take months until you hear back. What should researchers do during that period?
1. Start working on the research since the idea could be implemented by others and publish without acknowledging the funder.
2. Similar to point 1 but in publishing wait to hear about the results and acknowledge the funder if you were funded.
3. Wait since you don't know if the idea will be funded and there are no funds to support students but the idea could become obsolete after 6 months.
4. Something else<issue_comment>username_1: Do you have access to any other funding? In the meantime, typically we would apply for ethics for the proposed project and seek out other funding. If its a topic you could write a short commentary on or get it out there under your name, you can do that.
If you can start the work after obtaining ethics, and money isn't holding the work back, you should put wheels in motion.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Start the work if you can. Acknowledge the grant if you get it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't have the necessary resources to start the proposed research without the new grant, the only thing you *can* do is wait for the new grant. Yes, your idea could become obsolete after six months; in fact, your might *already* be obsolete. Nothing you can do about that. Let it go.
If you *do* have the necessary resources to start the proposed research without the new grant, go right ahead. (Those necessary resources definitely include your time and expertise; they might also include specialized equipment, money for research assistants, money for publication costs, money for travel, ethics board approval, and/or other things I didn't think of.)
But while you're waiting for the grant decision, remember that developing a research idea into a publication *also* takes several months. You have to do the actual research; you have to write the paper; the paper has to be reviewed and edited. All of these steps take significant time.
If you can get a paper all the way to print before the proposal decision, you don't need to acknowledge the new grant, because it doesn't exist yet. But this seems rather unlikely; any idea that you can get to publication in only a few months is a weak basis for a grant proposal.
On the other hand, if the grant comes in before your paper is actually published, pat yourself on the back and then acknowledge the grant. Even if you are already revising the galley proofs. ("Research by this author is partially supported by XXX under grant ZZZ.") You have nothing to lose by being generous to the funding agency.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/19
| 491
| 2,006
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm halfway through my PhD and will be visiting another country for a conference. While I am there I would like to talk with some of the local researchers and hopefully visit their labs and discuss their research. I intend to email some of the researchers in my field in advance and ask if they would be happy to have a chat about their research and possibly visit their lab (briefly on the visit, more like a lab tour than anything else).
What is the best way to ask these PI's (via email) if I could meet with them while I am in town to visit their labs and discuss their research?<issue_comment>username_1: Essentially, the best way to ask is to phrase things exactly as you have.
“Dear Professor $Name,
My name is Anon, and I’m an Nth year PhD student studying at University of Science. I’ll be in Wakanda for a conference from Date1 to Date2, and I was hoping to use the opportunity to meet with some local researchers whose work I have been following.
I was wondering if you might have time during that period to sit down for a chat about research, or perhaps have me visit your lab? I understand schedules can often be quite busy, so I’m happy to be as flexible as possible given the conference schedule.
Regards,
Anon”
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a typical sales situation. Please bear in mind, the PI receives plenty of emails each day. Emotionally, it'll be very easy to rebuff the proposal by email.
Your chances of "selling yourself" are much better by talking to the PI over the phone, ideally after the PI's lunch break (research shows people are more likely to view a proposition positively after they've eaten). If you get along on a personal level, the chances of a rebuff are greatly diminished. Also, the PI would have to overcome the emotional barrier of rejecting your proposal verbally rather than in an email.
I know, phone calls are awkward. But you do want to talk to the PI, isn't it? So you may as well start today.
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/03/19
| 1,059
| 4,447
|
<issue_start>username_0: I love cybersecurity. Linux is amazing, programming is enthralling, and I have not found much else in my life I enjoy, as well as, (well I suppose used to) believe I could make a career out of. While researching the best programming languages for cybsersecurity I came across some advice on Quora that said cybsecurity professionals should know basically every language.
Even more than that though. Evidently I was a bit indignant but it makes sense. To really be a competent cybsersecurity professional you have to know assembly, TCP/IP, a lot of other programming languages, the ins and outs of kali, and more. This simply seems unattainable. How could anyone understand this much about computers? Even the BA IT with a cybersecurity option at my college does not cover this much.
So, my question is a cybersecurity career rational for me? I'm still (a sophomore) studying basic/intermediate C++ with a absolute dearth of knowledge in Linux. I'm like a peon compared to other programmers on Github/StackExchange. I know everyone says go in the direction of your dreams but what if my dream is just not attainable? What if I just realized my passion too late? I've set myself up (with anthro, phil, and english) for a Policy/English/Business degree. Would I better off just going in that direction? I apologize if this question is too specific to me, if that's the case please just downvote and move on. I'm already down, I don't need anyone being superior or patronizing. No not thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: Let's start by quoting
>
> "Nobody said that it would be easy, they just promised it would be
> worth it." -<NAME>
>
>
>
You mentioned earlier you have to know everything and I don't think there is any human being who knows everything or every programming language according to your context. Learning is a slow and painful process but the fruit is so sweet you're going to forget the pain.
The thing is, nowadays the computing world is so vast that even in a specific area there are many places or position.
Go to the Offensive Security site <https://www.offensive-security.com/about-us/> there you'll see that everybody in the team has a different role to play. Everyone with a unique skill set that's what a makes a team that's what makes a human being social, collaborative, working together to make the world a better place.
You don't need to know everything, I don't know where you're getting those ideas from but trust me all you need to know is you must be very good at what you know and can do. What you can do with what you know must be something that nobody can do except you. Tools are not what makes us capable of doing something great its if you know how to use the tools to its breaking point.
**That was the intro lets get to the point:**
Go to this link <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages>
you will see a list of "Comparison of Programming Language" from there you will also learn every programming language has many similarities so if you know one very well, learning another will take only a little amount of time. Don't worry too much cause you will learn in the process.
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Stop comparing yourself to others and just do the work.
If you want to do cybersecurity, study it. All those programmers on Github and SE didn't bash script their way out of the womb, they got there by hard work. They likely have at least a bachelor's degree, and quite possibly higher degrees, not to mention many years of experience in multiple languages.
I'm not a computer scientist, so take this advice with a pinch of salt, but I think it's much more important to be able to write good code than it is to know as many programming languages as possible. Writing good code is hard; learning the syntax of a new language is easy (that's what Google and Stack Exchange are for).
So, if you enjoy programming that much, devote more time to it. Study code written by others and understand why it's so good. Write your own code and work hard to optimise it. Talk to your personal tutor/ academic advisor and see whether you can switch to the computer science course or take more programming modules. Think seriously about a Master's or PhD, or at least getting some research experience with someone working in cybersecurity. If it's what you want to do, get out there and make it happen.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/19
| 663
| 2,875
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently a fourth year undergraduate student graduating this year. I'm taking the upcoming school year off to travel, so instead of applying to grad school during my fourth year like most students, I will be applying this upcoming September (when I will have graduated).
I worked with two professors this school year doing research, one of which I got a publication out of. I plan on asking both for reference letters for my graduate school applications.
Both profs seem to like me and are happy with my work. However, I won't be actually applying to grad school until late this year (probably September-December), so I'm worried if I ask for a reference later in the year, they will have forgotten a significant chunk of their experience supervising me and my contributions.
I want to get a letter out of them now when I'm still fresh in their minds and can get a great recommendation out of them. I'm sure they'll give me a positive one either way, but I feel like if I get one now it'll be a lot stronger, where as if I do it several months in the future, considering how busy they are, I probably won't be nearly as well remembered and my letter will be a lot more generic.
I wasn't sure if this is appropriate to do, and how I should go about doing this, so I was hoping I could get some advice on this. Both profs work in ECE (electrical and computer engineering) and the programs I will be applying to will be a combination of ECE programs and computer science programs.<issue_comment>username_1: Inform them about your plans now and let them decide what works best for them.
You may be right that they will have forgotten you by the time you apply (depending on how much you worked together). But on the other side, the best LORs are specific to a position you are applying for and should be tailor written, "generic" LORs may not be as good, and some people may not want to write one without knowing what they are going to be for.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Ask your writers to draft an initial letter now, while information about you is fresh. You're intuitions are correct. Tell them your plans and keep in communication with them about important updates in the interim (bulleted notes with a request to update the letter are fine). I have so many students that I frequently have no idea who the are a year later.
I'll note that, in many disciplines, a year away from academia can make your credentials a little old, so I hope that the paper was in a prestigious journal or that your writers are very well known. If not, I encourage you to take a class, get a certification, attend some conferences or, better, submit to some while you take a year off. Most committees won't be very interested in what happened during your year off, unless you did something relevant to your discipline.
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/03/19
| 843
| 3,685
|
<issue_start>username_0: A friend of mine submitted a paper to a conference, about a topic he was working on in his company. Recently, he got fired from his company so unfairly due to colleagues jealousy (seriously). He already got approval for publication when he was there, but the submission was made arter the firing. The work was a side project, not exact responsibility for him. And he was the only author from the company.
Is he obliged to add his company name as his affiliation? They are not going to pay for the registration and travel sponsorship. He doesn't want to mention he even worked there.<issue_comment>username_1: This could represent a sticky issue. There are a number of factors to consider in his situation: (1) was the work funded by the former employer ? (2) were there other collaborators that are currently employed by the company ? (3) could the work in anyway be considered proprietary to the company ?
If any of the answers to the above are a 'yes', then I would say he should seek the company's permission to present. I would think that the only safe way to exclude the company affiliation is if the work being presented is so general that it would not necessarily represents the company's interests.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If I am understanding this correctly, the paper was submitted while the person was still working for the company. If this is the case, then the affiliation should stay the same as it was at the time of submission, as it sounds as though the work was explicitly done as part of their responsibilities at the company. A second affiliation might later be added, for the person's new position, if it is appropriate and the conference supports this, but the first should remain.
If the paper was submitted *after* the person was fired, that is a much bigger problem, and it is unclear from what you have written whether that would be appropriate, ethical, or even legal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Given that the paper is on a topic he was working on in that company, it would be appropriate for the company to be given some kind of acknowledgement in the paper. You said that he already has approval to publish, but since he was their employee at the time, it would be reasonable to assume that this approval was given on the presumption that the company would get acknowledgement in the paper. At minimum, I think this requires an acknowledgement to the company in the paper.
I suggest that your friend grit his teeth and write a nice happy acknowledgement at the end of the paper. This is also an opportunity for him to show he is the bigger man in a situation where he has been treated unfairly, but is nonetheless able to give fair and friendly acknowledgement to his former employer. I'd suggest an acknowledgement at the end of the paper to this effect:
>
> **Acknowledgement:** Parts of the research for this paper were undertaken while the author was employed as [position] at [company]. The author thanks [company] for its support in undertaking this research.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'll add another perspective now that you've clarified that he prepared the paper during company time. Imagine that Bob sells a computer for $1000, then gets fired for no reason. Can he keep the $1000 and take the computer back? Of course not. The situation in this case is *exactly* the same -- he sold his time in exactly the same way that Bob sold his computer.
Of course, now that he is fired, he is under no obligation to attend the conference and present the paper, especially at his own expense. Whether backing out is a good idea is a subject for another question.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/19
| 925
| 4,057
|
<issue_start>username_0: I sometimes find that the reviews I get on papers I submit to various high-impact journals are of surprisingly questionable quality. I typically get the impression that reviewers only read a paper in a cursory fashion, make rash assumptions, and hence make comments that are actually not relevant to the content. Or they might make unreasonable comparisons, along the lines of 'we know fusion works in principle, so why should one bother with research on photovoltaic cells '. I think this is a great waste of precious time and resources. I know that some journals use a public review system (<https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html>), and I'm convinced that more accountability will incentivise reviewers to do a better job. I'm interested in hearing about others people's experiences with this system (does it work?), and if there is an easy way (such as a list) to find publications that use this system (how do I find them?).<issue_comment>username_1: This could represent a sticky issue. There are a number of factors to consider in his situation: (1) was the work funded by the former employer ? (2) were there other collaborators that are currently employed by the company ? (3) could the work in anyway be considered proprietary to the company ?
If any of the answers to the above are a 'yes', then I would say he should seek the company's permission to present. I would think that the only safe way to exclude the company affiliation is if the work being presented is so general that it would not necessarily represents the company's interests.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If I am understanding this correctly, the paper was submitted while the person was still working for the company. If this is the case, then the affiliation should stay the same as it was at the time of submission, as it sounds as though the work was explicitly done as part of their responsibilities at the company. A second affiliation might later be added, for the person's new position, if it is appropriate and the conference supports this, but the first should remain.
If the paper was submitted *after* the person was fired, that is a much bigger problem, and it is unclear from what you have written whether that would be appropriate, ethical, or even legal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Given that the paper is on a topic he was working on in that company, it would be appropriate for the company to be given some kind of acknowledgement in the paper. You said that he already has approval to publish, but since he was their employee at the time, it would be reasonable to assume that this approval was given on the presumption that the company would get acknowledgement in the paper. At minimum, I think this requires an acknowledgement to the company in the paper.
I suggest that your friend grit his teeth and write a nice happy acknowledgement at the end of the paper. This is also an opportunity for him to show he is the bigger man in a situation where he has been treated unfairly, but is nonetheless able to give fair and friendly acknowledgement to his former employer. I'd suggest an acknowledgement at the end of the paper to this effect:
>
> **Acknowledgement:** Parts of the research for this paper were undertaken while the author was employed as [position] at [company]. The author thanks [company] for its support in undertaking this research.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'll add another perspective now that you've clarified that he prepared the paper during company time. Imagine that Bob sells a computer for $1000, then gets fired for no reason. Can he keep the $1000 and take the computer back? Of course not. The situation in this case is *exactly* the same -- he sold his time in exactly the same way that Bob sold his computer.
Of course, now that he is fired, he is under no obligation to attend the conference and present the paper, especially at his own expense. Whether backing out is a good idea is a subject for another question.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/19
| 937
| 4,183
|
<issue_start>username_0: I left academia, but occasionally I am coauthor of a paper. These papers are in the area of research I did at university, but now I am working in a different industry.
Asked for affiliation, I am not sure whether I should state my company's name (although the company does not take part in the research and it is not done during work time) or if I should say "affiliation: none", which also seems strange.
My company has no policy (at least: as far as I know) that forbids to mention its name, nevertheless working there is not related to my research.<issue_comment>username_1: As someone who developed a publication policy and approval process for the company I work for, I suggest that you first make sure that you really have no publication policy by asking your manager, the marketing/communications dept, or legal (in this order for ease of life).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two main paths here:
* You can list yourself as an independent researcher, which is appropriate if you are not doing this "on the clock" at your current position and use no company resources.
* You can list yourself under your current employer, which is appropriate if you are doing this using work time and/or company resources, even if the work is not related to your position's responsibilities.
If you are working at a company that participates in research (even if in another field), they probably have policies that apply (possibly including pre-submission review), and you should have a discussion with your supervisor and/or other folks who are engaged in research there. A clause in your employment agreement might even mean that you *cannot* be an independent researcher.
If, on the other hand, you are working for a completely non-research organization (e.g., [a paper company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series))), then you probably should be doing this as an independent researcher and keeping everything off the clock.
Finally, there is a somewhat more complex third possibility to also consider: if these collaborations are part of a long-term relationship with a university, your collaborators might be able to get you some sort of "visiting researcher" or "associated researcher" affiliation. These "positions" have no money associated with them and are really just there to simplify the logistics of collaboration, so they are often pretty simple to arrange, and could actually be the most appropriate description of your position with regards to your research.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: A few points to consider
* Your biggest (potential) problem is actually breach of contract with regard to intellectual property. You first need to make sure that you're not *barred* from publishing by your employment agreement. Not that you should avoid publishing if that's the case, but then I would definitely not talk to your company about it nor mention them in any way.
* Making your current company an affiliation means claiming that the contents is the company's position and/or claims. Even if the association with the company is not of full strength - it's definitely there, i.e. you're committing them to something. So do ask them before putting their name on.
* I agree with @username_2's criterion: If you used company resources to get this research done / published, you should offer the company affiliation. If you didn't, you should probably be listed as independent.
* If the research started before you left academia, you could list the academic institute still, and add a footnote saying "Research conducted/conducted in part while XYZ at ABC institute" or something to that effect.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I would not give credit where none is due. Leave the company out of it.
For Affiliation write Independent Consultant or choose "None" if that is a pull down choice in an application that is poorly written with no way to enter your own information.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Ask a university affiliated co-author to make you an **unpaid adjunct** at their institution. This solves all the problems, and gets you an extra title.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/19
| 1,352
| 5,844
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a Ph.D. student, I am curious about how collaborations among researchers are established. To me, it seems like it is a very informal process: someone proposes an idea(while in a lunch discussion, for example) and the other person tries to give some advice. Eventually, the first person will return with some results and the process will continue till they get both involved in the topic. Is this standard in academia? Is there any other way of establishing collaboration?<issue_comment>username_1: It is generally good to be explicit about your expectations. You don't want to end up in a situation where one person thinks it is her/his project and the other person has a well deserved place in the "thank you section", while the other person thinks she/he deserves to be a co-author. Such a conflict is really bad for everybody involved.
So when I propose a collaboration or someone comes to me with a proposal, I will discuss co-authorship from the beginning. This makes the discussion less informal than you suggest in the question.
It may still happen (and it has happened to me) that someone comes for advise, and I give that advise under the assumption that I am not a co-author, and the original author is so happy with the advise that I end up being "upgraded" as author.
Similarly, but more tricky, it may happen that I am "downgraded" when my contribution is not significant enough to warrant authorship. Maybe because I did not invest enough time in it, or the sub-problem I am supposed to tackle turned out to be less relevant to the entire project than originally expected. The tricky part is that ideally the downgraded person has to agree otherwise we are in a conflict of the type we were trying to avoid.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Yes, usually it is an informal process. However, it implies the researchers to know each other work. That is why conferences are good to promote new collaborations: you have the opportunity to know more about other works through the seminars and then you have the social component (beer/poster sessions, coffee breaks and conference dinner) in order to facilitate the approach. The first objective is to find a common ground where the two researchers could work together complementing each other research.
As a Ph.D student you are stimulated to take Short-Term Scientific Missions(1) (STSM) in other labs, which is excellent to effectively establish and maturate a new collaboration. In addition, you start to open new perspectives for a possible postdoc position.
There are other possible approaches, such as inviting a professor to visit your lab, but I think that the best suitable for a PhD student is the formula conferences+STSM.
---
1 - A STSM could have a duration of a couple of weeks up to several months. If you are based on a European Union country you may be able to ask for financial support through the [COST](http://www.cost.eu) project (European Cooperation in Science & Technology).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I had intended to write this as a comment, but I already passed the character limit. But I guess it can count as an answer.
Well, if you stick to formalities you might end up not having so much opportunities. Having good enough knowledge and opportunities coincide on informalities. Systems which are strictly formal aren't really realistic. <NAME> actually talked about jobs and job hunting. I remember he said something along the lines of "60% of the job hiring in the US were based on informal connections". I think the same applies to Academia. The physicists and mathematicians who brought a lot to the world often had lots of informal communication.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I started several collaborations with other researchers as a PhD student.
All cases were "accidental" — i.e. I met my collaborators at a conference or seminar and found their talk interesting. The content of their talk was somewhat related to some part of my PhD thesis and I went to talk to them afterwards, asking a question and wondering if their approach to the subject could also work in the case I'm working with (or solve a particular problem I was working on).
I usually thought about their talk more in the weeks after and eventually contacted them by email, asking if they would be interested in working on some particular project together. (I guess their positive reply would be the official start date for the collaboration.)
Note that I was not head-hunting for collaborators — I wasn't *trying* to pick the most relevant talk, try to ask a meaningful question and relate their response back to my area of expertise — so I don't think the above would work as a manual *How to Win Collaborators and Influence People*¹.
However, attending talks and interacting with other researchers is certainly something you can try to do more, even if you are someone who is naturally held back / introvert (I am). (Actually, none of the collaborations were started during a social event such as a lunch discussion. If you have a question, my advice would be not to put it aside and wait for the "right" informal setting.)
¹ I haven't read the book I'm alluding to, I just find the title memorable.
---
The only collaboration that wasn't initiated by myself was with my advisor and his coauthor. My advisor had asked me to read over a preprint of his, where he and his coauthor were stuck for some time. I happened to be able to solve their problem.
Being approached as a PhD student about collaboration is naturally a rather rare case, as for most researchers PhD students of colleagues are not really the go-to expert — apart from your advisor not many people will know in what area you are trained and your advisor is more likely to have more expertise than you.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/19
| 913
| 3,554
|
<issue_start>username_0: I discovered a minor error (essentially a typo) in one of my recent publications. It would not be noticed by most readers. It does not affect the content of the article and does not require an erratum or corrigendum. According to the editor, it is no longer possible to correct the error. Although many people would ignore the error, I think that there must be a better way to solve the problem.
My preliminary idea is to use Adobe Acrobat Pro DC (or equivalent software) to correct the error and upload it to a professional website or cloud storage service. I could either correct the error outright (which would not draw attention to the change I’ve made) or use the strikeout text tool to correct the error (which would make it obvious what I have changed). On my CV, I would include a hyperlink to the corrected article that I have uploaded. The link could be accompanied by some text indicating that I’m linking to a corrected version of the article, or not.
Finally, because this is an open-access article, I don’t anticipate any copyright issues associated with uploading the article or linking to it on my CV.
What is the best course of action here?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> What is the best course of action here?
>
>
>
Don’t do anything. The confusion and irritation caused by having a corrected version linked or mentioned in your CV is much worse than the typo itself.
Readers of your CV might wonder what exactly you corrected, why this did not happen in the journal version, or why you bother that much about a typo (depending on how you present it). While typos *in* your CV may be subject to enhanced scrutiny and have an increased impact, typos in papers referenced in your CV usually don’t. Other readers are very likely to read the journal version of the article, so besides your CV your correction benefits only a very small audience.
You can also apply a calculation of time wasted and saved similar to the one [in this answer of mine](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/26608/7734):
* Supposing that your typo costs the average reader one second.
* Suppose it takes you five minutes to fix the typo and upload the fixed version.
* Suppose that readers waste no additional time with being confused about the additional version and downloading it.
Even in this very optimistic calculation, three hundred readers have to read your corrected article to make the endeavour worthwhile.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Post and maintain errata on whatever website best represents your online presence. If you maintain a list of publications, errata can be linked from this list. Examples of findable errata:
* <https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/gkperr1.html>
* <https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html> (see the bottom corner of the page)
* <https://dacox.people.amherst.edu/iva.html#TE>
* <https://dacox.people.amherst.edu/uag.html>
* <http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/AT-errata.pdf>
* <http://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/griffiths.html> (the Books section)
Make sure that your name, as used in the publication, the title, as used in the publication, and the word "errata" appear so that those who search will find.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In mathematics what I would do is correct my local copy, and once enough corrections have collected post an update to the arxiv. I've done that one these [two](https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0022) [old](https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0764) papers where we found various small errors (mostly signs).
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/19
| 489
| 2,127
|
<issue_start>username_0: For a math student, does an industrial internship, where you use the applications of the mathematics you learned in courses, give a better preparation for a PhD in Applied Math, or taking more advanced courses? How about taking courses on other topics (not math), which are skill-based or otherwise practical with a lot of applications in applied math, such as high-performance computing, statistical learning, numerical modeling, etc.?<issue_comment>username_1: First of all, you should narrow down which applied mathematics are you applying. I know people in that area that don't know how to code, and people that use high performance computing. The same applies to almost all non-basic math skills. Applied maths is way too wide to just ask for a general skill.
In my opinion, just general coding knowledge should be fine, you will have time to learn anything you need on the way, that's part of the Ph.D. and, if you follow academia, the rest of your life; you just need to be able to learn new things.
I just would discourage an industry internship if you can use that time for something better (with respect to applied maths).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Having been on the grad student selection committee of the departments I was in for the past 4 or 5 years, and having read hundreds of applications, here are the things that really make an application stick out (in roughly this order):
* Having research experience
* Doing well in senior-level and graduate-level courses in the area you
are applying for
* Experience applying your knowledge outside an academic setting.
So, if you have the opportunity to do an industrial internship, then you're satisfying the last point and, if you get the internship in the right environment, then also the first point. If that means dropping one of 5 senior/graduate-level math courses (or a non-math course) you were going to take before applying for grad school, then that's a worthwhile trade off. On the other hand, if that means that you're not going to take *any* advanced courses, then that's not a worthwhile trade off.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/19
| 2,647
| 10,963
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a doctoral student in a large state university in the eastern US. I'm in my final year of work and will likely defend my dissertation shortly. I already have a job in "industry" (i.e. non-academia) lined up.
My advisor would prefer that I stay for another semester to finish up another publication with him. My contributions to the publication are relatively minimal now, but I am the last remaining person on the project that knows any of the details about it. My advisor, while topically knowledgeable about the subject, would need to put in significantly more time to produce the paper.
Because I anticipated this, I wrote a document to allow for a transfer of knowledge to anyone who joins the project when I leave. It assumes the person is familiar with Python, R, or MatLab. My advisor knows none of those languages, so he cannot immediately pick up the work himself.
Long story short, my advisor wants me to stay and finish up one last project with him so he can include it in his portfolio for tenure. If I leave before the project is complete, he will likely be unable to complete the project in time to have it considered for his tenure evaluation. This would weaken his tenure application and could also lead to the loss of a grant.
As such, he offered me a small stipend of $5000 or so to stay on and complete the paper with him. I would need to turn down a job offer that would likely pay four times that, plus an offer that would place me in a long term job in a field I want to be in. I would also have to go without dental and vision insurance for another semester.
Is there a tactful way to tell my advisor I really couldn't care less if he doesn't obtain tenure because of this? It's not that I hate my advisor, but I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of still having to work under him. (Especially for a quarter of the salary.) It's nothing personal, it's just that I don't want to write a paper for the advisor just so that he can obtain tenure.
In all, how much I care about my advisor obtaining tenure?
---
**Added** While it may be feasible for me to contribute to the project while also working in a full time position, this is not a desirable outcome. To be blunt, my advisor should have figured this situation out before now. He has had several opportunities to become involved in this project more fully. He has resisted learning the necessary theory and technology relevant to the project. As can be inferred by his current pursuit of tenure, we are not talking about someone who technology has passed by. If you got a PhD after 2010, yet cannot deign to learn new technology....it's hard for me to feel very inclined to continue to help you write a paper that you should be able to oversee on your own. Ultimately, I am wondering how I should go about telling my advisor that I am not going to become more involved in a project at the very end of my work with him, when I in fact want to distance myself from working with him in the future.<issue_comment>username_1: You should have some concern for your advisor's tenure considerations—inasmuch as having a successful advisor helps your reputation as well (helpful if you're a young researcher)! **However,** that does not give your advisor the right to treat you as a "wage slave" or under substandard conditions claiming "it's for tenure."
I would address this by saying that you'd like to help him complete the paper but you've already made plans to move on that can't be postponed. Don't mention the tenure issue unless your advisor brings it up. It's an extraneous detail—you wouldn't really stick around to work if the paper weren't for tenure, so it's not a germane issue here.
But one other question remains: is there a way you could help out without staying on? Could you help "advise" the replacement, whoever that may be, to get up to speed faster?
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I think your approach to this situation is a bit misguided. Yes, you should absolutely care about your advisor’s success (and he should care about yours). But “caring” doesn’t mean that you should sacrifice your own career and self-interest to the cause of helping your advisor, just as, by the same token, I wouldn’t expect your advisor to sacrifice himself for you either. Thus, the way you frame the question as a dichotomy between the extremes of “couldn’t care less” and “will do anything to help my advisor get tenure” is a false dichotomy.
The truth lies somewhere in between those extremes, but broadly speaking I tend to agree with your assessment that the advisor is unreasonable to have an expectation that you will defer the launch of your career for a semester and give up money, health insurance and professional opportunities to stick around and help him finish a project that is no longer a priority for you, for whatever reason. You need to stand up for yourself and explain what your priorities are. But do it in a civil and polite way that shows that you are grateful for the mentoring and other help he has given you (and may yet give in the future through letters of reference etc). Don’t say you don’t care (and better yet, don’t even think it). Do say that you would be willing to make reasonable efforts to ensure a smooth handoff of the project, as you seem to have been doing already. And finally, as @aeismaeil said in his answer, don’t mention the tenure or the grant, since they are simply irrelevant to the discussion. Good luck!
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: **Your advisor put himself into this situation**. There are a number of very serious mistakes on his part here:
* He's down to one person that knows anything about the paper, and that person didn't do any of the work. This was highly foreseeable; he should have made arrangements to hire someone else and ensure a smooth tradeoff (as you yourself made arrangements to do).
* He doesn't know enough about the paper to take over himself. How it's possible that he doesn't know any of those languages is beyond me.
* He didn't communicate his desire for that student to stick around until they had already made other plans.
* Having realized that he is in this position, he offers you only $5,000. In my (STEM) experience, students in this position are generally offered a post-doc with a salary that, while less than industry, does reflect your professional status (i.e., several times what he is offering you)
There are only two options here:
* If this one paper is so significant that he loses tenure over it, then it's ridiculous that he let it come to this. Frankly, he deserves to lose tenure.
* If this paper is not so significant that he loses tenure over this, then you shouldn't waste time either.
So, my view is that you should care (in the sense of being willing to change your own plans) very little. My answer might be different if you wanted to stay in academia, just because you might need to preserve a good relationship with him at all cost.
If you are willing to take a post-doc equivalent (if such a thing even exists where you are), or if you'd be willing to work on this in your spare time once you start your new job, then you can offer as much. Otherwise, you can just say something like "I understand this puts you in a tight position, but I've been very clear with you about my plans to take a job starting on [date], and I'm afraid it wouldn't be practical for me to stay here for another semester." If he is at all reasonable, he will understand that turning down a good job in your field making good money for a $5K stipend would be crazy.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is there a tactful way to tell the advisor you really could care less if he does not obtain tenure because of this?
>
>
>
No, of course not. There's no tactful way to ever tell someone you don't care about them or their success.
However, you should consider mitigating the blow. There are many people who continue to work on research after their defense, and there's nothing (that you've told us, anyway) that would prevent you from continuing to support your advisor once you leave.
As such I'd suggest the following:
>
> You've asked me to stay on and help you complete this paper. Unfortunately I'm not able to do so. I've provided enough information to hand it off to another student, and I hope you can find a replacement for me. However, if you cannot I'm available to continue working on this remotely for the paper as a paid research consultant. I do want to see this paper published, but it's not ready yet and I cannot place my career on hold for one paper.
>
>
>
This should provide the necessary support he's requesting without you putting yourself on hold, and should supplement your income during the time he's asking for your continued assistance. It makes it clear that while the ball is in his court regarding finding a replacement or using you remotely, there is no option for you to stay.
You should discuss this with the company you're joining, but unless they've hired you specifically for the exact topic of that research paper, they shouldn't have any objections to allowing you to finish it outside working hours. As long as your time spent is minimal you should be able to do both.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Is there a tactful way to tell my advisor I really couldn't care less
> if he doesn't obtain tenure because of this? It's not that I hate my
> advisor, but I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of still having
> to work under him. (Especially for a quarter of the salary.) It's
> nothing personal, it's just that I don't want to write a paper for the
> advisor just so that he can obtain tenure.
>
>
>
Setting aside the substance of your question (which is pretty trivial in any case) I think this kind of talk betrays a really repugnant attitude. It is perfectly reasonable to want to accept a desirable job offer over a substantially less desirable offer, and it is a trivial task for a mature person to figure out an appropriate way to communicate that. But to say that you "couldn't care less" about the success of a person who has spent 3-4 years of his time advising and teaching you on a one-on-one basis is really quite vile.
Supervising a PhD student is *a lot of work* and often that work does not contribute substantially to your own academic career. Your supervisor certainly has no right to your future employment, but I would expect there would be some degree of appreciation shown in the way you talk about him. You say you're not thrilled about the prospect of still having to work under him, like this is some kind of prison sentence he imposed on you during your candidature. No, you "worked under him" because *he was kind enough to act as your supervisor in a degree program you chose to enrol in*.
Care or don't care about your advisor obtaining tenure. But take a good hard look in the mirror.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/20
| 1,312
| 5,717
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just received a major revision decision (1st round) for a manuscript I submitted to a reputable journal. After looking into one of the reviewer's comments I found a major error in my analysis. The conclusions of my research are almost completely different as a result. I also don't think the reviewer realized the severity of the error.
I would like to withdraw my manuscript from the journal because of the major error. However, I don't know how to approach my co-authors or the journal about this issue. I've always been able to complete major revisions for other papers I've written, and so I've never had to deal with this type of problem before. I also realize that the editors and referees have already put a lot of time into reviewing my paper.
I would like to ask this forum for any suggestions about withdrawing a paper once it's in review. I don't know how common it is to do this, and how it is generally perceived in academia.<issue_comment>username_1: There are two parts to your question:
>
> 1. How to broach the matter with your colleagues.
> 2. How to withdraw your paper from review.
>
>
>
The trickier issue is how to broach the subject with your colleagues. If you feel there is absolutely no way for you to finish the revisions on schedule, then you owe it to your co-authors to tell them of the problem. However, this should be a dialogue, not a unilateral decision. They may see the issue as being less onerous timewise, and that it may be possible to finish the work within a reasonable period of time. Or they may agree with you that withdrawal is the best option. In either case, it should be a team decision, and once that's made, you can proceed with notifying the journal.
Notifying the journal is the simpler issue to handle. Most journals usually set a timeline for submitting major revisions. Just send the journal a note stating exactly what you wrote above. There is nothing wrong with independently withdrawing a paper because of significant errors. (Better that you do so now than need to retract it because of errors later on!)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: The whole point of the peer-review process is to avoid that any sub-standard garbage gets published. That is the reason your "reputable journal" is reputable in the first place.
Here, the review process pointed at a major issue in your work. That's great because that's why your paper gets reviewed in the first place. (I would even argue that whether or not the reviewer actually realized the gravity of the implication of their review is secondary.)
Now, you're currently in the following situation:
* Presumably, you have already invested a lot of work to get to the current point in the research for this paper.
* To conclude this part of your research, you've now realized you need to spend a whole lot of additional work.
Naturally, the question then arises: are you either (1) willing to spend the additional work or (2) completely scratch all the work you've already done?
The option that's missing here is: (3) pretend nothing happened and publish the current paper after addressing the outlined revisions. Clearly, you do not intend to go for that, so the decision is between (1) and (2). In both cases, you will have to tell your co-authors and the journal that the paper will need more additional work than anticipated.
But I don't quite see the problem with that. The journal did their job, so if you honestly inform them about what happened, I can't imagine that it will lead to any bad consequences for you. It is in their interest too, after all, that only high-quality results get published. So, why not thank the reviewers and inform the journal that you will (1) withdraw the paper completely, or (2) resubmit at some point in the future but probably not within the specified time frame for the revisions they asked for?
Also: I would probably discuss your newly gained insights with my co-authors as soon as possible. Not only so they are informed but also because maybe there's a different angle that you're missing and that would put the whole situation into a different light again? One of your co-authors might have some relevant insights that might change how you will move ahead.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd say the problem is that you're trying to tackle this and make decisions **alone**.
Contact your co-authors and explain the situation just like you explained it to us. Don't tell them "we should do XYZ", just explain what's already happened. Let *them* make suggestions first, then make your own suggestion (or support somebody else's).
Your discussion with your co-authors will dictate how to inform the journal, but - the swifter the better. The only thing reviewers or editors may be angry about is delaying this kind of notification.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It is possible to ask extra time on major revision and it certainly is alright to modify the paper in a major way. Talk with your co-authors on how to proceed. If you agree on to fix the paper, explain the editor that the modifications required to solve the problem pointed out by the reviewer would take longer than the allotted time. You might receive extra time to fix the issue, or you might need to resubmit later on. If the editor decides to give you the time you need, no work will be wasted. Just make sure you act swiftly.
Even if you do not get the chance, you should not feel sorry about the time invested in reviewing the paper. The system is worked and the mistake is found. The reviewers do reviews willingly for multiple reasons, one of which is to ensure their field is not littered with papers having wrong results.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/20
| 2,011
| 8,473
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm having trouble with one of my labmates that is severely impacting my work. He is a more senior student than me, but only has been in my lab for two months since my advisor came from a different university last year, and this student didn't come initially (he was supposed to graduate at the old institution but didn't).
No one else in the lab works on similar research to me, so when this student came I thought it was nice to have someone around who was experienced in similar research topics to talk to and potentially collaborate with. Right away he told me he planned to publish many papers with me while he's here, and then wrote me up a research plan. My advisor is quite hands off, and he has not mentioned to me that I am supposed to work closely with this student. I like my advisor's hands off approach, and certainly didn't ask another PhD student to write up plans for me. Even though I am a junior PhD student I am very self-directed and thus far my advisor has mostly let me dictate the research problems I work on.
Very quickly, my relationship with this other student has deteriorated to the point where I can't even go to the lab if I want to get any work done (and since I'm in engineering, most of my work is tied to my lab). He talks nonstop. And I do mean nonstop. If I'm trying to work (not paying attention to him), he interrupts me constantly to talk at me, and it is rarely work or research-related. I usually come in early in the morning, and he comes in in the afternoon. As soon as he comes in he starts telling me stories, about his work, about his childhood, his parents, anything. It doesn't stop. When I try to leave after being in lab for 12 hours (say, 8am-8pm) he stops me and criticizes me for leaving "early" (even when I point out if he works from 5pm to 3am it's actually less time in the lab than I've spent), saying I'm not a real PhD student if I don't work all night.
He has decided he will be a coauthor on all of my papers (without my invitation, and without my advisor's input), but he has not done anything. Initially I tried to meet to work out a plan for some experiments, and he didn't show up to some of them and at the others just ended up talking at me. He also touches me on the arm constantly and will stand behind me when I'm at my computer and rub my shoulders. He flatters me constantly, calls me "cute", says I'm going to be "famous" for my work. I don't see him behave this way with anyone else in the lab.
This is a lot of complaining, but the main reason I'm worried is 1) I haven't gotten anything done in the 2 months since he showed up; and 2) I know my advisor highly values students who can work well together (the older students said he fired a couple of students at the old university for refusing to work with one of the other students).
What do I do? I want to talk to my advisor but don't want to come across like I'm difficult to work with. I'm in a tough situation because this other student is more senior and has a long history with my advisor. I have immense respect and gratitude towards my advisor, but I have only been in the lab for a year (after leaving a toxic lab with a terrible advisor) and haven't yet established a good track record of research results. I've been working at home and hiding out in other labs to try to get my work done, but I can't stay away from the lab forever since I have to build stuff and run experiments. I'm worried my advisor is going to fire me for lack of results (another thing this student tells me constantly).
Sorry for the long rant, but what should I do? Should I try to talk to my advisor? Should I disappear until I have good results to show so he can't fire me?<issue_comment>username_1: There are two parts to your question:
>
> 1. How to broach the matter with your colleagues.
> 2. How to withdraw your paper from review.
>
>
>
The trickier issue is how to broach the subject with your colleagues. If you feel there is absolutely no way for you to finish the revisions on schedule, then you owe it to your co-authors to tell them of the problem. However, this should be a dialogue, not a unilateral decision. They may see the issue as being less onerous timewise, and that it may be possible to finish the work within a reasonable period of time. Or they may agree with you that withdrawal is the best option. In either case, it should be a team decision, and once that's made, you can proceed with notifying the journal.
Notifying the journal is the simpler issue to handle. Most journals usually set a timeline for submitting major revisions. Just send the journal a note stating exactly what you wrote above. There is nothing wrong with independently withdrawing a paper because of significant errors. (Better that you do so now than need to retract it because of errors later on!)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: The whole point of the peer-review process is to avoid that any sub-standard garbage gets published. That is the reason your "reputable journal" is reputable in the first place.
Here, the review process pointed at a major issue in your work. That's great because that's why your paper gets reviewed in the first place. (I would even argue that whether or not the reviewer actually realized the gravity of the implication of their review is secondary.)
Now, you're currently in the following situation:
* Presumably, you have already invested a lot of work to get to the current point in the research for this paper.
* To conclude this part of your research, you've now realized you need to spend a whole lot of additional work.
Naturally, the question then arises: are you either (1) willing to spend the additional work or (2) completely scratch all the work you've already done?
The option that's missing here is: (3) pretend nothing happened and publish the current paper after addressing the outlined revisions. Clearly, you do not intend to go for that, so the decision is between (1) and (2). In both cases, you will have to tell your co-authors and the journal that the paper will need more additional work than anticipated.
But I don't quite see the problem with that. The journal did their job, so if you honestly inform them about what happened, I can't imagine that it will lead to any bad consequences for you. It is in their interest too, after all, that only high-quality results get published. So, why not thank the reviewers and inform the journal that you will (1) withdraw the paper completely, or (2) resubmit at some point in the future but probably not within the specified time frame for the revisions they asked for?
Also: I would probably discuss your newly gained insights with my co-authors as soon as possible. Not only so they are informed but also because maybe there's a different angle that you're missing and that would put the whole situation into a different light again? One of your co-authors might have some relevant insights that might change how you will move ahead.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd say the problem is that you're trying to tackle this and make decisions **alone**.
Contact your co-authors and explain the situation just like you explained it to us. Don't tell them "we should do XYZ", just explain what's already happened. Let *them* make suggestions first, then make your own suggestion (or support somebody else's).
Your discussion with your co-authors will dictate how to inform the journal, but - the swifter the better. The only thing reviewers or editors may be angry about is delaying this kind of notification.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It is possible to ask extra time on major revision and it certainly is alright to modify the paper in a major way. Talk with your co-authors on how to proceed. If you agree on to fix the paper, explain the editor that the modifications required to solve the problem pointed out by the reviewer would take longer than the allotted time. You might receive extra time to fix the issue, or you might need to resubmit later on. If the editor decides to give you the time you need, no work will be wasted. Just make sure you act swiftly.
Even if you do not get the chance, you should not feel sorry about the time invested in reviewing the paper. The system is worked and the mistake is found. The reviewers do reviews willingly for multiple reasons, one of which is to ensure their field is not littered with papers having wrong results.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/20
| 349
| 1,464
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there a standard way they are paid?
We'll concern ourselves only with cases where it's stated that the conference will pay travel (up to a specific amount). However, does the speaker pay and then get compensated for receipts? Does the conference pay the tickets? Does it pay them in advance?...
If you need a concrete case - Black Hat <https://www.blackhat.com/us-18/call-for-papers.html> .<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, most times the person being compensated pays for their travel in advance, and then the conference recompenses them (save your receipts!).
Occasionally, however, the conference will arrange (and pay for) the dominant expenses (typically airfare and/or lodging).
The first is often actually preferable for speakers who can afford delayed recompense and trust the organization, since it gives more flexibility in making one's plans. Usually, however, you don't get a choice.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am organising a workshop and we have chosen to a) reimburse air travel up to some amount after the invited speaker pays and books it and b) book and pay for accommodation directly ourselves. The reason is very simple. Handling a centralised hotel booking where all speakers are staying at the same hotel on the same dates is easy. Handling air travel where each speaker is coming from a different part of the world with a different company is complicated.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/20
| 970
| 4,066
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've written a statistical software package and published a paper on it. Recently, it appears to have received moderate use, but with at least less than a 50% citation rate. I know this because Google Scholar will tell me that a paper mentions the name of my software package (it's a nonsense word, so this shouldn't be by chance), but the paper will not cite the package itself; in some cases there will be something like "We used package X for statistical programming language R", with a citation for R but not X.
One the one hand, I'm glad people are using my tools and that makes me happy. On the other hand, I would like citations due, if just from a career standpoint. My guess is that many researchers may not be aware that a citation should be included; I estimate that the majority of users of the package probably work outside the field of statistics. R makes it very easy to cite software (`R> citation("X")` gives you the bibTex)...but I didn't even know that until I started writing software.
It's my view that at least some of the responsibility should lie with the reviewers/editors. Would it be impolite to point this out to the editors of the journal? I really don't want to be in the business of harassing the users of my software, nor trying to point the finger at them either. Or is it just accepted that you should expect a little under a 50% citation rate?
**EDIT:**
A good question was asked in the comments: what do I hope to achieve? I'm not 100% sure! I suppose I'm wondering if there's a polite way to raise awareness of proper citations for software? Both writing software and continuing to support users of the software is fairly time consuming (I would estimate I've spent over 300 unfunded hours on those two tasks?), but I'm convinced it's one of the ways statistics researchers can be most helpful to outside researchers. As such, I suppose I would like to gently push the system to be more supportive of that effort...without being a grumpy ol' stats guy complaining about anyone who uses their contributions.<issue_comment>username_1: The [RCUDA](http://www.omegahat.net/RCUDA) and [RLLVM](http://www.omegahat.net/RLLVM) packages for R that allow the use of GPUs inform the use on the license that the paper should be cited. I think the best way to minimize the problem is to clearly inform the users in the license text of your package and also on the Readme file of the repository (maybe even as the topic 0 of the quick start guide, that we know everybody will read).
However this is no guarantee that the users will follow the instruction.
EDIT
It seems that there is no reference on the RCUDA and RLLVM repositories to which paper should be cited, although there was a pointer to the original paper before.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Reaching out to journal editors might backfire, I'd be careful with that approach.
Ultimately it's going to be up to your users to a) know how to cite your work and b) decide to do so. You have some control over a): you can display a short note with the preferred citation when the program starts. In the case of an R package, you can use the function `.onAttach` to display a message when your package is loaded. If it's a stand-alone program, put the message in your splash screen, or on the console, wherever a user might see it.
In the short term, you don't have any control over b), so I suggest you focus on maintaining the program and responding to users as best you can. As we use an increasing number of programs, deciding which ones get cited in any given paper is going to be a bit subjective. If my analysis depends on a bug fix or new feature that a developer implemented for me, they will definitely be cited!
Beyond that, your influence is limited to longer-term approaches to changing practices:
* lead by example, so people become accustomed to seeing software getting cited
* as an editor or reviewer, request citations be added where you think they should be
* promote the idea to your students and colleagues
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/20
| 2,003
| 8,215
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a PhD student working out research and also doing mathematics for my PhD research. Most of the time these days I spend on studying -- maybe 15 to 16 hours per day. I believe that I joined the PhD as an active student, but now I am not as active as I used to be in the initial years. My productivity is less these days as I try to avoid mistakes in my research. I have started feeling nervous in front of my colleague as I don't have any publications until now.
I always try to prepare my best but these days fail quite frequently and make **silly mistakes which are annoying**. Sometimes I even forget the basic definitions. Looking at myself during my initial two years I find myself a fool these days. I think this is called the rigorous phase of PhD where your ideas have to pass rigorous mathematical proofs and I am quite independent these days.
**Question:** How to get through the rigorous phase of PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: Take a (short) vacation immediately.
By working 15-16 hours a day you are making yourself too exhausted and tired to be effective. That is also probably why you make mistakes. You should take a break that is long enough to reset, and when you come back aim at reasonable working hours (depends on a person and circumstances but for most people this is 40-60hrs/week).
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> i spent on study i in a day from 15 to 16 hours I do study [...] My productivity is less these days as I try to avoid mistakes in my research. [...] I always try to prepare my best but fails these day quite frequently and making silly mistakes which are annoying [...]
>
>
>
You have already identified the problem. You're over-worked and under-productive. First, I would take a vacation over a long weekend. You need a break.
After your vacation, you need to better manage your time so you will have a sustainable work schedule. From your post, it sounds like you may need to build better time management skills. I've seen grad students waste time doing the following
1) Spending several hours reading 1 paper. Spend a set amount of time (like 30 minutes) reading each paper and note down what you don't understand. Join a reading group and bring your questions there.
2) Taking too many classes at once to "get them out of the way." Sometimes your advisor will push you to do this. If this is the case, stand firm, and set some other goals with them.
3) Constantly rework a paper, or otherwise pour time into a fruitless research topic. Part of your post mentioned you feel behind on the number of papers published. Bring this up with your advisor and focus on upping that number. This may mean publishing shorter papers or publishing in less prestigious journals. Once you zero in on a good research topic, it'll be much easier to turn out high quality research papers.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Even though I was very obsessed during the year it took to write my dissertation, I had to choose to allow gaps and spaces in my time, i.e., a walk every two hours, or a break for a meal, or a switch to another aspect of the research. What you have described is a form of burnout as a result of being overly focused that leads to numbness, boredom, and dissatisfaction. A day entirely off every once in a while will also work wonders for your mental landscape.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Your experience does not sound incredibly different from my own. (I finished my math PhD less than a year ago.) That said, I can tell you about a few things I did that made a big difference for me during my thesis years.
1. Deliberately set boundaries for your work. For example, I never did anything academic while eating, and I never worked on Fridays after 6:30 p.m. Those times were deliberately for my brain to rest.
2. Commit to doing something non-academic to force you to get away from your desk. I volunteered with a local church for a few hours a week. It was only a small commitment, but I found that I benefited greatly from the time away from my work.
3. It's a cliche, but exercise also made a big difference for me. You don't have to be super intense to get the benefits--I would usually run or lift for about 45 minutes three or four times a week. Take advantage of your university gym if you can!
4. This is my most important point: Do NOT allow yourself to feel guilty for spending time away from your work. You've been in mathematics long enough now to know that revisiting a problem after a short break can grant you new insights. Just like the people in other answers have said, grinding out 16 hour days can lead to a significant drop in productivity, so you should aspire to have more productive work with less hours spent--that begins with the implementation of breaks.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Being in Ph.D. from the last five years, I will tell you my experience.
>
> Most of the time these days I spend on studying -- maybe 15 to 16 hours per day
>
>
>
This really is a problem. I fell you are missing a very beautiful part of the research. Don't think that you are studying for 15 to 16 hours, but feel you are conducting research for that much of time and enjoy that and take that as fun. Feel that your research is going to be helpful to the community and you will see your name in the world of science where your name will be engraved on scientific journals and will be counted as a good researcher. Have fire and passion inside you and go ahead with that.
Another important thing is that you need to give your brain enough rest so that your mind and body are again ready to go for work.
Some important points:
* Have a nice sleep. Due to pressure from your peers, you may not be able to have a good sleep. So set timetable of you sleep for e,g sleep before 11 and get up till 6, nearly 7 hours of sleep should be enough for you to reset your brain and body.
* Play some sports (gym, jogging, etc) daily at-least for 1 hour that is going to increase your productivity a lot.
* Very important is, don't compare yourself with your peers. Don't bother what they are doing and focus on your goals.
* Keep yourself calm and don't bother that you don't have any publications till date. Think this is not the end of the road and you will publish a lot more world-class research papers.
* Have confidence in yourself and say that you are going to do it.
More importantly is to have passion for what you are doing, leave everything aside and take research as fun. Without enjoying your work, it is going to be really difficult with the passage of time, eventually decreasing your productivity.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: This sounds like the classic negative spiral. In broad strokes,here's how it works:
* You work hard because you're conscientious and because the material is hard
* You work long hours and start to skimp on physical activity, recreation, etc.
* Your tiredness makes you make more mistakes than usual and not to learn as efficiently
* Your mistakes and frustrations increase your anxiety
* Your anxiety leads you to work harder and longer hours, and further deprive yourself of healthy breaks
Sometimes it's helpful in these situations to check in with one's primary health care provider.
You and your doctor might want to consider medication to support you during this challenging period. Or perhaps not. Regardless, it can still be helpful to check in with him or her, in a number of ways:
* S/he can have you fill out an anxiety screening questionnaire, and have you come in for a follow-up after a certain number of months, to see how you're doing.
* S/he might suggest a therapist. Cognitive therapy has a good track record with these anxiety situations.
* Sometimes an underlying physical health situation is exacerbating the anxiety, and making some improvement in the one can help with the other.
* The doctor will have your long-term health in mind and may suggest some simple preventative measures intended to improve your general health. It's surprising how much this can help a person's outlook on life.
* Talking the situation over with the doctor can help one gain perspective.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/20
| 532
| 1,760
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there any API service to provide just the number of citations by DOI of an article?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are a publisher member of CrossRef, you could use their [Cited By service](https://www.crossref.org/services/cited-by/), and enumerate the results from that. If you had access to that, though, I expect you wouldn't be asking your question here.
You could try their [REST API](https://www.crossref.org/services/metadata-delivery/rest-api/), although I don't know what information you can retrieve *via* that route.
The [Scopus API](https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/features/api) (Elsevier) looks promising, and there seems to be a free version.
If you have access to Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, [they also have an API](http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/products/related/webservices/).
SciFinder [also has an API](http://support.cas.org/news/media-releases/scifinder-offers-api-capabilities).
There are numerous unofficial scrapers for Google Scholar. [Example 1](https://github.com/ckreibich/scholar.py). [Example 2](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/scholarly/0.2).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: An increasing number of publishers are making their citations open. When this happens, you can get them from the Crossref REST API.
This query lists all of the DOIs for which you can get the references, currently 20,455,807
<http://api.crossref.org/works?filter=reference-visibility:open,has-references:true>
Here's an example lookup. Look in the "reference" field:
<http://api.crossref.org/works/10.1179/1942787514y.0000000039>
You can also look at the [Initiative for Open Citations](https://i4oc.org/) and [OpenCitations.net](http://opencitations.net/).
(I work for Crossref)
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/20
| 543
| 2,141
|
<issue_start>username_0: What are the criteria for a PhD? Is it mastery in a discipline? (But, then, what is a "Masters" degree?)
If one claims to have a PhD without an issuing institution, can that title be defended as legitimate?
This issue could be relevant in issues of employment (where an applicant has listed a PhD) and to challenge institutionalized PhDs to defend their position amidst a culture that is completely awash in questionable philosophy.
In other words, this is not a criticism of the University as a pedagogical concept. It is a critique of current incumbents.
[Note: This question was/is, practically, censored previously.]
[Edit: Some people claimed that one can't decide what terms mean -- like "PhD", but then, this just pushes the question further: who gets to decide what terms mean?]<issue_comment>username_1: No. In the same sense that not everyone has the legal power to marry two individuals, and not everyone can bid in an auction. It depends on the rules.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: No. Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean. PhDs generally require:
* getting admitted
* taking classes
* doing research under the supervision of an advisor
* writing that into a dissertation
* defending the dissertation
In principle you could drop out of grad school and do the other steps on your own. While this might be a worthwhile endeavor for you, there is no quality control. A "crackpot" might convince himself and like-minded people (even those with PhDs) that his ideas are right, whereas they will not convince a reputable university to endorse their ideas.
In my office, some of the most experienced and smartest people never got the PhD. They certainly deserve it -- 30 years of research, conferences, grants etc. is a much better qualification than 5 years in grad school (and everyone who matters knows this). But a PhD is an academic qualification, not (only) an award for merit. If you award yourself a PhD and someone calls you on it, they are absolutely not going to buy your explanation about how a bunch of arXiv papers are equivalent to a PhD from a university.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/20
| 2,984
| 12,707
|
<issue_start>username_0: Though I am at the very beginning of my PhD journey, I am somewhat disturbed by the apparent lack of tenured positions in the US and Western Europe, especially concerning the humanities. All these horror stories about eager graduates looking in vain for years make me wonder how to prepare for my future, apart from publishing vehemently etc. Teaching and research are my passions, and I am willing to make significant sacrifices with regard to my family life and salary expectations in order to stay in academia.
To be more specific, I am willing to move (almost) anywhere if it means I can continue on my chosen career path. In fact, it would probably be beneficial to see the world and interact with different cultures. I am thinking of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and CIS-countries, Southeast Asia and other regions which recently underwent an economic boom; if this also implies an expanding tertiary education, I imagine they *may* be more interested in hiring Western graduates from older/more reputable universities. Industrialisation and population growth almost necessarily mean a higher enrolment rate and new institutions, and the faculty may consider employing researchers from more distinguished places a valuable marketing tool, at least in the beginning.
According to your experience, is this assumption correct? Is it reasonable to look for academic positions outside the US and Europe? Is the administration more likely to welcome me among their ranks at such places, ceteris paribus? If so, do you have any special advise on the application process or on the difficulties I may encounter? Thank you.
ETA: Just to be clear, I am *specifically* referring to second- or even third-tier target institutions, not Tokyo University or Peking Uni, though I welcome all suggestions.<issue_comment>username_1: I have no firsthand experience on this, but based on what my friend told me and some educated guesses:
* It's **probably easier** to find a job as a professor in these developing countries. My friend said that the qualifications as a postdoc in Singapore are sufficient to qualify as a full professor in Malaysia (both countries are in SEA, but Singapore is developed while Malaysia is developing).
* **Expect lower living standards**. Again using Malaysia vs. Singapore as an example, you get a lot of conveniences in Singapore such as better lecture theaters, top-notch internet, nicer offices, and so on. This extends outside of academia: factors such as public transport, crime rate, and salary are all better in Singapore. On the flip side, Malaysia is generally cheaper, especially if you want to own a car.
* **Expect weaker students**. Unfortunate but true, because all the best students leave for better universities elsewhere.
* **Expect less resources**. You won't get as much money to create grand research plans, and the country might not be able to join big collaborations like the Large Hadron Collider. You might also have fewer opportunities to attend conferences or to meet other researchers (e.g. by visiting or have them visit).
* **Expect a significant cultural gap**. These countries don't usually have English as a primary language. Some people might still speak it, but they are usually more comfortable with another language, and you might e.g. have students ask you about something, you explain it, and then they discuss your answer with each other in your presence in a language you don't understand. There are other cultural things such as how much responsibility a professor should have over his or her students (for example, [Yoshiki Sakai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshiki_Sasai) committed suicide over the academic misconduct of his student even though he was cleared of misconduct). You can work around this, but it'll take time.
* Finally, don't forget that **your choices will affect your family as well**. Finding a suitable school for your children, for example, can be a problem.
**Edit**: I talked to a senior lecturer in astronomy at a university in Malaysia. He found his job immediately after graduating with his PhD. He says he cold-mailed his CV to the various universities with physics departments in the country. One of them responded with an interview request which led to the job.
Clearly the job market is less competitive - I asked him who the lecturers are if fresh graduates are senior lecturers, and he said the lecturers are usually those with Masters degrees. In the West, it'd be virtually impossible to land such a position without multiple postdocs, let alone without a PhD degree.
Among other things: he said he's somehow supervising PhD students even though he's a fresh graduate himself (which doesn't make sense to him or me, but from his description it was forced onto him). He also said students are indeed weaker overall, but there are also good students.
On the flip side, he was critical about Malaysia's promotion system since there apparently was a requirement where you must publish two papers a year, which clearly emphasizes quantity over quality. Also, the university's canteen only had Malay food. If you work in the country, hope you like curry.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends on what you mean by "Eastern Europe", but my experience with EU Eastern Europe is that randoms from other countries with little experience and who don't speak the language are not particularly well-regarded as applicants for positions. If teaching is primarily in the local language, there isn't much use for you. Some Eastern European EU countries have mandatory large amounts of teaching, mandated by law as academics are civil servants, so there's little way out of teaching, even if you get, say, a large EU grant (found this out at an h2020 PI meeting, it goes a little way to explaining why some of those countries have low EU grant success rates).
All told, academia in many EU Eastern Europe countries is quite good.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I am thinking of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and CIS-countries, Southeast Asia and other regions which recently underwent an economic boom
>
>
>
I have had some experiences in regions that would fall under these general groups. Although what I will say it is not at all representative of the entire situation it might give you some ideas. I think you are overall right. There are few things to be cautious about.
>
> they may be more interested in hiring Western graduates from older/more reputable universities ... , and the faculty may consider employing researchers from more distinguished places a valuable marketing tool, at least in the beginning
>
>
>
This can be true. I have seen people get very excited because their department hired a top US school PhD without knowing much of what this person had done in their careers. I have also seen too many cases of western fetishism. Students/academics are eager to go to west for education/jobs. You can be a valuable bridge in that sense. There are huge differences between countries and their academic systems. For example university admissions are significantly different in different parts of the world. Oppurtunities like REUs are very common in US but they hardly exist, say, in Europe. Universities in these "second world" countries are often valued (by the public) on the rate which they send students abroad. Your background might be valued by default. You can provide your students very valuable insights into how US system works.
>
> Industrialisation and population growth almost necessarily mean a higher enrolment rate and new institutions.
>
>
>
This is not necessarily the case. I know at least one example where the economic and population boom did not result in stronger institutions. What have happened is they have raised the quotas in Universities (almost all are public) without much increase in their budget. They have also formed new Universities but these almost always are pretty shady and corrupt. There are various department wide plagarism scandals. I have heard dreadful stories from my fellow student friends in these institutions. Furthermore, in the previously strong institutions, increased quotas and their substandard budget resulted in a visable decrease in education, research and campus life quality.
>
> Just to be clear, I am specifically referring to second- or even third-tier target institutions, not Tokyo University or Peking Uni, though I welcome all suggestions.
>
>
>
I would suggest you to look at first tier universities at least in their respective countries. This will help you avoid few problems such as:
>
> * Expect weaker students
>
>
>
This need not be the case. Going to west is almost impossible (at least to a decent institution) unless you are increadibly wealthy in the second-world country standards. SATs, GREs, application fees are huge when the minimum wage is around 300 dollars. Not to mention that these countries will NOT have school systems built around these exams. These people will not have any experience in getting tested in English or understand how the admission game works. The US oppurtunity exists for the very few. These are usually the extremely wealthy who can afford private schools and private tutors aimed in this direction and the extremely smart if they have a conventional way to prove it (like mathematical olimpiads). Even at graduate level capable people hessitate to leave their country or return back without completing their phd abroad. There can be many cultural and economic reasons for that. Humans tend to be philopatrical. There is a huge between going to California from Alabama and going to US from Malaysia. Especially after the current wave of Islamophobia. But yes, overall expect weaker students. But I would bet the good ones you are going to get will be pretty good.
>
> * Expect less resources
>
>
>
This is true on avarage but an elite institution of a second world country can easily have more resources than a second rate US university. It is really case specific.
>
> do you have any special advise on the application process or on the difficulties I may encounter
>
>
>
Difficulties vary but you should expect some. For example the country may have strict regulations for Universities. The titles might be subject to certain criterias (x many publications, y many books etc.). These are unpleasant. I have seen top tier researchers getting stuck with a lower title not because the university does not recognize them. Because the country will have some weird numerical criteria attached to that title.
>
> Is the administration more likely to welcome me among their ranks at such places, ceteris paribus
>
>
>
This again is very case specific. If you get an offer from a university I would suggest you to get in touch with people in that university first. My institution is pretty decent in that regard. I would say at least half of the faculty is foreign and around two thirds of it are post-Soviet / East Bloc academics. Although I wouldn't be suprised if some other institution's department head / dean / President would have an issue with a certain foreign nationality.
**One key point** that you have not mentioned is political unrest. In Hungary, Orban forced out Central European University. In Turkey, Erdogan did serious academic purges. In US, misinformation and pseudo-science are spread by politicans including the Mr. President. Countries like Iran, Indonesia, Libya, Egpty are still heavily shaken by their previous political struggles and many of their strong academics have fled the country.
Overall
=======
I think you should consider such oppurtunities but you should be cautious. Research the institution well. Is there plagirism, fraud, nepotism, sexual abuse, bullying or censor? Is the institution reputable in its own country? Is the research aspect valuable or is it just a glorified high school with more advanced topics? You should try to understand the countries policies towards the academica as well as public opinion towards higher education. For example, Indian public seem to value humanities far, far less than engineering. In that case you might have a harder time in India as a humanities researcher. Or if politicians look at school budgets and drool then those institutions might be in slight trouble. Most notably in US some state legislatures cut their State's funding in very small portions year by year. Now, state universities are also a part of the University cost crisis. US economy is huge and they so far have survived this crisis with somewhat managable consequences. I am not so sure how it would play out in a much poorer country.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/21
| 1,146
| 4,802
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a TA, I have to grade students' assignments.
The main instructor usually has requirements regarding the minimum average grade for the class.
At the same time, it is tricky to predict the class' performance until I have graded about one third of the students' papers (for larger classes, and one half for smaller classes).
Even then, unexpected things can come up. To ensure fairness as well as fulfill the minimum average grade required by the instructor, I often have to re-grade their papers *multiple times*. For example, when first grading Josh's work, I gave him 4/5 pts for question 1. After finding out some others did better than him (but still not entirely correct), I gave the other students 4/5 and take one more point from Josh, and this process keeps going on and on. As a result, when I return the assignments to the class, their papers are full of my corrections for their previously assigned points.
I did mention curving to the instructor, but he didn't seem to be OK with that. In fact, he manually re-graded the first HW instead of curving it, which made me feel bad (and insulted).
It doesn't seem like the students have an issue with the way I grade, but I still wonder whether modifying the grades multiple times make me look unprepared/unprofessional?\*<issue_comment>username_1: >
> To ensure fairness as well as fulfill the **minimum average grade required by the instructor**
>
>
>
The section I boldfaced seems completely illogical to me. If there is any concern about the difficulty of an assignment, this should be handled by adjusting the final grades, rather than the assignment-by-assignment grades. This can be handled by stating at the beginning of the semester something as simple as:
>
> *The instructor reserves the right to adjust the grading points downward on a uniformly sliding scale.*
>
>
>
This allows the instructor to adjust for any roadbumps in the difficulty of assignments without having to making too many adjustments in the grades of individual assignments. This also gives students a truer sense of their performance than having grades arbitrarily raised to ensure an artificial minimum average. Also, because grades are uniformly adjusted (e.g., if an A was 90/100 and B was 80/100, and an A becomes 84/100, then B becomes 74/100), there's no room to complain about arbitrary curving of grades, except for the single selection of the D/F or A/B transition that would drive the process).
If there is no option but to change the grading rubric, I would instead use the following approach. If you know what the general flow of the problem is, take a random cross-sample of the students' papers—say 8 or 10—and compare their results with the standards. If you feel comfortable with the agreement between your standard and the homeworks you use, go ahead and grade the rest. If not, then make adjustments, *add a few more papers*, and repeat until you're satisfied. But regarding dozens of papers every time seems like a waste of everybody's time.
If you want to avoid looking unprofessional doing so, I'd mark lightly in pencil until you decide the final grading scheme. Once it's locked in, you can switch over to whatever you use and it will look "final," saving you from any potential embarrassment. But really, it's understood that people make mistakes and changes when grading, so I wouldn't worry too much about it overall.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Modifying the grades consumes extra time and effort in addition to that required by the grading itself, so regardless of professionality, you should try to avoid it. I assume that you have all (or large number) of assignments to grade available at once.
Your problem is that you start to grade to early.
First, read all the answers, mark mistakes, write comments, or whatever the standard procedure is. Do not assign any points except full points or no points, and those only in the situation where you are certain that that will be the final score. (Empty answer, total nonsense, perfect answer.)
You'll have to do this anyway, so it does not slow the process of grading. It gives you a good sense of the answers of the students, and so makes it easier to come up with the grading scheme (rubric, I guess, is the jargon here).
The next step is to write your grading scheme. Be as precise as you can, considering the successes and mistakes of the students. Ideally, this should so accurate that the actually grading would be merely comparing the assignment with the grading scheme, but this never happens in practice.
Before you start to grade, check a number of papers and which grades they would get. Check that this is appropriate. If yes, then grade the papers. If no, then revise your scheme and retry.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/21
| 526
| 2,386
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am curious if one is allowed to hire an illustrator to draw images for a paper (e.g. a cartoon of some chemical reaction). Should this person be included as an author or in the acknowledgements? Or is this outright not allowed?<issue_comment>username_1: Seems entirely reasonable to hire an illustrator. In an ideal world, professionals who specialize in illustration would do the illustrations, freeing up researchers to do their research.
Authorship and acknowledgement seem like fundamentally cultural issues. So, it's probably best to contact the journal that you'd like to submit the paper to to ask them for guidance before hiring an illustrator.
Once you know what the journal'd require, then you might make compliance with those requirements part of the contractual terms when hiring an illustrator.
Anecdotally, I don't think that the journals I've submitted to before cared about where the illustrations came from; or, at least, they never asked. And when submitting patent applications, patent attorneys seem to have people on-staff who redraw the figures you provide them in the stereotypical rustic style that I guess the patent office expects, even when the provided figures would seem clearer and more professional.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is entirely reasonable to hire a graphics designer or similar artist to make illustrations for scientific manuscripts, and I do in fact know people who have done so. For example, many journals now invite one to submit a "striking image" to be the splash graphic for the paper online, and this is a great place to get an artist involved.
An artist working on graphics for a paper would typically be given credit in acknowledgements but not be a co-author, since they have not made a contribution to the scientific work. There might be cases where "graphic design" might expand to become "visualization and analysis of data" worthy of an authorship, but those would likely be rare and relatively easy to distinguish.
The primary complication that this can add is one of copyright, as some journals require you to note images that need to have their copyright handled separately from the body as a whole. If you make an arrangement where the artist transfers the copyright to you, however, you can likely transfer it onwards to the journal without problem.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/21
| 2,909
| 11,494
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm severely disabled. Under [**Outcomes and length of arrangements**](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/campuslife/acservices/Examinations/PAA/medical.aspx):
>
> If your condition is long-term and unchanging, the Personalised Assessment **[henceforth PA]** Arrangements Committee (PAAC) will approve arrangements for the duration of your programme, meaning you do not need to reapply each year.
>
>
>
Under [3) International student](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/campuslife/acservices/Examinations/PAA/Alternative-Venue-Arrangements.aspx):
>
> You can apply to sit your examination at an alternative venue **[henceforth AV]** if you are either:
>
>
> a) Taking a resit and/or replacement examination and you are a non-attending student. You can only apply to sit in your home country.
>
>
> OR
>
>
> b) Taking a resit and/or replacement examination and you are applying to take the examination during the August exam period. You can only apply to sit in your home country.
>
>
>
I asked King's College London (KCL)'s Exam Services why AV can't be approved permanently (for the duration of my degree), like PA. But the Head regurgitated without explanation that this is possible only for PA, before harshly alleging that this matter was closed.
How can I challenge them? Can the [Equality Act 2010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010) help?
### Additional Argument, in addition to inability to live alone long-term.
Requiring me to reapply each year throws my life into uncertainty, thwarts me from planning how long to rent my apartment, and and forces me to rent for longer than needed. How?
**Option 1: I lease until June, as I wouldn't know if AV'd be approved this year when I sign a lease**. But if I learn that I'm approved for AV no earlier than Jan. or Feb., then lease payments from Mar.-Jun. would be wasted as I'd fly home.
**Option 2: I lease until Mar. 2019**. But the risk is lacking residence in London, if my AV is denied and I need to write exams in London in June.<issue_comment>username_1: A quick review of the link you've shown suggests that the two classes you've listed, personalized assessment and alternative venue, are open to two completely different groups:
* Personalized assessment is for students with recognized learning or physical disabilities;
* Alternative venue is for international students.
You're effectively trying to conflate the two types of accommodations, by requesting an alternative venue as a means of handling your disability. Based on the response of the chair of the committee, they are proceeding according to this distinction. For this to be successful, you need to be able to explain **medically** why you need to be at home for the exam period. Raising financial costs as a reason will not be a sufficient reason—by that rationale, you're no different from any other applicant wanting an alternative venue.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Let's see if I've understood. At your institution, the exam occurs several months after the semester ends. You would like to vacate your London apartment when classes end, and then take your exam at an Alternate Venue because keeping the apartment for the extra months would involve extra expense, which I am guessing is more expensive than housing would cost for non-disabled students, and because with your significant disability you can't just pop into London for the day to take your exam as non-disabled students can (you'd need to get established in London several days before the exam in order to stabilize your condition before taking the exam), and therefore taking the exam in London would involve significant extra expense for you. So you are requesting permission to take your exam at an alternate venue, as several classes of students, including international students, are permitted to do. Did I get that right?
I found the text of the [Equality Act 2010](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15). I confess I found it hard to read.
However, I found [guidance](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/what-are-reasonable-adjustments) designed to be read by education administrators, which was easier to read and generally more helpful for me. Here are some quotes. (I've done some simplifying and bolding.)
>
> The object of the reasonable adjustments duty is to **avoid as far as possible by reasonable means the disadvantage which a disabled student experiences because of their disability.**
>
>
> The duty requires you to take positive steps to ensure that disabled students can fully participate in the education and other benefits, facilities and services provided for students....
>
>
> Where a practice **places disabled students at a substantial disadvantage in accessing education**, the higher education institution must take such steps as it is reasonable to take in all the circumstances to ensure the provision, criterion or practice no longer has such an effect. This might mean waiving a criterion or abandoning a practice altogether but often will involve just an **extension of the flexibility and individual approach that most institutions already show to their students**....
>
>
> Where disabled students are placed at a substantial disadvantage by a provision, criterion or practice, the absence of an auxiliary aid or a physical feature, the institution must consider whether any reasonable adjustment can be made to overcome that disadvantage.
>
>
> Institutions should not expect disabled students to suggest adjustments but where they do, institutions should consider whether they would help to overcome the disadvantage and whether they are reasonable. It is good practice for further and higher education institutions to work with students in determining what reasonable adjustments can be made....
>
>
> **What is the reasonable adjustments duty?**
>
>
> You are required to take reasonable steps to:
>
>
> Avoid substantial disadvantage where a provision, criterion or practice puts disabled students at a substantial disadvantage.
>
>
> Avoid substantial disadvantage, where a physical feature puts disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage; this includes removing the physical feature in question, altering it or providing a reasonable means of avoiding it....
>
>
> What is a substantial disadvantage?
>
>
> A disadvantage that is more than minor or trivial is called a
> ‘substantial disadvantage’. The level of disadvantage created by a
> lack of reasonable adjustments is measured in comparison with what the
> position would be if the disabled student in question did not have a
> disability.
>
>
> A further or higher education institution will need to take into
> account a number of factors when considering what a substantial
> disadvantage might be, such as:
>
>
> * the time and effort that might need to be expended by a disabled
> student
> * the inconvenience, indignity or discomfort a disabled student
> might suffer
> * the loss of opportunity or the diminished progress a
> disabled student might make in comparison with his or her peers who
> are not disabled.
>
>
> For Example:
>
>
> A sixth form college has several sites and students are required to
> move between sites to attend different classes. This is likely to
> place a student with mobility difficulties at a substantial
> disadvantage as they may find it hard to move between sites and arrive
> late for classes as a result. This is likely to be a substantial
> disadvantage.
>
>
>
We can see at [PERSONALISED ASSESSMENT ARRANGEMENTS: Alternative Venue Arrangements](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/campuslife/acservices/Examinations/PAA/Alternative-Venue-Arrangements.aspx) that KCL does allow exams to be taken at alternative venues by distance learning students, study abroad students, and international students, so perhaps you could make an argument that your institution already shows this flexibility to its students.
[Another helpful document](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what_equality_law_means_for_you_as_an_education_provide_further_and_higher_education.pdf) says
>
> **Factors to take into account**
>
>
> The following are some of the factors which might be taken into
> account when considering what is reasonable:
>
>
> • whether taking any particular steps would be effective in overcoming
> the substantial disadvantage that disabled people face in accessing
> the education or other benefit, facility or service in question
>
>
> • the extent to which it is practicable for the education provider to
> take such steps
>
>
> • the type of education or other benefit, facility or service being
> provided
>
>
> • the effect of the disability on the individual
>
>
> • the financial and other costs of making the adjustment
>
>
> • the availability of grants, loans and other assistance to disabled
> students
>
>
> • the extent to which aids and services will otherwise be provided to
> disabled people or students
>
>
> • the resources of the education provider and the availability of
> financial or other assistance
>
>
> • health and safety requirements, and
>
>
> • the relevant interests of other people, including other students
>
>
>
**I also found a definition of *indirect discrimination*:**
>
> putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage. (<https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights>)
>
>
>
Note, in the US, the government guidance in this area explains that the published examples of reasonable accommodations (I think this is the same as the UK term *reasonable adjustments*) are not an exhaustive list. Educational institutions are supposed to consider what the student needs, not just what has previously been offered to students with a disability. The text I found seems similar enough to the US materials that I think it would be reasonable to extrapolate this to the UK.
I think there should be an [appeals procedure at each university](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/conciliationmediation):
>
> If the matter cannot be resolved through your **internal complaints procedure**, then there are various mediation and conciliation services that might assist you in resolving the dispute.
>
>
>
This paragraph suggests to me that there should be an internal complaint procedure at KCL. (It parallels what is required in the US under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.)
On that same page, it says
>
> in England or Wales, a student can make a complaint that the university has discriminated against them to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). The student will usually have to have exhausted the internal complaints procedure.
>
>
>
I googled for `Office of the Independent Adjudicator King's College` and [found](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/orgstructure/ps/acservices/conduct/complaints.aspx) three levels of appeal and deadlines for each. It looks to me like starting at level 2 might make the most sense.
If you haven't contacted these people, it might be worth a try:
>
> Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) Helpline
>
>
> Information and advice about discrimination and human rights issues
>
>
> Telephone: 0808 800 0082
>
>
> Monday to Friday, 9am to 7pm
>
>
> Saturday, 10am to 2pm
>
>
>
I hope you'll keep us posted -- by writing updates at the bottom of your question.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/21
| 1,691
| 7,687
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm studying in Germany. German and English are not my native tongue, but I prefer to write my thesis in English for the following reasons:
* My English is better than my German (not a good reason).
* My supervisor's native tongue is English (not a good reason).
* I'm analyzing the socio-political situations in an Asian country. Although the official language there is not English, the bulk of the existing literature review (written by natives and non-natives) is in English. Also, English is virtually the only foreign language learnt and used over there. It's just easier to find materials in English; thus, if I write my thesis in German, it would be a laborious task to translate any cited materials. These are probably good reasons.
Could you suggest a convincing way to word my reasons as to why I prefer to write in English? I'm filling a form of demand to write in language other than German, and they only give a small space (a line) to state my reasons. How about the following?
>
> The existing literature review is mainly, if not almost entirely, in English; the country's second language is also English.
>
>
>
Is this convincing? Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: Clearly, in the time you have performing research and interacting with other people in your field, you were using at least one language, likely more than one given your research on a country that (likely) does not speak either English or German. However, your thesis has some specific audiences to address. If written in German, it certainly addresses your local university department, and the academic community in Germany. Writing it in English will dramatically broaden the potential audience, since many more people in the world can read English as compared with German. But, do those additional people count much? That is up to you to determine, and the university to agree to.
Look at your references, fellow academics you've met at conferences, and those you wish to interact with. Write in the language most likely to be accessible to them.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am answering your main question (what should I put on the form?), rather than the question of your title (why should I use English?).
The fact that you have to seek permission to submit in English suggests that this is not the done thing in your institution, although it is possible. You should read the form and academic regulations carefully, as these should explain when it is permissible to use a foreign language; if these do not make it clear, ask the relevant academic or administrative staff for clarification. Tailoring your reason on the form to meet their list of acceptable circumstances will increase your chances of being permitted to use English. If do not fall into one of the permitted reasons, you may not have any chance of submitting in English, unless the regulations provide some leeway for discretion.
With the information you have provided, it is impossible to know what the permitted circumstances might be, but here is some speculation:
* If your registered language of instruction is not German
* If appropriate German-speaking examiners will be difficult to find
* If your supervisor is not a German speaker, and cannot adequately support/supervise a German-language thesis
* If you are studying another language, and it is appropriate to write your thesis, or a part thereof, in that language/if you are completing a PhD by translation
* If you are completing a PhD by publication, and your publications are not in German
Given that you state the space available for the justification is small, it's clear that they're expecting a form reason, such as above, rather than a discussion of the peculiar circumstances of your research. As far as I can tell, you've registered at a German institution, where the default language of instruction is German. Unless you were given undertakings to the contrary when you matriculated, I'd say you should be prepared to write a German-language thesis.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In many cases, such a form will be a mere pro-forma requirement. If this is the case at your institution, filling in any of the reasons you mention in the question will do. You wouldn't need to convince anyone, you merely need to provide what is necessary for the box-ticker to tick the box.
However, it could also be the case that there is some real reluctance to let people write in English, and that you actually need to convince whatever decision maker there is. What is a good reason then depends on whatever views these decision makers have. If they are reluctant to allow writing in English, they definitely have weird views, so their notion of good argument might differ from mine.
To figure out whether you fall into Case 1 or into Case 2, and if you are in Case 2, what the succesfull arguments are, speak to your supervisor and to students currently writing their thesis in English.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: From my experience at German universities (Computer Science) it's pretty irrelevant German- or English-languaged thesis. It's more a matter of personal taste and lowering the effort. Like, if you are combining multiple English papers into a PhD thesis or plan to rework the MSc thesis in a paper, it's easier to target English.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The international research community primarily uses English. Unless there's a particular reason that you want your thesis to be understood in another language, it would be recommended. While, there are some benefits in some fields for writing in another language, I'd recommend English for the following reasons:
* The international research community will be able to read and critique your work. Most of the international community works in English and works already published in English can be quoted accurately.
* Your thesis may be examined by international examiners who may not be in your immediate research field. It will be a lot easier to find an examiner with expertise in your research techniques to assess your capabilities as a research if it is written in English. Writing in another language will delay the examination process.
* The role of your thesis is to demonstrate your ability as a researcher. It serves as part of your resume for future job applications throughout your career. Even if your change discipline, it is important for future employers to be able to assess the quality of your past work. If your English skills are stronger than writing in other languages, you will also be able to present your ideas more clearly and the writing process won't take longer than it needs to. Demonstrating your English skills will also be valuable for your career if you wish to work in another country. Applicants for postdocs to some countries are requested by immigration to show their thesis to show that they can conduct research in the field they've been hired for in English.
* You may have discovered important trends or made insights that are not specific to the case study or country that you are studying. If you write these results in the language specific to that country, it will be more difficult for other researchers to include these in their comparisons between countries and are less likely to attempt to replicate or contrast your findings with other countries in the future.
The purpose of a thesis is not to communicate your findings with the country that you're studying. It's to communicate them with the rest of the research community. It's not uncommon to write an abstract, summary, or press release in another language to inform the wider public.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/21
| 1,291
| 5,156
|
<issue_start>username_0: I enquired about a funded PhD position which was advertised on the faculty website. The application involved finding a supervisor and getting them to agree to be a potential supervisor before applying formally to the position.
I contacted the supervisor, who responded straight away, and they said that my idea sounded interesting, but that before we could discuss it further he/she would like to know more about my previous research experience.
I sent this information in an email, but have not heard anything back since (it has been 5 working days). Does this mean that he/she does not want to pursue it further, or could it be that they are simply busy and considering it?
Should I contact them again?<issue_comment>username_1: Is your deadline for this opportunity within a month or two? If so, a **gentle nudge** would be appropriate after a week. You could reply to your own email to bring it back to the top of the professor's inbox, saying something at the top like:
>
> Dear Professor X, I am sure you are very busy, so thank you for your previous response about the PhD position. Please let me know if you would like to further discuss my research experience (details below) or the projects I hope to pursue with you.
>
>
>
If the deadline is extremely close (within the next two weeks?) it might be appropriate to further inquire, "Given that the application deadline is XXX, may I ask whether you are still considering me as a potential student for this PhD position?" (It would be courteous for the professor to tell you if you were out of consideration, but it also might not be necessary to ask for this clarification unless your next action hinges on the response, e.g. asking another faculty member at the institution to sponsor you.)
---
Edit: [Advice on getting replies from busy professors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/45621/88197) suggests saying that you're "sending a follow-up in case your original message went to spam, or something similar". However, that is less plausible because you previously received a response. (Unless the attachments may have gotten it sent to a spam filter.) I'm not sure whether there is another courteous "little white lie" to deploy here rather than taking the tack of "I am sure you are very busy."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As you say, there are two possible outcomes, roughly equally likely:
* They are interested but busy. It's easy to write a mail saying "please send me more", it's a lot more work to read what you sent, check on the funding situation, think about other commitments, and make a decision about hiring you.
* They are not interested after reading what you sent. At least in my field, it is EXTREMELY common for professors not to reply rather than sending a rejection.
In both cases, I think it is fine to follow up within 1-2 weeks: in the former case, it's good to show interest and keep it alive; in the latter, you have nothing to lose. I will suggest something even more concise than in the other answers:
>
> Professor, I just wanted to follow up on this [as the deadline is next week]. Do you still think I could be a good fit for your lab? I'd be happy to drop by if you wanted to discuss in person. Cheers, --X
>
>
>
(where you obviously remove the bracketed part if there is no deadline).
If they don't reply to that, I would assume it is a rejection and wouldn't pursue it further (not least of which because it's very unprofessional on the professor's part not to reply after two follow-ups).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: (Extended version of a comment)
>
> One week is nothing in professor time.
>
>
>
Conferences, marking season, a PhD defence, anything can get in the way.... I would like to believe that I'm fairly quick, but I can't review a PhD dissertation in less than a day, not properly. Professors *never* have a full day for something (vacations/holidays excepted). Combine any of that with the start (or end) of a semester or just a bunch of meetings and anything can take about three weeks.
Even worse because the professor will probably want to read your documentation thoroughly and that takes a bit of time on itself....
One thing that I did find useful when I was in your shoes was to try to contact someone else that is "around" the professor. "Heavy hitter" professors usually have an administrative assistant, and they can be incredibly quick and well informed, and often nudge the professors to be quicker as well.
Postdocs or PhD students might also work, but only if you already know them beforehand.
>
> Other than that, stop second-guessing :)
>
>
>
Now, one important remark is: How quickly do you need the professor to answer? Do you have any deadlines coming? If you do, you might want to "escalate" the communication. Personally, for non-urgent stuff I'll just send an e-mail. Next step, secretary via e-mail. Then secretary on the phone. Call the professor on his office, and so on...
Once I had to call my MS advisor on his personal mobile, but it was *really* urgent, "I need your signature now or we are out of funding" urgent.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/21
| 1,237
| 5,144
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am starting to put together my PhD thesis. The bulk of the thesis will be reprints of papers I have published during my PhD. I am wondering about presentation style.
My personal preference would be to reformat all of my papers into a single LaTeX document so as to have consistent style throughout. It's a bit of extra work, but I would prefer this approach. In several cases my papers have supplementary info which would not fit in the constraints of the main manuscript in the published version, but which could (and probably should) be coherently woven into the main text.
Are these acceptable options? Assuming I get reprint permission from the publishers, is it acceptable to change or partially reorganize the text for the sake of a coherent narrative within the context of the larger thesis? Or do copyright laws require that my reprints be exact reproductions of both content and style as compared to published versions?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Or do copyright laws require that my reprints be exact reproductions of both content and style as compared to published versions?
>
>
>
Why should copyright laws require such a thing?
The entire point of copyright laws is to protect creators¹ and restrict what **others** can do with your work.
In the sense of copyright law, you and your co-authors are the creators of your paper and you can do it with it whatever you want (presuming that you all agree on this).
Of course, you transfer parts of what is included in your copyright to the journal, but for this you have to consult the respective copyright agreement with the journal and not copyright law.
Sidenotes:
* Consider using the accepted versions of the respective manuscripts instead of the published ones.
This is usually more compatible with copyright agreements.
Also, this is closer to your work, as whatever the journal did to your papers is missing.
* Your university, supervisor, and committee may have special ideas as to what you can or cannot do in such a thesis, which are usually more restrictive than copyright.
* As already noted, if there is any restriction imposed by copyright it is that your co-authors should agree on this – which should usually not be a problem though.
---
¹ or in some legislation copyright holders, which in turn are the authors by default
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I disagree with part of the other answer, in that the copyright holder of a work is not always the creators/authors. For some journals when you publish with them and sign the licensing agreement, you transfer the copyright of your work to the publisher. Then it is up to the publisher to decide how you can reuse your paper. I would advice reviewing the copyright/licensing agreement you signed with your publisher for limitations for reuse, and if still in doubt, contact the publisher.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Just prepare your thesis the way you see fit and don't think too much about publishers or copyrights.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: As stated in the accepted answer, you should check with the publisher. However, this issue is often clarified specifically online. For example, AIP Publishing states on [their website](https://publishing.aip.org/authors/copyright-reuse "their website"):
>
> Q: May I include my AIP Publishing article in my thesis or
> dissertation?
>
>
> AIP Publishing permits authors to include their
> published articles in a thesis or dissertation. It is understood that
> the thesis or dissertation may be published in print and/or electronic
> form and offered for sale on demand, as well as included in a
> university’s repository. Formal permission from AIP Publishing is not
> needed. If the university requires written permission, however, we are
> happy to supply it.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Checking with publisher was mentioned, but not *how*. Factually all large publishers have this **"Request permissions"** link directly on the page with the paper. Basically, you click on the DOI of your paper and search for this link. Then you are taken to another website, typically copyright.com. There you have to make some choices, such as "yes, I am the author", "no, it's for the thesis", "yes, all the paper", "no, I won't translate". Finally, a price tag pops up. It is typically 0 Euro/US$/whatever, but I've also seen larger values. You agree (or pay, if you are unlucky), then you receive an email that you officially may use this paper for the purposes you stated. Rinse, repeat.
Small publishers typically state the availability of the papers somewhere close to their front page.
If you have not signed the copyright transfer form yet (i.e., the paper is not finally accepted), you are good. If the paper is Open Access (i.e., licensed under CC-BY or similar), you are good. If you have not transferred the copyright, but licensed the content (say, to ACM), you *should* be good, but better ask via the above copyright.com process.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/r4m5C.png)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/21
| 554
| 2,425
|
<issue_start>username_0: I currently write my thesis, therefore I develop and later implement a solution for a problem and do a performance & security evaluation afterwards.
The results of the evaluation are quite good in my opinion, because they are just slightly below the solution considered optimal (which can not be applied in the given setup).
But I have problems on finding terms to express that success in the end of the evaluation chapter / conclusion as I can not simply write "This is a success".
Are there any common phrases, or don't I judge my results like this?<issue_comment>username_1: There's nothing wrong with saying something worked. Mostly, I think, you just need to be clear on what your criteria is for success and where the evidence is, e.g.:
>
> "The proposed BAR algorithm appears to successfully mitigate the speed and security problems of the prior FOO method, as demonstrated by these experimental results.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You don't need to reserve your conclusion until the end of your Evaluation chapter. Is that separate from the Results section? When you present your "Results", that should be narrowly focused on the test statistics, maybe even numerical comparisons to others' results to put the numbers in context.
The "Discussion" part of your work (not sure if that's all of what your "Evaluation" chapter is or just part of that chapter) is the right place to discuss the interpretation/interpretation of your analysis. You can even have that argument as the thesis for that section. E.g.
>
> As established in [Chapter where you describe the problem], an effective solution to [problem] requires X, Y, and Z. The results in [other section] demonstrate that [this method] is a viable solution.
>
>
>
Then go through and interpret the results to show how the result is suitable. (You should fully acknowledge any drawbacks, but it should be OK to write up this section so that it explains the benefits of your solution.)
The Abstract and Introduction should also clearly say that the approach performs well and securely. You're probably not in a mystery-writing field. :)
Using the word "successful" might be the wrong tone (or it may be OK). Other wordings would be that the approach is "promising" or "proven" or "demonstrated". You might want to look over the wording that published articles in your field use.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/03/21
| 668
| 2,744
|
<issue_start>username_0: I failed a crucial course for my major that serves as the foundation for many other core courses.
I retook the course and got an A, and have kept straight A's in my upper-level courses since then.
**Question:** What can I do to mitigate the fallout from this?
According to graduate admission committees that I've spoken to in the University of California system, this is a potential deal-breaker, which is why I'm a bit worried.<issue_comment>username_1: **You can address this in your statement of purpose.**
If you failed an intro-level course during your freshman year (e.g., intro to physics), no one is likely to care; straight As in all the core classes prove that you know your stuff. You can mention this in your statement of purpose, but I would do so only as an aside -- maybe even humorously.
If this course was a junior-level course (e.g., quantum), then this is a bit more serious. You should definitely devote ~3 sentences in your statement of purpose explaining what happened. It is a bit strange that you would get straight As in all the other courses and an F in a separate course, so they'll be glad to see a reasonable explanation.
My concern is that they may assume the anomalous F was due to cheating -- so I would definitely give an explanation that they can buy, rather than letting them make their own conclusions..
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I failed a crucial course for my major that serves as the foundation for many other core courses.
>
>
>
This by itself shouldn't prevent you from attending grad-school. Good students fail courses sometimes for a number of reasons, family emergency, taking too many classes, working too many hours at a job, etc.
>
> and have kept straight A's in my upper-level courses since then. [...] this is a potential deal-breaker
>
>
>
I feel there is more to this situation than a single failed class. Is your GPA in line with the published average of an accepted grad student? Were you a middling freshman student, and got serious as a Junior? Does your transcript bear out that this one class was a fluke, or does it show a return to an old pattern?
If you have a good overall GPA, and good letters of recommendation, then I don't see why an admissions committee would dwell on a failed and re-taken class.
By "graduate admission committees" did you do an interview with the faculty members of the department in which you will be working? In general, you submit your application to the university, which then filters base on minimum GPA and test scores, and passes it onto the department you applied to. Did you talk with someone in the department you'd like to attend, or a person in the admissions department?
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/22
| 4,342
| 18,446
|
<issue_start>username_0: Context: I am an assistant professor of mathematics at a small liberal-arts college in the US.
I did my graduate work at a large public university, and there I rarely encountered students who had previously taken a class from me, let alone ones who had failed one of my courses. Now that I'm at a much smaller institution it happens somewhat frequently, and I've only finished one semester here!
At this time I have no idea how I should react to these encounters. Generally former students and I exchange a pleasant greeting, but I find myself instinctively trying to avoid students who've failed because I'm afraid that they are still angry at me, I don't want them to feel bad, etc.
The title of my question says it all: How *should* I react when encountering students who have failed one of my courses? I could simply treat them like any other student, but I'm concerned about reinforcing the stereotype of "the tone-deaf mathematician with poor social skills."
Perhaps this question is a better fit for the interpersonal stack exchange, but I figured I'd start here.<issue_comment>username_1: Since you are at a small liberal arts college, I think you should not underestimate how much your own actions contribute to the culture of the college community. The notion of "avoiding" students is not something that you or your college wants to be known for (I imagine)! I think it is always best happily greet students that you know, perhaps ask them how things are going, etc. On some level, this kind of pleasant behavior is a professional obligation.
I don't think you should act any differently towards students who have failed your course (vs. students who did not fail, or haven't taken a course from you, etc.). Be cordial, and if the student wants to avoid you, then let them.
I will add that, while it's possible the student is mad at you, they may also be some combination of embarrassed and mad at themselves for failing. If they are embarrassed, then you avoiding them might make them feel worse, and you engaging with them might help them to get over the embarrassment.
Upvotes: 9 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: That students failed your course should not mean that you should avoid them.
I think lecturers should accept (and most do) that there is always the chance that a number of students will not pass their course. (Sometimes there might be good reasons. Sometimes your course just happened to be the one where a student learned a life lesson — e.g. "laziness doesn't help you pass your exams", or even "mathematics wasn't my destiny after all").
But that shouldn't mean that these students should no longer be part of usual human interaction, such as greeting people you know.
Actually, I would say avoiding certain students would be awkward and actually would contribute **more** to *reinforcing the stereotype of "the tone-deaf mathematician with poor social skills."*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In public, you should treat them as any other student. Being able to *play* the tone-deaf one is actually an advantage here! If the situation arises, you may acknowledge casually you have *met* before (without specifying when and where). The worst thing for *them* would be being singled out in front of their fellow students (like in "...advancing to the next problem. X, you should already know how to handle that... that is, if you have been revising since...").
If you want to improve the local culture: when you have opportunity to take them aside very discreetly for a moment, you might offer to them something like this:
>
> If you want to know what went wrong the last time, or want some pointers of what exactly the goal that you will have to meet is, just drop in at my consultation hours - and I'll explain.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If they're angry with you, they shouldn't be.
*They* failed your course, you didn't fail *them.* If anything, their attitude should be one of apology and yours should be, I expect you to try harder this time.
A little bit of indifference on your part is not too much. They have to prove themselves to you, after all. Once you see they are making an effort and that they are likely to pass this time, you can lighten up.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: TL;DR: ***be consistent***
Speaking from the other side of this: I once struggled severely with one math class in particular and ended up taking it 3 times. I failed the first two times (the first try was a dud - I was a terrible student; the second time I gave it a good try but found the subject very difficult) then the third time with my studiousness greatly improved and my understanding of the subject finally sinking in, I aced the class. Here's where it's most relevant to your question: **I had the same teacher all three times**.
As other answers noted, the students really ought to be upset with themselves. Even bad teachers - and I had some qualms about this teacher - are rarely the sole reason for failure, as if so many students were failing the school would or at least could be urged to intervene. A large part of my failure was my own habits and then my own difficulties with the subject. How did the teacher handle that, and how would I have preferred them to have handled it? Thankfully, both those questions get the same answer; that teacher did a great job in my opinion.
The teacher was **respectful, fair, and aware**. It was a relatively small class at a huge school, so ultimately a pretty large class (~60 students). She **acknowledged** knowing me with **simple** eye contact, smile, nod that sort of thing and knowing my name (which is unusual in such a big class) but she **did not make me feel uncomfortably highlighted** at all, she **respected my space and left it up to me to stand out or hide**. She **continued holding me to the same standard** as before the 2nd and 3rd time I took her class, **not wavering** to have higher or lower expectations, which I appreciate. Lastly, she **didn't ignore or emphasize the situation, but she did acknowledge it where appropriate**: as I came to her for help one-on-one she'd gently give advice on where she thinks I need to focus efforts on or just general study tips, encouraging me to come to more office hours and work with TAs if I'm struggling, but then she'd leave it at that. **No dwelling on past failures, no extreme pushing to get me through** (I mean, she did fail me *twice*...err, or rather *I failed* her course twice). Even as I started to succeed (I eventually aced the class!) she maintained the qualities I described above, albeit more encouraging and "keep up the good work" rather than "I recommend you \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_". Her ***consistency*** with me, and also between me and other students, was an important part of the respectful relationship we maintained through it all (even despite my grumpiness through some of it, especially in my bad-student days where I'd try to put the blame on her when it laid most solely with me in that first attempt).
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: Honestly? As a student I'd find it more awkward if you were. Just smile and say hi like you would with anyone else. I always find if a professor is friendly and approachable then it's more reassuring.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I joined to answer from a student's perspective.
I failed a 3rd level calculus course. Briefly, I had taken Calculus 1 from a professor and wanted to continue with her - she was demanding, but a very good and fair instructor. In order to schedule Calculus 3 under her, I took Calculus 2 in an accelerated summer course. I wasn't well prepared and failed the Calculus 3 course. My feelings toward the professor were never negative. I still believed that she was a good instructor and my failing grade was my responsibility.
Several students advised me to retake Cal 3 under a different, more lenient professor. Instead, I retook the course under the original professor. She never treated me as a sub-par student, and I never treated her as if my failure was her fault.
My point - treat your student as a former student that you have met before, but not as one who has animosity toward you. It's very possible that they learned from you and still hold you in high regard in spite of the failure.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I suppose failing does happen, but perhaps the answer here is to best as possible prevent students from doing so. Have you considered during the term trying to reach out to underperforming students to discuss their progress in the course? Many of them may be too embarrassed to reach out when they are struggling with the material, and it may be best also if their grade is at a point where they can't turn it around to advise withdrawal from the course rather than fail [this could be a particular institutional quirk - but in the universities I attended it was considered better to withdraw for no grade than fail and receive a 0].
This pre-loads the awkwardness to during the semester, but intervention can help some students bring it around, or at the least feel that their difficulties are acknowledged - and will help ensure a continued professional and respectful relationship.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I'm surprised at the premise of this question. **You're assuming failure is bad.**
As educators, there's a responsibility to teach a subject matter, but also an implied responsibility to teach a culture and skillset that prepares students for life. If you teach your students that failure is something to be embarrassed about *to the extent that it makes you avoid simple interactions with people who are aware you failed,* then you're missing the opportunity to teach them that failure is a learning opportunity. By avoiding students, you're playing into the negative stigma, which is the *real* way you're "failing" these students.
Some others above have suggested not avoiding the students, which I agree with, but I really feel you need to take this a step further and incorporate a "don't be afraid of failure" attitude into the class itself, versus just after the fact. Help students prepare themselves for failure. Even if they don't fail your class, **they're going to fail something at some point in their lives, and you have an opportunity to prepare them for that.**
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_10: Background: I was a student at a small science and engineering school (which has since reclassified as a liberal arts college), and I failed my first semester freshman math class (calculus). I made up the class by taking a comparable class at an adjacent school. In my sophomore year, it became clear that being a semester behind in math was going to make all my science and engineering classes that much harder. I wasn't sure about the best way to catch up, so I sought advice from the only math professor I knew at my school: the one whose class I had failed.
I dropped in during his office hours and explained that I was looking for advice on how to catch up.
How I wish the conversation had gone: Prof: "Good question. What options have you considered?" Me: "Doubling up on math classes next semester or taking a differential equations class at a community college over the summer." And then we'd weigh the pros and cons or maybe he'd suggest a third approach.
How the conversation actually went: Prof: "You failed my class? I don't remember that." Me: "Well, yeah, water under the bridge. What I need now is--" Prof pulls out grade book and tallies up all my homework and exam scores (twice) and compares it to the curve for that semester and repeatedly apologizes because it was "really close." I didn't need or want to hear that. The effect was that this completely derailed the conversation and made the whole thing an uncomfortable visit to a past failure.
Takeaways: Students fail classes. They may blame themselves or you or external circumstances. Regardless of the actual (or perceived) reasons, at a small school, they're likely to need your help in the future. They may even end up in another one of your classes. If they're still at the school, working toward a degree, focus on now and not on the past. Treat them like all the other students. The ones who blame you and hate your guts will avoid you. If you avoid the others because you think it's the polite thing to do, that might embarrass/intimidate them from seeking your guidance or signing up for another class that might actually benefit them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: You should not avoid the repeats. They do not feel bad in general. Remember that if somebody is doing your course again, he or she may have done really well in other areas. Failing the odd course here and there is normal at a credible tertiary institution where they do not give degrees away and hence the degree still holds value. Remember that final exams have multiple candidate numbers and you did not specifically fail that person because there were no names on the scripts .
When I repeated control systems in 1986, the lecturer was very surprised to see me back because he thought that I was good in class when it came to asking questions. I get on with him fine. If you have a sense of humour, you can crack jokes about your repeats. Some students deliberately fail the odd thing to prolong a nice social life anyway. They will pull finger and pass when they feel like it.
At university everyone is clever enough to pass with a C or better because otherwise they would not have passed the entry exams .The dean said this in 1979 . If somebody fails it is because they are lazy. The only stuff I failed had early morning lectures and I through being lazy got myself in the internal assessment boat where I needed more than 50% in the final to pass where others could pass on say 38%. So none of this is your fault so the repeats can’t feel bad about you.
I am very thankful that my department made me repeat. It was borderline repeat material but I needed the year to grow up. Instead of working on the door, I got a part-time research position. At the time I was the only undergrad to have one; so I realised that it was a privilege and pulled finger and made something of it. So some repeats have nothing to be angry about at all.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Though there are many good answer, felt to add a few lines. Failure and success is a part of the game. Don't underestimate the students who have failed your course and that does not make you an inefficient teacher provided you have given your best.
Treat them as other student but give them more attention and try to understand why they have failed in your course. Talk to them friendly and try to know the root cause of the problem so that with the due course of time they can over come that challenge and gain success next time.
"Actions speak louder than words", give a good gesture to the students and encourage the students who have failed so that they would try their level best to come as successful candidates next time.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_13: >
> At this time I have no idea how I should react to these encounters. Generally former students and I exchange a pleasant greeting, but I find myself instinctively trying to avoid students who've failed because I'm afraid that they are still angry at me, I don't want them to feel bad, etc.
>
>
>
I'm not a professor, so take this for what it is. The reason you're asking already establishes that you care, which is a great thing. You care for your success in being a teacher as well as the success of your pupil.
If it were me, I would ask the student if they would mind meeting with you after class. There, I would have a conversation. Acknowledge that they were previously enrolled in your course and were not able to perform to the satisfaction that you think they are capable of — it's important to express you think they are capable of succeeding (otherwise you would be having a different conversation) because it communicates to them that they have potential and you aren't discouraged by their past performance.
Over the course of the conversation I wouldn't focus on their inability to perform, but express that you would like them to succeed. In order to do so, you would like to identify what did and did not work for them last time (perhaps it had little to do with your course and there were external factors affecting their performance) and determine if there are any steps you both could take to ensure success. Perhaps leading to a plan for them (or possibly you) to follow through on.
In any case, don't act like you have never met the student or their previous time in your course did not happen. Don't shy from events that occurred or let them influence your behavior. You formed a student/teacher relationship last time, this time will be building on it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_14: You should always remember you are judging the performance of the student, not the student himself/herself.
It maybe this person has to work outside school hours to make ends meet, needs to take care of someone at home, has boyfriend/girlfriend trouble, has medical issue etc, - a thousand circumstances none of which are of your business to know - so she or he could not devote enough time to your class.
Failing (or doing poorly) should never make you loose sight that you are teaching real people with real and sometimes complicated lives. Thus, treat him/her like you’d treat any other student, irrespective of score in your course.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_15: Several of the existing answers are excellent, but I'd add a couple of things:
* when you give students a failing grade, accompany it with constructive, actionable feedback for passing the class at the next attempt; that sends a message from the start that you're willing to work with that student again and it's nothing to feel awkward about;
* if the students in year $n$ see you, in classes, interacting in a cordial way with students who failed the class in year $n-1$ and are repeating it [\*], then that sets the right expectation for any students who fail the class in year $n$ and repeat it in year $n+1$.
[\*] I'm assuming the students know who among them is a repeater and who isn't. If they don't, then data protection laws in some jurisdictions may stop you from telling them.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/22
| 4,259
| 18,123
|
<issue_start>username_0: I sent an email to a potential supervisor for PhD in Computer Science with a concise introduction, research I am exploring and a brief about how one of his publication is relevant to my research. Put in some good question around it as well. Then I asked if he is willing to take PhD candidates in his lab.
I received a response within half an hour of sending the mail. Though the content is a bit ambiguous. It says, "Thanks. There is just one position available in a particular stream. So please go ahead and apply."
How do I interpret it? Does this mean he is ready to supervise? He didn't put in any response to my question though. How do I reply to him further as I'll have to mention in the application if the supervisor is ready to take me in.<issue_comment>username_1: Since you are at a small liberal arts college, I think you should not underestimate how much your own actions contribute to the culture of the college community. The notion of "avoiding" students is not something that you or your college wants to be known for (I imagine)! I think it is always best happily greet students that you know, perhaps ask them how things are going, etc. On some level, this kind of pleasant behavior is a professional obligation.
I don't think you should act any differently towards students who have failed your course (vs. students who did not fail, or haven't taken a course from you, etc.). Be cordial, and if the student wants to avoid you, then let them.
I will add that, while it's possible the student is mad at you, they may also be some combination of embarrassed and mad at themselves for failing. If they are embarrassed, then you avoiding them might make them feel worse, and you engaging with them might help them to get over the embarrassment.
Upvotes: 9 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: That students failed your course should not mean that you should avoid them.
I think lecturers should accept (and most do) that there is always the chance that a number of students will not pass their course. (Sometimes there might be good reasons. Sometimes your course just happened to be the one where a student learned a life lesson — e.g. "laziness doesn't help you pass your exams", or even "mathematics wasn't my destiny after all").
But that shouldn't mean that these students should no longer be part of usual human interaction, such as greeting people you know.
Actually, I would say avoiding certain students would be awkward and actually would contribute **more** to *reinforcing the stereotype of "the tone-deaf mathematician with poor social skills."*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In public, you should treat them as any other student. Being able to *play* the tone-deaf one is actually an advantage here! If the situation arises, you may acknowledge casually you have *met* before (without specifying when and where). The worst thing for *them* would be being singled out in front of their fellow students (like in "...advancing to the next problem. X, you should already know how to handle that... that is, if you have been revising since...").
If you want to improve the local culture: when you have opportunity to take them aside very discreetly for a moment, you might offer to them something like this:
>
> If you want to know what went wrong the last time, or want some pointers of what exactly the goal that you will have to meet is, just drop in at my consultation hours - and I'll explain.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If they're angry with you, they shouldn't be.
*They* failed your course, you didn't fail *them.* If anything, their attitude should be one of apology and yours should be, I expect you to try harder this time.
A little bit of indifference on your part is not too much. They have to prove themselves to you, after all. Once you see they are making an effort and that they are likely to pass this time, you can lighten up.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: TL;DR: ***be consistent***
Speaking from the other side of this: I once struggled severely with one math class in particular and ended up taking it 3 times. I failed the first two times (the first try was a dud - I was a terrible student; the second time I gave it a good try but found the subject very difficult) then the third time with my studiousness greatly improved and my understanding of the subject finally sinking in, I aced the class. Here's where it's most relevant to your question: **I had the same teacher all three times**.
As other answers noted, the students really ought to be upset with themselves. Even bad teachers - and I had some qualms about this teacher - are rarely the sole reason for failure, as if so many students were failing the school would or at least could be urged to intervene. A large part of my failure was my own habits and then my own difficulties with the subject. How did the teacher handle that, and how would I have preferred them to have handled it? Thankfully, both those questions get the same answer; that teacher did a great job in my opinion.
The teacher was **respectful, fair, and aware**. It was a relatively small class at a huge school, so ultimately a pretty large class (~60 students). She **acknowledged** knowing me with **simple** eye contact, smile, nod that sort of thing and knowing my name (which is unusual in such a big class) but she **did not make me feel uncomfortably highlighted** at all, she **respected my space and left it up to me to stand out or hide**. She **continued holding me to the same standard** as before the 2nd and 3rd time I took her class, **not wavering** to have higher or lower expectations, which I appreciate. Lastly, she **didn't ignore or emphasize the situation, but she did acknowledge it where appropriate**: as I came to her for help one-on-one she'd gently give advice on where she thinks I need to focus efforts on or just general study tips, encouraging me to come to more office hours and work with TAs if I'm struggling, but then she'd leave it at that. **No dwelling on past failures, no extreme pushing to get me through** (I mean, she did fail me *twice*...err, or rather *I failed* her course twice). Even as I started to succeed (I eventually aced the class!) she maintained the qualities I described above, albeit more encouraging and "keep up the good work" rather than "I recommend you \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_". Her ***consistency*** with me, and also between me and other students, was an important part of the respectful relationship we maintained through it all (even despite my grumpiness through some of it, especially in my bad-student days where I'd try to put the blame on her when it laid most solely with me in that first attempt).
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: Honestly? As a student I'd find it more awkward if you were. Just smile and say hi like you would with anyone else. I always find if a professor is friendly and approachable then it's more reassuring.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I joined to answer from a student's perspective.
I failed a 3rd level calculus course. Briefly, I had taken Calculus 1 from a professor and wanted to continue with her - she was demanding, but a very good and fair instructor. In order to schedule Calculus 3 under her, I took Calculus 2 in an accelerated summer course. I wasn't well prepared and failed the Calculus 3 course. My feelings toward the professor were never negative. I still believed that she was a good instructor and my failing grade was my responsibility.
Several students advised me to retake Cal 3 under a different, more lenient professor. Instead, I retook the course under the original professor. She never treated me as a sub-par student, and I never treated her as if my failure was her fault.
My point - treat your student as a former student that you have met before, but not as one who has animosity toward you. It's very possible that they learned from you and still hold you in high regard in spite of the failure.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I suppose failing does happen, but perhaps the answer here is to best as possible prevent students from doing so. Have you considered during the term trying to reach out to underperforming students to discuss their progress in the course? Many of them may be too embarrassed to reach out when they are struggling with the material, and it may be best also if their grade is at a point where they can't turn it around to advise withdrawal from the course rather than fail [this could be a particular institutional quirk - but in the universities I attended it was considered better to withdraw for no grade than fail and receive a 0].
This pre-loads the awkwardness to during the semester, but intervention can help some students bring it around, or at the least feel that their difficulties are acknowledged - and will help ensure a continued professional and respectful relationship.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I'm surprised at the premise of this question. **You're assuming failure is bad.**
As educators, there's a responsibility to teach a subject matter, but also an implied responsibility to teach a culture and skillset that prepares students for life. If you teach your students that failure is something to be embarrassed about *to the extent that it makes you avoid simple interactions with people who are aware you failed,* then you're missing the opportunity to teach them that failure is a learning opportunity. By avoiding students, you're playing into the negative stigma, which is the *real* way you're "failing" these students.
Some others above have suggested not avoiding the students, which I agree with, but I really feel you need to take this a step further and incorporate a "don't be afraid of failure" attitude into the class itself, versus just after the fact. Help students prepare themselves for failure. Even if they don't fail your class, **they're going to fail something at some point in their lives, and you have an opportunity to prepare them for that.**
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_10: Background: I was a student at a small science and engineering school (which has since reclassified as a liberal arts college), and I failed my first semester freshman math class (calculus). I made up the class by taking a comparable class at an adjacent school. In my sophomore year, it became clear that being a semester behind in math was going to make all my science and engineering classes that much harder. I wasn't sure about the best way to catch up, so I sought advice from the only math professor I knew at my school: the one whose class I had failed.
I dropped in during his office hours and explained that I was looking for advice on how to catch up.
How I wish the conversation had gone: Prof: "Good question. What options have you considered?" Me: "Doubling up on math classes next semester or taking a differential equations class at a community college over the summer." And then we'd weigh the pros and cons or maybe he'd suggest a third approach.
How the conversation actually went: Prof: "You failed my class? I don't remember that." Me: "Well, yeah, water under the bridge. What I need now is--" Prof pulls out grade book and tallies up all my homework and exam scores (twice) and compares it to the curve for that semester and repeatedly apologizes because it was "really close." I didn't need or want to hear that. The effect was that this completely derailed the conversation and made the whole thing an uncomfortable visit to a past failure.
Takeaways: Students fail classes. They may blame themselves or you or external circumstances. Regardless of the actual (or perceived) reasons, at a small school, they're likely to need your help in the future. They may even end up in another one of your classes. If they're still at the school, working toward a degree, focus on now and not on the past. Treat them like all the other students. The ones who blame you and hate your guts will avoid you. If you avoid the others because you think it's the polite thing to do, that might embarrass/intimidate them from seeking your guidance or signing up for another class that might actually benefit them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: You should not avoid the repeats. They do not feel bad in general. Remember that if somebody is doing your course again, he or she may have done really well in other areas. Failing the odd course here and there is normal at a credible tertiary institution where they do not give degrees away and hence the degree still holds value. Remember that final exams have multiple candidate numbers and you did not specifically fail that person because there were no names on the scripts .
When I repeated control systems in 1986, the lecturer was very surprised to see me back because he thought that I was good in class when it came to asking questions. I get on with him fine. If you have a sense of humour, you can crack jokes about your repeats. Some students deliberately fail the odd thing to prolong a nice social life anyway. They will pull finger and pass when they feel like it.
At university everyone is clever enough to pass with a C or better because otherwise they would not have passed the entry exams .The dean said this in 1979 . If somebody fails it is because they are lazy. The only stuff I failed had early morning lectures and I through being lazy got myself in the internal assessment boat where I needed more than 50% in the final to pass where others could pass on say 38%. So none of this is your fault so the repeats can’t feel bad about you.
I am very thankful that my department made me repeat. It was borderline repeat material but I needed the year to grow up. Instead of working on the door, I got a part-time research position. At the time I was the only undergrad to have one; so I realised that it was a privilege and pulled finger and made something of it. So some repeats have nothing to be angry about at all.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Though there are many good answer, felt to add a few lines. Failure and success is a part of the game. Don't underestimate the students who have failed your course and that does not make you an inefficient teacher provided you have given your best.
Treat them as other student but give them more attention and try to understand why they have failed in your course. Talk to them friendly and try to know the root cause of the problem so that with the due course of time they can over come that challenge and gain success next time.
"Actions speak louder than words", give a good gesture to the students and encourage the students who have failed so that they would try their level best to come as successful candidates next time.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_13: >
> At this time I have no idea how I should react to these encounters. Generally former students and I exchange a pleasant greeting, but I find myself instinctively trying to avoid students who've failed because I'm afraid that they are still angry at me, I don't want them to feel bad, etc.
>
>
>
I'm not a professor, so take this for what it is. The reason you're asking already establishes that you care, which is a great thing. You care for your success in being a teacher as well as the success of your pupil.
If it were me, I would ask the student if they would mind meeting with you after class. There, I would have a conversation. Acknowledge that they were previously enrolled in your course and were not able to perform to the satisfaction that you think they are capable of — it's important to express you think they are capable of succeeding (otherwise you would be having a different conversation) because it communicates to them that they have potential and you aren't discouraged by their past performance.
Over the course of the conversation I wouldn't focus on their inability to perform, but express that you would like them to succeed. In order to do so, you would like to identify what did and did not work for them last time (perhaps it had little to do with your course and there were external factors affecting their performance) and determine if there are any steps you both could take to ensure success. Perhaps leading to a plan for them (or possibly you) to follow through on.
In any case, don't act like you have never met the student or their previous time in your course did not happen. Don't shy from events that occurred or let them influence your behavior. You formed a student/teacher relationship last time, this time will be building on it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_14: You should always remember you are judging the performance of the student, not the student himself/herself.
It maybe this person has to work outside school hours to make ends meet, needs to take care of someone at home, has boyfriend/girlfriend trouble, has medical issue etc, - a thousand circumstances none of which are of your business to know - so she or he could not devote enough time to your class.
Failing (or doing poorly) should never make you loose sight that you are teaching real people with real and sometimes complicated lives. Thus, treat him/her like you’d treat any other student, irrespective of score in your course.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_15: Several of the existing answers are excellent, but I'd add a couple of things:
* when you give students a failing grade, accompany it with constructive, actionable feedback for passing the class at the next attempt; that sends a message from the start that you're willing to work with that student again and it's nothing to feel awkward about;
* if the students in year $n$ see you, in classes, interacting in a cordial way with students who failed the class in year $n-1$ and are repeating it [\*], then that sets the right expectation for any students who fail the class in year $n$ and repeat it in year $n+1$.
[\*] I'm assuming the students know who among them is a repeater and who isn't. If they don't, then data protection laws in some jurisdictions may stop you from telling them.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/22
| 2,283
| 9,631
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a Ph.D. student, I am curious about the following: if you collaborate with a researcher(not necessarily your advisor) while being a student, should you write in your dissertation the work of the other collaborator?
Assume that while being a student, you collaborate with Prof. X, and you write a paper together. In this paper, the work was split 50-50, so that half of the results belong to Prof. X.
What should you do when writing your dissertation? Most probably, omitting the results of Prof. X will result in a significant gap in the thesis. I am particularly interested in the case of mathematics: if I cite the result, should I give a proof?<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer: Yes. However, it may depend on several details. In my case, I did include results from a collaborator in my thesis and that was generally accepted. I was however asked to provide an acknowledgement section where I had to clarify which results were done by me and which by the collaborator. Also, my thesis was in organic chemistry so things might be different in mathematics. So while I can't say if it is common or not in mathematics, I can tell you that it was allowed in my case.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I had a similar situation in my thesis, in math. The third chapter was based on a work that was jointly done with another researcher, a professor from another university. (In the end the paper we published was even with two other researchers, as we decided to join our efforts.)
1. I had to ask the researcher for permission to include our joint results. This is a no-brainer (though of course he was happy to let me do it). When I sent out the thesis to my committee (of which he was part), I also sent him a copy beforehand and asked him if he was okay with what I had written, as they were his results too and he might want to check that I didn't mangle them before releasing them into the wild. My advisor also was on board from the start, but I imagine that you have to ask for permission if this isn't the case.
2. I had to include acknowledgments for this in my thesis. Basically, I wrote a paragraph at the beginning of the chapter, stating "this chapter is based on joint work with [...]". Again, this is a no-brainer. I cannot claim all the results are due to me if they aren't. However, I didn't say anything of the sort "I did X% of the work and the other researcher did (100-X)% of the work", this isn't how it works, and it would have been in rather poor taste. At least in mathematics, it's expected that co-authors contribute roughly the same amount of work to a joint paper, but it's not an exact "50-50" (or 33-33-33, or 25-25-25-25...) distribution.
3. The whole thesis had to be written by me, in my own words, including the results and the proofs that were actually due to the other professor. Moreover, I obviously had to perfectly understand, and be able to explain, and defend, all the results, as if they were mine.
All of this was explained to me by my advisor. It's possible that regulations in your university say something different. The essential part, I believe, which is only hinted at in the steps above, is to ask your advisor what to do exactly.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It is completely normal to include in your thesis work that was done in collaboration. Almost every PhD thesis in STEM subjects includes at least some collaborative work, simply because your PhD itself is a collaboration between you and your advisor.
Usually, you just need to clearly state what work in your thesis was done in collaboration and with whom. It may also be expected that joint work should be put in your own words, rather than just copied from the paper. That's good practice anyway, since it's a great way to make sure you really understand the work. And you'll need to understand it because you can be examined on anything that's in your thesis.
Check your individual university's regulations for the precise details. And ask your advisor – this stuff is literally their job.
>
> Assume that while being a student, you collaborate with Prof. X, and you write a paper together. In this paper, the work was split 50-50, so that half of the results belong to Prof. X.
>
>
>
That simply isn't how collaboration works in mathematics. The results "belong to" all the authors, because they came from a creative process that heavily involved all of them. Of course, some parts of the work will be solely by one person sitting in their office with a cup of coffee until they figure it out on their own, but it's mostly not like that. And usually, even these "solo results" receive at least some contributions from the other authors as the paper gets written and rewritten. And, very often, even if it was Author A who came up with the actual proof, Authors B and C were part of the process that led to that particular technique being chosen, and so on.
Of course, there are some exceptions. Sometimes, an author joins a collaboration late because their expertise on some area is needed. In computer science, papers are often released first as a shortened conference version (which is a peer-reviewed publication, unlike in mathematics) and later, the full version appears in a journal. I'm aware of papers where extra authors have been added to the journal version because of specific contributions they made after the conference. I guess the closest analogue in mathematics would be a paper going up on the ArXiv and then acquiring extra authors. If an author in that situation was a PhD student, I'd expect their thesis to include only a high-level summary of the material that existed before they joined the project.
The fundamental rule is honesty. If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you made significant contributions to the work and you're clear about who else contributed, it's almost certainly fine. If you're including big chunks of stuff that you made no significant contribution to, I'd hope you already know that it's wrong to say "I did this."
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to the accurate answers so far, it's worth pointing out that the **order of the author list** matters in some fields: The first author is generally assumed to be the lead author, that is, the author who contributed most. In these fields it can be the case that lead authorship is required for claiming a paper for your PhD thesis.
Details may depend on the institution. For example, at the institution where I did my PhD, the regulations explicitely required three papers with me as the lead author for a cumulative PhD. A colleague of mine, who collaborated in a group where authors were always listed alphabetically, had a statement in his thesis where he assured that he was the de-facto lead author of his papers.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: In our country, the Higher Education Commission requires a student to publish at least one paper in any well-reputed journal (IMPACT FACTOR or MASTER LIST JOURNAL) with lead authorship. However, there is no such restriction on including papers into thesis with multiple contributors.
In my personal opinion, I humbly suggest that a written consent of the co-authors should be obtained. To me, it sounds good both ethically and to be on a safer side. Also, the rules of the university matters, if they are silent then go ahead but atleast get a written consent of the co-authors for dealing with any possible future issues.
Hope this helps
-- username_5
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: The instructions when I did my thesis were to just be clear about contributions from other people. I had 5 or 6 pieces and really 3 of them needed to fit together like a triangle. One of those 3 was mostly done by a visiting summer scholar. I got him started and did some measurements, but he took his "triangle leg" and drove it himself.
I always considered it part of my original domain so I wanted it in there. Plus you would have had a logical content gap if you omitted it. I just wrote a sentence or two paragraph (in italics, in main text) at the front of the relevant chapter. I think this was adequate. Being upfront and explanatory. But didn't require some long, precise allocation of every detail. Just the basic explanation that I gave you here. There was still "plenty of work" where I was the main driver so it was not an issue.
We had already co-published the "triangle leg" separately as a regular journal article. Visiting scholar taken care of (put as first author of that leg).
It is very normal that people work in collaborations (especially in experimental science) and that different students need to write up their theses in addition to regular journal articles. Just be upfront about what you did (don't say you fabricated samples if you did measurements or visa versa).
I am not used to some big signoff from the collaborators. They just wish you well. It is a good touch to give them a copy of the thesis (electronic or spiral bound, bound volume not required) so that they can learn from it, benefit from it, retain it for insights for themselves. Sometimes theses go into a bit more detail or are better explanations than terse journal reports.
If you are STILL worried, just notify him of your plans (going to have our collaboration as chapter 3, will credit you). Collaborator can squawk if he wants. (Unlikely, he will wish you well instead.) Uh...just don't try to get him to help you write thesis or the like...it's your glorified term paper, not his school assignment. He will be journal article driven.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/22
| 880
| 3,921
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does one violate the copyright of images in any sense if one uses them in research (for example in memory tasks) and writes a scientific publication based on these data, **but does not publish images in the article**?
Is this part of the fair use policy?<issue_comment>username_1: It seems like using a paper for research. I do not see much difference to owning a copy of the paper and reading it again and again. Or copy and paste part of it to your notes. The latter doesn't mean plagiarism as well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: While the key would seem to be to make sure that you cite the use of the images, I would also contact the creator of the images to make sure that they are fine with reusing them. I did this while working on my dissertation, which not only secured permission, but also served as networking.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: When you write up the methods to say you used a particular image, you are providing evidence that you had some copy of it and used it in the way you state. If the copyright holder is highly litigious or offended by your research, this is evidence that you did something that (they may argue) violated copyright. When you rely on copyrighted images, you are also reducing what you can show to colleagues and reducing others' ability to build on you work.
It probably depends on what country you're in and how/why the images were created and distributed by their creator. For instance, if you buy a memory game illustrated with famous cartoon characters, then use that game in your study, you are probably much safer than if you create a comparable game from pictures of those famous cartoon characters. **I highly doubt you will get in any trouble unless you're using the images in a defamatory way** (e.g. if the memory task induces implicit threats, or if you're measuring which copyrighted cartoon characters are most hated, and that's your main result).
Jim's answer might especially apply if the images were created by a fellow researcher and you are trying to expand on that person's work. There, you are likely to gain permission and gain professional contacts.
Ideally, in experiments going forward, **you can avoid any uncertainty by using public domain images or images you made yourself**. Then you can publish the images in an appendix, which may even make them standard figures for other researchers to use (and cite) in similar studies. A friend studying elementary school learners described using certain picture books in her research, but to publish her dissertation using key illustrations/page layouts, she had to write for permission and/or find comparable open source images to convey the key points.
**If the particular images are extremely important**, then you should justify that in the paper, and it may help you if you ever need a fair use defense. It might also make it easier to seek permission from the copyright holders to explain that the quality of their work makes it uniquely valuable for your research. E.g., you're working gaining children's trust across a language barrier and you found that using familiar characters encourages responsiveness. Or if you're looking at people's perceptions of media and you want to do experiments on reactions to real photojournalism, it would make sense to use existing pictures.
I'm not a lawyer, but there may be additional complexities depending on how you use the image. If you have to **manipulate the images** for your memory tasks (e.g., you edit out a detail and see if people notice), this might be more legally complex with a copyrighted image, since you are making a derivative image. And even **how you present the memory task** may matter: on paper with original purchased image (e.g. print from a museum store) vs. on paper with duplicated image vs. on a computer (in the U.S., might invoke Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/22
| 295
| 1,270
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to cite the words “cascade of disparities” which actually comes from the title of an article. Under the APA style, do I need to include a page number since the words are in the actual title (and used throughout the article)?<issue_comment>username_1: When you say article, I assume that it is a research work published in a journal (or a conference). It this is the case, you have to follow just the APA style whether or not it is from title or other parts of the paper. So, that might include the page number.
e.g. Authors (Year). Title, Journal, Volume, Issue, PP: .
Alternatively, you could look for the words in a base paper (a paper from where these words have been adapted).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: A short, repeatedly used piece of terminology like this does not need to be localized to a particular point. Attempting to pin down a particular page number doesn't make sense, because what you're really referencing is the *concept* as developed in the article, rather than some particular sentence.
I would thus say that you should treat it as a scientific citation rather than a quotation: cite the article as a whole as the context, and do not attempt to give a page number like you would for a quote.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/22
| 1,777
| 7,454
|
<issue_start>username_0: From my own point of view, the first year of a PhD is heavily packed with new information, theory, techniques, conventions, experimental abilities, etc. Let us call all these elements "material". This new material required a lot of effort which I felt as a heavy burden in comparison to my master thesis or any previous academic experience. This burden was also complemented by requirements of the PI, funding entities, bureaucracy, etc.
The second year was also heavily packed with new and deeper material. But the burden of acquiring this new material was in my opinion, lower. This perception of a lower burden can be due to better learning methods, more experience, a more relaxed view on life, due to actually less new "material" to deal with.
I felt as if I had to sustain the same first year burden for several years, I would eventually collapse. And even though the second year burden was lower, I would not be able to continually perform at a good level under such burden.
Is there any point in an academic's life where the burden diminishes? I enjoy learning new stuff, carrying out new experiments and acquiring new skills. But the rate at which I feel this is necessary during a PhD is for me too high and I would not like to have a permanent life under this burden.
Just to be clear, it is obvious that in Academia it is necessary to acquire and master new "material" continuously. My question focuses on the "rate", if it makes sense.<issue_comment>username_1: The first paper I read took two months to process.
Now, I can skim through two papers for breakfast. It is not that you get more material to read, but rather you get much more efficient at skipping things you know or recognize as unimportant.
It comes with practice - try reading papers and books, and think about what are the important parts. Learn to identify the 'meat' and which techniques are used. Also, you'll notice that instead of learning 'the stuff', it is about cataloging and storing meta-information about where to find 'the stuff' once you really need it.
After a while, you realize that most of the new papers you read, you only need the gist of it, in order to reference it. Comparably few papers need to be read and understood in paragraph-by-paragraph detail.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: (Based on my personal experience:)
On a given, very specific, subject - the rate does diminish; on the overall set of subjects you're concerned with - not so much. Or rather, there are ups and downs.
But the above is in terms of, say, pages, or words. As you learn more, familiarize yourself with patterns in people's work, writing, thought - you catch on faster. If you do achieve mastery of a something, you could get to a position where someone shows you a paper and after a few minutes' thought, if not less, you basically know what it's about, what the implications are and a few likely avenues they have taken to get their results. (But, again in my experience, this happens for some subjects, and in others you may still have the sense of having to part the see every time.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience as a student of science in junior college, in the first year I had this tendency to memorize everything in my textbook and notes. This method is not sustainable especially for the sciences. In my second year, I started spending much more time on the basics and see if I understood it or not. This method was sustainable as well as studies seemed much less of a burden because your study time boils down to whether you understood the concept or not. If yes, that's great. If not, you refer to other sources to understand it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: You used the word "burden" 9 times in your question. My guess is you are learning at way above your comfortable rate.
Once you finish your PhD, in fact once you get through all the mandatory material, you will have much more control over the rate at which you learn new things. You will also position yourself to do what you are more comfortable doing and learning. Learning will feel much less like a burden that is pushed upon you and more like an interesting activity. This way you may keep or even increase the rate of learning, but greatly reduce the effort required to learn new material.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: As one of my Professors once said:
>
> You are lucky to be young, because when you reach my age, you simply *can't* learn radically new things!
>
>
>
So, basically, there is a point when the 'burden' becomes unbearable! So, clearly at some point the burden becomes less, as *this is nessecary*! (at least, for my professor)
However, this is pretty late in your career. As a PhD student, you really have to learn how to organise and manage the information. (But always be *clever*! The greatest problem solvers (such as Leonhard Euler or Louie Pasteur (I recall reading a nice story by Hamming (yes, from the distance) about Pasteurs' skills)), can find effective solutions *while knowing a lot less than experts in the field*)
Clearly, being a scholar is more than hoarding information, it is about deciding what is important to remember!
So, when does it get less? When you do less research, really. When the main reason you're getting paid is because you are now a manager and reeling in the grant money.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: The answer partially depends on what you mean by "Academia". If you are on a research-centered career trajectory then of course you need to keep current in your field (with all of the reading that this involves) as well as perhaps branch out into related fields so you don't become too 1-dimensional.
On the other hand, if you end up in a smaller, teaching-oriented institution, you still need to learn new things -- but what you need to learn changes. I teach in such a place. I have long since given up trying to keep current in the specialty that I studied in graduate school, and I only read a handful of research papers per year. Instead I do things like spend time increasing my knowledge of physics (something I never studied in school) so that I can be more informed when I teach differential equations, learning R programming so that I can become a better stats teacher, sometimes even learning a topic which is brand new to me because I want to teach a course in it (e.g. I knew nothing about cryptography until I developed a course for it). My experience in teaching-based academia is that the *depth* of the learning that you need to do is greatly reduced compared to graduate school but that the *breadth* of the learning that you need to do is greatly increased. You might need to move from being a specialist to being fairly eclectic.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: It is largely up to you. There are academics that become experts in a very specific field. If you take that path, depending on the popularity of that field, there may not be a huge amount of new material that you will need to learn once you have absorbed what there is. So, the rate of learning will diminish considerably once you are "caught up".
However, other academics like to explore and change focus. If you take this path, each time you change focus, you will be like a new PhD student, and have to learn the literature for the new topic. However, as other answers have indicated you will learn to learn faster.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/22
| 853
| 3,631
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently writing my PhD thesis, in a mathematical field in physics. I have published a handful of papers, and the thesis is going to be mostly based on these results. I assume that, even though they are published, I should be including full proofs in the thesis.
I also assume I will effectively need to rewrite these proofs, if only for copyright reasons, having surrendered some of my rights to the journals in which these papers were published, and also for self-plagiarism reasons.
Is there anything I should look out for, and are my assumptions correct?<issue_comment>username_1: Regarding copyright: It depends on the agreement you signed when the papers were accepted for publication. All of the agreements I've signed stated that it was OK to include the paper in a thesis.
Regarding self-plagiarism: Talk to your advisor, but typically you include a statement in your thesis that some of the contents are taken from your papers, and include a list of those papers. Then you can include your papers (in whole or in part) without needing to rewrite them. However, unless you're doing a "stapler" or "sandwich" thesis, you'll probably need to do some rewriting just to make the story flow.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't see how this is any different from using a proof published by another author in your thesis. Papers are published so that their results are cited. It would only be plagiarism if you didn't cite it appropriately. Your real question seems to be "can I include the proofs themselves in my thesis?" and it seems that the answer is yes. Think of what it would mean to re-write the proof - presumably you'd use different variables, but the logic and reasoning would follow almost exactly. If it didn't, then either it's a new proof (and therefore it isn't under copyright and may lead to another publication) or the proof would be incorrect.
I also think you are misunderstanding the point of the re-write. You state that "I'm not allowed a stapler thesis, so some amount of re-write is necessary". I disagree. Simply re-writing an entire paper and putting it into your thesis, even if you edit it for flow, doesn't really relieve you of the responsibility that you seem to have - that the results be either entirely novel or that there is a single, big result in the thesis rather than several smaller ones. If you have 5 loosely related papers and put it into a thesis, that's what we might call a "stapler thesis". If you have 5 papers that follow a logical progression from part 1 to part 5, then whether you just staple the papers together and call it a thesis or you write the thesis in 5 chapters, ensuring that the ideas/writing style flow properly, that's a different thing altogether. However, if there is a mathematical proof in one of those papers, re-writing it won't change the fact that it's already in that paper and therefore is not a novel result.
If your thesis depends so strongly on those proofs that the thesis essentially *is* the set of proofs, then I'd argue that unless you did that work as a PhD student you'll have a harder time convincing people that your work is worthy of a PhD - it wouldn't be novel research. If we could do that, then a well-published author could just enroll in a PhD program ever year and complete it by just submitting a thesis made up of the results from previous papers. On the other hand, if these proofs are useful, but an uninterested reader could just accept the citation and an interested reader could go and find the paper, then I think you have nothing to worry about by including them.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/22
| 571
| 2,362
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in Applied Mathematics. I submitted my Phd thesis and starting to apply for postdoc positions.
In my PhD thesis I have one work published in a tier 1 math journal and the other two works still unpublished. My question is the following: Should I submit the unpublished works in tier 1 journals and try to improve the quality of the manuscripts (with the reviewer's suggestions) or, submit to 2nd/3rd tier journals so that it gets accepted as soon as possible so that my paper count increases. I want to apply for faculty positions after 2 years from now. At this phase of my career what option should I choose?<issue_comment>username_1: If the question is whether to emphasize quality or quantity of publications, the answer is "both." But if you have to pick one, go for quality. People understand that peer review takes a long time, so it will not necessarily be held against you if your papers are still under review when you're applying for jobs. But it will be held against you if the papers are substandard in quality, or if they're published in mediocre journals.
>
> Should I submit the unpublished works in tier 1 journals and try to improve the quality of the manuscripts (with the reviewer's suggestions)
>
>
>
You should first of all improve the manuscripts as much as you can on your own, and with your advisor's help. Then submit to appropriate journals. Manuscripts do sometimes improve with referee comments, but just as often, a referee will reject a paper without detailed feedback (especially if the paper is clearly not good enough). Attempting to treat peer review as a free editing/consulting service would be a waste of the editor's and referee's time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Depending on your particular subfield, having the works on arXiv might be enough for your 'paper count'. Judging papers by the journals they appear in borders on misconduct although it is widely practised. The notion of having 'tiers' for journals is also disputable: some top tier journals like Nature and Science have been criticized for publishing flashy but unreliable papers.
If you want to improve your manuscripts, do not count on journals, have them read by colleagues. If you want to publicize your work and improve your career prospects, give seminars and go to conferences.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/22
| 2,221
| 9,133
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing my PhD in Germany and I’m under a three year DFG grant, which ends in September, and with it my visa. Although I can get an 18-month visa to find a job after my PhD, this won’t be granted until after my defense (when I get my certificate).
My supervisor had no idea that my residence in Germany depends on my employment contract/grant with the university.
I asked him if I could submit my dissertation at the end of July and be guaranteed a defense date in September. He told me cannot guarantee this and that I’ll just have to submit my defense earlier.
I don’t want to rush my writing (I’m technically submitting my PhD early already) so finishing earlier than July is out of the question. But if I don’t get a defense date in September, I will have to leave Germany and come back to defend it. I come from a country that requires a Schengen visa, so coming back won’t be as easy as hopping on a plane.
Right now I am seriously considering submitting my thesis in July and then flying back at the end of September with or without a defense date. If I don’t get a defense date then I effectively quit my PhD.
What should I do? Any advice would be appreciated.
**EDIT 1:** Thanks for all of your advice. I'm slowly going through it.
I asked my supervisor if I can do it remotely and he said that Skype-ing for dissertation panels is not allowed. So he won't even consider a virtual presentation.
**EDIT 2:** My supervisor and I had a meeting and we discussed a few options. Since we are inviting a professor in the US to the panel, it is in everyone's best interest to have a tough timeline in mind. The timeline we selected is within the validity period of my current permit. Still no guarantees as anything could go wrong, but it's better than nothing.
Thanks again for those of you who gave thoughtful responses. To those of you who thought my question "makes no sense", I apologize deeply for my profound ignorance and I'm sorry that you didn't find my question relevant, unlike many people here. (Ironically my thesis is about online communities and how some more established members treat less active ones.)<issue_comment>username_1: Talk to the relevant office in your institution.
You're unlikely to be the first person in this situation, and there are most likely ways to get your visa extended or renewed.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You should talk immediately with the International Office (or equivalent) at your university, as well as any student-coordinated offices at your university. This is by no means the first time that they will have dealt with such a situation. Usually there are workarounds available—for instance, you could be extended on a part-time contract for a few months while waiting for the defense to be completed. You certainly do not need to be employed full-time to qualify for a visa—you just have to be able to show sufficient income, which even a 50% contract would be enough to satisfy.
However, I should point out that, depending on the university, there is no way to guarantee that you can turn in your thesis in July and be able to defend it in September. For instance, in the faculty where I used to work, reviewers were given *three months* to review a thesis. So if you turned in your thesis in July, you probably would not be able to have a defense before the beginning of November. You'll need to check the regulations for your program to see when the defense can be scheduled relative to the thesis being handed in.
Moreover, the "art" of scheduling a thesis defense requires getting enough examiners together at the same time, never an easy task in the German system.
However, to answer your main question, don't you think that quitting and starting over is counterproductive? If you're already writing a thesis, that shows you're relatively near to completion, and that your advisor thinks you're ready to move on. Giving that up because of the logistics of scheduling a PhD defense seems very shortsighted. Why would you not think that the same thing couldn't happen if you started over and worked somewhere else? Since you're so close to finishing, get it done!
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the easiest way to resolve your dilemma is to apply for an extension of your stay in Germany.
Even though you got your visa in your home country, you don't necessarily have to go back to your home country to apply for an extension of your stay — the relevant authority is called Ausländerbehörde (officially Landesamt für Bürger- und Ordnungsangelegenheiten — LABO). (Having to return to your home country might apply if you are a tourist applying for a new tourist visa — in any case, this should not apply to you.)
Since you are studying for a PhD at a recognized university/institution, you might have to apply for a *new* student visa (if you're currently on a work/tourist visa, say), or simply for an *extension* of your student visa.
Being enrolled as a student is enough here — even after your scholarship/grant expires, you stay a student until you graduate (i.e. defend your thesis). Of course you cannot stay a student forever and there is a limit to finishing your PhD studies, but it's longer than three years (usually more like seven).
Depending how big your city is, getting the necessary documents and an appointment at the Ausländerbehörde might take some time (usually 6-8 weeks for the first appointment), so it's better to get to it right away. It's good to have some help with all of this, so please get the International Office of your university involved.
Of course, quitting and starting over is a ridiculous idea, as everyone has said.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> I don’t want to rush my writing so finishing earlier than July is out of the question....I am seriously considering submitting my thesis in July and then fly back at the end of September with or without defense date. If I don’t get a defense date then I effectively quit my PhD.
>
>
> What should I do? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>
>
While you said you're unwilling to rush your writing (it's out of the question), you also said that any advice would be appreciated.
Your advisor has advised you:
>
> He told me ... that I’ll just have to submit my defense earlier.
>
>
>
He believes you'll be able to do so to the standards required. It may be that your standards are higher than the reviewer's standards, or that he believes you can meet their standards in the time frame you need to.
In the absence of better information, I'd trust your advisor's assessment of your abilities, and work towards that goal.
If you run into issues, or need assistance, ask him for tools, techniques, services, and whatever other assistance you need that you may currently be unaware of. You might be surprised to learn, for instance, that there are resources dedicated to helping you with aspects of your work which you are currently unaware of.
Even if you disagree with your advisor, and cannot see a way to submit the kind of work you want to be known for, you should consider that it's better to submit your best possible work within the timeframe given than it is to abandon your work altogether.
It may be painful to let go of the ideal and settle or compromise on something less than your absolute best work, however you have a goal and a deadline, and if that cannot be resolved, then you shouldn't throw what you have away.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: First of all, you should change your mind from QUIT to COMPLETE your PhD.
So once you decide to complete your PhD, then you will definitely find a number of favorable ways how to do it. I can understand your situation at this moment, but never feel alone to take a right decision.
So as suggested by username_2 and others, there must be a division in your University who takes care of the International students.
So PLEASE visit that division in your university and ask them that how can you extend your VISA and can work somewhere part-time to support your staying.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> If I don’t get a defence date then I effectively quit my PhD
>
>
>
Not necessarily, it's perfectly possible to obtain a visa to come back for the defence.
However, it's best to avoid having extra travel costs, visa costs, losing time, and taking the risk of missing your defence because of a delayed visa. You should try to extend your current visa to cover the defence. **Don't wait until the defence date is known**, try to clarify your situation as early as possible.
While your first contact should be the person responsible for foreign students at your university, I advise you to **clarify the situation directly with the relevant government agencies**: Ausländerbehörde or Auslandersamt. In the worst case, you will hear the same story twice. However, if the view of your situation by the the agencies is different, you should know that the decision about your visa will be taken by government officials alone, and it will not depend on what university staff told or promised you.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/22
| 587
| 2,602
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm trying to think of things that can contribute to reducing the review time of a paper, and to get the most relevant reviews.
Are there some best practices with regard to submitting a paper to a journal?
For example: Is it better to wait until after big holidays? How long in advance of an holiday should one submit? Does it help to suggest reviewers to the editor? Are there certain things that should be mentioned in the cover letter?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience as both and author and an editor, the number one thing to reduce the review time of a paper is picking the right journal:
* A paper well-aligned for a community is likely to get reviewed more quickly than one that is dubiously aligned.
* Even amongst good journals, some operate much more quickly than others. For ones that show: "received, revised, accepted" dates in addition to publication, you can check this directly in their archives.
Beyond that, the next big barrier is finding reviewers and getting them to return reviews on time. Recommend a couple of people who would be fast and enthusiastic reviewers --- but also leave off some obvious choices. Editors will take some recommendations (and if they're good folks who return reviews quickly, that helps a lot). They will also typically want the majority of reviewers invited to *not* be your buddies that you recommended, so only recommend a few and leave off people they are likely to think of on their own.
Finally, papers that are easier and more pleasant to read get faster reviews as well. Pay close attention to the flow of your narrative and the ease of grasping key points from skimming through and looking at the figures. Good reviewers will read the whole thing, of course, but if you make it easy for them to organize their mental framework, it will go much better and faster and you'll be less likely to get misunderstandings.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'd like to add one item to username_1's answer: Keep the paper concise, including only what really needs to be in there. Concise papers make life much easier for reviewers, handling editors and readers.
By concise, I mean make the paper as short as you can make it, but no shorter. Ask yourself if you *really* need that extra parametric plot or table.
Push other material to Appendices (often useful in math-heavy theory papers) or Supplementary Material (often useful to describe minutiae of experimental procedures), or even keep it off altogether.
Avoid wordiness; it makes reviewers -and handling editors- weary.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/23
| 590
| 2,565
|
<issue_start>username_0: For some concrete study, I need to find for some keywords, papers that have just one author. I used PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science, but in any case, I could not find a way to filter bibliographic search results by a specific number of authors, or a number less than some exact number of authors. Anybody knows how to do this with mentioned tools (PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science) or others?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience as both and author and an editor, the number one thing to reduce the review time of a paper is picking the right journal:
* A paper well-aligned for a community is likely to get reviewed more quickly than one that is dubiously aligned.
* Even amongst good journals, some operate much more quickly than others. For ones that show: "received, revised, accepted" dates in addition to publication, you can check this directly in their archives.
Beyond that, the next big barrier is finding reviewers and getting them to return reviews on time. Recommend a couple of people who would be fast and enthusiastic reviewers --- but also leave off some obvious choices. Editors will take some recommendations (and if they're good folks who return reviews quickly, that helps a lot). They will also typically want the majority of reviewers invited to *not* be your buddies that you recommended, so only recommend a few and leave off people they are likely to think of on their own.
Finally, papers that are easier and more pleasant to read get faster reviews as well. Pay close attention to the flow of your narrative and the ease of grasping key points from skimming through and looking at the figures. Good reviewers will read the whole thing, of course, but if you make it easy for them to organize their mental framework, it will go much better and faster and you'll be less likely to get misunderstandings.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'd like to add one item to username_1's answer: Keep the paper concise, including only what really needs to be in there. Concise papers make life much easier for reviewers, handling editors and readers.
By concise, I mean make the paper as short as you can make it, but no shorter. Ask yourself if you *really* need that extra parametric plot or table.
Push other material to Appendices (often useful in math-heavy theory papers) or Supplementary Material (often useful to describe minutiae of experimental procedures), or even keep it off altogether.
Avoid wordiness; it makes reviewers -and handling editors- weary.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/23
| 756
| 3,308
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know there is a thread related to this topic but I just want to know how does an MS in Pure Math or Applied Math look in a PhD Statistics application in top school (Ivy League, Stanford). I'm currently at the top 50-60 school in Math and I would like to know what a committee member of top PhD school look at me. Also, do you need to have research experience during master year since a lot of master program is intensively learning graduate courses in your first year. Thus, once you apply in the fall of second year in the Master program you might not have research experience or publication yet.
I also have research experience during my undergrad year, with a perfect GPA in math major. Not sure how the master will turn out but I just want to ask how would people view my PhD application if I apply (assuming I would do decent or pretty well during my first Master year)<issue_comment>username_1: I went from an MS in pure math to a PhD in statistics. My transition was just fine. Many doctoral programs in statistics, especially those at "elite" universities, tend to actually be rather math heavy. You will be well suited to pursue questions in mathematical statistics and probability theory. A robust understanding of linear algebra and real analysis are always helpful in statistics.
You will need to make sure that you have a background in at least a few things:
* Be sure to perhaps take an introductory stats course if you can. This will allow you to learn the basics of the terminology.
* Become competent in some programming languages. C++ is good. Python is good. R is great. You may struggle in some classes if you are completely inept at programming.
* Try looking at the backgrounds of some of the students at your desired schools. LinkedIn or the school website can sometimes give you this information without excessive work.
* As for research experience, every bit helps. It would maybe not be a disqualifier if you have no research, but you should look into how feasible it would be to join in on a project. This being said, the biggest thing a committee would look for would be **potential** to do quality research. This can be shown in more ways than just straight up research.
Also, may I second @astronat's thoughts on going directly to a PhD if you are so inclined? It's not a solution for everyone, but it can speed up the process of obtaining the terminal degree sometimes. Note that going directly for a PhD is more likely to allow you to obtain funding immediately for graduate school.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you want to get drafted to the NBA, why you do you want to get trained in Barcelona FC soccer academy?
The simple answer is to go get a MS in Statistics (note that many places don't offer MS in math, and only give you that degree if you leave the PhD program prior to graduation).
Moreover, it is unclear which institute you're planning on getting the MS from, I hope it is from a good one.
Nowadays there are some applied math programs with concentrations on "data science/big data", those might be relevant a bit more to statistics/data science, but again those things change from place to place, studying how to very accurate simulations of fluid mechanics for example won't help you much in statistics.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/23
| 2,851
| 12,278
|
<issue_start>username_0: My question is in a similar vein to [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21276/best-practice-models-for-research-code).
My research requires code. I can write code and I know some things about writing good code. Both for readability, (e.g. standardised doc string, descriptive variable names, comments that describe the intention) and safety (assertions in the code, unit tests, sensible error messages). Adding these things takes me more time than omitting them.
At present I will typically do a bare minimum on my first attempt. So I will put a one line doc string in; use descriptive, but occasionally inconstant, variable names; and few comments. If the code doesn’t work first time I will go back and add unit tests and generally improve it's quality until it is functional.
If at a later stage part of the code needs altering significantly, (perhaps I realise I need it in parallel), then lots of the "polish" will need redoing. This does not make it enticing to polish more earlier on. Occasionally I will chase my tail over a fault that turns out to be originating in an older section of code, that I might have caught if I have been more thorough first time.
The code I write is almost always only used by myself.
Clearly there is a trade-off between doing things by the book and producing results fast. What would you look at to decide if you had found a good balance between these things?<issue_comment>username_1: As the
>
> code I write is almost always only used by myself
>
>
>
you only have yourself to please. So the only sensible answer is to balance things to minimize the frustration to yourself. Don't do things you see as frustratingly slowing you down until you are more frustrated by the problems caused by not doing them.
*However*, the more strategic question is whether you *want* to continue writing code that will only be used and seen by yourself. If you want to advance your career through collaboration with peers, or by building a group of researchers to work on and with your codes, then it will be better to do more earlier.
You then know you've found a good balance when the collaborators you want to work with still want to work with you after they've spent some time with your code.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You said:
>
> The code I write is almost always only used by myself
>
>
>
but I find this remark a little short-sighted.
In the moment, code may be used almost exclusively by the author/student-researcher, but eventually that student will graduate, and there may be some follow-on research to do. Woe to the next graduate student who inherits that mess, or the summer intern who gets hired to clean it up!
There are plenty of good reasons to invest a little time in writing better-engineered code:
* You (and others who may join the research team) will be able to further build upon a well-designed architecture
* What seems “self-documenting” now may be harder-to-follow than you think six months from now
* A lot of code gets ultimately gets used for longer than the original author speculated
* The more complex your code becomes, the harder it will be to debug later
Sure, there’s a tradeoff between immediacy of results and building for the future. But I’d cautioned against getting lulled into a false sense of security and churning out code as fast as you can with little regard to future maintainability and extensibility.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As you would with any other document, write for your audience. That is, write your code to make it help, as best as possible (yet still at reasonable cost), those who are reading it. Consider:
1. Will anybody other than you be reading the code, now or in the future? If it's a one-off script that you will quickly discard you need not worry much about readability. If nobody else is likely ever to look at it, you need to think about how likely your future self is to remember what was going on at the time and understand the conventions you used.
2. If others are likely to read your code, how technically adept with that particular language and libraries, and in general, are they likely to be? Can you use standard conventions used by programmers experienced in that language? Do you need write things in a way that experienced developers who don't know that particular language can quickly understand what you're doing? Do you need to avoid standard things (e.g., list comprehensions) that inexperienced developers might not understand well?
3. How well will the other developers understand the problem domain? Do you need to provide a detailed explanation of what you're doing and why you're doing it, or do you expect that when they look at a line they'll, e.g., immediately see that it's a form of Black Scholes equation and understand how and why it's being used there?
Keep in mind that making things more descriptive and adding more comments does not necessarily make your code more readable; for some audiences that may even make it less readable. Just as mathematicians can more quickly comprehend a dense equation than a long description of the equation written in "plain English," experienced developers familiar with a domain will take considerably longer to read verbose code written for a beginner than they will tight code written for an expert that communicates exactly what is needed and no more. As an extreme example, read this:
```
def double_a_number(number_to_be_doubled):
''' Given a number, this will return twice that number.
Parameters:
number_to_be_doubled: the number to be doubled
Return Value:
The doubled number.
'''
return number_to_be_doubled * 2
```
and then tell me if you think anybody would find it easier to understand than:
```
def double(x): return 2*x
```
Also be careful not to fall into the classic trap affecting inexperienced (and, sadly, even many experienced) developers of putting slavish devotion to rules ahead of the readability that those rules were supposed to promote. "Inconsistent" variable names and the like are not necessarily a problem (except for whomever is writing your [lint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)) configuration files) if your focus is on communicating with other developers rather than satisfying arbitrary rules.
And my last bit of personal advice, since you mention docstrings, always remember that a comment is only there because you couldn't write clear enough code. If you feel a function needs a docstring, look first to see if you can't improve the function name, change positional parameters to named parameters, or use any other techniques to make the code state more clearly what it's about. (And if someone's telling you to put in docstrings anyway, refer them to my example above.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: How careful you are should be a pragmatic choice.
The point of the disciplines is to help you write working code (which you can keep working and extending).
This is *not* an academic exercise (Perhaps this is the wrong forum in which to make this comment). There are "no points for box-ticking good practices" (perhaps there *are* in your environment).
The good practices are hard-won lessons from the commonality of programming practice. In an environment where many programmers collaborate on code, which will often be maintained over a longer time than ever anticipated, they help to limit the confusion and re-work needed.
You sound like you are well on the way.
If you are near the beginning of your programmer-journey, I would recommend you explore the meanings of "DRY", "YAGNI" and "SOLID". And I would put in a special mention for unit testing.
In my own experience, unit-testing:
* helps you document *what* you intended the code to do when you sat down to write it, and it will let you check that it is still doing it, even when you make some apparently completely unrelated change miles away in your code, months later. Including little details like `nothing will be reported as null` or `nothing will be reported as empty-string`.
* winkles out your misunderstandings of your primary language or the associated framework and libraries you merely glanced over the documentation for, before adopting. These misunderstandings make for time-consuming bug-fixing if you have to find them out by debugging the consumer of your mis-implemented code.
* will encourage you to write appropriately granular code: it is such a nuisance trying to write unit tests for code which tries to squeeze too much activity into each routine (method, subprogram, etc.).
* is best begun before you actually create the code which it will later test. This might help you to focus more clearly on what your code ought to deliver.
* will find out early for you, when your early code-design needs to be thrown away. This will discourage you from soldiering on with a wrong design which you've made too much investment in already to be willing to throw away. It's all about making working code, not about enshrining your first master-plan.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think for the main question, "when is the code good enough?", the answer is simple: when it does what you want it to do, and you can be confident that the answer it gives you is correct.
There is definitely a trade-off for making your code nice, however. To me, that comes up in two places:
1. What if, six months later, you want to revisit your research results and see if you can come up with some improvements, or maybe you had hit a dead end so you are coming back to see if you can finish the work. Can you read your code from six months ago, and pick back up modifying it? Or is it too convoluted to follow and use? Ideally, you should be able to come back to your code in a year and easily understand what you were doing.
2. Your research does not exist in a bubble. Your next research project will probably be somewhat related to your previous one. Can your code be reused? Can parts of it be reused? Even if there are few benefits in your current project to making your code nice and modular, you may save yourself lots of time and effort down the line if you do this. Important functions and algorithms can then be moved over to your new setting with minimal adaptation. A side benefit is that you can replace certain pieces of your code with alternate implementations to see if you can get better results.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You say:
>
> The code I write is almost always only used by myself
>
>
>
Like others, I don't share this opinion. The code is GUARANTEED to be used by at least two people:
1. You
2. You three months from now.
Good internal documentation doesn't take that long, and will in the long run save you time and effort.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> The code I write is almost always only used by myself.
>
>
>
This comment seems somewhat misguided and I should predicate this by saying I write a lot of research code myself as well. The reason why I think this statement is misguided is because the code is being used for *something* (e.g., prepare data for analysis, analysis, modeling, etc.) and is ultimately going to impact any manuscripts you prepare. As such, ensuring that your code is readable by others is part of ensuring that your work is repeatable by others as well. Furthermore, if your code solves a problem that others have (quite common in research as well!) others may as for part of it to use in their own research.
That being said, with practice it is possible to write fairly readable code the first time around and just requires a bit of discipline. Some IDEs will force this upon you by checking variable names (e.g., do they conform to camelCase?), function names, function length, unit test coverage, and so forth. This tends to be a lot since it is unusual for people to go back and spend a lot of time improving code - once you have the results the bias tends to be to move on to the next project.
So the bottom line is that you should try to write code that is good enough to share with others the first time around. You never know when a reviewer may ask to see the relevant source code.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/23
| 1,922
| 7,913
|
<issue_start>username_0: It is a known fact that reputation and lineage are a very important factor in academia. Master students need recommendation letters to get a PhD opportunity and the same for PhD students looking for a postdoc position. If a PhD supervisor knows someone in another institute or a company, he can very easily help his student get a postdoc or a good job in the industry. If your supervisors are prestigious in the community, you can start your career much more easily than your peers. Conversely, a mediocre PhD supervisor may become an obstacle for his talented student.
I am a PhD student in CS, and I am at the final stage of my PhD. However, I wonder whether it is better to abandon my PhD degree because of the mediocrity of my supervisors. Since a thesis will be stored in a database; once deposited, the PhD student's name will be permanently bound to his supervisors, and if the public perception of my supervisors is low, I'm concerned that I may have difficulty building my own brand.
To address my concern, I would like to know which of the following states is likely to make it harder to become a leading scientist?
* having a PhD from mediocre supervisors in a mediocre lab, or
* not having a PhD, and building one's name from scratch?<issue_comment>username_1: Your argument for abandoning your PhD hinges on a few false premises.
P1) You will wear the mark of your PhD for your whole life.
That is not true. A PhD is, in principle, a degree given to someone capable of independent research. Whilst you do your PhD you may be associated with your supervisors. That's because you're a minnow in the sea and it is the easiest way for someone to know whether you are worth talking to (sorry about that). After your PhD, people will rarely if ever ask that. I say that as a postdoc.
P2) You will exchange your dignity for money if you renew your contract. WHAT? That's something internal to you, an external observer is unlikely to see it that way.
Moreover, if you do not intend to do a postdoc, none of these points you made will apply to industry people. They will just see that you have a PhD and they will think that's worth something.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not quite understand what career path you have in mind, but a PhD in computer science is very valuable in industry. In the US you can expect 6 figures minimum. Obviously this is better if it's related to an in demand field, but really CS is close enough for many, and it shows your ability to do independent research.
On the personal side, it seems to me like you'd be happier bringing this chapter of your life to a close (another option could be transferring to a different university for a clean start) but if you quit this close to finish line I wager you'd regret it in the future.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You must complete your PHD. Sure there are lots of useless PHDs but employers hate quitters much more than overspecailised irrelevent PHDs .So if you do not finish it will count against you badly .If you finish it may count for you .Maybe you should not have started but that is water under the bridge .Given that you have started and are more than half way there you should finish.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: If you dislike it as much as you imply and you're actually 2-3 years away, then by all means find something better to do with those years. But you say that you're very close, so I'll assume 6 months in my answer.
If I had to do it all over again, I would have not gotten my PhD; it was too much of my life that could have been better spent. However I have absolutely no regrets about the final 6 months, as difficult as they were. I recommend that you finish. Tech bubbles come and go, but potential employers and investors will *always* pay more attention to you if you have that particular set of initials. You will also gain personal experience in finishing something big.
Finally, if you're concerned that your project will yield valuable IP that the university or your former advisers will lay claim to if you complete it as a student, talk to a lawyer. Otherwise, as others have said, the "tribe" reputation stuff is nonsense.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I strongly argue that a mediocre Ph.D. is better than no Ph.D.
The standard path to bootstrapping yourself up after a mediocre Ph.D. is a sequence of rising postdocs. If you're really good, then when you move to a new institution with a postdoc, you should be able to do some nice work and build your reputation. After a year or two of that, you can try to move to a better institution with better resources and more interesting projects and do yet stronger work, etc. Doing two or three postdocs is not unusual, and is one standard path for improving one's lot after finishing a Ph.D. Moreover, even if your institution and/or advisor is known for their mediocrity, that may not count against you: "They didn't do something very interesting, but how could they under Prof. Boring? It looks like they did well with the topic they had to work on, though."
If you are interested in being a high-profile researcher in industry or other non-university research institutions, the path looks much the same (in fact, some positions in industry and elsewhere *are* explicitly set up as postdocs). Once you move to "permanent" positions, however, you will likely want to take a longer period between moves, so that you aren't perceived as being unable to stick with a job. For that reason, term-limited positions like postdocs are likely to be better for rapid mobility.
For many research positions, however, you will simply be disqualified (either explicitly or *de facto*) if you do not have a Ph.D. A Ph.D. is a minimal bar that shows you are capable of scientific work of some sort, even if mediocre, and if you have dropped out of a program, many people will assume you found you could not do this. You might be able to get around this by going through the world or tech start-ups, DIY engineering, or other non-standard routes, but this is much harder and the (scientific) success stories you hear about from these are very rare indeed---these worlds tend to make impact in other ways.
In short: a Ph.D. is a much straighter path to scientific prominence, and there are good approaches to help overcome mediocrity in your origins.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: I am an extremely imaginative person, and I can only imagine a few scenarios where leaving your PhD program (without transferring to another) would set you up with a better science "brand."
1. If your advisor is **not just mediocre** but committing fraud or widespread plagiarism or advancing pseudoscience.
2. If you left for an extremely prestigious job working for/with someone known for their rigorous science. Essentially, someone on the Stephen Hawking level sponsors you as not needing to trifle with completing your Ph.D. (Separate from that sponsor, though, you're unlikely to receive academic or government funding. And after the Theranos debacle, private investors will probably be asking for more credentials before funding "science.")
3. If your advisor were a world-class jerk/abuser (think the <NAME> of academia) *and* mediocre, people *might* cold-shoulder you for the association. Even then, though, leaving the lab would say good moral things about you, but only neutral scientific things about you.
As commenters point out, you can make up for your brand. If you're almost finished, a postdoc is a good opportunity to "rebrand." If you're a few years from graduation, consider networking at conferences, especially where there's a graduate student track or special opportunities grad students can apply for. Those are potentially ways to make up for networking and advising opportunities you miss out on with a "mediocre" supervisor.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/23
| 952
| 3,808
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've submitted a publication to an ACS Journal where I performed all the experiments myself, most of the editorial work, and all the coordination. Other authors agreed to let me be the corresponding author.
ACS spontaneously changed the corresponding author to the last author (which doesn't even have a position a our institution) and send following e-mail to him:
>
> Thank you for your recent submission. ACS Policy requires that the role of corresponding author be assigned to a senior editor who has the equivalent degree to Ph.D. If <NAME> has the necessary requirement, and you agree, we would be happy to update the manuscript records. Thank you for the confirmation.
>
>
>
Beeing in Academia since many years, I am pretty aware of what a corresponding author is as I am aware of the questions [Is it okay to list a PhD student as corresponding author?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86235/is-it-okay-to-list-a-phd-student-as-corresponding-author) and [Should student or supervisor be corresponding author for publications based on student research?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12423/should-student-or-supervisor-be-corresponding-author-for-publications-based-on-s), I'm a bit upset and asking myself on what base one can make such discrimination.
Since I couldn't find this ACS policy on their website: is this a kind of unofficial policy? What is the point of making someone corresponding author who doesn't have as much insights as I have?
I already have published in the past in ACS journals. My highest concern is that these only write to the corresponding author during the review and editorial process and the other authors are familiar with overfull e-mail boxes and "skipping e-mails"...<issue_comment>username_1: It is an extremely weird policy, and I never heard of any journal having a policy like this one.
I couldn't find a "general rule governing corresponding authors" that would apply to all the [journals of the American Chemical Society](https://pubs.acs.org/).
In 2012, the editor on chief of [ACS Nano](https://pubs.acs.org/journal/ancac3) wrote, in an editorial called "Who Are Corresponding Authors?",
>
> In order to be accessible to those requesting information or materials, the corresponding authors must be stable in their positions and locatable. Unless students or postdocs have long-term positions, it is typically not appropriate for these authors to be corresponding authors, even if they serve the function of submitting the manuscript. (There are occasional exceptions, such as where the senior author has passed away.)
>
>
>
Cf. <https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/nn301566x>
Their policy (that doesn't say anything about having or not a diploma) seems really strict, and, in my opinion, outdated, but it answers your question
>
> What is the point of making someone corresponding author who doesn't have as much insights as I have?
>
>
>
Well, their idea (at least according to this editor) is that it is better to have a correspondent, even not aware of all the details of the publication, that no correspondent, because the "student without long-term position" left without leaving an address.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: To answer the OP's question, a PhD student *should* be eligible to be listed as the corresponding author (and, when so many academic jobs are precarious in nature, it makes increasingly less sense to insist upon a 'stable' institutional email address).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you should try to do what <NAME> suggests and request that you be made joint corresponding author with the last author. I did this myself with an ACS journal when I was doing my PhD (around 2010) and the editor did not object.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/23
| 1,766
| 7,192
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been on the US tenure-track job market. I finally got an offer
(let's call it A) that I am happy with.
However, I have another interview scheduled (let's call it B). I think
it is unlikely that I would prefer B over A. They are comparable in
terms of academic strength, but there are strong non-academic reasons
to prefer A.
I'm wondering if I should cancel my interview at B. On one hand, I
feel like I should go ahead with the planned interview and it would be
rude to cancel. On the other hand, it's potentially a waste of time
(also rude) given that I am unlikely to take up a potential offer from
them.
Of course, it's theoretically possible for me to pick B over A. For
example, if the details of the offer from A aren't good (still waiting
for those) and B really impresses me. But it seems unlikely given what
I know.
What is the best course of action? If I do decide to cancel, how do I
go about cancelling? What reason do I give?<issue_comment>username_1: If you've decided that you prefer the offer that you have from A, then please cancel the interview at school B. School B can then offer the interview to another candidate who might actually want the job. It is not impolite to cancel an interview in this situation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As I see it, you should cancel if and only if you are sure that you prefer A to B. Not having seen the terms of A's offer sounds like a good enough reason to me to continue on with the interview at B: the terms may indeed not be what you were expecting, even based on what you already know. (Things can fall through sometimes, in both minor and major ways.) I feel that I should also remind you that having an offer at another school of comparable academic quality is just about the best possible leverage for *improving* the terms of a given offer. If you were completely sure that you would never prefer B to A then it is a bit ethically problematic to leverage B to improve A, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.
Concerning B's perspective, you write:
>
> On one hand, I feel like I should go ahead with the planned interview and it would be rude to cancel. On the other hand, it's potentially a waste of time (also rude) given that I am unlikely to take up a potential offer from them.
>
>
>
From my experience (on the hiring end of about a dozen tenure track job searches), it is overwhelmingly more likely that wasting their time will be viewed as rude. If you cancel immediately, they can immediately move on to the next candidate. I would expect them to bear you no ill will. They may even invite you back later. I would have no qualms whatsoever about cancelling if you are sure you are no longer interested.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I am answering based on a subtle but important point in your question. If I am misinterpreting, please let me know and I'll edit or remove my answer. You said:
>
> I finally got an offer (let's call it A) that I am happy with
>
>
>
but you also said,
>
> For example, if the details of the offer from A aren't good (still waiting for those)
>
>
>
To me, **it sounds like you don't yet actually have an actual offer** in the sense of a binding, written document - maybe it was a verbal offer? At any rate, you're admitting you don't yet have enough details to make a decision about offer A.
If that is true, I would absolutely continue pursuing option B, until such a time as you get the details (preferably written) from A that allow you to decide.
I do agree with the other answers that it would be more rude to waste their time in an interview if you already have an offer you like (versus being rude by declining the interview) but I think it is critically important to be clear with yourself about whether or not you do actually have an actual offer from A or just a verbal discussion that's gotten you excited about a potential offer you may or may not get in the near future. You have a responsibility to B to decline their interview and let them know you have another offer you're taking but you also have a responsibility to yourself to make sure you do have an official offer with terms you can agree to from A. It would be a huge shame to cancel your interview with B only to discover A retracted their offer, changed the details, or gave you additional info you were unhappy with.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: The way I'd phrase it is, would you be interviewing at B "in good faith"? Are there reasonable circumstances in which you might end up taking their offer?
If A withdrew their offer, or some detail caused you to decline A, might you accept B? Or would you likely decline both, and keep searching?
I would decline B only if you're confident you do not foresee accepting any offer they're likely to make. But if B is a viable second choice, should A fall through, then by all means continue with the interview.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Your rationale for not cancelling an interview that will waste your time and theirs makes so little sense that no rebuttal is necessary.
However, it would make sense to refrain from cancelling the interview in order to hedge your bets.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: If I would give an advice here is never say no before you hear an offer, and never say yes before you think an offer.
So I would suggest going to the interview and then you can judge with facts which offer is the best to you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I will go one step further than the other answers here. It sounds like B is a good school that you would go to if you did not get the job at A. Others have correctly said that you should not cancel the interview if you haven't received a written offer from A (and only a verbal one).
That doesn't go far enough. **It is ethical to continue the interview process, even if you received the written offer from A**. There are actual cases of Universities rescinding written offers, and although it opens them up to legal challenges (and the situation is rare), there are definitely scenarios where they are allowed to do this. This can happen during negotiations. For example, if they think you are asking for unreasonable terms, they can [withdraw the written offer](https://jezebel.com/maybe-im-just-wary-but-the-humanities-and-liberal-art-1543117622) saying that the terms you were asking for showed you were a poor fit for the University. If you actually would consider B, you should continue the interview process until you signed an offer with A.
But I also agree with being completely honest and forthright as possible. One option that people have not mentioned is to inform school B that you have an informal verbal offer from another University. Tell them you are still interested in their position, and would just like to inform them of the other offer as a courtesy for both you and them, as it's in everyone's best interest to expedite the interview process if possible. If B really would be a great fit academically that you'd accept without an offer with A, you should try and speed up the process with B to see what they are like and what their offer is like.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/23
| 1,134
| 3,973
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a professor. Anecdotally, about half the people I know in academia have at least one parent who was or is a professor. (I was not born to any professors, for the record.) And then you see families like [this](https://harvardmagazine.com/2010/07/jasanoff-family-at-harvard).
I'm curious to what extent my anecdotal impressions align with overall trends. Is there data out there about which percentage of professors are children of professors, how being the child of a professor might influence your chances of getting tenure, and how such trends within academia compare to those for other professions (e.g., how many doctors are the children of doctors? do they earn more? etc.).<issue_comment>username_1: I've noticed this too. There is a longstanding literature (mostly in sociology) about social mobility that looks at parents' and children's occupations. [Beller and Hout (2006)](http://www.jstor.org/stable/3844789) report that father-to-son occupation correlation was about 0.30 to 0.40, and [Piketty (2000)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574005600800111) gives an overview of intergenerational mobility for a handbook chapter.
Getting closer to your question, [Torche (2011)](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/661904) finds that in the U.S. there is a "U-shaped pattern" of occupational (and other status) similarity, when child education is on the x-axis. For those with just bachelor's degree, their outcomes are barely correlated with their parents', but people with advanced degrees or low education are much more likely to be similar to their parents.
Through Google Scholar, I did not quickly find related literature about whether academic careers stand out from this trend in some way. However, I believe academia would have even higher intergenerational replication, for the following reasons.
* First, academic jobs require high levels of formal education, and education is one resource that is often transmitted across generations (cf. [<NAME>, 2011](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/661904)). (Professors could especially set up their kids for success while advising on what kind of college to attend, or whether a university offers good undergraduate research opportunities.)
* Further, academia has more or less an apprenticeship model and has many unwritten rules to navigate; growing up with that as the "family business" should help one navigate that career path.
* Finally, while there are lots of doctors and lawyers on TV, and those are professional careers many are familiar with, being a professor is a bit more of a niche career, and it may be harder for people from non-professor families to even think of it early on.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The New York Times have an [interactive analysis](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/22/upshot/the-jobs-youre-most-likely-to-inherit-from-your-mother-and-father.html?mtrref=www.google.com&share=1&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=C30284B65E06C496A21E0954F5EC7B71&gwt=pay&share=1) based on the results of the [General Social Survey](https://gss.norc.org/) you can use to query this data. Most jobs exhibit some amount of "heritability", so the observation that many professors are children of professors is not particularly notable. Professors have slightly higher heritability than average, but far less heritable than some other professions requiring advanced degrees:
1. "Professors and Lecturers": 5x more likely to have this job if you have a parent that had it than not. NYT says this is "higher than average"
2. "Elementary and middle school teachers": 3x, which NYT says is "about average"
3. "Doctor" (presumably medical): 25x
4. "Lawyer": 18x
Note that this data contradicts some of the speculation in the other answer. For this reason, I will refrain from speculating on explanations for the relative heritability of these professions without further evidence.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/24
| 932
| 3,954
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently submitted a paper to one of the Physical Review Journals (not Letters). I think that the result is both novel and important. After I uploaded the preprint to ArXiv, I received several emails from researchers in the field whom I do not know personally saying that they liked the paper and it is an important advancement in the understanding. People I personally know reacted similarly. I was sure that the paper would at least be reviewed considering that it seems to be important and that it is not submitted to PRL.
After two weeks, I got an email from the editor saying that it is being rejected without any review. My friend has got such rejection from the same journal, he received exact same text, which means that it was simply copy pasted. Now, I am a researcher who has a small number of citations, I have never published in Physical Review before and I am from a third world country. My feeling is that these things have biased the editor against the manuscript even though it is a good work if not groundbreaking and he should have at least sent it to reviewers.
I feel that I should write back to him these concerns. However, I have never done anything like this before and I am not sure if I risk lifetime rejection from the journal if I do this. I would be glad to hear the experienced researchers on this issue.<issue_comment>username_1: No doubt your first instinct is to challenge this desk rejection, but I would advise against it.
It is well known that appeals rarely succeed when referees go against you. When a handling editor thinks your work is not sufficiently interesting, I'd say an appeal is even less likely to be successful.
Coming specifically to Phys. Rev., your situation is somewhat worsened by the fact that alternatives to the Phys. Rev. A-X stable are not as attractive or popular.
But if your work is sufficiently useful, and helps advance your field, it will get cited even if you take your paper elsewhere. There is evidence for this in your case: You have senior researchers on arXiv giving you good feedback.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> After two weeks, I got an email from the editor saying that it is
> being rejected without any review. My friend has got such rejection
> from the same journal, he received exact same text, which means that
> it was simply copy pasted.
>
>
>
This is very likely true - journals get a substantial number of submissions, and for most actually tailoring their desk rejection emails would be overly burdensome, and likely not terribly productive.
>
> Now, I am a researcher who has a small number of citations, I have
> never published in Physical Review before and I am from a third world
> country. My feeling is that these things have biased the editor
> against the manuscript even though it is a good work if not
> groundbreaking and he should have at least sent it to reviewers.
>
>
>
While it is *possible* that those things are true, you have *zero concrete evidence* that they are. Most papers submitted to a journal get desk rejected. There are myriad reasons for that - it's possible the flaws are stylistic, rather than rooted in the results. It may not be a good fit. There may be more compelling items in the queue. The editor may simply not share the opinion of the people who have emailed you.
All of those things are possibilities, and far more likely than the editor being biased against the paper due to who you are.
As for whether or not you should email and appeal that decision, I wouldn't bother, as I'd place the odds of success at indistinguishable from zero. While I often encourage colleagues and students to appeal editorial decisions if they have *specific* ways to address a review that they believe is in error, etc., merely "I think it's good enough" isn't enough fuel to do that. You'd be better served prepping the paper for another venue.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/24
| 3,450
| 14,393
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student. I am feeling something unusual in my PhD: to me it appears that my supervisor ignores my correct answers and always gives me a feedback when my answer is wrong. I know this is a good thing, but the problem is that due to this kind of his behaviour I always feel demotivated and my confidence has gone very low. These days I try not to give many answers because I fear being wrong, which gives the (incorrect) impression that I am not curious about research. To me it looks as though in academia people will not highlight positive things about you, but they will highlight negative things about you.
**Question :** How to deal with this constant negative feedback in academia as a PhD student?
One obvious solution is not to pay attention to these things; but that is not working for me.<issue_comment>username_1: Different people have different needs when it comes to motivation, for some, this means positive reinforcement and encouragement when things are going well, for others, this means receiving negative feedback and constructive criticism when things aren't going so well. The issue is often that supervisors aren't *aware* of your needs, and manage their students with whatever approach they've used in the past / has worked with previous students.
I had a similar experience with my PhD supervisor, and it took us the best part of a year to come to a mutual understanding over how we could both accept things being done. Ultimately though, he's never going to be a positive person, so whilst tempering his approach, he's still far more likely to criticise than praise. A few things that helped me during my PhD:
* Make use of your co-supervisor / advisor / members of your thesis committee. Personally, I had a far better relationship with my co-advisor, so would speak to her when things weren't going well / I felt my supervisor was being unreasonably critical. She'd also been in the department with my supervisor for a long time, so could often bring things up in conversation with him that I couldn't.
* Make use of your supervisors other PhD students who you know have a good relationship with him. Rather than "I think this \_\_\_\_\_", go with "I was discussing this with XX and we came to the conclusion that \_\_\_\_\_\_"- even if you're still wrong, you avoid some of the initial criticism / hostility.
* Own your PhD. One of the hardest bits of advice I got given when I was unhappy with my supervisor was that I was somewhat responsible for owning my research. From your supervisors point of view this is your project and you should be driving it, more often than not you *should* know the answer, or at least be aware of the issues regarding your knowledge.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I believe this question will be challenging to answer by anyone that is not a psychologist (perhaps them as well). For the most part, I think this parallels a lot of the societal overtones witnessed today.
There is the cause-effect that occurs. A thing is said, a person said it, a person heard/received it. The sayer speaks with an intent. The hearer interprets what is said, decides on its meaning, and determines how they take/respond-to it. Signals sent, signals received, and signals translated. This is the core of what occurs when someone becomes "offended" where the interpretation of signals by the receiver has applied *offensive* intent, whether any was there from the start.
A topical example would be the modern election. Words that carry a connotation, such as “snowflake” or “macho” were used to describe a class of people, but they sparked emotion and people took offense. Words/messages by themselves cannot be offensive, it is only how we receive them that triggers an emotional response.
Of course there are many elements that determine how that communication signal (message, words, etc) is translated by an individual. Other factors such as intensity, repetition, etc influence how the signals are translated. Interpretations seem to be relative based on an individual's conditioning and how much the signals deviate from standard (societal norm). This is nothing new, it's like what defines *morality*.
In your case, it appears you are not conditioned to hear the constant negative feedback and thus are more responsive to it. Society today has been preaching empathy, handholding, and "babying" unlike any society before it. Whether that's good or bad is yet to be determined, but one thing is certain, little will change in your case without intervention.
Thus you have a few options:
1. You can change your philosophy and how you translate those signals so that your reactions work for you
2. You can hope the professor will come across something that will change their philosophy and behaviors
3. You can address your experience head-on
---
### Exploring Option 3
I think option 3 would do leaps and bounds for your psychological sanity and professional development. The goal, if it were me, would be to first establish a line of communication. Just stating the issue may be enough, not only for your professor to address the issue, but also in generating respect for you. Stating what does and doesn't work for you helps to establish your voice. Conducting the process of expressing your concern can also be therapeutic and relieve stress.
Next, I think a focus point would be not to concentrate on the critiquing/criticizing of your work, but to be thankful that they are giving warranted feedback and that the focus is to help you improve and meet your goals (succeed) with the professor's help. This will help sidestep any defense mechanisms and instead concentrate on the best way for you to succeed (part of that may be better feedback).
Finally, it is important not to come with just problems, but also solutions. "Your feedback doesn't help me" or "I feel demoralized with so much negative feedback" doesn't do as much as "I feel the repetitive feedback is negatively effecting my psyche and engagement on this topic. I think I could be more successful if…"
Of course you won't be able to control another person. Ultimately, your ability to persuade and work with them will help change their opinion or actions, but it is their decision to do so. They could even come back and change your philosophy: "The real world will give you more negative feedback than I ever could, if you don't have the moral fiber or mental vigor to surpass the challenges you will face, then you may want to consider a different career path."
Of course the innocent, blunt truth is if you don't want to receive negative feedback, don't do negative things that warrant it ;) This is very blanketed and argumentative, but should suffice to incite re-evaluation of a perspective and thus, even if it may be considered a "dumb" response, could have benefits in going through the process.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, please be aware of the following:
* There are some advisors who just never, or hardly ever, give positive feedback – no matter the quality of your work.
For some, this is just a bad habit they often are not aware of.
Others are convinced that this is the right approach for various reasons.
(If you ask me, this approach only works for a few students and applying it in general is flawed.)
* For much academic work, there is little positive feedback you can give.
For example, a talk you give mostly becomes good by you avoiding a ton of possible mistakes (of which almost everybody makes some), but that’s not something on which you can build a large speech of praise – often all you can say is that everything was easily understandable, well organised, and the slides were visually pleasing.
This makes it very easy for feedback to feel overly negative, even though this was not the intention.
(Of course, this does not excuse the critic for not giving any positive feedback or emphasising the good aspects.)
With this in mind, I suggest the following course of action (some of which you may already have done):
* Talk to fellow supervisees to find out what kind of critic your supervisor is.
This does not only give you information but may also confirm that you are not alone with your problem.
* If your supervisor is responsive to constructive criticism about their advising style, talk to them (ideally together with the entire group) to inform them of the problem.
This may do wonders.
* If you are sufficiently certain about your supervisor’s style of criticism, renormalise the feedback, i.e., try to interpret the criticism more positively, in particular interpret the absence of criticism as praise.
When leaving a meeting with your supervisor, try to first think about how much or little criticism you received and all the things that could have gone wrong and didn’t.
I know this is very difficult to trick your mind into doing, but once you get there, it may help a lot.
* Fish for compliments, in particular if your supervisor is the kind who just forgets to give praise when it’s due, e.g., as follows:
>
> Thanks for the detailed feedback, but what is your overall impression?
>
>
> I found part X particularly challenging and time-consuming. Do you think the way I did it is okay?
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: This is a partial answer intended to supplement existing answers.
When one is planning to assert oneself with someone, and explain what one needs, there is often a fear that one is going to sound too emotional and the other person will have trouble getting past the emotionality, and hearing the message itself. But I've noticed that the more one practices delivering the message, the more it becomes like stale cardboard, that one be rattled off like a shopping list. The feelings are still there, but they don't upstage the content any more.
Writing down a sample script and reciting it to oneself multiple times, however, isn't the kind of practicing I'm talking about. That can just fuel the anxiety. The kind of helpful practicing I'm referring to is when you practice by describing the situation and go through your proposed script with a supportive third party.
It can help to practice with several types of supportive listeners:
* The easiest person to do this with is often someone completely unconnected
with the situation.
* More challenging is someone in your department.
* A department administrator could be the equivalent of a dress
rehearsal.
You'll know you've practiced enough when you can get through it unemotionally, without your pulse getting faster.
Here is a sample script, showing a sample message that you might want to try giving to give your advisor. If you want to do this, I would recommend doing this in a special, short appointment made just for this purpose:
>
> I'm experiencing a crisis of confidence. I find myself always feeling afraid of saying something wrong, of making a mistake. This is affecting my ability to express my ideas. I find myself censoring myself because of self-doubt. This problem is interfering with my ability to function.
>
>
>
(**Short** pause to give your advisor the opportunity to ask how s/he can help. If s/he doesn't, though, that's okay, just keep going with the next part.)
>
> As I'm getting over this hurdle, I'd like to ask for your help. If you could make sure to tell me three positive pieces of feedback each time we meet, that would enable me to take more creative risks.
>
>
>
I have to warn you, even if your advisor agrees to this, and tries to do it -- some people have a way of poisoning compliments and making them sound worse than obvious corrections. If this happens with your advisor, then you're probably better off focusing purely on finding other sources of validation.
---
Separate from the above: when one is going through an anxious time, it's often a good idea to check in with one's primary medical provider, and let them know that one is experiencing more anxiety than usual. Doctors can track how impairing anxiety is for a person, over time. Also, they may have suggestions for managing the anxiety. (Such suggestions might include specific types of therapy or counseling, and/or medication.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I've been thinking about this a bit, will hazard an answer. To me, the other answers seem in the right direction, but seem a bit too emotional/unprofessional. I would try to be a bit more concise and fact based.
I would start by sending an e-mail like this:
>
> Dear Professor,
>
>
> Based on some comments you've made, I am a little concerned about my performance in your group. Do you have a few minutes this week for a brief, private meeting where we could discuss? Thanks,
>
>
> -Name
>
>
>
He may try to say "everything's fine" and avoid the meeting, but I would politely say that a performance review would be helpful for both of you.
In the meeting, I would let him do as much talking as possible. I would start with something like:
>
> I asked for this meeting because it seems to me like most of the feedback I get from you is negative, and I'm wondering if this is just a communication issue, or if you are actually unsatisfied with my performance.
>
>
>
I would have a couple examples ready in case he says he is totally unaware of the issue and asks for examples. Another good follow-up would be:
>
> I'm hoping to graduate in X years and would like to get a good recommendation from you for a job or post-doc. Are there any changes I will need to make if I am to earn a good letter from you?
>
>
>
I would suggest that you **don't try to change the professor's behavior**.
* If he says everything's fine, then there is no issue, and you need to relax (this is difficult for everyone, but counseling can help in severe cases). As others have said, there is no need to discuss things that are obviously good, so it is natural to feel like most of the discussion is based on the less good parts of your work.
* If he says that he is in fact unsatisfied and gives you a list of things to fix, I would try to build (with his input) some concrete, actionable steps, and request another meeting in 6 months to check on your progress. Make sure you distinguish whether he is just giving you room for improvement (no one is perfect) or whether he is actually unsatisfied with you (e.g., wishing he hadn't hired you).
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/24
| 4,987
| 22,681
|
<issue_start>username_0: During the last semester my supervisor Prof. X held a seminar for bachelor and master students (mostly computer scientists). According to the study regulations the students have to
* give scientific presentations (based on journal or conference papers) and
* hand in seminar papers on the topic of their presentation (i.e. their papers should cover the results of the original paper, lay out details of proofs, add additional explanations or examples, etc.).
The final grade consists of 2/3\*presentation + 1/3\*paper.
**Prologue.**
At the beginning of the semester Prof. X's research assistants compiled a list of interesting research papers. At the first seminar meeting the students were able to choose the paper they would like to present to the rest of the group at the end of the semester. Furthermore Prof. X made it very clear that understanding the topic is just a portion of presenting and writing down scientific ideas. Every student was assigned to a seminar supervisor to whom they could talk when they ran into problems.
Half-way through the semester there was an obligatory meeting with the supervisor and a deadline for handing in a draft of the presentation slides. At the end of the semester we organized a little "conference" and the students presented "their" papers. Afterwards, they received written feedback on their presentations from all participants (students, research assistents, and Prof. X). Six weeks later they had to hand in their seminar papers.
**Problem.**
Unfortunately the quality of many seminar papers is relatively poor; even the papers handed in by students who had understood their topic "quite well" and had given good presentations are surprisingly different from what we expected.
Main issues:
1. Even though they were allowed to use their native language, many papers had bad spelling (obviously no spell checker was used) and bad grammar.
2. In some cases it was impossible to understand the basic ideas if one had not already been familiar with the subject.
3. Imprecise language and almost no sources cited, e.g. "Algorithm Y is rather efficient in comparison with other algorithms." `[citation needed]`.
4. Some students only cited a single source (= "their" research paper).
**Questions.**
How should we address these issues? Of course, we are going to give some feedback on their seminar papers. I am worried about the next seminar. Reading all these papers was (mentally) exhausting. Should we require that seminar papers must be handed in first? How could we install an iterative feedback process?
I am looking forward to your ideas and experiences.<issue_comment>username_1: This sounds exactly like the situation we are experiencing at our university as well. We have improved the situation by forcing the students to write papers and similar texts every semester (starting from semester 1), in different settings, and we're giving detailed feedback afterwards. In our first and second semesters we are using this setting for one course:
* Students can select one topic and prepare it in a group of three (the idea is to mix people so they can give feedback within their group). We emphasize that everyone will receive a grade based on personal efforts and success, and there is no group bonus / malus.
* They will present the topic in a group of three (20 min presentation + 10 min discussion)
* We are giving a 3h presentation on scientific writing.
* They have to give their paper outline to their supervisor after about 3 weeks. The quality of feedback depends on the effort put into the structure. If they hand in "Introduction, Main Section, Conclusion", they will receive a "correct, but good luck" ;-).
* They shall hand in a first version after about 50% of the course. This version will be discussed in a personal feedback session of one hour by a scientific journalist
* At ~3/4, they have to submit their "pre-final" version to a conference management system.
* Everyone is now switching roles and becomes a reviewer. Every reviewer has to review two papers. The quality of reviews is part of the final grade.
* After the reviews. the groups have one more week to finish the final paper submission.
As said, we are following this highly intensive approach in semesters 1 & 2. In the subsequent semesters, we are having other settings, but we force them to write every semester. It seems to bear some fruits since the quality improves over time, but it's clear that we can't fully repair what went wrong during school...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Here are some thoughts on the four points you mentioned:
Point 1. From my personal experience general spelling and grammar skills seem to reduce, but are most of the time a matter of "I don't care enough" or probably "I did not have the time to check".
As you already did a mandatory meeting with them half-semester for the presentation you may additionally request that they have e.g. about a page of their paper written with citations, etc. Then you can already point out some details ("there are many spelling errors, please use a spell checker" or "you do not give any references, where does statement X come from?").
Points 2./3./4. If the students have never written scientific paper (or something similar) before it will be hard. I second the [answer by username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/107379/67791) in the sense that repetition and practice is key.
Additionally, the paper they have read might be the first paper so they might not know how to cite and that non-trivial statements have to be either proved or cited.
---
The idea of everyone having a seminal supervisor they can talk to is great but it assumes that people will actually talk to them.
Many might think that their problem (e.g. how to cite) is too trivial to bother the supervisor.
In general the things you can do are:
* In the beginning give a lecture/talk about scientific working and writing. Show how to cite properly, that citing is necessary, how to find additional resources etc.
* Make additional rounds of reviews, be it either between students themselves or by having the students hand it non-final versions of their paper to the supervisor and getting feedback on them. This also helps with the possibility of people just starting to write the paper shortly before the deadline.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It sounds like the oral presentations weren't so much the problem as the written work. Do you want to separate out the writing goal and work on that in a separate course? Or do you want to hold onto both goals, but increase the support given to the students on the writing prong?
If you choose the first option, you could offer something like a Technical Writing class, with a few group sessions and some one-on-one Teaching Assistant (TA) support, or you could ask the students to work with your campus Writing Center (if there is one).
If you choose to continue combining writing and oral presentations in one course, you could have them hand in the written write-up approximately halfway through the semester (but choose your date carefully, looking at the exam schedule), and do the presentations later in the semester.
Helping students become better writers is an iterative process, so plan accordingly and spread things out. You could have multiple due dates, the first for the outline (this will produce better writing and will help students get in the habit of starting with an outline), one for the content, one for the bibliography, and then a due date for the final submission.
Regarding the mandatory meeting with the professor -- consider switching this to a meeting with a TA, and consider requiring two meetings rather than one. (With just one meeting, both parties might be more likely to see it as a pro forma meeting.) I would put the first obligatory meeting pretty early in the semester -- but after you've had at least one group session.
Examples of topics to cover in the group session:
* How having an outline helps.
* How to install a spell checker for a non-English language.
* How to add custom terms to the spell checker dictionary.
* Common examples of plagiarism and how to avoid it.
* One or two examples of famous people who fell into the plagiarism trap through sloppy scholarship.
* Walk them through an example of an "A" project and an example of an unsatisfactory project.
* How many references should they aim for? How do you decide what to include?
* Later in the semester you can revisit some of these topics, once they've starting handing in some work; and also cover bibliography formatting and tools.
Overall, think in terms of supporting the development of better writers. Sink or swim assignments that get a judgment (grade) might make sense for most homework and projects, but not for this.
It might be a good idea to spread the presentations out over several sessions, for example four sessions, every other Friday afternoon, with cookies.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Firstly, I think courses such as yours are a really useful opportunity for graduate students to practice academic writing and presenting. I did one with a similar marking structure during my masters degree and I found it a valuable experience. Here are some further thoughts on the points you are concerned about.
**On point 1:**
1. It *might* be best for students to write in the language of the paper they have read. This would be helpful in situations where for example, field-specific words do not translate naturally into the native tongue and could instead be transferred from the paper. Of course, this might also worsen the quality of the written output.
2. In my own experience, the act of preparing a lengthy presentation on a research paper for the first time was stressful and time consuming (especially as it was slightly outside of my field of experience). I used my seminal paper as a means to document my understanding as I went along and it was never my primary focus. If you want students to focus more on the written component, you could shift the grade break-down to put more emphasis on this part which will probably naturally lead to higher quality (at the expense of the oral component?).
**On point 2:**
1. This is a hard skill to learn, especially if the research paper is not closely related to an area the student is already familiar with. Informally talking about it to their peers might be a good way to realize when they are not explaining themselves clearly. This could be done in small groups towards the end of the course, with the TA(s) moving around and providing advice.
**On points 1-4:**
1. To some extent, this is probably achievable by having a very clear rubric for assessing the written work that stresses the importance of clear work with proper citations and use of multiple resources.
2. Another option would be to have a short exercise at the beginning of the course (counting maybe 5%) where the students are given 2-3 short passages and asked to provide a summary, complete with citations. This could be marked fairly strictly, providing an opportunity to highlight issues.
3. A third option would be to do something like a "journal club" where students distribute their paper to their peers before their presentation, and one component of the presentation involves a discussion of the work where issues are highlighted. The paper could then be revised before the final submission, allowing students to concentrate on and implement corrections that they have heard over the course of the presentations (although depending on the academic culture, this might be viewed as too embarrassing for the students).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Some of the following thoughts are already in the other answers, but i'd like to give a coherent answer, so please excuse any repetition. I've worked as a TA for several seminars which mostly were successful (and attended both good and less successful ones as a student), so here are some thoughts:
* At my university (in Germany), there are normally two kinds of seminars. There are the normal seminars for higher level students, however before they get there, usually in the second or third semester, all students are required to attend a "proseminar" first. Outwardly, this looks similar to a seminar, however instead of focusing on current research topics, the talks are usually about something which is on the level of first year lectures but is normally not covered due to time constraints. (As an example back from when I studied computer science, I gave a pro-seminar talk on Petri-nets, which were not covered in the lecture on automata theory. Other talks in the same proseminar, were about different kind of state machines.)
Inwardly, the idea is on one hand to allow a greater focus on the presentation and the written paper, as the topics are easier and there are normally good textbook sources, but on the other hand without completely boring the students, as they still learn something new. (Compare this to a course on "how to give a presentation", which most students will hate or willingly ignore, since many, like me back then, falsely think they know better anyway. This also is a good reason not to tell them that the topics are not the actual focus.)
However something like this might be impossible to implement without reworking the curriculum.
* Ideally you should know your students. This works best, if the seminar is directly subsequent to a lecture or if you have multiple seminars and "repeat customers". This way I often know, which students need strict deadlines and close supervision and which students can be allowed to roam free. Related to this, while there should be some choice in the topics, normally not all topics are created equal. Some are simply more complicated or have badly written sources, while others are mostly straightforward. Also not all students will have had the same lectures or even the same minor subject, so their previous knowledge of some of the topics may differ. A good way to handle things, is to present the topics to them and then allow them to give you a list of preferences (for example in the form of a doodle). This way they mostly get topics they are interested in, however you are still able to prevent people from taking on more than they can handle and you do not have to tell them that directly, as officially this is to prevent collisions.
* Concerning the feedback, while peer review has its uses, it requires the peers to know what is expected. This works well for the actual talks, as the other students will notice if the explanations are incomprehensible or the slides are convoluted. However it works less well for the written papers or in order to gauge the correct understanding of the topic. This should be done by you and your colleagues instead. Ideally each student should have a direct supervisor assigned to them, who will be the main source of feedback and while in the end the professor has the final say, he will probably also be the one proposing the final grade on the written paper. This allows for more detailed feedback than if everybody has to read everything. You should however talk with the other supervisors regularly (for example at lunch) about what your students did and how you handled it, in order to have some consistency.
* I always found it helpful to meet with each student one on one a few times, not only when they have questions, but also at certain milestones, where things are expected from them. An example plan would look something like:
6-8 weeks before the talk, after they have read their sources: Go through the sources with them. Let them explain the details, check if they understood everything correctly and help them with their questions, ideally also pointing them to additional sources. Ask them, on which parts they want to focus their talk, tell them what should definitely be in there and which parts they should skip because of time constraints and instead cover in the written version.
1-2 weeks before the talk, after they have prepared a first version of the talk: Go through their slides with them, try to correct problems and to estimate if the length of their talk is right. Ideally you should tell them to time a test-run themselves beforehand.
After you looked at the first draft of the paper: Go over the corrections with them. For the first draft I will usually purposefully waste a lot of red ink and mark everything I see, from factual errors and missing citations down to typos, bad formatting and formulations which I simply do not like and personally would change. At this point I normally will tell them that they should not worry to much, since this draft will not count for their grade, but that I expect them to correct all those and similar errors for the final version. Remember to keep a copy of the corrections.
After the final version is handed it: Give some final feedback. This is usually just a short meeting as most of the things will have been said beforehand anyway.
This is very labour-extensive, which is another reason to split the workload among multiple people. I usually spend around an hour per meeting and at least an hour on the corrections of the first draft. On the other hand, reading the final version is normally just a cursory check if they heeded the advice. However spending so much time with a few students also allows you to get to know them a bit better, which tells you if they will need additional meetings or even to give a test talk before the actual one. The general idea is always to correct problems before they occur.
* If the topics allow this, it can be helpful to group the students into pairs covering adjacent topics or two halves of the same. Let them attend the meetings together and possibly even write a joint paper. This way they know enough about what the other is doing to catch problems and they have a vested interest to do so. It is not helpful to force students to work together against their will, however often enough, some of them will already know each other. A good way is to explicitly announce some of the topics as group topics and ask the students to state if they want to work together when asking them for preferences.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: In my experience the problems you face are very common and I believe that it is almost impossible for the students to learn all the necessary skills within just one course. In order to address these problems, together with colleagues of mine, we tried to introduce parts of these skills in a variety of courses starting with the introductory courses.
In our study programme there are multiple exercise classes where the students are supposed to solve problems and to present their solutions. Traditionally their presentations were graded only based on the quality of the solutions themselves. For these courses we introduced a grading scheme for these presentations which take the quality of the presentation into account. This grading scheme contained different parts which address different aspects of the presentation, e.g. whether the problem was explained or whether the necessary background was presented.
Since these students also had to hand in some of their solutions we introduced a similar grading scheme for these solutions which again took into account the quality of the exposition.
In more advanced courses we combined these grading scheme with some kind of peer review, i.e. the students had to grade some of the "papers" and some of the presentations.
In our experience, these exercises improved both the quality of the students' writing and of their presentations. It also seems that the existence of an "official" list of criteria for a good presentation or a good written text already improved the quality.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: I am currently undertaking a masters year project in mathematics which sounds similar in structure to this. In semester one I had a talk to give at the end of the semester. At the end of semester two I will have to hand in my final "report" (approximately 40 pages) and give a presentation on my project.
For comparison, I have been having regular meetings with my project supervisor, where the main topic of discussion has been the report which I am writing. Here are my thoughts on your main issues:
1. With regard to the grammar issues, I think there are two separate things. Basic spelling errors can be fixed easily, as you say with a spell checker. Bad grammar is fixed by proof reading, but this is something which I can guess that the students are inexperienced with. Proofreading my own work is a skill which I have developed vastly during the time writing my project. I did not realize how much time it takes, nor how easy it is for mistakes to slip through the net. I suspect the students put a small amount of effort into proof reading but were not aware of how much time and care is needed to do this effectively. How you help them fix this problem is up to you. The problem was fixed for me by my supervisor relentlessly highlighting the mistakes which slipped through the net.
2. This must come down to quality of writing. What would be helpful for me in this situation (if I were one of the students) would be to have a "guide" piece of work to compare with. Particularly in the case of lack of explanation of basic ideas, seeing it done properly elsewhere would probably be effective. I can imagine that part of the problem is that the students are worried about "dumbing down" their work, and just thought that there were various things that didn't need explaining. It might be worth reminding them that they shouldn't assume *any* knowledge on the part of their audience.
3. Again, this sounds like something for which it would be useful to have a comparison. Perhaps in this case you could provide the students with a model "bad" example, and a model "good" example. That way, they can see which is closer to what they're doing. Giving examples (like the one which you have given us) of imprecise language and why it's not appropriate would probably be helpful.
4. This sounds like inexperience on the part of the students. It is also (to my mind) indicative of a lack of wider research on the part of the students. Is this something which you have told them is important? Students are lazy.
I think generally, an iterative feedback process is extremely helpful, and would fix many of the above problems. That is because that has been effective in my case, and a lot of the mistakes which you are pointing out resonate well with me (particularly points 1, 2 and 3).
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/24
| 421
| 1,736
|
<issue_start>username_0: Do postdoc positions (joining date) start only in the fall semester or in the spring semester also? I mean, can it start at any time during the year?<issue_comment>username_1: Postdocs are often so informal that they can start almost any time.
I had one starting in early August and one starting in February, both not at the start of either semester.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The start of a postdoc is *far* more informal and fluid than the start of either graduate studies (which are governed by the academic calendar) or many faculty positions with teaching obligations etc. to them.
They essentially start when the PI says they start - or more accurately, a mutually agreeable date between the PI, the postdoc, HR, etc.
For example, my postdoc started in the summer. I am currently looking for postdocs whose starting date is "When can you get here?"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The start of a postdoc is generally dictated by two things:
1. The time when its funding starts, and
2. The time when people are available to fill it.
While the first can be any time, the second is often aligned with academic cycles, simply because that's when people are most likely to be graduating and wanting to join a new position. That, in turn, does tend to align postdocs to be often aligned with the academic year, but theoretically able to start and stop at any time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: One consideration is that in some cases, postdocs may be expected to teach. (This is typically the case in mathematics in the US, for instance.) If so then the start date would normally be aligned to the start of an academic year, or at the very least the start of a term.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/24
| 1,217
| 5,128
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let us suppose that a certain senior Ph. D. student is interested in "securing" a postdoctoral position under a professor whom he does look up to. Would it be right for the student to write the researcher and ask him if he stands a chance of eventually being hired as a postdoctoral fellow in the institution wherein the researcher works? The Ph. D. student is certainly interested in some topics on which the researcher has written in the past; furthermore, there is a certain problem at which the student plans to try his hand once he manages to graduate and this problem is also somewhat near the area of expertise of the researcher in question.
Thanks in advance for any suggestion you may want to leave for me below.<issue_comment>username_1: Discussing potential research projects and post-doc positions is good, and one stands a much better chance to get a position with prior contact with the professor. Also, the student can get some insight in how the application process works. It could even be that the university tailor the announcement for a post-doc position to be favorable for the student, if the student is really strong.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: How close are you to graduating? If you're still a few years away, then perhaps get an introduction from your advisor to that professor and see if there are natural ways to seek feedback or advice from that professor.
If you are thinking about the next year and a half, then your questions should be more concrete. In particular, you might tie your question to funding, as that determines a lot of the possibilities. Even if a professor loves your work, they can't hire you if they don't have the money for it.
* If you see from the professor's CV that there is an active grant, you could ask about whether there is space on that grant.
* If there are regularly postdoctoral openings in the person's department, you can ask about whether the professor is looking for another postdoc soon. (You may learn that people in the department tend to take turns hiring postdocs, and the professor is (un)likely to be up this year. Apply anyway, but know your odds.)
* You could say that you're preparing to apply for an external grant for a postdoc (e.g. NSF in the U.S.) and wondering whether the professor would be open to having you work with them on that. (Often a faculty sponsor is already required to apply.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The situation in math is slightly different than other fields and so it is reflected in the hiring process.
As a general rule, it is always good if your potential employers (i.e. the professors in the related math department) will know you beforehand, and definitely if you have means to go and present your work in a seminar go do that.
If you happen to meet in a conference, go introduce yourself and shake hands with him.
Approaching a professor directly out of the blue (i.e. just emailing) might not be the best thing, you might get overlooked or something, it might irritate the professor, the usual best idea about emailing someone without prior meeting with him is to arrange a more senior person (i.e. your adviser) to email him and tell him about you and inquire about your status as a future hire. It is also OK to email him with your preprint before putting them up in the Arxiv (again, do everything in coordination with your adviser, as it would be best to write explicitly in the email - my adviser, Prof. MATH, asked me to send this article to you for your consideration) and then end up in p.s - I'm about to graduate, and I would like to consider me as a post doc.
You have mentioned some future work, after the initial contact, you may bring that up (again, it would be best to ask your current adviser about it, maybe there are better experts to contact, maybe things are easy, you don't want to discourage your future employer so it is a delicate situation). Definitely you should write that future direction on your research statement you upload to mathjobs.
Regarding ''securing'' - most post-doc positions in math are (junior) faculty, means that there is some teaching involved, and the hire need to be accepted by the department. There's no extensive voting process like the one done for senior faculty hires, but usually there is some post-doc committee sifting through the applications, short-listing and so on.
The professor you've mentioned can ask to consider you to the short list.
Moreover, in many cases the spots are allocated between the different ''groups'' namely in there are X places, Y will be analysis, Z will be NT, W will be dynamics, P will be algebra, Q will be applied and so on. So you should check that this professor you mentioned can grease the wheels inside his group in order to get you high up the ranks.
In the end, the best thing you have is your recommendations (and this is what carries the most significance to your hire). Make sure that they are good and when hiring season is in play (say December), make sure your adviser is taking care of you and encouraging his friends to hire you.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/25
| 1,108
| 4,498
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am PhD student working in computer science. I am worried about the perception that my research career is going to be almost the same as that of former students in my group. I am not satisfied with this because:
* I came from very good university as compared to my colleagues.
* While I don’t think I am a genius, surely I am a very hard worker with discipline. To me it appears that I can do much better than other if I work hard for long period of time in academia.
* I could have gone to a slightly better university for my PhD, but here I get to work with a professor who works in the research area I am interested in.
Please note, I am not saying these former students are not in a good place – they now have post-docs in good universities. I also know that I should focus on my research and should not compare myself with others, but this is difficult in practice.
**Question:** How can I break this perception that my research trajectory will be almost the same as that of the former students in my group?<issue_comment>username_1: I hate to break it to you, but after a (very) short time in grad school, once you start making a name for yourself, people will predict your trajectory based on how they perceive you are doing *right now in grad school*, not based on your previous school and certainly not based on a self-assessment of your work ethics. If you have been there for a non-trivial amount of time, and nobody thinks that you will do exceptionally better than everybody before you, consider that this assessment may be more realistic than your rather rosy outlook.
>
> How to break this perception that my research trajectory will be almost same as my research senior's.
>
>
>
Easy. Achieve substantially more impressive results than your peers in the same career phase. If you can't do this easily, what makes you think you will certainly do much better than them in latter career phases? If you *think* you have truly impressive results but everybody else in your institution does not agree, your problem is much deeper. Then you are either surrounded by people who can't see your potential and vision, or you are yourself blinded by arrogance and can't see when you are wrong. Both of these options are pretty bad.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This answer is in addition to xLeitex's answer, which deals well with OP's situation. I would like to add some general points, however.
* You have come out of undergrad or master's and are starting your PhD. This is a very different environment that requires different skills and caries its own challenges. Working among (hopefully!) intelligent, motivated and more mature people, you will find that standards are higher and attitudes are different - a bit like the transition from school to university. This transition often causes people a shock and results in [imposter syndrome](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104571/is-it-ok-to-fail-with-analysis/104574#104574) and [similar](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/06/new-study-says-graduate-students-mental-health-crisis) [issues](https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i12/Graduate-students-6-times-likely.html?type=paidArticleContent). Almost all PhD students will feel insecurity and inadequacy at some point during their PhDs (but don't expect them to show it!). Be prepared for this, when it happens!
* Generally, people are unlikely to judge a student's capability by their group. In fact, very often the best groups/supervisors do not produce the best students; the reason for this is that it's often easy for students in such groups to coast along on the backs of their supervisors and colleagues. When I think about groups I have worked in/with, they've all contained a huge range of students; some excellent, some barely passable. If you want to stand out, work hard, work independently and produce results. Be active in engaging in collaborations with other students/academics.
* Be careful about judging other student's work - that not for you to do. Be aware that differences in output are often caused by differences in aspirations and motivation that do not necessarily make a student "better" or "worse". For instance, a student that has decided they wish to leave academia for industry after graduation will have far less impetus to push out high-quality, high-impact publications than one that wants to stay in academia. This doesn't reflect their capability nor their quality as a student.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/03/25
| 533
| 2,295
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was caught cheating during an university exam. The professor promptly failed me for the class. If I decided to take this issue to court, claiming that the professor has no evidence of my cheating, could I get away with it? At the time, there were no cameras in the room, and the professor did not take a video or photo of my cheating. In this scenario, who has the greater power, the student or the university?<issue_comment>username_1: While the details of the answer depend on the particulars of the university and the country, in general I expect that a student would not be able to get very far with such a case.
The basic problem is that an accusation of cheating and an administrative sanction within the policies of the university is not generally a matter of law, and thus there is no reason that a court should be interested in involving itself. The student would thus have to find some sort of basis for claiming that some law is actually being broken (e.g., discrimination, defamation) or that a contract is being violated (not likely). One can imagine cases in which this is actually upheld (e.g., a professor who systematically blatantly overlooks cheating by white students while carefully monitoring black students), but in the case of a basically reasonable professor who caught a student cheating, it seems unlikely that the student would get very far in any reasonable courtroom.
In short: a guilty but litigious student might be able to cause a lot of annoyance and expense for a professor and a university, but would be unlikely to receive satisfaction in court.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This, independent of the law, sounds like a fast way to make enemies. You will make enemies with the Professor for taking them to court, the University for taking their staff to court and by-passing internal regulations (that could have punished potential misconduct by themselves!), some students and who knows! (recall that academics have rather big professional networks!)
It might sound like a good idea to 'enact justice', but there are a lot of 'problems' in academia that can best be solved from within academia.
So, don't sue your profs unless there are no other alternatives ('not suing' is often a reasonable alternative)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/25
| 883
| 3,599
|
<issue_start>username_0: *I know that most question in this community refer to (natural or engineering) sciences. This question is concerned with the quality of higher education in the field of arts though, I hope it is on topic here.*
My question goes along the lines of ["What is the proper way to judge the quality of education of a university?"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/46505/what-is-the-proper-way-to-judge-the-quality-of-education-of-a-university). It is different from the question linked in that art schools have to be judged by looking at different metrics.
In *user6726*'s [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/46511/90403) to the question linked above, they state:
>
> [...] If students from institute X stumble more over questions at
> conferences compared to those from institute Y, or if they publish in
> lesser venues, or produce less-solid papers (more errors, more
> failures to think a problem through), then you can conclude either
> that Y attracts better students or that Y does a better job of
> training students than X [...].
>
>
>
Former students of an university of arts will not attend conferences as often as graduates from other fields, and rarely publish papers at all. While it is true that a university of art's value for a student's career is heavily dependent on the reputation of that university, this is not limited to the field of arts. Additionally, the reputation of an educational institution can be difficult to assess, if one is not in the same place and get hands-on experience there.
**What should be considered when judging a university of arts, if one considers to study there?**
This should be applicable to both undergrad and postgrad programmes.<issue_comment>username_1: While the details of the answer depend on the particulars of the university and the country, in general I expect that a student would not be able to get very far with such a case.
The basic problem is that an accusation of cheating and an administrative sanction within the policies of the university is not generally a matter of law, and thus there is no reason that a court should be interested in involving itself. The student would thus have to find some sort of basis for claiming that some law is actually being broken (e.g., discrimination, defamation) or that a contract is being violated (not likely). One can imagine cases in which this is actually upheld (e.g., a professor who systematically blatantly overlooks cheating by white students while carefully monitoring black students), but in the case of a basically reasonable professor who caught a student cheating, it seems unlikely that the student would get very far in any reasonable courtroom.
In short: a guilty but litigious student might be able to cause a lot of annoyance and expense for a professor and a university, but would be unlikely to receive satisfaction in court.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This, independent of the law, sounds like a fast way to make enemies. You will make enemies with the Professor for taking them to court, the University for taking their staff to court and by-passing internal regulations (that could have punished potential misconduct by themselves!), some students and who knows! (recall that academics have rather big professional networks!)
It might sound like a good idea to 'enact justice', but there are a lot of 'problems' in academia that can best be solved from within academia.
So, don't sue your profs unless there are no other alternatives ('not suing' is often a reasonable alternative)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/25
| 1,154
| 4,622
|
<issue_start>username_0: Strictly speaking, is translating to english my own published work written in my mothertongue in a non-peer reviewed journal to put it as a part of my PhD thesis plagiarism ?<issue_comment>username_1: This will depend on your institution's rules and your situation, but here are some general points
* You can usually use any (and only) work you have performed as part of your PhD studies\* to satisfy your thesis requirements (previous work you've done, other than as part of your PhD, is typically included as if you were referring to the literature). Non-standard programmes, such as professional doctorates and DSc qualifications, may have different rules on this.
* You will need to be mindful of whether you're allowed to copy word-for-word. In the UK, for instance, you can use results from your publications in your thesis, [but you have to restructure the text](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12342/self-plagiarism-in-phd-thesis?rq=1).\*\* In other countries, thesis-by-publication is more common, and a direct translation may be permissible.
* I strongly recommend appropriate references to/mentions of your existing publications - this could take the form of a page at the front entitled "publications arising from this work".
* You will need to be aware that direct reuse could create copyright issues, if you intend to put your thesis online or republish it. You will need to investigate the copyright status of your publications if you intend to do this. [This answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/103942/do-i-need-an-explicit-permission-to-publish-someone-else-s-table-in-another-pape/103944#103944) explains how to acquire rights, if needed. [This answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/71135/chapter-in-printed-thesis-vs-journal-article/104040#104040) covers some copyright considerations in more detail.
\*The meaning of this is a bit of a grey area. But this usually means performed during your time of registration, towards your registered project, at or under the auspices of the institution(s) you are registered with/official project sponsors.
\*\*This is a consequence of both academic regulations often precluding thesis by publication and the different requirements of a thesis and a few independent papers - in particular, the requirement that a thesis forms a coherent whole, and a typical need for more context and detail in a thesis, vs conciseness in a paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Plagiarism is presenting other peoples' work as your own. Since the described situation is not mentioning work by other people, it cannot be plagiarism.
Now "This is not plagiarism" is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion for being acceptable.
It could be self-plagiarism (which is very unfortunately named, since it is not a kind of plagiarism). Self-plagiarism is a bit ill-defined, it is essentially about attempting to be credited twice for one bit of work. Since a PhD thesis is fundamentally different from a non-refereed article, self-plagiarism does not apply.
It could be prohibited by the relevant regulations of your university. Check those to see if this applies.
Including the translated material without being transparent about it would violate good scientific practise.
Finally, there could be copyright issues, if you are not the copyright holder for the translated article, and don't have the right reserved to use for your thesis. It is up to you whether you care about copyright, in practise you can typically get away without doing so.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: ### tl;dr: Not plagiarism but try to avoid quoting long passages
If you explain what you're doing, i.e. either cite your own non-English publication or mention clearly that some parts of the work are translated from a non-English publication (say, as part of an introduction or an overview) - then you've certainly not committed any sort of plagiarism nor anything wrong ethically or morally. Still, like @WanderingChemist suggests, this may be against technical regulations.
Having said that: It's rarely a good idea to quote large sections of text verbatim. So unless there's a very good reason not to, I suggest you do some rephrasing/restructuring to fit with your thesis:
* Use unified preliminaries/definitions/terminology
* Refer to findings in other parts of your thesis which were not referred to in the non-English paper
* Consider refining, elaborating or illustrating your argumentation; this is a thesis, after all, so you're not under stringent restriction of the number of pages.
* etc.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/03/25
| 1,012
| 4,294
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm curious to know how you keep up with new publications in your field and various conferences that are happening. I seem to miss really great conferences and find articles a year or more after they have been published.
How do you keep track? Have you tried an RSS feed?<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is that there is no way: a normal person just cannot trace the work of a few hundred people, read (with details) 3-5 papers a day and go to one conference every fortnight himself. The more typical situation is that you work on a few problems and communicate to a few people with similar interests, who communicate to a few more people each and go to a few conferences, etc., so if something relevant and exciting happens somewhere, it reaches you in 2-3 steps but the routine that might interest you in general but hardly has any direct impact on your current work goes unnoticed. If you are just a year behind the current trends, you are 10 years ahead of me, so it shouldn't really bother you too much.
With all this said, if you want to "keep your hand on the pulse" more than you currently do, get into the habit of visiting standard places like arXiv, try to figure out what would be a few journals that publish interesting stuff for you and read them on a regular basis, scan conference ads online and in your field society bulletins once a month, but, above all, talk to people both around you and across the globe. Despite all modern search engines like Google, the word of mouth and the grapevine remain the most efficient communication channels, as far as I can tell.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I use the following for learning about new articles. Mathematics, inverse problems.
* RSS feed for the relevant Arxiv categories (alternatively, arxivist.com)
* Google scholar profile with notifications of articles that cite my articles. Scholar also maintains a list of articles similar to the ones you have cited and adds new articles there.
* With Google scholar, it is possible to follow the new articles or citations or related research of other people with scholar profile. I do this to a very selected list of scientists. It is also possible to follow the citations to a given article; this is mostly useful if none of the authors have a profile, but they have an article or two relevant for your work.
For conferences in inverse problems, I use the Finnish inverse problems society's list of conferences.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, the sea of information is immense, but you can keep a pretty good handle on it, especially with the tools available today. And one key to remember is that research is done by people. Often there is a core group of scholars in each field that do the most to move that field forward. Here are a few ideas of what you could do, and certainly there are more:
* Use [alerts](https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/help.html#alerts) on Google Scholar or other search engines
* Follow other researchers in your field on social media
* Meet some of the other researchers in your field, if you haven't already, and keep in touch with them
* Do a search every so often just to see what is out there. You can also search in other ways, such as for a particular researcher or group and see the direction their articles is going in.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I collected all relevant arxiv categories and a bunch of main journals to an RSS feed and it helped me a lot. I agree, that it is impossible to keep up with the pace, but I found this better than reading weekly/monthly newsletters.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: For conferences, in various research areas there are (national, regional or international) mailing lists on which they are announced. For instance, in numerical analysis we have [NA-digest](http://www.netlib.org/na-digest-html/). Maybe a big-list question here could collect their addresses.
Even though I like RSS feeds, it seems that they have lost this battle and people keep using plain old mailing lists instead.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I use <http://zetoc.jisc.ac.uk/> to alert me when major journals in my field publish a new issue. There are a few missing from their list that would be relevant for me though.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/25
| 549
| 2,304
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to be taking a Ph.D. program in statistics, and I kind of want to have two people for my supervisor (for my Ph.D. research), but I don't know if this would be a good or bad idea. I have two questions:
1. What are the pros and cons of having two supervisors for my PhD research?
2. In case of having two supervisors, would I be expected to choose the one of the two professors who will act as my "main supervisor" (can both supervisors be my "main supervisor")?
I have never taken a Ph.D. program before, so any answers would be appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: I was co-supervised during my own Ph.D., and have since been a co-supervisor several times, and I find that if your circumstances are such that co-supervision makes sense, it can be an excellent thing.
Co-supervision makes most sense when either:
1. You are doing cross-disciplinary work, and each supervisor provides expertise for their own discipline, or
2. the two supervisors already work together so closely that working for one means you are *de facto* being supervised by the other already, and you might as well acknowledge it.
This can help in providing two perspectives (especially valuable for cross-disciplinary work) and in allowing you to get help from one when the other is busy or unavailable. The down side is that you may also find yourself being pulled in two different directions, and that it can be difficult to coordinate things that require approval from both two supervisors, especially if both are busy.
Most programs, however, will require precisely one person to be the primary supervisor, while the other is either listed as a co-supervisor or merely an unusually active member of your committee.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is a good idea to have a co-supervisor, which only comes into picture when your work is interdisciplinary, but in some case, it doesn't work.
pros:
* You will get different ideas form people with different expertise.
* Your research can get interesting as you can have helpful discussions with both experts, and can approach other if one is occupied.
cons:
* It may take more time to finish your PhD
* More problematic if both don't have mutual understanding and don't agree on something related to your research.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/25
| 1,249
| 5,314
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in my first year of my master's degree in Europe, and within a year or so I'll have to be sending out applications for a PhD (always in Europe), for which I need 2 to 3 recommendation letters. This is a huge issue for me because I pretty much don't know anyone inside academia.
Recommendation letters should be written from people inside academia who know you, which I suppose means they worked with you on something. The only person I worked with was my bachelor's thesis advisor, but I changed institution for my master's degree so I'm not in contact with him anymore. I also need to complete a thesis (equivalent to a semester of full work) for my master's degree, so I will have another thesis advisor eventually, but by the time I can start working on my thesis I will already have to be sending out PhD applications. Is it possible to *work with* academics in other ways than writing a thesis? Or is it otherwise possible to have an academic know you to the point of being able of writing a reference letter, without necessarily having worked with you?
Anyway this is not just a matter of recommendation letters. I think that having people in academia know and recognize me would give me better chances in getting admitted to a good PhD program. Moreover, it's nice to have someone to ask for advice when you need it.
I think for people who are already into their PhD it's easier, since at least you're put inside a research group and have your own advisor. But as a master's degree student I don't feel like I have many opportunities to establish contact with academics.<issue_comment>username_1: Since you appear to be in Italy – actually a fellow citizen! – I'll try to give an answer from an Italian perspective. As a master's student, you usually have three possibilities to work with professors:
1. start working on your master's thesis;
2. apply for a teaching assistant position for one of the classes;
3. do an internship.
For what concerns possibilities 2 and 3, these may be available or not depending on university, field, year etc. For instance, I have TAs from both bachelor's and master's levels and I'd be happy to provide recommendation letters for them, as I did for others in the past.
If none of the above work for you, you can try asking professors whose classes you attended, getting top grades. In this case, however, they might not be willing to provide a recommendation letter. In fact, up to a few years ago, I wasn't willing either, as I explained in [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/71440/20058). Nowadays, I accept (even though I don't approve of this practice) that recommendation letters are required almost everywhere, and I'm more willing to provide recommendation letters to students who attended my classes and somehow positively caught my attention (at the exam, through in-class questions, during office hours).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You can also contact a researcher and say you are willing to work on some research project, with the goal of writing a paper together. It requires a lot of effort from you as a student, but it can definitely pay off, both for you and for the advisor.
I had a student (freshman) contacting me a few years ago, wanting to work on discrete mathematics. We ended up writing two research papers together, and I wrote him a recommendation letter for a transfer to a different university. He is now at MIT.
The downside is of course that you do not get course credits for the research (but if successful, you get a paper).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: This is a partial answer intended to supplement the other answers.
* Invite a professor to be the advisor for a journal club which you would start (with some other students). This would meet once a week and would include cookies. The students take turns presenting about an interesting journal article they read. The professor attends from time to time.
* Attend seminars and talk about the presentation with other students, postdocs, and professors, afterwards.
* Get to know professors in your department through more advanced students. Pick a couple whose work particularly interests you to visit in office hours. You can ask them to tell you about their current or past research interests. (Make sure to read up on them before you go.)
* Go to conferences.
* Form a study group for one or more of your classes.
* Attend other students' defenses and practice talks.
* From time to time visit a class you're not taking, to see various professors in action. (You can kill two birds with one stone by keeping a journal about the teaching techniques you observe.)
* See if there are other students who share some hobby, and put something on a bulletin board to invite anyone interested to a get-together, for example, soccer, origami, board games or what have you. As you get to know other students in the department better, you will get better integrated in the department, and will get an idea which professors you're interested in getting to know better.
One of the side benefits of all of this is that it's good preparation for your master's thesis -- you can get ideas from the seminars; you'll get ideas about what makes a good talk; you'll notice which professors might be advisor material.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/03/25
| 1,473
| 6,277
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in molecular biology & bioinformatics in Australia. I have previously presented one of my projects as a poster at a conference. This was sent for review to all co-authors, changes made and presented.
A couple of months down the line, I was asked to present a poster at a local conference. I re-submitted the poster abstract, which was accepted. I did this without consulting my primary supervisor as I thought any dispersal of the work would be welcome. Since then, she has started to dislike the results of that project. When the conference was around the corner, and I told her I was presenting, she accused me of bad scientific conduct for presenting something in her name. I apologized, explained why I had not consulted her and retracted the poster.
She’s not dropping the matter though and seems to be using it as a target for some larger disagreements she has with me. What are the rules for re-presenting work or posters? Are there any guidelines and how serious was this accidental transgression?<issue_comment>username_1: My opinion has always been that once I sign my name on something (like a paper, or a poster), I endorse it to the extent that it can be presented, submitted, or used for any other standard purpose without any further approvals or permissions on my side. Essentially, publication (or presentation) constitutes putting your work into a public domain. *Anybody*, not just my co-authors, is entitled to refer to it, to build upon it, to comment on it, to try to refute it, to include it into their lectures, or to do anything else with it that constitutes normal academic communication and "fair usage" after it has appeared in public just once. If I later want to retract it, it is I who should inform the other parties about that and there should be a valid reason for the retraction (say, a flaw in the proof that went unnoticed before, etc.). Mere "disliking" is enough to refuse to get associated with the project in the first place and should be respected then but once you sign something out, you sign it out, period.
How universal is this attitude? I don't know and I doubt anybody does: academic rules of conduct are not written in some universally accepted code of law, volumes 1-13, and it is not unusual to see people disagreeing on what is acceptable and what is not. However, I find the accusations of scientific misconduct totally misplaced here. She could ask you in private not to present the results, of course (anyone is entitled to any private request) and it was rather kind of you to agree (withdrawing your poster at the last moment doesn't look terrific on your unofficial record, by the way, people notice such things), but that is where it stands IMHO unless she communicated to you some serious previously unnoticed flaw in the project between the first and the second presentation.
I don't think that the field and the country matter very much here, but, if somebody does, I'm a mathematician in the USA.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From what you've said this sounds like a honest mistake made in good faith, and if I was your supervisor I'd accept your apology and move on. At your stage it's to be expected that you're still learning some of the norms of the culture, and they're not always clear.
That said, I do get particular about authorship. Let me tell you a story from my previous career...
I was a young PhD researcher, working in collaboration with several other staff and the head of my research institute. Let's call him Toby.
I came to feel that Toby had a significant conflict of interest related to our work, one which was not being properly handled. I felt that my boss was trying to pressure me to accept methods and interpretations that weren't scientifically justifiable, but which *just happened* to lead to results that were favourable to our institute's funding. Another co-worker felt the same way.
We refused to accept these methods, and soon after we were both fired. While we were serving out our four weeks' notice, we learned that Toby had gone to an international conference and presented these results in a talk and poster, and that he had listed us both as co-authors in this work.
If he'd attempted to do this in a journal publication, we would've been asked for consent to be listed as authors (and would've declined). But because talks and posters don't have quite as rigorous processes, he was able to slip this through. We ended up having to contact the organising body and request that our co-author credits be removed from the published proceedings.
(Toby was furious. Toby also had right of veto over any reference that anybody in the organisation might write for us as we looked for new jobs. It was not a very enjoyable time in my life.)
As my experience illustrates, crediting somebody as a co-author isn't automatically a positive. When my name appears on a paper, I share responsibility for the contents of that paper, so it's very important that I have the opportunity to give or withhold consent for that to happen.
Two important things about consent: it's conditional, and it can be revoked. If your supervisor only agreed to the first poster, then you didn't have her consent for the second. You might think it's almost certain that she'll agree to the second one, but you still have to ask.
(I know my friend will happily lend me $20 if I ask, but it's still not okay to borrow it from his wallet without asking!)
There are reasons why somebody might say "yes" to one request and "no" to another. It might be that they have issues with the conference or its sponsors, or that in the time between one request and another their thinking has evolved and they no longer want to endorse material that previously seemed okay. Regardless of why... it's best to ask.
Moving forwards, my advice would be to say something along the lines of:
>
> As I've said previously, I'm sorry for resubmitting this presentation
> without your consent - I misunderstood expectations for how this sort
> of thing should be handled. I've withdrawn the poster, but I get the
> impression that you still have concerns about this issue. Is there
> anything else that you'd like me to do to remedy this?
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/03/25
| 2,091
| 8,772
|
<issue_start>username_0: I will finish my Master degree in electrical engineering (in Germany) soon, but at the moment I am quite unsure about my future after that. Quite some of my fellow students just joined the institutes of the university whose professors supervised their Master's Theses. There they will work as assistants of the professor and go for the PhD.
I have to do an industrial internship during the next months to finish my Master. After that, I would have the opportunity to join my institute as PhD candidate as well (I know that because one of my friends already told me that they are looking for staff at the moment).
Now I am stuck with the decision whether to go for a PhD or to start working in the industry. Usually I really enjoy research and solving problems while exploring some new topics, like I did in my Master's Thesis. But when I think back to the time of my thesis, there were several problems and "wrong" results (that partly contradicted theory, like wrong simulations) that caused a lot of frustration. Back then, it took half a year to write my thesis, but a German PhD in engineering will take 5-6 years. To be honest, I was really relieved when this half year of writing the Master's Thesis was over and I achieved to submit a really good thesis.
Another thing that discourages me is the way that scientists seem to work these days: The university/faculty/professor wants you to publish at least one paper during a certain period of time. But that contradicts my vision of science: You should publish papers if you discovered something new or at least relevant in a field of study, not because some schedule tells you to.
My supervisor at work (who has a PhD) told me that you should never go for a PhD just for having the title or having better career options. He said that you should truly enjoy research because those 5 or 6 years will be a very tough and often frustrating time. If you lack the passion of research you should not go for it.
I am quite clueless at the moment. My basic goal in life is to be happy in general, not necessarily obtaining the highest educational degree. I really do not know if I have the frustration tolerance to find joy in these 5-6 years of doing a PhD.
Long story short:
Which advice would you give any Master graduate who is facing the choice of whether he should start an industrial career or go for a PhD? Can you provide some experiences of your time as PhD candidate? Which questions would you see as most important to be answered to make this decision?
Best regards!<issue_comment>username_1: Doing a PhD is a wonderful experience. It requires from you to become monomaniacal and obsessive with a very narrow topic in your discipline. There are many highs and many lows while you work on your doctorate. But the motivation should be your very own desire to learn and deeply engage in our discipline. Doing a doctorate for any other reason (e.g. professional opportunity,social status), will not keep you motivated enough -- let alone guarantee professional attainment. If your Master's thesis or your understanding of how academia works ("publish or perish") did not invigorate you to go for a doctorate, I would discourage you from spending your time and effort in pursuing it. Whatever you decide, good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There's a big personal component to this question - what you enjoy and what you don't - so only you can really answer this question. Still, some factors:
* Assuming you want to pursue an academic career, then you must get a PhD. No real option there.
* Assuming you want to work in industry, then I don't agree with your supervisor. A PhD really is about the title and better career prospects. A PhD gives you greater responsibilities, better starting pay, and (hopefully) a better ability to respond to unexpected situations at work. If you are able to find a job afterwards, then you can look forward to a better life.
So having a PhD is never bad as long as you're able to find a job afterwards. Then the question becomes "is it worth it?". To answer this one needs to look at what the PhD costs.
* Time. You need to invest 5-6 years of your life (likely the best years of your life too) into the PhD. If you don't actually enjoy research, this will be a painful time, and it gets even worse if you don't finish the PhD since it'll go to waste.
* Money. Odds are you can find a paid PhD position, but you won't be paid well. You can try checking websites like [salary.com](https://www.salary.com/) and comparing vs. what you are likely to get as a PhD student. Salaries vary depending on where you are of course, but in most of the world outside of some European countries, a PhD student is paid barely above minimum wage. It's enough to survive, but savings will be minimal. Again depending on your field + location, you might be able to earn a lot more by joining the workforce at once.
* To add on to the above, not all money is created equal either. If you've seen charts of exponential growth or guides on how to retire early, you'll know that the sooner you start saving the better. Taking five extra years to start saving can impact your retirement funds by a massive amount. Viewed from this perspective, doing a PhD delays the time when you can start saving with the hope that you will eventually be able to save a larger amount per unit time. Whether this is worth it depends on the specifics, but I would suggest doing the calculations to see in concrete terms what you are going into.
* The last thing I'd consider is the logistics of PhD study. You might have to move cities to do PhD studies, or possibly move after completion to find a suitable job. Are you OK with this (be sure to factor in any significant others or children)?
Finally I glossed over finding a job after getting a PhD. You can overqualify yourself out of many jobs by getting a PhD. Take a look at the job market, again keeping in mind whether you're OK with moving cities, and check out the jobs that require a PhD in electrical engineering. Compare them against the jobs that only require a Masters degree. Are the jobs requiring a PhD also jobs that you find more desirable, enough so to commit the time and money to get it?
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If you're uncertain right now, then take a job in industry. I concur with username_2's cost-benefit analysis.
* You've seen a lot of academia, and you may as well get paid more reasonably while you examine what industry is like.
* If you want to go back for a PhD after a few years in industry, you may be a better candidate: you will have valuable experience and a better sense of what part of the field you want to specialize in and why. (Ideally, you'll be taking note of questions you run across in industry that don't have satisfactory answers, or limitations on current practices that could be eased by further research.) You may also have better time management and clearer goals, allowing you to complete your degree more quickly.
* Perhaps this is different in the European context, but I doubt that spending time in industry would be a negative factor when you seek a PhD position. (In contrast, common wisdom says that if you get a PhD and then work in industry, it is harder to then get an academic job.)
However, on the negative side, it is often harder to uproot your life to go back to university (and live on a doctoral student salary) after other parts of your life are more established, if you go into industry first.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Which advice would you give any Master graduate who is facing the choice of whether he should start an industrial career or go for a Ph.D.? Can you provide some experiences of your time as a Ph.D. candidate? Which questions would you see as most important to be answered to make this decision?
>
>
>
Well, it depends on your likes and dislikes. According to my opinion, I would suggest one go for a Ph.D. if and only if
* He/She has a deep passion for doing research. one should be very interested and take that as a fun, otherwise it is going to be like hell, like many people in my lab are feeling.
* Ready to accept challenges/failure. one should be ready to accept the success/failure. Research is something that you are exploring something which is not known before and sometimes it is going to be very challenging and should take that easy.
* Ready to spend at least 5 years in research, because good research takes time.
* Very important, aim to become a researcher. One's aim to do Ph.D. should be towards achieving a research career. It should not be done to get a good position in the industry because for that you don't need a Ph.D.
else go for a job.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/25
| 3,601
| 15,712
|
<issue_start>username_0: A few months ago, I submitted a manuscript. After the reviews were completed I received a rejection decision from the Associate Editor (AE). The rejection was based on the basis of a single rejection recommendation by one of the four reviewers. The journal has very high standards so this is not uncommon. However, the reason for the rejection appears really awkward to me. The reviewer wrote in his/her report that another paper with a similar idea was submitted (not published) in another journal. He/she wrote that the submission date of the other paper was earlier than mine so the originality of my idea is questionable. The AE agreed with this report and adopted this argument in the rejection letter.
I want to emphasize that my results were independently developed and I have no knowledge whatsoever of the other manuscript which according to the reports that were attached has not been published yet. The whole situation seems rather awkward and I am not sure how to react. Of course the reviewer's identity is not known to me, but I find it hard to believe that he/she is not an author or somehow related to the author of the other paper.
Furthermore, I feel really offended by these comments as it appears to me that I am implicitly being accused of plagiarism. I am considering writing a letter to the Editor in Chief. I do not want to change the decision, but I would like to make clear that my results were independently obtained. Also, what are your thoughts on how should I proceed with my manuscript?<issue_comment>username_1: If the other work hasn't been published, it sounds unreasonable to claim plagiarism. The reviewer could have conceivably claimed plagiarism of prior related *published* work, but didn't.
Since the lack of citation was the only objection, you can try asking for the contact details of the author(s) so you can review and cite their work, with a view to resubmitting your own paper afterwards.
Personal correspondence can be cited and properly attributed, so I don't see a technical issue here *so long as you don't reference the identity of the reviewer in your correspondence*. Even if the reviewer was the other paper's author, it's the author-role (on the other paper) that you're interacting with, not their role as reviewer of your own paper.
In relation to writing to the editor, I don't see any harm in protesting your innocence regarding plagiarism. However note that as reviews aren't normally published (so in theory, there's no wider circulation of the plagiarism claim) and since it's your word against the reviewer's, there might not be much *practically* that can be done, beyond a file note that they have received your correspondence.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think there is any point in writing to the EiC, if you don't want to actually appeal the decision. I would simply send a note to the AE who handled the paper:
>
> Thank you for handling my paper. I accept your decision. I would simply like to state that the results in my paper were obtained independently, and I had no previous knowledge of the unpublished manuscript mentioned by Reviewer #4. I will look forward to reading and citing this paper when it becomes publicly available.
>
>
>
Then submit your paper somewhere else, quickly (though after making any revisions suggested by these reviewers). I would be inclined to include a comment to the new journal's editor, saying that you have heard there is a paper under review somewhere with similar results, but you have been unable to obtain a copy of the paper or any further information about it. You could also emphasize that you have obtained your results independently of any other reseacher / group.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: I feel the reviewer is referring to the preprint of the manuscript that I guess you have missed out. Write the editor to send you a copy of that manuscript which he believes is very similar to yours. Go through that manuscript and find out how it is different from yours(I hope there should be some different results if you have obtained the results independently). Try to convenience the reviewer how your results are different then the other one.
I am afraid if the reviewer is not convinced and don't accept the manuscript, you need to rework on your manuscript and send it to the other journal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: There are many cases of simultaneous discoveries in history, so don’t let others take your credit when it’s not justified.
[This story](https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40047/title/Simultaneous-Release/) could also be inspiring.
1. If your field has a preprint culture and your target journals allow for this, publish a pre-print of your paper immediately.
This way you can establish with a certain confidence that you arrived at your results independently – assuming that there is no pre-print of the alleged other paper (and even then, the difference in time may be sufficiently short to be regarded as evidence for independent discovery).
If you cannot publish a pre-print, at least [obtain a time stamp of your paper](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/23367/7734).
While it may not help you in the and, at least some ways (in particular publishing a hash of your paper) are almost no effort.
2. I would argue that the only acceptable evidence of the other paper is the paper itself.
Now how could the journal have obtained this?
* The other paper is publicly available (e.g., on a pre-print repository) or its authors have allowed for a free dissemination of the pre-print.
In this case, you should be given the information needed to access the paper.
* The reviewer had the paper under some restrictions and shared it with the journal.
This very likely means that the reviewer violated these restrictions (peer-review confidentiality or trust by the authors).
I can contrive some exceptions like the authors sharing the paper with the reviewer and allow them to share it if they happen to peer-review a similar paper – but that’s, well, contrived.
* The other paper’s authors explicitly gave it to the journal that rejected your paper (or agreed that it is given to them).
This poses the question: How did the authors of the other paper know about this, or how did the journal know whom to ask?
Keeping in mind that the reviewer cannot ask the authors back without breaching peer-review confidentiality, this leads us to slightly modified variants of the previous points:
If the reviewer can freely share the identity of the other paper’s author, they can also share it with you.
If the reviewer cannot freely share the identity, they almost likely breached some kind of trust.
* The reviewer was able to share it due to being an author of the paper.
This is a clear conflict of interest.
* The journal doesn’t have the paper and just relies on the reviewer’s word.Either way, this would be very fishy and I see good reasons for appealing to the journal’s decision (or making a scandal out of it).
3. The existence of another paper going in a similar direction does not mean that you plagiarised it, but it does evidence that the topic is indeed relevant.
Moreover, if the other paper has not been accepted yet, it may very well that the peer review found flaws that your paper doesn’t have.
All of this are good arguments for any journal (either the one that rejected your paper or another one) to accept your paper, if the quality of the research is undisputed.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: I would actually suggest to write a letter (or email) to the EiC, cc'ing the associate editor, and state for the record that you have no knowledge of the other manuscript and that your results were (therefore) developed completely independently. While the decision to accept or reject your paper is of course fully up to the editors, it seems to me that two studies who come independently to the same conclusion are both worthy of a publication. The editors could even add (or request you to add) a "note added in proof" stating that they are aware of another paper on the same topic being refereed in a different journal, or whatever else they might want to mention specifically in this context.
Full disclosure, I also published a paper a few years ago whose main results were also found independently by another team around the same time (in that case both papers were submitted to the same journal), and both papers ended up to be published in the same issue.
Good luck!
---
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I understand your disagreement with the AE's decision, and I also understand why you feel the reviewer's role in this is slightly awkward. You could point this out to the AE or to the editor-in-chief - this may improve their reviewing process in the future. However, I'd be very surprised if the journal reverses its decision or write you anything else than a message that essentially says "we stand behind our decision." So if you do this, you should also send your paper to another journal.
If your priority is to get your paper published as quickly as possible, I don't think there's anything to be gained by emphasising your disagreement or going to the editor-in-chief. Since you already have favourable reviews at this journal, steering towards a coordinated publication (inspired by username_4's answer) seems the quickest option.
This would be a three-step process:
1. Start by asking the AE whether they'd be interested in a coordinated publication of the two papers, given that three out of four reviewers were impressed with your paper. At the same time you can stress the originality of your work, and touch on the improvements you've made after reading the reviews.
2. If the AE is interested, you go ahead and figure out who wrote the other paper - your supervisor can ask around.
3. Finally, ask the authors of the other paper whether they'd be interested in coordinated publication.
In case the AE or the other paper's authors are hesitant about this, or if you do not get an answer in a reasonable timeframe, I'd submit to another journal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I disagree with some of the interpretations you're being offered.
Given that you've reached a stage of peer review, you are entitled to a rigorous review supported by the current state-of-the-art of your field that is accessible to any expert of the field. This *does not* include super-secret documents that nobody has privilege to disclose. If the referee in question cannot point you to an accessible abstract or preprint, the document in question should not be part of the referee's review. Simply put, the referee, if he or she cannot ignore the privileged information for the purposes of review, is in conflict, and submitting the review as you received it was not wise (the story is slightly different if the manuscript referred to is floating around the offices as a submission to the journal you submitted to, as the section editor holds the information).
Further, if the secret manuscript in question is from the group or recent coauthor of the referee (assuming it even exists), that referee probably has committed a fairly serious ethical breach by not exposing the conflict when it became apparent.
What to do? There probably isn't a great answer. If the main reason for rejection was the submitted document referred to, my suggestion would be to respond to the reviewing editor with the opinion that you feel you're entitled to a review informed by the available state-of-the-art; the review you received wasn't. Thus, you feel that this referee is in conflict (indeed, this would be a sound and punctate basis for an appeal). Request an additional review, with the review in question tossed. You should consider asking if the secret manuscript in question comes from the referee's group -- in which case the editor should strongly consider not using that referee in the future.
Whether you cc the EiC is up to you. It's a tough call.
Alternatively, simply resubmit to another journal. I would be less inclined to do this, as I think a fair review process is worth defending. If you decide to appeal, I recommend making a point of asking the editor for a timely decision as to whether you will receive a re-review.
A few additional points -- nobody is accusing you of plagiarism. Also, published manuscripts typically contain the dates of the original submission, so provenance of the ideas is not really at issue.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: I was in a similar situation, but on the other side. My results have been submitted but not published. Someone else took advantage of them in the meantime by obtaining my results, probably through a chain of common colleagues who didn't take "please treat confidentially" that strictly.
>
> I want to emphasize that my results were independently developed and I have no knowledge whatsoever of the other manuscript which according to the reports that were attached has not been published yet.
>
>
>
There is little chance to check this in a transparent way. In my case, the submitter acted exactly the same way as you did, claiming innocence. The sucker got his/her material published, while, in fact, he/she stole my work. You can imagine how offended I was!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: This is a horrible thing to happen.
If the other reviewers are favourable then this is a horrible reply to receive because there is nothing that you can do about it. No way to challenge what you cannot see.
I had an instance of one reviewer rejecting an article and throwing up spurious reasons. ... In that case it was necessary to
* politely but firmly point out that the unfavourable reviewer might have a vested interest in preventing publication
* request an alternative reviewer to take their place given that their comments were spurious.
I would be writing back to the AE and saying that given the other 3 reviewers recommend publication and there is nothing in the public domain to prevent publication it should be published.
I would also be talking to your trusted senior colleagues in your department/area of work about this.
So sorry to hear about this, very frustrating.....
BUT it is an acknowledgement that your work is good and worthy of publication that the only thing a reviewer can think of to prevent publication is that someone else is already working on it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I agree with the previous answers stating that you aren't being accused of plagiarism. Rather, if the journal is so selective, they may not want to touch something that is going to appear somewhere already. Do consider the possibility that the reviewer may have shared details of this other paper with the editor- reviews typically contain a section that goes only to the editor. This may explain why the reviewer's decision was accepted.
Also, I know you have a strong feeling about bias (I would too), but there is a chance that this reviewer simply reviewed the other paper. If this is the case, raising questions about the integrity of review (even indirectly) could lead to unfavourable perceptions.
I would strongly suggest publishing in the next highest rated journal at the earliest- you clearly have a good set of results, don't hold them back. Once both papers are out, let the community decide which one is better. It is not unheard of that a paper in a slightly lower rated journal gets more reads/citations that one in a higher rated journal. If indeed the reviewer is an author of the other paper, it means you and they are going neck-to-neck, and you might find the situation reversed soon!
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/03/26
| 617
| 2,764
|
<issue_start>username_0: Like many people, I have a lot of print journals that I got over time with association memberships. However, I never use them, given online access at my institution. Does anyone know where I can donate them? I've looked at a lot of university libraries and often, it doesn't look like they accept them, as a policy. Most of the online guidance that I have found is fairly old, at this point.<issue_comment>username_1: Most US institutions have subscriptions to the most important journals that include online access of past content -- so they will generally not have any interest in stocking yet more paper in their archives.
This is different for developing countries where space is less expensive than journal subscriptions. I've had colleagues will connections to third world universities to which they always took boxed of books donated by colleagues every time they went. I suspect that if you ask around enough, you'll find colleagues who know someone in Africa or Southeast Asia who would be interested in taking books and journals -- but you may have to pay for shipping.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: An off-the-wall idea is to ask colleagues in your department, at local community colleges, and in high school social studies/government classes whether they would like to use them for in-class activities. This might be good for early exposure to the idea of academic research, since many students don't start to engage with academic articles until later in college (instead just learning from textbooks).
For instance, each student could take home one journal and pick one article to summarize and present to the class. Or the students could mark the thesis statements, highlight interesting vocabulary words, note how citations are used, see how statistics are used and written up, etc. One of my professors did a helpful exercise where he cut up copies of the introduction of one of his own articles and challenged us in groups to rearrange the paragraphs, based on the logic of going from broad to narrow.
I could see these journals as being useful materials for the right instructor and the right set of students.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I did this once - essentially, I had a bunch of print copies of a journal, and I asked the local university if they wanted them (along with some books). They said they could take the books, but had moved to electronic subscriptions for most journals.
I did however find United States Book Exchange (<http://www.usbe.com>) which, if you're in the US, is a non-profit repository of back issues of *things*, including journals, for libraries. They were able to take about half of the journal issues I offered, and reimbursed me for media-rate postage.
Upvotes: 3
|