date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2018/07/05
| 610
| 2,496
|
<issue_start>username_0: *P*, a postdoc applicant, lists 3 referees (*A*, *B* and *C*) on her strong application.
* *A* knows *P*'s work best and gives a mixed (guarded) assessment.
* *B* knows *P*'s work moderately well and gives a great assessment.
* *C* knows *P*'s work least and gives a great assessment.
* *S* and *T*, a recent supervisor and a recent employer, are not listed as referees.
Can the recruiter contact *S* and *T* for further feedback? On the one hand, they are not listed as referees, but on the other hand, the applicant has not requested not to contact these people.<issue_comment>username_1: At least in US academic culture, the fact that P is applying for a given position, or is applying for jobs at all, should be considered confidential. As such, if you're the recruiter, you should not contact S or T or anyone else regarding P's candidacy, unless you first get permission from P. (Obviously, you have implicit permission to contact A, B, C, since they were listed on the application.)
Asking S or T for a general assessment of P's abilities, without saying that they're applying for a job, is a gray area. I would advise against it, since people will tend to infer that your reason for asking is because P is a job candidate.
If you're the candidate, on the other hand, you should be prepared for the possibility that the employer might contact S or T anyway, even though they're not supposed to.
Expectations might be different in different cultures.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This may be guided/regulated by legal or institutional norms in some places, so it is hard to give a firm answer here. However, in general, you should probably assume that your professional life is an open book and that those seeking to hire you will seek out information wherever they can find it.
I don't think that there is any implied contract that only those people supplied by the candidate may be fairly used. For an extreme case, if you have been notoriously named as a murderer on the front page of the the paper of record, the institution will likely use that. Certainly when you apply for important government positions, extensive searches may be done.
On the other hand, the hiring institution will likely want "just enough" information to make a decision, though that can vary depending on the importance of the position.
But be prepared to answer any questions about your background no matter where they might have arisen.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/05
| 355
| 1,536
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am submitting my journal article to IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.
This is a completely new work. However, initial results have been submitted
to IEEE Globecom 2018 (the result will be announced on July 15th).
My question is, should I upload my conference paper to the journal submission?<issue_comment>username_1: As @Buffy said, it is best to check with the journal. However, in the social sciences, the normal practice is to write up a conference paper and present it for discussion with your peers.
Based on the feedback you receive, you will often rework your paper and then submit it to a journal. Most journals have the stipulation that they will accept articles based on conference papers as long as there is (at least) 20% or 25% new content.
If you have no new content, that might be a problem because the journal is not publishing something "new."
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: IEEE (at least in Computer Science) has a 30% new materials rule to make a journal submission out of a conference proceedings. You seem to have no problem meeting this threshold. Reviewers will be asked to speak to the novelty of your submission and whether this mark is there. Therefore, it is customary to mention the conference paper in the cover letter to the editor and to include the conference proceedings. When reviewing for IEEE, I often to Google scholar searches, and I would likely come across your conference paper. If you include it, everyone's life is easier, so do it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/06
| 523
| 2,249
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can one use leftover grant funding to take a vacation?
Or does leftover funding get returned to the funding agency?
For reference, I am asking about research labs in American universities.<issue_comment>username_1: Without knowing the actual laws or seeing the grant proposal, I think I can pretty definitively say no, you can't do that. If it is noticed, it would likely generate an audit of the entire grant. In an extreme case (NSF funding) it could result in jail time as fraud or embezzlement.
However, if the grant is from some private party, the rules might be very loose, though I doubt it.
However, if the topic of study in the grant were somehow related to leisure time or such then what seems like a vacation might actually be research. (We should all be so lucky.)
What happens with unused funds is likely spelled out in the grant itself or in the regulations of the funding agency. They might go back to that agency, or perhaps remain with some other institution.
But vacations? No. Pizza night for the research team, maybe. Unlikely.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The standard procedure is to extend the grant by a few months, until the money has been spent for purposes that are within the original purpose of the grant. Usually paychecks for people who are writing an additional paper, or grant proposals for a follow-up project (and perhaps take the remaining paid free days from their original contract, if that was what your question aimed at).
Agencies usually have no use for returned money, and would often have to return it to *their* funding partner(s). Otherwise the agency would have to find someone new to spend the money on, which they don't have resources for.
If the agencies would not simply extend the grant time, that would lead PIs to try to spend the money last minute, possibly by stretching a few rules. They would have to make extra effort to control those last minute expenses. Even if your scientists stay far for stealing the money for a private holiday, legal quabble would often ensue.
But of course, if you don't ask for extension, there will surely be a clause in the grant that says the money falls back to whoever provided it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/06
| 516
| 2,270
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated from my undergraduate degree about a year ago and took a job in industry. While completing that degree, I did research with a professor related to machine learning. However, after finishing that project, I don't think ML is where I'd want to do my research if I decide to reenter the academic world.
The advice I've received regarding applications to grad school is to be reading papers of a professor I want to work with, at least with enough understanding to suggest a new idea/direction of my own. However, I don't really know *exactly* what I'd like to research, but I do have some general topics I'm interested in (categories on the level of "robotics" or "cyber-physical systems") --- figuring out what areas are still active research and what is ancient history is a bit harder than when I could just turn to my advisor and ask "what/who is at the cutting edge in this field?"
Aside from just "jump in the deep end and keep reading until it makes sense," are there methods or techniques that might help me build context or evaluate the areas I'm interested in?<issue_comment>username_1: You could use a database, thorough your university library for example, to search for papers in your area of interest (with keywords or author names etc). This will help you see what others are researching and publishing and to determine if that is what you want to do too.
Reading relevant blogs and forums (that deal with same or similar topics as the one/s you're interested in) may also give you some ideas.
Similarly, talking to academics you may wish to work with is a good idea, as already suggested to you by others.
I would also make sure that the academic I am working with is someone who is going to be supportive (and have time for me) to make sure that I get some help (rather than being completely on my own). If this relationship doesn't work, your job is going to be much harder. You can change direction of your research later in the degree or post graduation.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: ***Review articles*** try to summarize the latest most relevant findings in a field. Read a couple of those and you should at least have heard about the latest results and popular methods
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/06
| 1,030
| 4,620
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in a debate regarding tables developed for a literature review which include Author, Year, Type of Study, Methods, and Results. I believe all components of the table should be paraphrased, but a colleague directly copied methods and results which has resulted in a debate. Is this direct copying of these materials plagiarism or considered fair use as it applies to a literature review?
Note: The copied material is anywhere from one to seven sentences total for each reference for methods and results.
Note 2: I should also note this was in a table we previously stated we created and there is no indication the material is directly copied.<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately my fair use is her plagiarism is your copyright violation. Fair use was intentionally never very clear, but recently, IP rights owners have forced changes to laws, different in every jurisdiction, that have forced fair use to the margins.
What you describe is certainly not plagiarism as the words being used are correctly attributed to their creators. Dangerous ground if you use quotes without attribution, however. You shouldn't give the impression that words are *yours* when they are not.
But is it fair use?
Traditionally, I'm pretty sure that almost everyone would say yes. Fair to use the actual words in this way provided that they form an insignificant fraction of the whole work being quoted and proper attribution is given.
But now it is not so clear.
If you are at a University or other large institution, you likely have lawyers available that can give advice on this that is particular to your own situation (country, etc). There may also be a Research Office that has looked into this question and can provide guidance.
It might even be that paraphrasing is considered more troublesome than direct quoting.
But copyright is currently a moras. We are moving in many places toward unlimited and absolute copyright. Academics, especially, should work in the political realm to halt this trend before it makes some research fields impossible.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: First, please note that plagiarism is a different concept from copyright infringement/fair use. To summarize what I will explain here: **as long as you put quotation marks around everything that is copy-pasted AND you clearly cite each instance, I don't think you have any problem with either plagiarism or copyright violation**; this would be fully morally acceptable and within your fair use rights.
Here are my detailed comments:
* **Plagiarism:** In general, as long as you properly cite your sources, there is no issue about plagiarism. (Plagiarism is strictly about copying words from other people without giving them credit. It has nothing to do with copyright violation.) However, your scenario is a bit tricky because even if you cite your sources, copy-and-paste almost always requires quotation marks; however, you might possibly get away without quotation marks in a table (if it were copy-and-paste into regular text, you would most certainly need quotation marks). To be safe, I would just put quotation marks around everything that you or your colleague copies-and-pastes AND also cite the source each time. If you do this, then there is absolutely no concern about plagiarism.
It is also very important to understand that "paraphrasing" does not let you escape from claims of plagiarism. If your paraphrase is still too close to the original quotation, some people might still consider it plagiarism, even if you quote the source. (I personally disagree that that would be plagiarism because you quote the source, but, unfortunately, I know for a fact that some people do consider it to be plagiarism just because the paraphrase is still too close.) So, according to what you have described, I think paraphrasing would be a waste of your time: simply copy-and-paste, put quotation marks around each copy-and-paste, and cite each quotation clearly--if you do that, there is absolutely no concern about plagiarism.
* **Copyright violation and fair use:** I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I understand, copying bits and pieces from several different articles (even entire paragraphs) and assembling them into a table is fully within fair use limits. Fair use will generally let you copy entire tables, so assembling your own table from various sources should definitely be within your fair use rights. (And note that fair use is your right; the copyright holder has no right to restrict people from making fair use of their copyrighted work--copyright is not unlimited.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/06
| 304
| 1,187
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am printing a poster for presenting at a conference. I would like to print on cloth so that I can carry it easily in the suitcase.
In many print shops I have to select which cloth exactly to print on. There are many kinds of clothes: satin, canvas, flag, net, etc...
Which material both allows a high printing resolution (so that the details are clearly visible), and remains good-looking after transporting it in a suitcase?<issue_comment>username_1: I always use canvas. My experience says it is great to fold, carry and fix in the board. The printing quality is also excellent, even Arial 10-12 point font size looks very clear in the graphs. Moreover you can fold it in any form. I always make a square/rectangular fold and carry it in my backpack. It never erase any printings. Hope this helps.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Polyester that is dense and supports bright colors is great. I've posted a bit about cloth posters [here](https://eighteenthelephant.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/a-soft-silky-scientific-poster/) -- see especially the "update" at the bottom, which notes the excellent "performance knit" fabric from Spoonflower.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/06
| 414
| 1,676
|
<issue_start>username_0: After what type of changes must a table be considered as adapted instead of reprinted? If I reproduce a part of a table in my text (by making my own table and inserting the info) and correct some spelling mistakes, will that make it adapted instead of reprinted?<issue_comment>username_1: To reprint normally implies to republish something in an unaltered form from the original. In principle, therefore, any change is an adaptation of the original. If you correct an error, it could be listed as a “reprint with corrections,” but then the corrections need to be specified. Otherwise, it’s adapted.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: For figures, “reprinted” (or “reproduced”) would be unmodified and “adapted” would mean the figure has seen some changes (aesthetic, axis cropping, etc.)
For tables, though, it is less clear because you are presenting data and not a graphical object (drawing, picture, graph, etc.). If you use the table as it was originally published, “reproduced” is definitely the right term. If you merely fix spelling mistakes, “reproduced (with typos corrected)” is probably also very clear.
If, however, you create you own table by taking the existing data, adding some other information, you need to be much **more precise and indicate what data is yours and what comes from previous reference(s)**. Depending on how much data there is and how much is modified, I can see two strategies that work well:
* indicate in the caption that *“Columns A, B, and C are reproduced from Ref. X (with typos fixed).”*
* if the layout is more complex, italicise the original data: *“Data in italics is taken from Ref. X”.*
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/06
| 692
| 2,891
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international student. I have just started my master degree in Canada and I have been invited to a group dinner by my supervisor.
This situation and culture are quite new to me; I have not had this experience before. How should I act? Should I buy a gift or something?
And if so, what sort of gift seems appropriate?<issue_comment>username_1: No, there is no reason for buying a gift. The most you might do is send a follow-up email thanking your supervisor for the dinner.
Having lunch/dinner with colleagues isn't uncommon, and they usually aren't all that formal unless there is a special occasion (e.g., it is banquet organized by the department/university).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you are invited to a party it is common to take a bottle of wine for the host/hostess, but otherwise gift giving in such situations is uncommon.
However, I'm hearing warning bells if you are female and this is a one to one meeting. Since a supervisor has some power over your future, you need to make sure that you aren't put in an uncomfortable position. Bad things happen. Not always, but they do. Perhaps you are already comfortable with the professor and know of his reputation in social situations.
Two colleagues that aren't in some sort of hierarchical situation may alternate buying a meal for each other (or splitting a tab). But a professor would be less likely to buy a meal for the department head, for example. A supervisor might buy a meal for a group of students.
Actually, I've never been in such a situation, either as the supervisor or the student. It feels a bit weird to me, actually. Hence, warning bells.
I once did some work for a professor in my department when I was a grad student. This was things like baby sitting and yard work. He paid me as he would any employee. We were actually good friends - first name basis - but the relationship was kept very formal so that favors weren't offered or accepted. He wasn't my supervisor, however, but that should make no difference. My spouse and I had dinner with him and his a few times, but part of that was just that we had kids of similar age.
---
I will leave this answer here for the future, since it wasn't originally clear that this was a group situation. If the group dinner is in a restaurant there is no need to bring anything except your verbal thanks when it is over. If it is at a private home then a bottle of wine is often brought as a token for the host/hostess (assuming alcohol is accepted in your country and his). However, if you are from a different culture/country than the host, then a small souvenir from your home country would often be especially welcome. Something that is typical and might be found in a tourist shop, for example. Preferably, the gift should not have a lot of monetary value - just a remembrance.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/06
| 1,960
| 8,277
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:**
I work in a public university as a staff member, and also a part-time lecturer, allowed to teach only 1 class (per Union).
Last year, I applied and received multiple grants/awards for my teaching position. I already completed the work and received payments. The grants did not require any approvals from department/dean.
**Recent development:** Now, our dean approached me with the following conversation:
“You need to send me info prior to your grant submission..
You are only a lecturer…
We hired you just to teach 1 course…
You have a limit for a course teaching… you have a limit (per Union)...
You need to consult with the dean and the department chair about any grant’s proposal and share your idea with us…
I know that you are not required to submit for internal review to the dean, but since I knew nothing about it, I was in a dark, moving forward you must inform me about your plans… You need to work with a tenured faculty on grants…”
**My question:**
What do I suppose to do in this situation? I obviously do not believe dean’s well wishes, and would like to apply grants in the future without “dean’s blessings”. I also feel that the dean would go behind my back and ask for denial of my proposal. I do not wish to share my ideas for free.<issue_comment>username_1: If you aren't willing to do what upper administration is directly telling you to do, then either:
* Be willing to accept the consequences when you go against the dean.
* Look for a new university with administration that you can trust.
To summarize my responses to you in the comments:
* You seem worried about your intellectual property. However, the university may already own this. You'll have to check your university policies and talk to a lawyer. If you document your ideas (e.g., an email to the dean with your grant proposal draft) then you would be able to show that you authored it.
* You seem to think the dean has an ill intent. However, you haven't provided any evidence of this. From what you have said, it seems like the dean just wants to know what is going on and possibly protect the university and or you from liability issues caused by the grants (e.g., it is outside your job description, you claimed your university affiliation when applying for the grant, you are using university resources for grant work without approval).
In other words, if you are receiving grant money (or doing anything) in what appears to be an official capacity of your work position (lecturer at a university), then the university has a right to know about it (and to prevent you from doing it).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I believe you're in a tight situation. But do not feel singled out: I have heard of many such cases where department higher ranks exploit younger staff. The academia is unfortunately full of opportunistic predators nowadays. This person seeks to be put in a position from where he can blackmail and manipulate you.
I do not know anything of the local social & cultural standards of where you are, or whether you are a local, or an immigrant. I am afraid you must make a moral choice which will affect your personal life and career. This person probably seeks to parasitise and sabotage you. You must find a way of neutralising his actions with minimal damage.
The best for everyone else in the bigger picture is that you confront this dean head on. Offering open resistance and wide exposure directly weakens a bad workmate. If everyone resists, abusers cannot thrive. Problem is, it will likely cost you your peace at work, and force you to move away. Possibly confronting authorities may not be socially acceptable (e.g. China) adding to a bad reputation and extra enemies / penalties.
Another way is to scam the abuser. You may pretend to scared and frame fake ideas and proposals, provide elusive information. This will lead to a cold war and eventually he will realise, but it buys you time (e.g. a dean may be temporary).
Or you simply abide and pray for the best. This is probably what this person is used to seeing.
Evaluate your chances where you are, and whether moving on to a better environment wouldn't be the best for you. By all means, when you get the chance, please do neutralise this person. Time is your friend against abusers.
Good luck.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Technically speaking, many grants are made to the university and not to
the applicant personally. University grants offices are typically paid a small
percentage of the grant amount for administering the grant and in many
cases a larger percentage of the grant amount for 'indirect costs' (library
usage, computer facilities, etc.).
For such grants it is usually a requirement
for deans and university grants officers to approve the application.
I am not saying your dean is a 'nice guy'. Or that union contracts make any logical sense. I'm just saying make sure
you know the rules of the granting agency and the university before you
make grant applications.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It might help to understand where your Dean is coming from. I work for my university's research administration department, and I can understand his position. For context, we are an R1 university in the United States.
There are likely a few things going on:
1. Grants often create liabilities for universities. There may be cost-sharing requirements or other implicit costs which the university will be required to pay. Administrators need to keep a close eye on these requirements in order to keep the university functioning smoothly.
2. Grants create risks for universities. There are many legal and ethical rules surrounding grants. Although some of the risk is on you, much of the potential penalties are assumed by the university. For this reason, many (if not all) research universities have dedicated research administration departments and all grants are required to flow through those departments.
3. There are legal issues. In all of the grants I've seen, the grant goes from the granting agency to your employer. It is not a grant to you personally. You should be careful about accepting money on your own. Carefully re-read the grant terms to be sure that this is not the case here.
4. Not all the reasons are bad: universities often like to reward individuals and departments who do a great job of soliciting grant dollars. If they can't keep an eye on grants, how are they supposed to that?
Other answers have mentioned intellectual property. I'll only repeat what they have said: if you work for a university you should not assume that any intellectual work product is your own property. Make sure you understand what the rules are in your location.
Overall, I would treat this as an opportunity to develop in your profession. If soliciting grants is an important part of your career (current or future!) then it would help to understand how it works. It's not as simple as just applying for a grant - and for good reason!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: It is not likely that the dean is out to get you (he probably has better things to do). Follow his advice and see what happens (he will have some expertise that you don't at this time). You are likely young and whatever happens is not going to have any lasting effects on you.
On the other hand you may discover that the dean is a nice person and make a friend.
In the worst case scenario, you will find that the dean's advice should not be followed and have a 'reason' to go back to your 'old ways'.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You are using the department's resources (that includes *your* working time) to work on your grant projects. To do that without the departments knowledge is close to embezzlement. This dean is actually *very nice to you* at the moment.
He has every right to know *before* what you're applying for, and what you need for it. Desk space for a student, your working time, equipment, lab time, lab space, etc. The scientific details of your project are possibly of no concern to him, but unless you are hired as an independent researcher, he still has every *right* to demand that you share them. Because you are already using department resources to *write* the proposals.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/07
| 1,920
| 7,798
|
<issue_start>username_0: The circumstance :
1. I finished a master program (in engineering) in Germany a while ago with quite good grades (score of 1.\*\*).
2. Immediately after the defense, the professor asked me the plan afterwards, and offered a Phd scholarship (1100 euro per month), not employee-contract.
3. I reacted positively.
4. However, I found several interesting PhD positions that give more support financially.
5. So, I want to ask the professor if he can write reference letters for me to apply to other labs.
6. But I am worried about getting rejected from the other labs, and also losing my chance for a position with my current supervisor.
So, if I ask for the reference letters to apply to other labs, is the opportunity (of 1100 euro/month) gone automatically? Would this be rude?<issue_comment>username_1: In my mind, there are two different issues here:
1. Other professors pay more than 1100 Euros.
2. Other professors are doing (more) interesting work.
If the real issue is the money, then you can simply tell the professor that it would be difficult to live on 1100 euros/mo and you would prefer to search for a better-paying job. This should not offend him, so if your search fails and the job is still open, I imagine he will hire you. The risk you take is that he may hire someone else in the meantime. On the other hand, he may just offer you more money rather than going through a whole search process, which would be the perfect outcome if money is the real problem.
If the real issue is that the other professors' work is more interesting to you, then you should work for someone else. This isn't "rude" -- everyone has different research interests, and your professor should understand this. But, I wouldn't expect him to renew his offer -- no one wants to work with a student that would rather be somewhere else.
(*Note, I am not an expert in the German system.*)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: * If you are looking for other PhD positions within Germany you may not *need* to ask for a reference: reference letters are not as common here as in some other countries. However, if you had an employment contract before, ask for your "Arbeitszeugnis" which pretty much takes the role of a reference letter. You are by law entitled to that, so asking for that should be a pretty standard request and you can say you'd like to have it for the sake of having your paperwork complete.
In case you were there just as Master student you don't get an Arbeitszeugnis, the certificates for final exam and Master thesis take that role.
* I'm entirely with @username_1 in that your primary decision should be about the field/topics.
This is a perfectly fine reason to leave the group you are now in, and the professor should understand that.
* Assuming the financial side is the only consideration that drives you away from the scholarship, I'd recommend being open with the professor about this. I'd assume an engineering professor to be able to calculate and the immediate difference in money is rather obvious (see below). The professor may have further arguments in favor of the scholarship (see below), and there may be some space for negotiations.
If on the other hand, it turns out to be financially infeasible to do the PhD with the scholarship, the professor should again be willing to support you in looking for a job in the form of a reference.
(This assumes that the professor is neutral or benevolent towards you - wich is consistent with the offered scholarship)
* OTOH, if you "secretly" apply for other positions but are not accepted and end up with the scholarship and the professor then finds out, this may create bad blood (not trustworthy, not open, etc.) - and a PhD is a rather intense and lengthy period of work where the professor may very well have thoughts into which students to "invest", say, money to attend conferences and which students are likely to run away as soon as there's the possibility. So I'd consider this approach somewhat risky here.
* In other words, while it may be doable to apply for the other positions without a reference, I'd recommend to **ask the professor for a reference letter**.
---
Some thoughts about scholarship vs. PhD position via employment contract. It is not that easy to judge what amount of scholarship would be equivalent to what wage (though your offer seems to me to be rather on the low side):
* 1100 €/month scholarship will financially be comparable with an "employee" gross wage of 915 € or a net wage of 725 €/month. As you'll have to take care of your social insurance by your own (I'm assuming that even if you don't have to pay e.g. into pension scheme it would be sensible to put away at least as much as an employee in a similar financial situation is forced to put aside). If you decide against any social insurance that is not mandatory, i.e. only pay health and long term care insurance, you'll have ≈ 940 €/month.
As you say, it should be comparatively easy to find jobs that pay more: a 50 % TVL E13 in level I (first year) will be ≈1275 € net/month, so there should be other "features" of the scholarship to get it at par.
* But scholarships often do come with additional features such as some money that you can spend at your discretion for your research (say, 200 € Büchergeld = money for books [which I could keep afterwards], I had a scholarship with additional money for travel to conferences and research stays and to purchase small things for the lab [they stayed with the university when I left]). You cannot take those things 1:1 like a higher scholarship, as e.g. university/your project rather than you personally should pay for conferences - but those sources are often very limited, so e.g. I did attend far more conferences than my fellow PhD students in the same group (typical was one national vs. several international + research stay for me).
Find out about this.
* Scholarships may or may not allow you to work a side job. Check this carefully. If you can, you may be better off with getting a well-paying side job for a few hours per week.
* In any case, check carefully how much you are supposed to work on other projects but your PhD project. This is unusual now, but my initial employment contracts as PhD student did not pay for any of my PhD thesis research work but were entirely about teaching lab/practica.
If you are anyways expected to be contributing to the institute's teaching load, you may be able to ask for an employment contract for that in addition to your scholarship, whereas a PhD student employment contract may include already a duty to help so many hours with teaching.
* Scholarships are not employment contracts. Some of the consequences are: You are not subject to Arbeitnehmererfindungsgesetz (employee invention law) nor to the employee paragraphs of copyright law: in consequence inventions and e.g. software you develop is completely owned by you, not by the university.
Also, the scholarship is not subject to income tax. OTOH, your PhD years will not count towards years contributed towards the governmental pension scheme unless you sign up for voluntary contributions (AFAIK, that is possible).
* Scholarships often offer possibilities such as attending workshops and courses on particular subjects, and to network with people from other universities and other fields.
* Depending a bit on the scholarship, it may be a good boost to your CV. Scholarships are not that common in Germany, so having had one means that you were selected, e.g. for being a very good student.
(side note: because of this, I find it unusual that the professor offers you a scholarship as opposed to offering that they'd help/try to get you a scholarship. Still, it is entirely possible.)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/07
| 662
| 2,902
|
<issue_start>username_0: What's the search engine for research papers that professors of English,History or Humanities wrote? I looked up my english professors on google and couldn't find any of their dissertations or papers. Google scholar fails.<issue_comment>username_1: It's possible that this question will be closed as a "shopping" question, but I'll try to provide some general information.
In the humanities and social sciences, scholars have been slow to adopt the practice of putting preprints of articles up on the web for other scholars to read. There are some preprint servers for various areas in the humanities and social sciences, but these are not nearly as heavily used as (for example) ArXiV is used in many areas of science and mathematics.
A further issue is that much of the scholarship in these disciplines is published in the form of books rather than articles. For example, a typical expectation of an assistant professor in these disciplines is that they publish one book out of their dissertation within the first few years after the Ph.D. and have a second book published before the end of the tenure period. Publishers of scholarly books in the humanities are mostly unwilling to allow the authors to make versions of the books freely available.
In my experience, Google Scholar does often include journal articles in the humanities and social sciences. Furthermore, it's quite common for the web pages of faculty members in these disciplines to list their publications. Thus I'm surprised that you say you can't determine what they've published. Are you saying that you can't find any information about what they've published, or are you asking why you can't find freely accessible copies of this material?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Try a name search at the [JSTOR Advanced Search](https://www.jstor.org/action/showAdvancedSearch) web page. You may have to use more than one name variation (i.e. using "John" and "Smith" may not pick up "<NAME>"), unless the last name is fairly unique (in which case just use that and maybe use an appropriate additional search word such as "European" or "history" or "philosophy", etc.). This will not give you access to the papers, unless you have university (or other) JSTOR access, but **it is an example** of a "search engine for research papers" that can be used for humanities fields. I think this only gives you papers published 5 or more years ago, but for most humanities fields this is not much of a restriction. Besides, in recent years pretty much everyone has their more recent work mentioned somewhere on their web pages. Also, googling their name along with "CV" or "Curriculum Vita" will sometimes give you what you want if you can't find it on their web pages --- I've sometimes found CV's that you would not have known existed from only searching that person's web pages.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/08
| 3,792
| 16,443
|
<issue_start>username_0: I noticed that in my field, studies involving testing with human subjects often only show a small number (N>=10) of them. While I understand that researchers are often limited on funding and time, I always thought studies like that would require a certain minimum of subjects far greater than that.
Different sources I found (e.g. [this one](http://courses.wcupa.edu/rbove/Berenson/10th%20ed%20CD-ROM%20topics/section8_7.pdf "this one") p.3, [this sample size calculator](https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/), or [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination)) seem to support that impression.
My field is audio signal processing, and the studies that caught my attention were about speech intelligibility, hearing comfort and other measures related to human hearing.
My question is:
**Why do some studies only involve a small count of subjects when statistical theory suggests a high number of participants is required to make meaningful assertions?**
(I assume that there is something I missed or something that got mixed up in my head, and I'd really like to find my error)<issue_comment>username_1: I will go out on a limb here and suggest that you are correct. Too many studies are too small to have meaningful results. I fact a google search for [scientific studies not reproducible] turns up some scary results. One is that only 10-30% of studies published in journals can be replicated.
There are many reasons for this, but poor research design is a main culprit, including too-small sets of subjects.
As to the reason for the small sample sizes you can point to both money and time. It takes more money and time to sample a larger set in all but trivial situations. But it can be hard or impossible to get a larger body of subjects for many studies. The potential universe of subjects may be widely distributed in space but sparse within the larger population. Sometimes many factors may be required for acceptance, leading to rejection of many. Some studies may just run up against opposition from the population due to many factors, including simply that it takes effort on the part of a subject.
In addition to the size factor is that many studies rely on using students at the same university as subjects. These folks are not representative of the population as a whole unless the population itself is defined to be university students.
Another problem with samples is that the subjects are always assumed to be "randomly" chosen from the overall population, but it is very difficult to assure that in many cases. This is the problem with using university students, in fact.
Small sample sets are perfectly natural for preliminary studies that can give direction and provide refinement to the design of a larger study. But, as you suggest, it is hard to extrapolate results from a small sample to a large population if that population has much variability.
Moreover, small studies cannot, by the nature of statistics, capture subtle effects. If you are trying to determine if more "mumbles" have characteristic "A" or characteristic "B", then a small sample size of "mumbles" will work if, indeed, the actual population breakdown is 70-30, but statistically unlikely if it is 57-43.
For reasons like the above, many researchers are moving from a standard 95% confidence interval in studies to, perhaps, 99% (or more). This helps weed out many of the design issues that cause the problem of non-reproducible studies. But that is risky for students who want and need some results to put into a dissertation and are limited in both time and money. But while small sample size is fine for initial, exploratory, studies, it is not for determining the state of reality.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Although large samples produce more robust results, small samples are not completely devoid of usefulness - they're just more likely to be wrong. As long as the reader keeps this in mind, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with publishing these small-sample studies.
Further, sometimes you just cannot get enough samples to make an assertion with confidence. Examples:
[GW170817](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817) was a one-of-a-kind neutron star merger event. Since the rate of neutron star mergers isn't well-known, one could easily wait another five years and not get another sample (plus you'd need hundreds of samples to make the kind of statements you're looking for).
[The Berlin Patient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Berlin_Patient#Timothy_Ray_Brown:_the_2008_cured_Berlin_patient) - there's no cure for AIDS. Even if this single case were a fluke, it's still worth reporting since it's a signpost telling researchers where to look.
[Habitability research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability) - The question of whether aliens exist captures the public imagination. Like it or not, we have to approach the problem from what we know, and we know only one planet with life (i.e. sample size of one). You could of course just decline to work in the field until we've discovered several hundred alien civilizations, but then you could be waiting forever. Plus with no idea what to look for, observational astronomers would have a much harder time finding these civilizations.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Of course this depends a lot on what you're after. If you are looking for differences or some other effect within an individual, then your sample size are measurements within the individual rather than number of individuals. In such scenarios it is legitimate to study only a single (or a few) individuals.
Also, if your individuals are not studied per se but act as "instrument" (testing answer by @AustinHenley, or setting up a sensory panel, i.e. you use N individuals to smell/taste the effect of something you do/produce) you need a number to cover most of the important general variation we have in the population. But that number actually isn't that large because typically only people who are good at the task at hand will be used. I.e., smell-blind people do not apply for a sensory panel in general, you only need to cover the variation in receptors you encounter in people who are good at smelling. And that are far fewer than, say, the number of people you'd need to look at to find out which proportion of people are good at smelling, or the number you'd look at in order to be able to predict, say, the probability that a randomly chosen unknown person will like the smell/taste of what you produced:
If you need to make conclusions about a population or about applicability of your findings to unknown individuals of a population (if we train our method on an individual, this is how well it will do), you need to representatively cover the variability in that population, and this requires large sample size.
---
For the population questions, I fully agree with @username_1's analysis, but I'll go a bit further about possible reasons.
* The maybe most scary (to me) reason is that it is IMHO perfectly possible/far too easy to publish studies with low quality due to far-too-small sample size.
Note that I've been working in a life-science field, i.e. close to where we have lots of reports about studies not being reproducible since years, and at least in my sub-field not much of an effect on the sample size.
* One particular problem I see with small sample size studies is not scientific (as in limitations of conclusions that can be drawn) but political. The "politics" of academia focuses very much on novelty. This basically means that once a small sample size study is published, any larger follow-up study has to present *extremely* good arguments to overcome the "this is known already" bias in funding.
This means, in addition to being uncertain, small sample size studies may prevent getting certainty.
* In (industrial) experimental design it is often recommended to start with a preliminary experiment using, say, 1/3 or 40% of the available resources. Then do a preliminary analysis and if necessary re-adjust the allocation of the remaining resources accordingly.
This takes time and means effort. However, if the preliminary results are good, they can be published. The follow-up study will then potentially face a lack-of-novelty hurdle to publication.
* Master's and PhD theses by definition are the work of one student. This limits how much work can happen in one study. And it pushes towards experiments that are inconsistent in the long term: students cannot be abused as lab robots (which would help getting together good sample sizes - but good lab technicians are more expensive...) as they need to contribute scientifically. One of the easiest ways to do that is to improve the experiments over what has been done before - leading to large numbers of small sample size studies/fragmented series of experiments.
* The requirement of "own work" sometimes causes students to not speak openly about their project and not seek advise. Every so often that leads to flawed experimental design and/or too small sample size and this is realized only during data analysis (or not at all). But then it is often too late to do anything but try to rescue the existing data. And rescued into a paper it must be, because otherwise the student won't have the paper they need.
* I see another potential conflict in mixing the evaluation of scientific work (as in grading the PhD student's work) and arriving at scientific findings:
+ if a student in their well-planned and well-conducted study finds the "desired" effect, that implies both that the student did their work well, and we have a scientific advance. All is fine.
+ However, if things don't work out nicely, things are much more difficult: Was the failure due to the student not working well (I come from a wet lab field)? And/or is there no effect? In other words, the student not finding an effect has to put in much more effort in demonstrating it is not their fault.Now consider putting a set amount of effort either in n underpowered studies or in 1 with good sample size. If the one with large sample size fails, you don't have a single paper\*. If a small sample size study doesn't find an effect it is simply not published, and you move on to the next, because it is usually too much hassle to make a paper publishable with negative finding. But keep in mind that small sample size papers are not only underpowered, but they also "provide" a high "chance" to produce false positive findings (i.e. overestimate effect) - and that means a paper.
* Our brain tends to underestimate the effect of chance. This means without doing the statistics, we're likely to intuitively underestimate chance and be overconfident in our findings.
* There are studies where it is practically speaking impossible to obtain anything close to the required sample size\*\*. And there's nothing wrong scientifically with case reports and small studies as long as they are clearly indicated as such, and the conclusions take the required caution and limitations are clearly stated.
Often, it is also practically impossible to obtain representative samples. I'm still OK as long as a) limitations are openly stated, and/or b) even applicability is checked by plugging in reasonable guesstimates for prevalence/incidence/class frequencies to at least give a critical thought to suitability for the application in question.
However, I see far too many studies that *needlessly* "rescue the world on the basis of 3 mice" or that work on, say, 20 samples of tumor tissues that are anyways cut out of patients with a disease that is neither rare, nor is the tumor volume small, nor is all the tissue needed for correct diagnosis in order to properly treat the patient.
* Finally, I consider it the worst possible waste of experimental effort (and that's even worse if test subjects/animals are involved) if a study is so small that a back-of-the-envelope calculation would have discovered that even in the best case no practical conclusion can possibly be drawn.
(e.g. reserving 4 independent test patients in development of a medical diagnostic [pos/neg for some disease] out of your 20 patients. Assuming all 4 are correctly classified, this gives you an observed accuracy of 100 %. But the 95 % confidence interval for accuracy ranges from around guessing to perfect.)
---
\* real life example:
1. I've met a PhD student who
was working with a ≈ 500 patient sample size in my field. Measured them all, found there was a flaw in the design of the measurements (not properly randomized order of measurements, thus strictly speaking drift in time of the measurements could not be excluded as cause of the observation - which however looked like real effects from a physical/spectroscopic point of view). Realized this, and re-did all the measurements. Did not find the effect which was expected from long experience of the supervisor with similar situations and preliminary experiments. It is not clear whether there is truly no effect after all, or whether something else went wrong with the experiments (non-negligible risk for what they do), or both.
2. Same field, other university, other students get their PhD on the basis of, say, 20 patients. Not randomized, never thought about experimental design, not to speak of limitations of their study.
I'd judge student 1 *much* better than students 2 in terms of the scientific work they did. But they'll have to face a struggle to convince their committee of that: the committees of 2 clearly were not aware of the limitations, nor were the referees of the papers. So students 2 happily publish multiple papers in the time where student 1 struggles whether their study can be published. And student 1 did admit to a mistake, so there's evidence of student 1 not working well (they did make a mistake after all) - whereas there is no such evidence in the studies of 2....
\*\* I'm also fine with the practical limitation that in many interdisciplinary fields if you need significant work of others (in our case, e.g. reference diagnoses by pathologists reviewing every single of our samples) those others may want to see preliminary data published in order to make sure they don't waste their effort with people who don't know what they are doing and/or are not serious about the application.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HLcUJ.gif)
In usability research, just 5 participants will reveal about 75% of the problems with a system. This seems to fit very well for qualitative research (so perhaps the hearing comfort studies you mentioned?). From my own experience of running studies with 8-32 participants, it only took running the first few participants before every subsequent participant felt like a repeat.
Sure, you might not be able to get statistical significance with 5 participants, but you can learn **a lot**.
Figure taken from Nielsen's article [Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: The main reason that psychoacoustic experiments only utilize a small number of subjects is that the goal is generally not to determine the average performance of the population, but rather to characterize the limits of perception. With an N of 1, you obviously do not know if you have measured that individuals limit of perception, or got lucky and measured the limit of perception of the best individual. Based on the history of the field, from a bayesian vantage, there is a ridiculously strong prior that the first author of a study will be the best trained and most highly motivated subject and have the best performance. There is also a strong prior that with sufficient training and motivation that a substantial percentage of young healthy subjects can achieve similar performance. Studies typically conclude that humans can do task X at a minimum of level Y. There is so much data for each of the few subjects, that one can conclude that each subject's performance is highly unlikely to be from chance and that it actually represents performance. That said, it tells you little about the performance of a random individual.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/08
| 2,042
| 8,690
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an engineer with a M.S. and 20+ years of industry experience. I always wanted to teach but I left grad school for industry to help pay the bills. I have no regrets, but I do have a very strong desire to go back into academia. I remember my first real engineering class was taught by a adjunct who had a full time industry job. I really appreciated the advice he gave about being an engineer in the real world. I'd like to return that favor to future engineers by being an adjunct.
I'd like to start by establishing a presence at local community colleges. I'd love the opportunity to do some volunteer work, collaborate, substitute or sit on an advisory board. I'd offer a unique perspective still being connected to industry, but with a strong interest in academia. What would be realistic? What position should I contact at the community college and how should that conversation start?
Country United States<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest that as first steps you contact a faculty member (or two) in a department for which you have an interest. You can find the scheduled office hours from the administration and you may be able to find an email address there or even online. First talk to one or two faculty, expressing your interest. In particular you can offer to speak to the students about your specialty and/or your background, both educational and professional. Some places have dedicated times for such speakers. Otherwise a faculty member may just invite you to a class.
First establish that sort of relationship and if it works out, offer to do more.
You can also offer to supply needed educational resources to an instructor. This could be anything from computer code to surplus but still relevant equipment - even just manuals for equipment might be appreciated.
I think this bottom-up way is a better approach than one that starts with the administration. You will need to establish an inherent trust in your skills rather than just being imposed from above.
Having met a few faculty and working with students you will naturally be introduced to other faculty and administration. Take advantage of these opportunities. Eventually, the administration will come to trust you, if you are doing good things, and might seek out your advice more generally.
One thing you may be able to do that would be appreciated in a lot of places is to serve as a "talent agency" for finding speakers from your profession, or mentors for specific students. Be careful, of course, to bring in only people that can be trusted to do a good job. Setting up short term internships or even "take a student to work day" situations might work out. I think a lot of students are looking for opportunities to explore what their life would be like if they choose a certain profession. High School and Junior/username_4 College students are likely very interested in this as they are not yet committed to a particular path.
However, that some kinds of volunteering is frowned upon if it is interpreted as denying someone else (younger) a paid position. Don't offer services that replace people, but only those that augment. So, your suggestion of winding up as an adjunct instructor (paid) is a good one. But the pay will be very low. Those who try to live on the salary paid to adjuncts have a very hard life.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: All you need to teach undergrad courses at the university level here in the US is a masters, which you have. You can't be tenure track (a professor) without the PhD, but you can be a lecturer. And you can certainly be a part-time adjunct or affiliate.
Contact the department chairs in the engineering departments of these local schools. Ask to meet to discuss their current or possible needs for adjunct or affiliate faculty and any advice they might offer. Without previous classroom experience, your first assignment won't be a big lecture class. But you might start (as I did, about 6 years ago) as a lab instructor or as a faculty adviser for a team of students working on their senior project. As you gain more experience and begin to figure your way around how a university works and how a class is run, you can ask for more interesting assignments.
Good luck. I've really enjoyed the transition from industry to academia. I love working with my students and my colleagues. I think you will, too.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: At a non-trivial number of departments at small colleges there is an ongoing need to have potential adjuncts on file. (My chair is endlessly asking new hires if their spouse might have the credentials and interest in taking an occasional class.)
In those cases it is generally enough to walk into the department head's office and introduce yourself (and think about *which* departments, you may be able to teach the introductory physics classes as well as classes with more engineering focus). They will tell you what credentials they need to check, and may want to have a mini-interview with some of the other faculty.
How many classes you'll actually get scheduled for is another matter. Until they know you, you'll be queued up behind people they have a developed relationship with.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Did you consider doing a part-time PhD or PDEng? This may be a logical route to get into the academic system and to tie yourself to a department. From there, lecturing and/or supervising students is not a huge step. If you have a research idea you can approach a professor.
Another possibility may be to offer yourself as a guest lecturer. As MSc programmes prepare students for their future life, my department greatly appreciates guest lecturers from outside academia.
A third possibility may be the valorisation track. Universities often have valorisation programmes where academia and industry meet. This could be professional education or joint projects. You could join such a track or set up one yourself.
My personal experience is that many possibilities exist to get involved in academia if you take some initiative. You could approach a department in your field.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: You seem to be in an excellent position to teach at a community college. A Master's plus job experience puts you in a strong position. A Ph.D. sometimes makes an applicant more competitive for the full-time positions, but so would lots of work experience or good teaching experience.
[For instance, here is a handbook listing the educational/work requirements for California community colleges, by field. WARNING: pdf](http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/Reports/2016-Minimum-Qualifications-Report-ADA.pdf)
username_4 colleges everywhere in the U.S. hire tenure track faculty with Master's degrees or other credentials, and hire many part time faculty (where they are teaching the community college course on the side). username_4 colleges often hire in a way similar to K-12 schools or general state government positions through state job boards. For a tenure track position you would need to find an open position posted, for a part-time adjunct position, you probably could go directly to the department and ask, or find it on the job board. I'd guess that this is to a large extent specific to what state you are in, as it involves the state government hiring process. Some ads may even run in local papers or the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Some generic advice I'll toss out:
You can meet the Dept. Chair (that is probably the best initial contact), ask to observe a class, or offer to teach a continuing education or non-credit elder (such as Osher Lifelong Learning) or personal enrichment classes. That let's you get some visibility. Any teaching experience is a huge plus for CC positions.
Look at the district's home page for a job board, there should be occasional part time adjunct 'pool' positions you could apply for.
In the same location (or a state-wide government job board) you might find a full-time tenure track position opening.
There is a possible danger spot: I've heard that some CCs have a 'prejudice' against hiring their adjunct into full time positions. I haven't observed that with CC faculty I know (who transitioned from adjunct to full-time just fine), but I've heard it happens in some places.
Here is a [nice article](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-You-Should-Consider/143851) on general community college teaching (comments are interesting, too) by <NAME> in the Chronicle of Higher Education. [And another](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Making-It-Past-the-First-Round/142253) one by him, about getting hired as a CC applicant.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/08
| 625
| 2,664
|
<issue_start>username_0: Although there is system for writing comments on an article by proper submission through editorial system. But sometime, we feel need of commenting on article like; the content is very good or content is lacking in certain aspect etc. I think, if there is provision of writing comment directly on the online published copy of article, it would be very useful for both the author and the readers.<issue_comment>username_1: This is just opinion but the question seems to call for just opinion, of course. But, my opinion is that when the paper has been published it is too late for general public commentary on it *at the place of publication*. Researchers have better things to do than fend off trolls for example and much published research will draw the trolls.
The process for getting published, of course, is generally very rigorous with informed comment being fed back to the authors. They get (or should get) the feedback from people who are informed about the field and what has been done previously and what is important.
If a person, genuinely, has an issue with what is published the preferred avenue of response is to publish something better, citing the original.
Most authors can, of course, be contacted privately, either with praise or concern. The author can see it and take it into consideration. This can lead to better future publications benefitting everyone.
However online controversy about published research is less valuable and draws the authors into non productive response.
When something published is egregiously bad, however, comment often occurs in letters to journal editors or even, in extreme cases, in the general press. Sometimes corrections take a long time to occur, such as in the [Stanford Study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States). But I doubt that social media type commentary would improve that situation.
tl:dr; The Trolls will Troll.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A few observations.
1. Paper publishing predates social media by centuries.
2. Leaving a possibility for people on the internet to comment on
anything is like opening a can of worms. You'd *instantly* need
moderators and user curation and what not. All these people (and
servers) would need to be payed somehow. But most publishers are
greedy bloodsuckers already, don't make it worse.
3. I think
ResearchGate allows something like this, but restricted and limited.
I have seen no practical use.
4. If the commentary is proper enough,
it appears as a follow-up paper. "On <NAME>'s sepuling of sepulki
and axoim of choice", and such.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/08
| 968
| 3,882
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are translators of mathematical texts (books or articles or whatever) from a foreign language into English in demand today? Specifically, I'm interested in German and Russian. If they are, then what kind of organizations (or what specific organizations) are interested in such translators? Do people working for those organizations usually combine the translation job with a teaching and/or research job?<issue_comment>username_1: It is hard to tell if they are really in demand today. I have no statistics at hand but I guess that the demand is (slightly) declining since most books are written in English these days. But there are of course counterexamples to this statement. There has been a popular German book on functional analysis, being first released in 1985. In 2016 it has been translated into English, see below. I studied at a German university and the recommended books in my undergraduates were mostly German books, only a few being translated into English. It is hard to tell whether it is worth it to translate them because there are already a bunch of English books on "basic" subjects.
What kind of organization is interested: Probably the authors are interested, but not for monetary reasons, but so that more researchers in the whole world can read their books. The publisher should also be interested, selling more copies. And of course the researchers. I'd wish there would be an English copy of "Quelques méthodes de résolution des problèmes aux limites non linéaires" by J.-L. Lions.
In general, the translators are not working directly for the publisher. They are active mathematicians in research and/or teaching at a university. Most of them are no regular translators (see my examples below), having translated only one book so far. But you can look up <NAME>, who translated a dozen Russian books for Dover.
From German into English:
>
> **-"Linear Functional Analysis" (2016) by H.W. Alt:**
> "The present book is the English translation of a previous German edition, also published by Springer Verlag. The translation was carried out by <NAME>, who also did a marvelous job at detecting errors and mistakes in the original version."
> **<NAME>** is a mathematician at the Imperial College London.
>
>
> **-"Vector Analysis" (2001) by <NAME>:**
> "Speaking of translation, I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of <NAME> in translating the German text into English. We have exchanged detailed e-mail messages throughout the translation process, discussing mathematics and subtleties of language."
> **<NAME>** is a mathematician at Virginia Tech.
>
>
>
From Russian into English:
>
> **-"Lectures on Partial Differential Equations" by <NAME>:**
> Translated by **<NAME>**, University of Vermont.
>
>
> **-"Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics" by <NAME> et al.:** Translated by **<NAME>**, Brandeis University
>
>
> **-"Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics" by <NAME>:**
> Translated by **<NAME>**, Cornell University, and **<NAME>**, University of California at Berkeley
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Marvin's answered about demand of translations fueled by potential readers in English speaking countries, but there is another (maybe larger) source of demand: authors from non English speaking countries.
Most researchers all over the world are required to publish articles in international journals, nearly always written in English, and not all of them have the ability to write in English. I've seen offers of professional services marketed to these researchers.
However, keep in mind that that marked could be dwindling in the next decades, since the level of English of young grad students is way better than those of older faculty on their forties or fifties.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/08
| 452
| 1,798
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to take the GRE soon. My practice tests end up being at V: 158 (80%) and Q: 162 (80%). I didn't care too much about the quantitative section in the practice test so my real score should be higher. However, my Verbal seems accurate. I don't know about the writing, but I'd guess to around a 5 if things go well.
Question: Are these scores good enough for a PhD in electrical/computer engineering or computer science (not decided yet, something in EECS) at schools like MIT/Stanford/Berkeley? Should I be wasting my time preparing for the GRE? I had thought that GRE was completely useless, but after some searching online it seems it actually carries weight.<issue_comment>username_1: What is your alternative? Why do you consider studying for the test a "waste of time"? If the exams are required for admission then, I'd suggest that you should do what you can to make the best effort possible. You are in a good program now, of course (UM), but the schools you suggest draw the most skilled applicants from the best programs in the world. The competition is fierce. Work hard. Do your best, knowing that nothing is assured at this level.
Even if the exam carries little weight in general, it might be used in marginal cases to indicate to someone in the process that you are (or aren't) simply superb.
But in general, *do* everything you can to maximize your "portfolio" in every category that might be a factor in acceptance.
There is no *try*.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Aim for 90%+, especially on quant. Many (top) programs won't even look at your application if you are not at that range, unless something else on your file (really) stands out.
That being said, several EE/CS programs no longer require the GRE, MIT included.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/09
| 2,278
| 10,049
|
<issue_start>username_0: When submitting papers to journals, I understand from experience that acceptance can take quite some time (on the order of several months), even when a reviewer is immediately assigned to the paper. But can a referee usually tell fairly quickly if the article should be rejected? Are there any horror stories of waiting several months after a reviewer agrees to look at your paper, only to get a rejection letter?<issue_comment>username_1: The answer depends on the journal, the paper, and the reviewer(s). You might hear relatively quickly if there is a trusted reviewer available quickly *and* he/she isn't too busy with other work *and* the paper is either especially good, or especially bad. Often the bad is easier to judge than the good, of course. The longest reviews are the intermediate papers, especially if different reviewers have different opinions about it. "We want to publish this. Do we have room in an upcoming issue? We have a lot of competing papers. I love it. I don't think it's quite ripe yet. Etc. Etc. Etc."
Note also that the reviews of intermediate papers (and even some judged to be quite good) may come with some advice for improvement that will, perhaps, lead to acceptance after additional review. This will depend on the journal, of course.
However, don't wait to hear the judgement of the reviewers. Continue work on the project, working to improve both the result and its presentation. Work to extend the result.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it can happen. I've seen one paper which was rejected after four rounds of revisions. The reviewer was dubious about the method employed, but was not confident enough to advocate immediate rejection. After some back-and-forth with the authors the reviewer eventually decided that the method was too adventurous to give reliable results, and the paper was rejected.
Having said that, it's possible also that the reviewer writes a quick report with "this paper is so bad, it doesn't have X, Y and Z, and I'm shocked you're even considering publishing it". The exact specifics will depend on the paper in question.
Here's [a source](http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/post/49) on the rough timeline in mathematics (not necessarily applicable to your field). To quote:
>
> Our average time to reject a non-serious submission is 7 days, our average to reject a more serious submission is 47 days, and our average time to accept is 121 days. There is considerable variance in these figures, so they should be interpreted cautiously.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I had a rejection once after 7 months of waiting accompanied with review reports that in my opinion did not motivate a rejection. I guess my paper was just felt out of scope for this journal.
I suspect there will be many horror stories. If you want to break the chain just continue (all work will eventually be accepted somewhere) and make sure you don’t become ‘such a reviewer’ later on in your career. As a reviewer, I fight against my own desire to take revenge when I notice thoughts crossing my mind like ‘my work was rejected for less’.
Unfortunately, the review process lacks transparency and external quality control. There is no training or feedback for reviewers either.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: We once had a rejection after about 24 months and the journal would refuse to give us any meaningful status updates that would have helped up decide whether to withdraw the submission and go with another journal. On one occasion, after waiting for about 16 months to hear back about a submission, I wrote to the editors directly, politely telling them that I was considering withdrawing my paper with them. After a couple of weeks I have received the reports from the referees and the paper was accepted.
These situations are always a bit tricky to handle. If you decide to go with another journal, there is no guarantee that the process will be faster, and besides you have probably waited for some months already. Try to find out the typical wait period of a journal with your colleagues first to get an idea of what could be in store for you, keeping in mind that every submission is a story on its own.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: **Short Answer:** Desk rejects are quick, but if it goes out to review, then rejections tend to take as long as any other first-round outcome. So if you haven't heard anything from a journal after 2 or more months, it probably means that your article has been sent out for review, but nothing more.
**Longer Answer**
**Desk reject**: This is where the article does not get sent out for external review. Rather someone on the editorial team (e.g., editor, action editor, a team) review the manuscript and deem that it is not worth sending out for review. Desk rejects are usually quite quick (e.g., 1 to 4 weeks is common in my experience). Note that not all journals do desk rejects, and many journals vary in how much they filter at this stage.
**First round rejections**: This is where the paper is rejected after the first round of external review. In my experience, the time to reach a decision is often unrelated to the outcome, and therefore it takes as long as the review process takes. Your question implies that a reviewer looks at a paper and can quickly determine that it should be rejected. It's more likely that the manuscript is sitting in a reviewers inbox, and the reviewer is waiting to find the half-day or so to review the paper. In my area 2 to 4 months for an external review is common. But as you'll read, first round review times vary a lot between journals and fields, and from manuscript to manuscript.
That said, occasionally I've had review assignments taken away from me around the one month mark because one of the other reviewers gave a review sufficient to make it clear that the paper should be rejected. And sometimes editors will get an additional reviewer, if the first set of reviewers are inconclusive. So occasionally, the external review process may be quicker if it's a clear reject. But in general, the length of the first round review process is not diagnostic as to whether it will be accepted or rejected.
**Second/third/etc round rejections:** Your question does not seem to be asking about rejections at this stage. But the general point remains that the time to get a response is relatively unrelated to the outcome. Perhaps the main question here related to time wasting is where the journal gives you a revise and resubmit but then rejects your manuscript after you make the revisions. In general, good journals will give you a sense of what the likely outcome is if you conscientiously make the revisions. Some will use language like accept subject to revisions, minor revisions, major revisions, allowed to submit again, etc. This can give you some sense of the scale of revisions. Sometimes the editor will say that you can resubmit, but that it is a "high-risk resubmission". Thus, good journals will manage expectations about what the likely outcome will be given a thorough and conscientious implementation of the requested revisions.
**Horror stories:** You also asked the following question:
>
> Are there any horror stories of waiting several months after a reviewer agrees to look at your paper, only to get a rejection letter?
>
>
>
First, time between submission and acceptance might look something like this:
* administrative screen (1 week)
* editorial screen with potential for desk reject (1 to 4 weeks)
* potential reviewers are contacted
* time for reviewers to complete assignment vary and review process is determined by slowest reviewer (can be anything, but often 1 to 4 months)
* editor/action editor has to review external reviewers (anything from days to months) and reach a first-round decision.
As an author, you don't usually find out how long the components of the review process take. Your question implies that there is one person "a reviewer" deciding to review and then rejecting. But rather, these are usually different people, and there are multiple reviewers. At most journals, the external reviewers inform and make recommendations to an editor / action editor. They do not make the decision.
So in general, there are different norms about how long a review takes. But in my field of psychology (1 month is amazing, 2 months is nice, 3 months is par, 4 months is okay, 5-6 months is slow, beyond 6 months would be concerning). Other fields and journals have different norms. The point is I would not see waiting 4 to 6 months as a horror story. It's a bit slow. But It's just how long things sometimes take, and something that might factor into where I send my work in the future. And the length of time has almost nothing to do with the outcome. So in general, rejection is unpleasant and slow review processes are also unpleasant, but they're separate issues.
If the first-round review process is taking an amount of time well beyond the norms of your discipline, then you may wish to contact the journal to see what is the hold-up. Based on the response you get, you could weigh up the pros and cons of withdrawing your manuscript. That said, given the energy that may have already been invested in reviewing manuscript, I'd see withdrawing a manuscript as very much a last resort.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: In my (pure math) experience, rejections after review are often significantly faster than other outcomes (minor corrections etc.). There are two likely reasons for this.
* There are several possible reasons for recommending rejection, but a common one is "not interesting enough for this journal". It's possible to reach such a conclusion very quickly, and there is certainly no need to check the proofs in any great detail in that case.
* Many journals have a guideline that one recommendation to reject is sufficient, but two positive reviews are needed for another outcome; the second review may come in much later than the first.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/09
| 1,091
| 4,824
|
<issue_start>username_0: To be clear I am not referring to out of scope, incorrect formatting or language quality rejections which are mostly detected by junior editing staff and a reasonable explanation is usually supplied in the rejection letter. I am referring to desk rejections by the editor in chief after a paper has passed all quality checks. These are performed under the sole discretion of the editor in chief who may reject any paper providing a conclusion s/he does not like. It culminates with a standard form letter which provides no valid information to the author as to how they might improve their work.
This is a clear and obvious bias loophole (unconscious or otherwise). It is extremely unfair towards the author who has spent many hours developing an argument which is simply overlooked and a burden on the progress of science because it poses a severe disability to any paper with a controversial conclusion. Controversy is the breeding ground of scientific progress.
This practise is censorship by prejudice. i.e., Really bad science.
My understanding is that a paper was published which proved that desk rejections saved time and since then, they have been generally accepted and implemented throughout scientific publishing.
One of the main purposes of peer review is quality control aimed at overcoming bias.
It does not take a genius to figure out that circumventing quality controls is a sure fire method of saving time.
In all forms of endeavour, this has been the cause of many disasters. People have lost their lives from this type of behaviour. Whenever it is exposed, we view the perpetrators with deserved contempt.
I would be surprised if there were no academic suicide deaths which could be attributed directly to this behaviour of journal editors in chief.
It should be stopped.<issue_comment>username_1: You are angry and you probably have your reasons for it, but rephrasing your question may result to better responses.
I do however agree with your core concern. I also notice the downside of the current review process (with and without desk rejections).
Academic careers depend on having work published. The system is without doubt biased. It could not exist outside science. Research in my country showed that young PhD students are at risk for developing serious depression. The main reason: getting work published.
I have excellent master thesis students telling me not to aspire a PhD because their older peers (doing a PhD) are stressed and unhappy. In industry I see my young graduated students excell and develop themselves into confident and qualified professionals.
Maybe you should consider a career switch.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The review system is not perfect; even when papers make it to peer review, and even assuming good faith on everybody's part, there is a huge amount of randomness in the process. One aspect of that is that an initial assessment of the paper is made by an editor who is probably not sufficiently specialized to fairly judge all of the contents.
Think about it from the perspective of editors and reviewers, though, rather than authors[1]. If a reviewer is to do a good job with a paper, they must give a significant amount of their time for free. If they receive a lot of work that is clearly rubbish, they (a) will have less time for reviewing work which may be worth their time; (b) will be less likely to agree to review future work. Hence, the editor has to make an initial judgement as to whether a manuscript is worth sending for review. Undoubtedly, sometimes they are wrong.
[1] While also remembering that those editors and reviewers are *also* authors; they know what it's like.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: (Only dealing with poor submissions, since the text of the question indicates John is not interested in e.g. poor English or out-of-scope reasons for desk rejections.)
If a paper has no real chance of passing peer review, why not desk reject it and save everyone's time - from the peer reviewers to the editors to the authors?
For example, suppose a paper claims to prove that angular momentum is not conserved. For such a paper to be credible, it needs to not only provide exquisite experimental data, it needs to find flaws in the experiments that generated the already-available experimental evidence. It needs to explain why Kepler's laws are obeyed in a world that doesn't have this conservation, it needs to explain why generations of physicists have not noticed a violation of rotational symmetry (equivalent to angular momentum conservation by Noether's theorem), and so on. If the author does not provide these, the paper has no chance of passing peer review. At that point, one might as well desk reject it, save everyone's time, and move on to the next paper.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/09
| 2,162
| 8,653
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the USA. Did a BS and MS in Computer Science years ago.
Is it possible to do a PhD without enrolling in a formal program?
Currently I get small breaks of free time (between work and helping an elderly parent), and I'm using it to do self-directed programming projects to determine what I am truly interested in researching.
Any guidance is most appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: I think this is very unlikely, but it would depend on the educational resources that you have access to. If you have a local university you should talk to them and maybe to one or two faculty members there as well as the department head. I assume that your relocation options are currently limited, so that is where to start. If you have a lot to contribute they may make something possible, but expect it to take a long time. But it will likely require a formal relationship.
On the other hand, there are places at which the on-site requirements are short term. You might have to spend weekends (or one or two a month, at least) at a university remote from you. Such programs aren't part-time, however. It is just that most of the work, even team work, is done remotely. This might be a better option for you, though the travel costs (time and money) might not be small. They can also be just as intense as a residential program.
Some of these programs, while they are doctorates, may not be PhD programs, though. They may require the same level of research or not. They may or may not be suitable as the basis of an Academic career. They may be intended as more practical/applications based than theory based.
An online search might turn up something that interests you.
However, if you seek a career in Academia in the US, you almost certainly need a doctorate that the NSF recognizes as a [Research Doctorate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doctoral_degrees_in_the_US). Anything that isn't may get you a job initially, depending on the market, but you will very possibly run in to trouble when it comes time to apply for tenure.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: No. At some point, you would need to formally enroll to complete your PhD.
Some universities allow students to "preview" graduate school by taking graduate-level courses without entering graduate programs. For example, Texas Tech allows students to be classified as ["Graduate Temporary"](http://www.depts.ttu.edu/gradschool/admissions/DomesticProspectiveStudents.php). However, programs such a these often have limits about the number of credits one can complete and how these credits may be applied to doctoral program course requirements.
If you want to see if you like research, I suggesting finding a professor whose research looks interesting to you and offering to volunteer with a research project.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I have difficulty envisioning a situation in which a university would be willing to bestow a PhD on a student that doesn't have a formal relationship with the university.
Another aspect to consider is funding. I find it equally hard to imagine a granting agency that would fund an individual who is not formally enrolled in a program (though you may be able to find one).
What you are probably looking for a is *part-time doctoral program*, which would seem to suit your needs. You might have fewer funding opportunities for a part-time program, though.
---
On this part
>
> [...] self-directed programming projects to determine what I am truly interested in researching
>
>
>
Definitely a good place to start! I would suggest you also read academic journals in computer science in the field you think interests you in order to get a feel for what more advanced research into computer science (which differs from implementation) looks like, if you're not already familiar with it.
And though this may be obvious, given the context of the question I'd just add that what *you* are interested in is only part of the equation.
A doctorate is about contributing something new to the corpus of knowledge of a given field. Certainly do find a topic that interests you, but it ought to be a topic that you can *contribute* to as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The situation differs in different countries as already highlighted. I'd like to stress some further issues.
You need an advisor
===================
Even if you don't enrol for now (which might give your prospective advisors bad vibes, my feelings are that US PhD programmes are quite formalistic), you need someone to guide, council, and, well, supervise you.
The choice on an advisor is important. It's arguably even more important as choice of the subfield.
Your advisor should be aware of your situation and be able to factor it in.
It's a risk
===========
All the formal things (coordinates programmes, supervision agreements (*Betreuungsvereinbarung,* a relatively new thing in Germany), graduate schools) serve (or at least are thought to serve) for the benefit of the PhD candidate. If you have firmly defined, that you need, say, 3 papers to graduate, your supervisor cannot force you to write 5 papers without letting you graduate.
Further, some kind of a formal status at the university may mean access to hardware and labs, travel funding, supervising student projects, actual positions, etc.
I understand, why you would like to have "no strings attached" in your situation. But the situation itself is already a risk for a PhD project. You (and your supervisor) need to be aware that it might take you longer than a full-time student that is not forced to any teaching and spends 12 hours a day in the lab.
Basically, if you do your PhD part-time, you need to divide the 3-4-5 years needed for the degree by the time share you do research.
To give you a concrete example: At the beginning of my scientific career I was working 3 days a week at an unrelated programming job and was trying to do my PhD the remaining 4 days a week. I was in this mode for 2 years, during which I did around 30% of my PhD. (The "breaking in" might be a factor, you need to become proficient in the subarea you are working on. But it's definitely not only this factor.) Then, I got a thrid-party funded research position. In the next 2,5 years I did the remaining 70% of my PhD. The first phase could be even seen as some kind of a preparation for the PhD, but the main contribution was done in the second phase. Insert your numbers and estimates and do your calculations.
I stress again, that not only you, but also your advisor need to be very clearly aware of this.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't think you can do it the way you envision it: studying outside a university context and expecting a university to give you a PhD on that basis. If that was possible, you might be able to wrangle PhDs from multiple universities on the basis of one thesis.
However, you *can* achieve both parts of your goal.
1. You can study anything you like, and think about anything you like, to any depth. This satisfies your desire to engage in a deep-learning exercise.
2. If you are outstanding in your field, universities sometimes confer honorary degrees. Here's an example:
>
> Gates, who dropped out of Harvard and co-founded Microsoft Corp. to become the world’s richest person, stopped off at his former stomping grounds to collect an honorary law degree.
> [- Reuters, "Dropout Bill Gates returns to Harvard for degree"](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-gates/dropout-bill-gates-returns-to-harvard-for-degree-idUSN0730259120070607)
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: There are a few countries (with respectable universities) where you can receive a PhD without formally enrolling in a PhD program, but not in the US AFAIK:
* In Germany, you CAN do a doctorate by work. You need a supervisor in a university, but there are not many formal requirements, as long as you can convince the supervisor that you'll finish a PhD dissertation by work (see the section on ["Doing a doctorate in industry"](http://www.daad.co/imperia/md/content/informationszentren/ic-bogota/otros-docs/faq-doctorate.pdf)).
* In Japan, you can do a PhD by dissertation (*ronbun-hakushi*). That is, you submit a dissertation, go through the defense process, and get a PhD if the committee accepts it. This used to be more common, but it seems less common now.
Of course, there are part-time PhD programs in the US which require you to spend very little time on campus, and I know a bunch of people who are enrolled and on track to their PhDs. But the key here is that you need to be enrolled.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/09
| 2,023
| 8,749
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am hitting the academic job market this fall and was advised to have a professional website, but I am completely lost in putting this advice into action. I now am sitting here thinking about making a professional website in preparation of the job market. I am uncomfortable with this kind of self-promotion but, on the other hand, I do not want to ignore a low hanging piece of fruit because I don't like its shape.
My questions are:
1. Do professional websites enhance the application for potentials?
2. How much does the professional website matter at this stage in my career?
3. Is it worth time writing up my own webpage or is sticking to prefabs like weebly good enough?
Background: My field is in the social sciences, though my area of research is computational within it. My publication record upon finishing my postdoc will be strong. I am exceptionally uncomfortable with the idea of self-promotion or even engaging in social media conversations.
Any advice would be appreciated. My hope is that my research productivity will stand on its own and I will not have to create a professional website, but I hope you can advise me on how important it is.<issue_comment>username_1: **The improvement in your chances is marginal but nonzero.**
The reason for this is that the first thing people will do is **read through your application package.** If they can’t find a reason to advance your application further, they’re not going to bother checking out your website.
But if they do find something and want to learn more, having something available will be of some benefit.
It’s not hard to create a simple, functional website these days. Something that looks sufficiently “professional” for your discipline certainly cannot hurt your chances of getting further in the process. However, there should definitely be “meat” on the bones of the website—enough details to find your CV, your publications and other documents of interest in whatever discipline you’re working in.
But the standards are quite discipline-dependent. I’ve seen many math websites that are very simple text-driven pages, while others in the STEM disciplines might be more elaborate. What is needed in art may vary from history. So you should take your cue for the level of aesthetic needed from other recent successful applicants in your discipline.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: While the answer of username_1 is fine, let me add the following. If you are seeking a teaching position, and you have a web site that is especially useful to students of the subject, not just your own students, then it might be worth having. But if it is mostly just repetitious of what you have in your CV and supplied materials, then it will have little value at all.
Likewise if the positions are mostly research oriented then a web site that would be especially useful to budding researchers (future MS candidates, say) might also be useful to have.
And of course, once you are employed either or both of these are worth developing. I was once (no longer) the top google hit on my (not uncommon) family name, but this was in google's earlier days. I had an extensive and useful web site that was bookmarked by a lot of (mostly) teaching professors and students.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I look for and use the websites of job candidates all the time, and I know many of my colleagues do as well. The reason is that we can find things there that are not on your CV, for example:
* Links to the PDF versions of your papers, if you put them there.
* Links to pages that provide teaching materials for your students.
* Numerous other things that belong on a website but can't be obtained through the CV itself.
So yes, do create a website. As @username_1 writes, take a look at the websites of your colleagues in the field, pick the ones you like best, then imitate that style.
What system you use -- handwritten HTML or a content management system -- is secondary to the content you put online.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I've been on hiring committees for both full time/tenure track and adjuncts as well as administrative/professional positions (CISO, server admins, etc) at a community (no longer legally, we offer a few 4 year degrees) college.
I've never looked at social media of any type regarding a candidate, I don't recall any of my coworkers on the committees mentioning it, etc. Only time I've even looked at websites has been when hiring a front end web developer, and that was more "samples of relevant work portfolio" than "what info can we find out about these candidates".
What "we" have looked at when hiring instructors is transcripts, "real world" work experience (for relevant fields like the health sciences and programming/networking/server admin AS degree tracks), teaching experience, experience with lesson planning and evaluation methods, etc. Most departments ask potentials to give a demo lesson on some subject to evaluate teaching style, etc. We have the usual questions vetted by HR about your greatest successes and failures, what type of cloth you would be covered in if you were a couch, etc. and for teaching staff there is always the one included about your teaching philosophy and what you do to promote learning, etc.
If you have time, work on related-to-teaching-in-general skills, like using a learning management system (I recommend Canvas) and other content creation/management tools. Would give you a slight boost on any committee I (or probably any support staff) would be on and will let you hit the ground if not running then at least knowing you are in a race if you get hired at the last minute for Fall (the college I work at is madly hiring right now for both full time and adjunct, classes start Aug 22)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: As others have stated more eloquently, a web presence will not make or break your application, but it can definitely help convey additional information, which could be an advantage, since people generally like what they (think they) know, and it helps anyone interested to know more about you. As most of today's search committees probably don't have a majority of millennials, a prominent presence on Twitter (and likely most other primarily social media) is unlikely to help you there, so I would stick to some form of web page. (On the other hand, if you are later thinking about attracting students/postdocs, popular social media can improve the visibility of your research.)
Consider also the longer view – a website can enhance your reputation among the wider community if you put useful content on it, which could come in handy when it come to promotion or the next search. You are in a computational field, so perhaps you have developed code that is worth sharing with others. You could put that on a web site dedicated to your research, or (for more complex code) on a specialized place like GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, etc. (and link there from your web site). Think about where you would look for information about your research, and consider if there are ways to contribute to those places.
>
> My hope is that my research productivity will stand on its own and I will not have to engage in social media self-promotion.
>
>
>
The most important thing to keep in mind is that you are not promoting yourself, but **your research**! Show that you are excited about it, and share what you have found out – both through your published papers and via less formal means, which also allow you to showcase research in progress, preliminary results, and ideas you are pursuing. I would consider it in fact import to stick to your research, because too much focus on your good looks or personal rants will not help you to be taken seriously.
You may already be disseminating your working papers through sites such [SSRN](https://ssrn.com/en/ "SSRN") or [arXiv.org](https://arxiv.org/) (if not, consider it, if this is done at all in your field). A website gives you the opportunity to point to all those sources from one place.
How you create the web site (prefab or DIY) is secondary to the content - something very basic is preferable to nothing at all. Keep in mind that a site full of poor spelling and grammar that has not updated in 5+ years will do the opposite of what you want, so it is preferable to have something you can set up and maintain in minutes. For a few dollars you can get your own domain name, but if something smacks of vanity (JohnDoe.com), it may earn as much ridicule as admiration. Remember, if it is not important to the people you care about (how seriously would you take someone who judges people by the layout of their website or their domain name?), don't bother.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/09
| 917
| 3,821
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate in theoretical chemistry, and I am currently having a summer research internship at one of the top institutions in the world. I was dreaming about this experience for a long time, but now I think that I can't handle it.
I started to feel drained of energy six months ago when my family had serious problems in their relationships, finances and health. Now, it's two weeks into my 8-week-long internship and I am unable to focus on anything at all. The only hope I have is that intermittently I have bursts of energy, when the idea of leaving seems preposterous, but they only last 1-2 days max. I also have troubles sleeping.
I have always been a diligent student coming in top 1-5 in all examinations I sat. My internship last year also went quite well and my results from it resulted in a publication. I have never felt as I do now, and even though I'm trying really hard to pull myself together, I'm failing.
I wonder how much quitting would affect my reputation, especially if I'm being honest that the issue is about my mental health. On the other hand, if I stay but am utterly unproductive, would it be worse?<issue_comment>username_1: I think it would be a mistake to discuss your mental health. But you can more safely discuss the issues that might have led to it. It is natural to feel drained when family/relationship issues take so much mental and emotional effort.
The best thing, assuming you cannot continue, is to discuss the underlying issues with someone involved in the program. They might have some solutions for you that you don't see now, such as deferring your participation. Be sure to stress your interest in the program and your abilities, so that you have some positive things to say beyond any obstacles in your way.
If I were the person you talked to, I would try to find a way to make it possible. Your background suggests you would be the sort of person the PI would want to accommodate.
The comment of user scrappedcola also seems wise.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Talk to your advisor. The thing is that you are, as an undergrad researcher, most likely not vital to the research.\* You are there to learn things rather than produce a lot of output. But this also means that it shouldn't be a problem if you don't finish your internship or you put it on pause and continue later.
\* in my experience in theoretical chemistry undergrad internships are often used to test feasibility of projects or do routine work, both of which the more experienced students can do quite easily beside their main tasks.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Quitting a program like this would not disqualify you from future research pursuits as long as the rest of your CV is on point and you have strong recommendations.
However, before quitting, I strongly suggest that you speak to a mental health counselor at the school, if available. The issues you describe sound like classic symptoms of anxiety or depression, which could have been triggered by the family problems. You may be able to continue the internship successfully if you get the help you need.
In any case, university counselors trained in mental health are very familiar with the pressures of research and the career paths of students like you. They can help you make a balanced decision based on your individual problems and circumstances and can also help you make a plan on who to talk to and how to frame the issue.
See also this answer I gave to a PhD students who had a somewhat related question: [How do I know that I have truly lost interest in research and should drop out of a top CS PhD program?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95747/how-do-i-know-that-i-have-truly-lost-interest-in-research-and-should-drop-out-of/95751#95751)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/09
| 885
| 3,654
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in the last year of my PhD and I'd like to get a postdoc after my program is done. In a few days, I'm going to present a poster about one of my projects (manuscript to be submitted soon) in a conference and I want to know how to approach professors.
I have a pretty good idea about the professors that will be present and the ones I'd like to join but how to approach them is something new for me. I don't think it's appropriate to focus on my current work when approaching them since I'll not work on the same subject in a postdoc. Moreover, I feel that some subjects are more delicate to discuss such as funding, flexibility and independence in the group.
How should I proceed in this matter ?
I've found the answers and comments in this question very informative but they work for the specific case of a talk: ["Looking for a postdoc" ad inside a conference talk?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8128/looking-for-a-postdoc-ad-inside-a-conference-talk).<issue_comment>username_1: I think it would be a mistake to discuss your mental health. But you can more safely discuss the issues that might have led to it. It is natural to feel drained when family/relationship issues take so much mental and emotional effort.
The best thing, assuming you cannot continue, is to discuss the underlying issues with someone involved in the program. They might have some solutions for you that you don't see now, such as deferring your participation. Be sure to stress your interest in the program and your abilities, so that you have some positive things to say beyond any obstacles in your way.
If I were the person you talked to, I would try to find a way to make it possible. Your background suggests you would be the sort of person the PI would want to accommodate.
The comment of user scrappedcola also seems wise.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Talk to your advisor. The thing is that you are, as an undergrad researcher, most likely not vital to the research.\* You are there to learn things rather than produce a lot of output. But this also means that it shouldn't be a problem if you don't finish your internship or you put it on pause and continue later.
\* in my experience in theoretical chemistry undergrad internships are often used to test feasibility of projects or do routine work, both of which the more experienced students can do quite easily beside their main tasks.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Quitting a program like this would not disqualify you from future research pursuits as long as the rest of your CV is on point and you have strong recommendations.
However, before quitting, I strongly suggest that you speak to a mental health counselor at the school, if available. The issues you describe sound like classic symptoms of anxiety or depression, which could have been triggered by the family problems. You may be able to continue the internship successfully if you get the help you need.
In any case, university counselors trained in mental health are very familiar with the pressures of research and the career paths of students like you. They can help you make a balanced decision based on your individual problems and circumstances and can also help you make a plan on who to talk to and how to frame the issue.
See also this answer I gave to a PhD students who had a somewhat related question: [How do I know that I have truly lost interest in research and should drop out of a top CS PhD program?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95747/how-do-i-know-that-i-have-truly-lost-interest-in-research-and-should-drop-out-of/95751#95751)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/09
| 2,202
| 8,886
|
<issue_start>username_0: I used to have a good relationship with an author, but now it's broken. However, my work is heavily based on the work of that author, and I'm not sure if citing it without informing them is OK here. Would there be any potential trouble from this? What if they explicitly tell me to not cite theirs? I just don't want to make the relationship worse, because they may not want to have any affiliation with me. But this is just my thought, I really don't know what they really think.<issue_comment>username_1: If you feel that the work is relevant, you must cite it - not citing would be unethical.
Also, most people are happy if they are cited - regardless of their relationship to the person who cites them. Citing someone does not mean liking someone - even when criticizing someone's work, you have to cite.
And if you can think of no particular reason why they should not want to be cited by you, there probably is no such reason.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you should cite their work. The only reason I can think of for not wanting to cite it is if the other person believes that you have misinterpreted their work and have told you not to cite it.
Even then, if your work is based on theirs you need to cite them. I would be wary, of course of making disparaging comments about their work in a future publication. If you think you have done an improvement over what they have done, let your own work speak for itself. Of course, you shouldn't misrepresent what they have said, but that is true whether you have any personal relationship or not.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Who you cite is your business and nobody else's. You don't need to ask permission to cite(unless you're reproducing images or something\*), and nobody can deny you the right to cite them, for whatever reason.
More importantly, if your work draws from someone's work, you must cite them, it's imperative. No personal equations can change that.
\*In this case too, as pointed out by corey979, the permission is for copyright rather than citation, and the parties involved could include the publisher.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: If you work is heavily based on their work, you have two choices:
1. To publish your work, citing their work. If you publish your work without citing your main source, at best you will be asked by reviewers to add a reference to that. Worse outcomes may include your work being rejected as incompetent, you as an author getting on some sort of "black list" as dishonest, at worst, you may get accused of plagiarism and get banned from publishing. Seriously, is there a way for you to mention it somehow, like "well, I was going to cite that, but they asked me not to", so that it isn't perceived as you either unintentionally missing or intentionally hiding the relation of your work to their work?
2. Not to publish your work, to avoid the consequences mentioned in p. 1. I can't imagine any possible legal or ethical reason for you to do so, but you may have your own *personal* reasons (like, not to alienate those people even more, etc). For all I know, citing a published scientific paper cannot be *forbidden*, so you're going to be doing them a *personal* favor, of a sort, at your own expense. Well, all kinds of inter-personal politics happen in scientific circles, and under some circumstances it may be worth it to have one less mortal enemy in exchange for one less published paper, but that's for you to decide.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I upvoted everyone else's answer.
I am not adding anything different, but want to tie it together concisely.
1. Scholarly papers that draw on, reference, refine, or continue some prior scholarly work must cite specifically that prior work no matter who wrote it. That is your obligation and it has nothing to do with the source's preference. Indeed the source might be your own previous work. You cite it, you say what relevant concept or fact you draw from that work, you state clearly and dispassionately what its value is (from the perspective of your work) and you defend that evaluation, especially if it's negative or you say the prior work is incomplete. Be prepared to defend that **in your scholarly paper**. Good or bad or neither.
2. Sometimes it is hard to decide whether to cite something or not. You do not want to slight another scholar by failing to cite **relevant** prior work, but you also should not meaninglessly cite work to support another author's vanity. (That can also include your own prior work.) You must also be prepared to say exactly what it is in the prior work that is salient from the perspective of your work and not inflate the number of citations just to make your work *appear* more scholarly or well-researched.
3. Depending on the salience and relevance of the prior work, you may want to mention the surname of the author (or two authors or primary author followed by *"et.al"* if more than two) along with the reference number that is usually in square brackets. Such as:
>
> Shannon and Hartley [4] derive the rate of information capacity of a channel in terms of its bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio as ...
>
>
>
4. But if it's a more minor or fleeting reference, it could be just:
>
> In [4] the channel capacity is given as ...
>
>
>
5. If some scholar has done incomplete work on a subject you are writing, tell us. If some scholar has done crappy work on the subject, tell us. If some scholar has done unoriginal work on the subject, tell us (and make a reference to the original work, it's embarrassing but when someone reinvents a wheel, we need the full history spelled out). No scholar has any right nor expectation to block a negative citation, but the critic must be able to defend the negative expectation. Do this dispassionately. Don't say anything personally negative like *"How could an expert make such a silly error?"* Just say what it is and how it is in error.
6. Likewise, if there some prior work that is praiseworthy that is **relevant** to your paper, cite it. Spell out the significance and worthiness of the specific fact or concept cited. And do that dispassionately.
Personally, I think there is a glut of PhDs out there writing a shitload of crappy papers. Even in my own field (the IEEE transactions are sometimes just full of over-mathematicalized useless crap that is being published **solely** to boost someone's publication record) I think that. Those papers should go unnoticed and uncited **unless** there is a glaring error.
But there are also the few gems out there and if your paper draws on any, you **must** cite them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Yes, cite the other author's papers regarding any data or ideas on which your own work is based. It is crucial to do so; you MUST acknowledge the other author's contributions to your field if your own work builds upon those. As mentioned by others, unless you are writing a rebuttal, keep a neutral, dispassionate tone in your writing and refer to the other author's papers in neutral terms. Be specific in your citations. And yes, try to avoid having your paper reviewed by this author, at least for now.
The bigger problem was somewhat glossed over. Can you reach out and attempt to repair your relationship with the author with whom you've had the falling out? Ultimately that will be the best for your career, and maybe for your health. You can say, "I perceive we've had this 'time out' but I'd like to apologize if I've caused some problem. Can we meet for coffee and see if we can find some common ground?". Or something like that. It takes courage to go back to someone who has become hostile, but it could be that your load will be much lightened by such an effort. There's the possibility that some misunderstanding can be resolved. And even if you are rejected, you have at least tried. Life is short. I'm hoping for you!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: tl;dr: Just cite their work.
----------------------------
>
> I'm not sure if citing it without informing them is OK here.
>
>
>
It's ok; in fact, it's your obligation to cite their work, since your is based on theirs.
>
> Would there be any potential trouble from this?
>
>
>
No, absolutely not. If you *fail* to cite them - then you'll have trouble.
>
> What if they explicitly tell me to not cite theirs?
>
>
>
1. They can't.
2. They won't. Really. It won't even cross their mind.
>
> I just don't want to make the relationship worse, because they may not want to have any affiliation with me.
>
>
>
Citation is not perceived as affiliation. Just make sure you don't discuss their work in a way which exacerbates the animosity between you; refer to it positively, i.e. instead of saying "X is deficient, but we can fix it with Y", say "We improve on X by doing Y").
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/09
| 985
| 3,778
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose that a bibliography contains two entries by the same author, published in the same year (and for the sake of simplicity, with no coauthors). Which order should they be listed in? At least three possibilities come to mind, and as [this](https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/190842/same-author-same-year-bibliography-order) link shows at least two are considered in practice:
1. (Alphabetical) In alphabetical order, depending on the titles of the papers.
2. (Historical) In order of appearence, taking into account months and days of publication.
3. (Logical) In the order which makes the most logical sense, so that if paper B uses results from paper A then A appears before B.
Which of these is the most widely accepted / the most formally correct?
One instance where this question often comes up for me in practice is when writting a CV. Is there a difference between a publication list of a single person and a bibliography that happens to include two or more papers by the same author?<issue_comment>username_1: **For a CV**, it seems that a widely accepted rule of thumb is that the order of publications is inverse-chronological, i.e. one lists the latest papers first, and moves on with older ones:
>
> Author, title1, ..., 2018
>
>
> Author, title2, ..., 2016
>
>
> Author, title3, ..., 2016
>
>
> Author, title4, ..., 2015
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
---
In case of **journal articles**, I've never encountered option 1. (alphabetical). (In fact, I've never encountered this case **at all**) For the others:
2. (Historical) When the citation style is (Author, year) - then the citations in the list of references are sorted chronologically, and in the text it might happen (and is fine) that e.g. (Author, 2018) will be cited before (Author, 1990).
3. (Logical) When the citation style is [1,2] - then the list of references is sorted by the order of appearance in the manuscript, e.g. Author's 2018 can be [1], and Author's 1990 paper can be [79] (or vice versa).
Although, each journal has its own policy regarding the citation style and ordering of the references in the reference list. If the journal has a LaTeX template, then you let it do all the work for you. In case of issues/inconsistencies - the editorial office handles the final typesetting.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If it is for the journal article, you should not be concerned with the order, instead, you should cite the relevant papers in the natural flow of order.
For example, in paper A author says that using ABC technique certain problem can be solved while the conventional XYZ technique fails. Lets say paper A was published in 2017. Later in paper B by the same author, published in 2018, he proves that technique XYZ has such and such and such flaws.
Then the natural order would be e.g. "In [B], it was demonstrated that XYZ produces inadequate results under normal circumstances. The same authors have proposed in [A] that using ABC technique, such these inadequacies could be removed and performance enhancement of 80% could be achieved."
Just an example from the top of my mind. But note that this does not follow
(i) Alphabetical order
(ii) Timing of publication.
Hope this helps.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: How to cite them in a bibliography depends entirely on the citation and bibliography style of the journal or publisher responsible for the material in question.
If you have a style where everything is listed in alphabetical order, and assuming that the years are identical then you could decide either using alphabetical order of the title as a "tiebreaker." However, some publications would recommend listing the bibliography items in the order in which the works are mentioned in the text.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/10
| 922
| 3,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc and currently co-supervising a novel PhD student who works very very slow and needs to be spoon-fed most of the time (which is reasonable considering she's in early stages of her PhD). We are working on a very hot topic and have defined a research problem to work on. She has been working on it for 2 months, but I'm afraid we are going to miss out on publication due to her slow pace. I, however, can see where the work is going and can do it on my own very quickly and maybe get it published right way. This work is an incremental research on something I did before, but for the student to climb the learning curve, it will take a considerable time.
Thinking about this, I have two options:
1. Let her take her time and do research as any usual PhD student but
push her to be quicker (not sure how).
2. Do the research work myself and get it published much sooner than pursuing option 1 above, and list her as a co-author.
Now option 1 gives the student a fair-go in risk of missing out to another research group that may be doing similar research. Even under this option, I'm not sure if the student will really do a fantastic job eventually.
Option 2 seems unethical to me because a student should have his/her time to learn and experiment, but will allow her to learn the publication process and contribute to the production of the paper.
What do you think I should do?<issue_comment>username_1: If she’s truly in the beginning phase of her PhD, it would be entirely appropriate *not* to wait, unless you have specifically defined the tasks she needs to do as an explicit part of her thesis research. In that case, you must proceed with extreme caution, because you are fundamentally changing things after everyone has agreed on a plan.
Otherwise, if she has already made some contributions, incorporating them into ongoing research and including her in the publication process would be a good way to help her develop her skills and motivate her to make further contributions because she can see directly what can be done with it. You can also mention that other results she gets in the near future could also be used.
However, as mentioned by others, if you are a subordinate co-supervisor, you are not able to follow this advice unilaterally and should consult with the principal supervisor to make sure you are in agreement on this strategy.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have taken on the responsibility of shepherding this student to her doctorate then you have an ethical constraint that overwhelms most other considerations. The only exception to that, that I can see, is if the research is actually life saving in some way.
I a lot of supervisor-supervisee relationships the advisor can do the work on her/his own without the student. But that doesn't ever imply that the student should be left behind. The supervisor has more experience in field and in research in nearly all cases, so the student requiring a (possibly long) learning curve is pretty typical.
The "hotness" of the research topic doesn't change your ethical responsibilities. If you don't want to honor that you shouldn't take on advisor roles.
However as [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/112446/75368) suggests, the student needs a suitable problem, not necessarily *this* problem. If she is at the beginning of the process it might be reasonable to morph her participation into a different problem.
But, your assessment of her overall ability may also be wrong. She may, in fact, have a breakthrough moment in which things fall into place. And if the problem is that she lacks key background elements for some reason, you could make it go faster by finding ways for her to quickly come up to speed on those.
Finally, it isn't uncommon in many fields, including mathematics, for an advisor to give some hints to the student, pointing out the direction to be explored, if not more.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/10
| 1,145
| 5,063
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently doing my master’s in German and need to start writing my thesis. Although I am already comfortable speaking the language, writing (especially academic papers) is not something I feel great about. Also, my thesis is a big deal. Legally speaking, could I write it in English and have it translated? It would still be my work.<issue_comment>username_1: *I really need someone to create an "ask your advisor" sticker or something...*
No, seriously, ask your advisor. He/she will know the rules, he might even be totally ok with an English thesis, it is not uncommon to write in English, especially if you are planning to publish it or part of it later. Furthermore, even if you would be allowed to write it in English and have it translated later by law (which I don't know for certain), you don't know if your translator properly translates all the technical terms and it would be an insult on your supervisor to force him to accept it because he has to by law, without talking with him first.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: **This is not a legal issue—at least not at first.** If you have copyright of your work, you can at any point in time—even years from now—sign a contract with a professional who will translate the thesis into another language and provide certification of having done so. That would be perfectly legal.
The real question is if your faculty will **allow** you to have someone else translate your thesis so that you can submit it in German, which is largely an administrative decision that may depend on the university. If it were professionally translated, you would have to disclose that fact as part of the submission since it would technically not be entirely your work. Most theses require such an explicit statement as part of the submission.
There may be an alternative: you should consult the relevant *Prüfungsordnungen* (examination regulations) that cover your program. Many programs now permit theses to be submitted almost entirely in English along with a short amount of material in German (usually something like an abstract or summary plus any “pro forma” statements. It may not be necessary to hire a translator if you can do the basic translation and submit in English.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: When I had to do my project in French - I wrote in French directly trying to minimise my errors - as it was engineering based the vocabulary is more difficult...
But as I completed each chapter / section I got my French colleagues (also students) to read and correct / improve / comment on what I was writing.
I bribed them with food and wine :) :) But we also had an exchange where I would look at the the English they had to write and help them with that...
We helped each other...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: First of all you need to weigh in pros and cons of having the final version of your thesis in German vs in English. Think of your future career plans in Germany or elsewhere, language the defense committee is comfortable with, etc.
If you decide to write it in English and translate into German, do the following:
1. Make sure the thesis is complete, nice, and shiny in English
2. Translate it roughly by yourself into German with the help of fine free tools such as Google Translate and text editor spell checker, etc. Read it and see if you can correct some translation by yourself.
3. Buy a translation service to edit and proofread your translation. You will supply the translators with your German version and well as the English version.
That way everything is perfectly legal, ethical, moral, transparent, and makes total sense on your side. Now, whether the translators will edit your German translation or completely discard it and translate it on their own isn't really of your concern, in fact it is their own business.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: In my experience (fluent in Spanish, German and English) is that it is *much* harder to translate than to write in the target language in the first place. There are too many colloquialisms, figures of speech, exact technical phrasings that are next to impossible to translate decently (if at all). And the translator will have to be familiar with both languages (hard to get) and very familiar with the subject (that presumably leaves anybody but yourself and perhaps a handful others straight out).
I'd try first to write in English (fun fact: was strictly forbidden here, but often done anyway as many theses were published as papers elsewhere, or were written as part of international collaborations; local language is Spanish!). You can do your presentation in English or German at the end. Ask your advisor.
Second choice, and like others tell you, write in German, check with available tools (spelling, ...). Ask your colleagues/co-students to read chapters (both for language and contents). Bribe them by throwing a party for helpers if need be, make sure to credit their help.
Only as a very last resort would I reach out to a translation service.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/10
| 2,210
| 8,942
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the classroom, one of the students asked me about Sci-Hub. I answered that I like the idea as I am against the tyranny of publishers. As a fun fact, I added that I have even donated to Sci-Hub.
Then, I received a notice from our department head referring the case to the disciplinary committee since Sci-Hub is illegal and any direct and indirect support of an illegal activity is against the university policy.
Is supporting Sci-Hub illegal / unacademic?<issue_comment>username_1: In my view it is foolish to describe Sci-Hub itself as illegal. Acts can be illegal, but not "things" or groups of people. Only activities. While it is true that they may engage in illegal activities, that is not the same thing.
However, if what they do is copyright infringement (very possibly) then you can't participate in that.
However, if you want to upload things for which you hold copyright to Sci-Hub or a similar site then you aren't engaging in any illegal activity, nor is any downloader, provided that you grant an appropriate license.
Countries and other jurisdictions make laws. People (and organizations) can break those laws, but the people themselves, and the organizations do not themselves become illegal.
I think your university is right to open a disciplinary hearing only if you advocate breaking laws to students.
I agree with you that publishers have put a lock on science and culture that is very unfortunate. Especially when copyright no longer seems to expire after a reasonable period, and fair use is losing ground. Publishers are transferring what should be a common good into a private profit making enterprise. They are, IMO, *stealing* from the public. If you can afford not to give them copyright on things then I encourage it, but the whole system has made it hard for academics to build a reputation otherwise. Long term this tends to make us dumber, not smarter. As they say: Sad.
---
I'll add an historical note. There was once a valid reason for publishers to want to hold copyright on articles they published. There was a lot of friction (read cost) between an author and a potential reader. As such, since the publisher bore a lot of the cost (not the creation cost, of course), they needed assurance that they could recoup what they spent in making scientific articles available - especially since the material itself had value, but the number of potential readers was small (relatively speaking).
But that world is now long past. Publishing is nearly frictionless now. Publishers can still provide a useful review (done by volunteers) and editing (done by paid professionals) function, but the distribution cost is near zero and borne partly by users in any case (internet fees). Most of the real cost of the creation of publishable material today is borne by the author, by universities and scientific organizations, and by government. Publishers in the old model are an anachronism if not an oxymoron.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: What Sci-Hub itself does is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Whether it is illegal to *download from* Sci-Hub, and whether it is illegal to *donate money to* Sci-Hub, will vary from place to place, and is really a question for experts in law, not an Academia Q&A site.
Whether it is *ethical* to download from Sci-Hub, or donate to Sci-Hub, is a different question, which some would argue is unrelated to the legal situation.
A third question is perhaps whether what you have done, as a private individual, is any of the university's business (I assume that the donations were personal ones and not from university funds?). A fourth question is, if not, whether it becomes their business when you tell a student about it.
It will probably be worth being very clear in your own mind about these distinctions; but pragmatically, it may also be a good time to apologise, and not make a fuss.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If you think Sci-Hub is a knight in shining armor fighting against the tyranny of publishers, your view of Sci-Hub is incorrect. Sci-Hub is generally illegal, does illegal things, and is a scourge of law-abiding academics & institutions everywhere.
I'm going to skip all the "publishers are/are not tyrants" arguments because I assume you are familiar with them and have already decided publishers are tyrants, and trying to change your mind is futile. However Sci-Hub does illegal things in other ways: it embodies the dark side of the online world by phishing, hacking passwords, stealing as much information as possible, etc. Check [this article](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/18/guest-post-think-sci-hub-is-just-downloading-pdfs-think-again/) out.
>
> Let me be clear: Sci-Hub is not just stealing PDFs. They’re phishing, they’re spamming, they’re hacking, they’re password-cracking, and basically doing anything to find personal credentials to get into academic institutions. While illegal access to published content is the most obvious target, this is just the tip of an iceberg concealing underlying efforts to steal multiple streams of personal and research data from the world’s academic institutions.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> We know that, at one UK University, Sci-Hub managed to get six passwords through a 48-hour dictionary attack on their system. Then, over a weekend (when spikes in usage are less likely to come to the attention of publishers or library technical departments) they accessed 350 publisher websites and made 45,092 PDF requests. In another attack, the hackers not only broke into their database; they changed the names and passwords of profiles. Another institution told us an intruder changed the cell phone numbers linked to the user accounts and also planted malware, meaning that all their computers needed to be completely wiped. In addition, we have evidence that Sci-Hub is bombarding university IT systems, often for days on end, without the knowledge of compromised users.
>
>
>
If you distrust both publishers and IT experts, try talking to your institution's librarians. It might surprise you that they [dislike Sci-Hub too](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/11/09/a-librarian-perspective-on-sci-hub-the-true-solution-to-the-scholarly-communication-crisis-is-in-the-hands-of-the-academic-community-not-librarians/). The article cites several reasons, such as how Sci-Hub stifles innovation in publishing, is parasitic on libraries, puts the library at legal risk, and has no regard for copyright law. Some quotes:
>
> It can be argued that, far from being disruptive or publishing’s “Napster moment”, by providing access to such material Sci-Hub is stifling the impetus needed to innovate in publishing.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Again, it is ironic that access to the site is provided by the very mechanism it means to subvert. This argument becomes even more extreme when it is taken to its logical conclusion (which all three of us have heard) that we should cancel library subscriptions and rely on Sci-Hub: a major reason Sci-Hub exists is because of the subscriptions we pay for. It is unashamedly illegal and it is parasitic on library subscriptions.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> In terms of library access and users donating subscriptions, such action puts access to all our users at risk ... Moreover, university libraries can become liable for breach of their contractual terms if services are misused, or credentials passed on by library users. Typically, contractual terms specify that “Authorised Users must not provide access and/or allow use of the Licensed Material by anyone other than Authorised Users” (or words to that effect). Thus, if a subscribing institution knowingly lets an Authorised User do this, or turns a blind eye to the problem if it is drawn to their attention, then the subscriber is in breach of its contract with the publisher and will be cut off.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Our final objection to Sci-Hub is its utter contempt for copyright law – and this is an important point. Ownership of copyright in a work gives the owner the exclusive right to certain “restricted acts” in respect of that work, and a copyright owner may authorise others to do those acts by licence. Elbakyan is scathing in her blog posts “about so-called copyright law” that was “created to make to taboo free distribution of information”. The fact is Sci-Hub is engaged in large-scale, blatant, and very public copyright infringement, and from an ethical standpoint librarians should support publishers’ efforts to get its services closed down, but not without arguing effectively and advocating for the alternatives at the same time.
>
>
>
This is the website you're supporting.
In the end it's up to you to decide what values you believe in, but if you believe that supporting Sci-Hub is academic, I'll venture that you're in the minority among people who have a clear picture of what Sci-Hub actually does.
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/07/10
| 663
| 2,772
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing a paper for proceedings of a conference in the domain of engineering and physics.
Is it formally acceptable to add a figure in the introduction?
The idea is that I am explaining something that is already done/known, and I would like to keep it in the introduction as a part of the bibliographical paragraph. This idea should explain the experimental setup, and clearly this will be much clear by using an illustration.<issue_comment>username_1: I would assume that there is no formal rule about figures in the introduction (at least i haven't heard of it). Still, it would be unusual because introductions tend to not get into specifics. I'd guess it depends on the context of your paper, but if you keep it very simple and brief, you should go for it.
In case of doubt: if your paper is well-structured and well-written in addition to presenting content within the scope of the conference proceedings you aim to submit in, your submission probably would not get submitted over an explanatory figure. It could be that reviewers ask for the figure to be (re)moved though.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is pretty common in my (physics) field, where you typically need to give quite a bit of introductory material before delving into the original research. This is true both for theoretical and for experimental papers. As everywhere, a picture is worth a thousand words.
In physics, the figure may represent a picture of your experimental layout, or a visual summary of the state of the art in terms of theory papers on the subject. A picture might take similar or less space than describing it into words, and helps memorising key information faster. I have never heard of limitations on where to put a picture, and had often a figure in the introduction of my papers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/KyXtl.png)
To provide a different field's perspective: In Randy Pausch's famous [Last Lecture](https://youtu.be/ji5_MqicxSo?t=28m31s) (youtube link with specific timestamp) he actually talks about this. He said that his 1996 SIGGRAPH paper was almost a scandal since they put a large figure on the first page. It has now become a trend in that community.
Most conferences and journals probably don't have rules specifically against this. As long as you use the figure legitimately then I can't imagine it causing an issue.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I don't see why not, unless the venue or the field has specific conventions to the contrary. I often include a map in the introduction to both journal and conference papers, to show the part of the world that the work refers to.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/10
| 1,850
| 8,208
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a new hire at an R1 university in the United States. My position focuses on the administration of research. Before coming here, I worked in private industry and government agencies - but this is my first time working within a university setting.
Here it is common for many management functions to be staffed by faculty members (either current faculty, or people who held faculty positions before moving to administrative roles).
This has become difficult, as I've come to understand that many of peers don't have any background in the areas they are expected to be successful at. For example, academic department chairs are responsible for the financial management of their department, but most of the ones I have met with aren't currently capable of reading basic financial statements. Similarly, they may be in charge of large and costly projects, but have no established project management structure.
These lead to poor outcomes (departments that spend far more than they should, projects that run over time and over budget, etc.). I can't understand why they would be placed in these positions where it is clear they don't have the skills to succeed.
In the management of an American university, why would academics be placed these kinds of roles rather than professionals with those skill-sets?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure this is limited to the US as it is a fairly traditional view of what a *Faculty* should be. Traditionally a group of scholars shared administration as needed. When things were small, not much was needed. Some universities today, though probably mostly small ones, take this idea of *Shared Governance* very seriously.
In some highly regarded colleges. department heads, and possibly even deans, are elected by the faculty from among their members and likely serve for fixed terms, possibly renewable or not.
Such administration duties usually come with a reduced teaching load.
Some older professors may find that the teaching and research responsibilities are becoming burdensome and want to participate in a different way. Sometimes an especially active researcher with a national or international reputation is imposed upon to take on such duties to add to the "stature" of the institution. It can be questioned, of course, whether that is a good plan. If there is sufficient clerical and professional staff this can work, but as you note it can also break down.
In general, though, such places are willing to accept lower perceived *efficiency* for hoped increased *collegiality*.
Some such places, but I don't have wide enough experience to say *all*, are also more "professor oriented" with rules and regulations more favorable to professors - teaching and advising loads, for example. This can be a good thing (or not). It can also be a good thing for students as it may also mean fewer regulations to have to deal with and a more personal relationship with the faculty. If you apply to a professor, rather than to the institution, you have the beginning, possibly of a long lived relationship.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think one crucial factor is the academic environment. For any outsider the inner mechanics of a university are very hard to grasp. This is a process that takes years. Even experienced faculty that changes institutions expects some "getting acquainted" time.
This in turn is linked with the freedom senior academics enjoy. The boss-employee relationship is limited to the point that it is practically non-existent for senior faculty, while post-docs and grad students are responsible to their PIs. (Again, the exact dynamics are much more diverse and complex, so take this as a simplification).
Therefore, any "managerial" position is strongly rooted in respect and experience more than the executive authority of the role. A leadership position requires the trust of peers that the holder will invest his best effort for the benefit of the institution and that this best effort will be good enough or at least as good as anyone else could be expected to accomplish. Even under those conditions, there are still factional undercurrents in almost any university that struggle to improve their position and can make life for the office holder difficult.
Now imagine a "professional" financial manager being named a department chair. With neither respect nor credibility from the faculty and with limited power to force his way, what can he hope to accomplish? It takes only a few of the tenured faculty to be less than indifferent towards his existence to make his job very very difficult.
Note that there is also the personal aspect, i.e. the ties and connections academics build during their decades of service.
And as for the practical skills, like accounting or HR management, they become trivial when compared to the time spent managing a lab, research, teaching, community service, etc. any faculty member is expected to complete (successfully!) before he can hope to be granted a more senior position. In other words, those skills are learned as a craft, "on the job". While they might be better developed in some graduate of the dedicated curriculum, this graduate would be very hard-pressed to use them to the fullest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As suggested in a comment to another answer of mine, I'll expand my sentence "We rarely hire "professional managers
in academe, because we do not trust that they know what is going on here."
That is, the goal is not profit, nor maximal efficiency (necessarily), nor any other of the obvious for-profit measures. It becomes dicey at the point where Deans and VP's look tooooo much at "external funding dollars". By the latter measure, all engineering is more important than all literature, music, arts, history, ... And, yes, many administrators apparently act on this criterion.
But we do tend to think that it would be *worse* if/when "professional managers" truly dictate what happens at universities. The objections are too voluminous to begin to account here. One of the points people would raise is that "improvement of collective understanding" is not necessarily measurable by any accounting practice.
Yes, administrators surely do like simplistic numerical measures... whether or not they capture reality. "Impact factors" are a hilarious current example. Other automated administrator-ready "metrics" are easy to acquire, tho' usually for several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars... which will not go to faculty salaries or tuition reduction, btw.
Recap: academics do not trust that professional "efficiency experts" or "metrics admins" will have any sense whatsoever about what we're trying to do here.
... and with good reason.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: One major factor is academic freedom. A core principle of Universities is the right to teach, research and hold scholarly views no matter how controversial they are.
Obviously, administrators and managers can significantly impede teaching and research, for example in personnel decisions, teaching assignments, allocation of lab space, funding, etc. To preserve academic freedom, leadership has to have the same understanding of academic freedom, and the enjoy the same protections, so they support controversial teaching and research, and are protected for supporting such.
The way this happens is by tenure, and because they are tenured, they can't usually be dismissed from their position, even if their administrative position ends, they have the right to return to a faculty professorship.
Thus, there is a need to ensure administrators will respect the academic system, and will continue to be productive members of the institute, in the event they are no longer leading. And the way that usually happens is they obtain tenure in the way everybody else is required to, as a faculty member.
I'll also note that a very similar system is the military. Enlisted personnel work their way up through the ranks, and senior managers, that is commissioned officers, are also expected to have been deployed to be promoted, and thus have first-hand experience of military operations and combat.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/10
| 1,827
| 7,767
|
<issue_start>username_0: When we are accepted in a **poster session**, does it mean that we need to provide a "**poster**" (usually in **A0** size) + an "**article**" which explains the topic **in a separate file** ? Or both poster and article are included in a single PDF file ?
And also this article must include an "abstract" like usual papers?
I ask this question because I have received a strange email from a workshop as follows :
>
> ***Posters have to be formatted in LNCS-style and not exceed 1 page in
> length, with a PDF draft of the proposed poster included as page 2 of
> the submission (A0 size in portrait mode, W 841mm x H 1189 mm, with
> all fonts embedded in the PDF file). In addition, poster titles
> should always start with the phrase "Poster Abstract:"***
>
>
>
**Here is the website of the conference :** <http://deic.uab.cat/conferences/cbt/cbt2018/>
.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure this is limited to the US as it is a fairly traditional view of what a *Faculty* should be. Traditionally a group of scholars shared administration as needed. When things were small, not much was needed. Some universities today, though probably mostly small ones, take this idea of *Shared Governance* very seriously.
In some highly regarded colleges. department heads, and possibly even deans, are elected by the faculty from among their members and likely serve for fixed terms, possibly renewable or not.
Such administration duties usually come with a reduced teaching load.
Some older professors may find that the teaching and research responsibilities are becoming burdensome and want to participate in a different way. Sometimes an especially active researcher with a national or international reputation is imposed upon to take on such duties to add to the "stature" of the institution. It can be questioned, of course, whether that is a good plan. If there is sufficient clerical and professional staff this can work, but as you note it can also break down.
In general, though, such places are willing to accept lower perceived *efficiency* for hoped increased *collegiality*.
Some such places, but I don't have wide enough experience to say *all*, are also more "professor oriented" with rules and regulations more favorable to professors - teaching and advising loads, for example. This can be a good thing (or not). It can also be a good thing for students as it may also mean fewer regulations to have to deal with and a more personal relationship with the faculty. If you apply to a professor, rather than to the institution, you have the beginning, possibly of a long lived relationship.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think one crucial factor is the academic environment. For any outsider the inner mechanics of a university are very hard to grasp. This is a process that takes years. Even experienced faculty that changes institutions expects some "getting acquainted" time.
This in turn is linked with the freedom senior academics enjoy. The boss-employee relationship is limited to the point that it is practically non-existent for senior faculty, while post-docs and grad students are responsible to their PIs. (Again, the exact dynamics are much more diverse and complex, so take this as a simplification).
Therefore, any "managerial" position is strongly rooted in respect and experience more than the executive authority of the role. A leadership position requires the trust of peers that the holder will invest his best effort for the benefit of the institution and that this best effort will be good enough or at least as good as anyone else could be expected to accomplish. Even under those conditions, there are still factional undercurrents in almost any university that struggle to improve their position and can make life for the office holder difficult.
Now imagine a "professional" financial manager being named a department chair. With neither respect nor credibility from the faculty and with limited power to force his way, what can he hope to accomplish? It takes only a few of the tenured faculty to be less than indifferent towards his existence to make his job very very difficult.
Note that there is also the personal aspect, i.e. the ties and connections academics build during their decades of service.
And as for the practical skills, like accounting or HR management, they become trivial when compared to the time spent managing a lab, research, teaching, community service, etc. any faculty member is expected to complete (successfully!) before he can hope to be granted a more senior position. In other words, those skills are learned as a craft, "on the job". While they might be better developed in some graduate of the dedicated curriculum, this graduate would be very hard-pressed to use them to the fullest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As suggested in a comment to another answer of mine, I'll expand my sentence "We rarely hire "professional managers
in academe, because we do not trust that they know what is going on here."
That is, the goal is not profit, nor maximal efficiency (necessarily), nor any other of the obvious for-profit measures. It becomes dicey at the point where Deans and VP's look tooooo much at "external funding dollars". By the latter measure, all engineering is more important than all literature, music, arts, history, ... And, yes, many administrators apparently act on this criterion.
But we do tend to think that it would be *worse* if/when "professional managers" truly dictate what happens at universities. The objections are too voluminous to begin to account here. One of the points people would raise is that "improvement of collective understanding" is not necessarily measurable by any accounting practice.
Yes, administrators surely do like simplistic numerical measures... whether or not they capture reality. "Impact factors" are a hilarious current example. Other automated administrator-ready "metrics" are easy to acquire, tho' usually for several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars... which will not go to faculty salaries or tuition reduction, btw.
Recap: academics do not trust that professional "efficiency experts" or "metrics admins" will have any sense whatsoever about what we're trying to do here.
... and with good reason.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: One major factor is academic freedom. A core principle of Universities is the right to teach, research and hold scholarly views no matter how controversial they are.
Obviously, administrators and managers can significantly impede teaching and research, for example in personnel decisions, teaching assignments, allocation of lab space, funding, etc. To preserve academic freedom, leadership has to have the same understanding of academic freedom, and the enjoy the same protections, so they support controversial teaching and research, and are protected for supporting such.
The way this happens is by tenure, and because they are tenured, they can't usually be dismissed from their position, even if their administrative position ends, they have the right to return to a faculty professorship.
Thus, there is a need to ensure administrators will respect the academic system, and will continue to be productive members of the institute, in the event they are no longer leading. And the way that usually happens is they obtain tenure in the way everybody else is required to, as a faculty member.
I'll also note that a very similar system is the military. Enlisted personnel work their way up through the ranks, and senior managers, that is commissioned officers, are also expected to have been deployed to be promoted, and thus have first-hand experience of military operations and combat.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/11
| 775
| 3,020
|
<issue_start>username_0: Without naming the university (to protect my privacy), I attended one of the top 20 universities in the US for my undergrad and graduated in 3 years with honors. While graduating from this school in 3 years isn't impossible, it's certainly rare. On top of that, I have a good GPA and finished a humanities-based CogNeuro major, a Writing minor, and all my pre-med coursework.
Now I'm applying to grad school for CogNeuro, and I'd like to highlight the fact that I graduated in 3 years on my CV, for 2 reasons. First, I genuinely think my accomplishments are made more impressive by that fact. And second, because it explains why I have less research experience than some of my peers. So I guess my question is twofold: Should I even bother mentioning that I graduated early, or am I just being arrogant in doing so? And if that's a good thing to mention, how can I do so without being heavy-handed?
Currently I have my high school name and graduation year listed under my "Education" section, not because my high school matters, but because it's the only way I can think of to show that I graduated from college early.<issue_comment>username_1: There are no magic words - you just say that thing you want to say. The simplest way would be simply to specify the years you attended university, and then explicitly note the achievement you want to highlight. One thing to note is that there is little point in mentioning this unless you have some statistical evidence that graduating within three years is actually a genuine achievement. Try something like this:
>
> **Education**
>
>
> **Bachelor of Doing Things (Oxbridge University) (2016-2018)** Graduated with a GPA of 3.61 and won an award for being the top student in my third-course on doing good things. I was in the cohort of 3% of student who successfully complete this degree program within three years.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **Consider discussing it in your statement of purpose.** Most grad school applications require/allow an essay; this would be a great place to discuss this decision.
**You'll need to explain why this is a good thing.** Offhand, compacting 4 years into 3 seems like sort of a questionable decision because it results in less research experience, and (presumably) fewer electives, etc. So, you'll need to *concisely* explain (a) why you made this decision, as well as (b) illustrate how impressive this was.
**You can do the same thing on your CV, but it's a bit awkward.** Just listing the years is correct, but may pass unnoticed. Under the school, you may have some bullet points describing your accomplishments. You can list this as a bullet -- but just graduating a year earlier isn't necessarily an accomplishment, so you'll have to add a note explaining why this is good, which may require too many words for a CV. For sure, don't list your high school information on your CV -- instead, list College (2015-2018) or (Fall 2015 - Spring 2018).
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/11
| 359
| 1,357
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a paper submitted to a journal of Springer.
In the submission process, there is a note that "attach your manuscript **excluding author names and affiliations** but I did not do it.
What will happen in this case.
Thank you very much for your responses.<issue_comment>username_1: As Alice mentioned in the comments, the editor requests you to send an anonymized manuscript for the review process. The review is most probably [double-blind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment#Double-blind_trials), i.e. you do not get to know the reviewers' identity and neither do they know yours.
Be careful to adjust any language in your manuscript accordingly (e.g. "*... as we showed in our earlier research [1]*" -> "*as has been shown in earlier research [1]*").
For answers on why double-blind peer review is beneficial, [see here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/105200/is-there-any-evidence-that-double-blind-peer-review-systems-are-beneficial).
**TL;DR This is normal, do as the editor says.**
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Any friction you cause in the revision process will in the end hurt you.
"They can't even follow simple instructions" isn't exactly a way of showing interest and careful work.
Having to ask *again* for a version without authors/affiliation introduces delay.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/11
| 424
| 1,883
|
<issue_start>username_0: I understand that some pay-walled journals include timestamp and IP address and/or institution to full-text PDFs to track copyright violations.
However, I also saw an open access journal doing the same despite allowing non-commercial, attributable redistribution and modification.
If that journal grants such rights to readers, then why does it include IP addresses on the copies they download?<issue_comment>username_1: Note that to give a license on a work you must hold copyright to it. Granting the license doesn't affect your copyright. So the issue is really the same as for more formal (commercial) journals.
The situation might be different for things put "into the public domain" for which you formally give up your copyright. Then the public owns it. But licensed works are still owned by their creators.
If you use a licensed work, the license is a contract backed by the copyright. Without the latter, the former has no meaning.
I can license my own work, but, of course, I can't license your work. It is copyright that makes that clear.
See this, for example:[Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/faq/#is-creative-commons-against-copyright)
Likewise, see the discussion of [Copyleft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) at Wikipedia.
Without copyright these could not exist.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Most likely, they are still doing it to track copyright violations. If the document is made available under a license that permits non-commercial, attributed redistribution, then the publisher might wish to collect evidence in cases of commercial or unattributed distribution.
It's also possible that the same publisher, or even the same journal, also has articles that follow the traditional "all rights reserved" model, and that this information is applied to all downloads indiscriminately.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/11
| 161
| 657
|
<issue_start>username_0: Am I entitled for a family allowance if my family (a husband and children) don't live in the same country where my host institution is?<issue_comment>username_1: You have to read carefully the instructions, I think that it doesn't matter where they live, you have to show proofs that you are part of a family, but I do not think that when you start working, the host asks for proofs that they have moved to the host country. But I'm not 100% sure. Check also with the host institution, I am sure they already had similar experiences.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes you are. Source: Been in the same situation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/11
| 3,422
| 13,848
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international student who will be joining a graduate program at a US university starting Fall '18. In my home country, I have used such websites as [Library Genesis](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/) and [BookFi](http://bookfi.net/) to download textbooks, from such publishers as Springer etc., which are otherwise either not available or available at exorbitantly high prices in my home country.
Is it legal or illegal for graduate students to download books from such websites? Would I get into any trouble if I download textbooks from such websites either from my personal computer or from a university-owned computer?<issue_comment>username_1: No, it is not legal. Downloading copyrighted material from unauthorised sources is, well... breaching the copyright. If I'm not mistaken LibGen was sued for that.
Many universities' libraries have online access to some catalogues, so you would probably be able to access and download directly from Springer and it won't be illegal because your uni would have paid for access.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Usually your local law will prevent copyright violations, therefore it is illegal, independent of your status. It does not matter which computer you are using, but if you are using a university computer, your university rules might enforce further actions like kicking you out of university for using university equipment for illegal purposes, even if there is no official lawsuit against you. You'll have to check your local regulations for this, I assume they vary.
The other question is if you will get into trouble - well thats the same with using illegal games, movies, books, etc...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Downloading copyright material without permission is likely regarded as illegal and unethical nearly everywhere.
However, you should check with your local university library for what services they provide. It may be that the local university has arrangements with academic publishers that permit their own students access in some form, either e-books, or interlibrary loan, or even (possibly) downloading at a modest fee.
Another possibility is that you could seek to obtain a small grant from someone or some institution for the purpose of library building. Even a favorite uncle or aunt is a possibility for that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The legality of possession of pirated content varies across countries. In many countries, it is perfectly legal to have copies of copyrighted content as long as you don't share it with others. In the US, downloading such content is illegal, but you are unlikely to get into trouble by having illegally copied content on your hard drive. I found a [great answer on Quora](https://www.quora.com/Is-downloading-pirated-content-illegal) by an attorney, parts of which I'm going to quote:
>
> Yes, it is illegal to download ("make copies") of material that is protected by copyright. However, all that is illegal is not criminal. Copyright for the most part is a civil statute, with civil remedies (i.e. the copyright holder sues you for money).
>
>
> Criminal copyright infringement is much more limited than civil copyright infringement. The criminal portion of the Copyright Act (17 USC § 506) states that it is a criminal act to willfully infringe copyright 1) for the purposes of commercial advantage or private gain; 2) by reproducing or distributing within 180 days one or more copies of works with a retail value of more than $1,000; or 3) by distributing a work being prepared for commercial distribution (i.e. a work that has not yet been released for sale to the public by a copyright holder, but that will be made available or a movie that is currently playing in a theater).
>
>
>
It would be very difficult to classify what you describe as criminal. As long as you only download (and not share) publications for your private use, you are unlikely to have issues.
>
> For the average person, generally there won't be any criminal consequences under copyright law from having pirated items on your computer. That isn't to say that a creative prosecutor couldn't make a case (particularly if you have file sharing software installed, in which case you could possibly be looking at a violation of the second prong of the statute). But in the real world, this is not the type of crime that most police go snooping for when they decide to rummage through your laptop.
>
>
>
There are some cases where students are getting into trouble by using school equipment or connection to pirate content (mostly audio and video), so it is probably a good idea to keep this business on your private computer. You can further decrease the chances of any legal trouble by using TOR, VPN and keeping the pirated content in an encrypted container with a strong password.
**tl;dr: It's illegal. As long as you don't get caught downloading the files, you are unlikely to get in trouble. It's more about your own views on the ethics of scientific publishing and copyright.**
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: No, of course it isn't legal. But you should do it anyways. Books aren't exactly going to be cheaper when you get to the US, and that's not because the author has to make a living or any of those sob stories you hear from the propagandaists ... the price is what it is because of the monopoly that certain publishers and journals have.
There is nothing unethical about not wanting to play a rigged game. Just make sure you download the stuff in a subtle way (don't tell anyone, use a VPN, etc).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I was writing this as a comment, but it grew too big. In addition to username_4's answer, I would advise using a VPN all the time and keeping anything of value encrypted regardless of whether it is pirated or not. It is a good practice/skill to have in today's world and it only costs about 5$ a month if you set everything up by yourself, which is the only secure way, must I add. If you end up traveling in your future career, virtual networking/encryption skills will be worth their weight in gold, regardless of your profession.
My personal view on intellectual property is that I like to try before I buy. Download it, see if it is any good. If it is, buy a copy, leave a good review, and recommend it to others. While it might be illegal from a certain perspective, it is also illegal for publishers to sell you junk not as advertised. Good luck getting your money back from those guys. Internet is loosely regulated and it is good that way, in my opinion.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Once you are on campus, use your student ID to log in on the library website. You may be *very pleased* to find out that the library has an agreement with, say, Springer, and that you — as a graduate student — are allowed to download (in PDF format) as many technical books as you want! Therefore, why would anyone download books from sites *other* than the campus library's?
It would be wise to assume that such PDF files are watermarked. They are supposed to help you in *your* research. If you start distributing PDF files that can be linked to your student ID, I suspect that your career as a graduate student will be rather short.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: This answer applies to the European Union. Laws may vary elsewhere. Also, I am not a lawyer.
**Short answer**: No, it's usually not legal. Exceptions apply, but they are exceptions; one can assume it is illegal until proven otherwise.
**Long answer**: this basically comes down to whether it's legal to create a copy of copyrighted material.
* Downloading vs. streaming: downloading involves creating a copy of the original item. Streaming means viewing the content without creating a copy. Since you are downloading books, you are creating a copy, and copying laws apply. (It is worth noting that even if you are able to stream the book instead of download it, it is still illegal, as a result of a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice in the [Filmspeler](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=190142&doclang=EN) case).
* Article 2 of the [EU's copyright directive](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN) establishes that books are protected material (emphasis mine):
>
> Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:
>
>
> **(a) for authors, of their works;**
>
>
> (b) for performers, of fixations of their performances;
>
>
> (c) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;
>
>
> (d) for the producers of the first fixations of films, in respect of the original and copies of their films;
>
>
> (e) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broadcasts, whether those broadcasts are transmitted by wire or over the air, including by cable or satellite.
>
>
>
* However article 5 of the same law provides for a "private copy exception" wherein an individual may be allowed to make a copy for private non-commercial purposes (emphasis mine):
>
> 2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
>
>
> (a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation;
>
>
> **(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;**
>
>
> (c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage;
>
>
> (d) in respect of ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the grounds of their exceptional documentary character, be permitted;
>
>
> (e) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation.
>
>
>
* However in a landmark ruling in the [ACI Adam case](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=150786&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=497243), the European Court of Justice established that it is illegal to create a copy under this private copy exception if the source is illegal (paragraphs 56-58):
>
> Consequently, all the users who purchase such equipment, devices and media are indirectly penalised since, by bearing the burden of the levy which is determined regardless of the lawful or unlawful nature of the source from which such reproductions are made, they inevitably contribute towards the compensation for the harm caused by reproductions for private use made from an unlawful source, which are not permitted by Directive 2001/29, and are thus led to assume an additional, non-negligible cost in order to be able to make the private copies covered by the exception provided for by Article 5(2)(b) of that directive.
>
>
> Such a situation cannot be regarded as satisfying the condition of the fair balance to be found between, on the one hand, the rights and interests of the recipients of the fair compensation and, on the other, those of those users.
>
>
> In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first and second questions [for context on what these questions are, see paragraph 19 of the same page] is that EU law, in particular Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, read in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that article, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not distinguish the situation in which the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful from that in which that source is unlawful.
>
>
>
* Note the ECJ also ruled that this ruling precludes national legislation, meaning that EU member states cannot impose more lenient laws (although they can impose harsher laws).
The conclusion from all this is that, if the source of the copyrighted material acquired the material legally, then it is still possibly legal for you to make a copy of it (other laws apply in that situation; what those laws are is outside the scope of this answer). However if the source acquired the copyrighted material illegally, then it is illegal under all circumstances for you to make a copy of it.
The next question is whether Libgen acquired the book legally. I'll consider it self-evident that for most books, they did not (if they did, why would publishers be suing them?). Accordingly the conclusion is:
**It is not legal to download copyrighted books from LibGen.** You can still download if the copyright has expired (e.g. if the books are in the public domain) or if the copyright holder allows free distribution (e.g. a CC-BY license, which is typical for most open access journal articles).
See also: the answer to [this question on the Law StackExchange](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/33639/is-it-illegal-in-the-eu-in-germany-to-download-a-scientific-e-book), writen by someone more familiar with copyright law than me.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/11
| 2,583
| 10,223
|
<issue_start>username_0: I will try to make this brief. I am a student at a prominent university in the UK, and while I was showing my thesis work, a website, to my supervisor, the website crashed. Then I was asked to close the browser and open it again.
When I did, it seems a tab of adult content was open from the previous day with explicit content, when that happened, I immediately (without thinking) pressed Cmd-W to close it but it was evident he saw it.
The conversation continued normally and my supervisor completely ignored it. I feel very embarrassed and I am afraid I could be reported or anything.
Am I in trouble? Will I face issues because of this? Thank you in advance.
Edit: My laptop is a personal laptop and not provided by the university. I've also used the University network to access the site from my dorm. I also don't think there are university guidelines that prevent us from accessing adult content.<issue_comment>username_1: It's embarrassing, but it's also understandable. I think if your supervisor has decided to ignore it, then you should take this opportunity to **not ruminate**. So silently thank him, and forget it.
I know advice is always easier said than done though. Rumination is defined as "to keep thinking about a problem which had already been, or can never be solved". The real problem had already been solved at the moment he decided to ignore it, so the only problem here is your rumination. To stop it, every time you feel embarrassed about this topic again, my tip is to shake the idea in your head, like it's just a toy. This will make you distract from the negative feeling.
Related:
• [Why You Should Stop Caring What Other People Think (Taming the Mammoth)](https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-opinions-run-life.html) – Wait But Why
• [Straightforwardness, Fearlessness and Improvisation: How to find the fresh perspective?](http://lyminhnhat.com/2018/07/16/2-straightforwardness-fearlessness-and-improvisation-how-to-find-the-fresh-perspective/?utm_source=Stack%20Exchange&utm_medium=answers&utm_campaign=The%20Sphere) – username_1
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: From context I'm assuming you were using a university internet connection to view this material? (edit: now confirmed by OP)
Most if not all major universities have some sort of "acceptable use" policy governing student & staff use of IT facilities. For example, [here are Oxford's regulations](http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/statutes/regulations/196-052.shtml). Some key points:
>
> 7. Users are not permitted to use university IT or network facilities for any of the following:
> ...
>
>
> (2) the creation, transmission, storage, downloading, or display of
> any offensive, obscene, indecent, or menacing images, data, or other
> material, ... except in the case of the use of the facilities for properly
> supervised research purposes when that use is lawful and when the user
> has obtained prior written authority for the particular activity...;
>
>
> ...
>
>
> (4) the creation, transmission, or display of material which is
> designed or likely to harass another individual in breach of the
> University’s Policy and Procedure on Harassment;
>
>
> (9) the creation or transmission of or access to material in such a way as to infringe a copyright, moral right, trade mark, or other intellectual property right;
>
>
> ...
>
>
> (12) the deliberate or reckless undertaking of activities such as may result in any of the following ... (f) the introduction or transmission of a virus or other malicious
> software into the network;
>
>
>
You should check your university's policies, but they will almost certainly have similar rules to the Oxford ones that I quoted. Many institutions require staff and students to sign an acknowledgement of their rules in order to receive IT access.
If you're viewing porn through your university internet connection, that's an obvious breach of #2. You might also run into some of the other provisions if you're viewing pirated material, if you're viewing it on an untrustworthy site infested with malware, or if anybody thinks you deliberately showed them porn in order to harass them. (The latter probably isn't an issue with the interaction you describe, but it's a risk you face if you don't keep your porn viewing separate from your academic work.)
So, if your supervisor decides to report this, you could very easily be in trouble. Depending on your university's policy, your supervisor may even have a duty to report it.
Whether they *will* report it - or what will happen if they do - is another question, and this board probably can't answer that. Some people and institutions are relatively slack about enforcing their policies, others are very strict.
>
> I also don't think there are university guidelines that prevent us
> from accessing adult content.
>
>
>
I would *strongly* advise you to check that. It would be extremely unusual for a university (or any other large organisation supplying internet access) *not* to have some rule along these lines, even if enforcement is light.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: a. Some people are victims of malware which bring up ads and things like this. Plausible deniability
b. This COULD have been deliberate porn viewing, but there is no way to know WHICH internet connection was used, even if that PC does sometimes use a university connection.
Plausible deniability
c. This COULD have been deliberate porn viewing, but by someone else who has used the same PC.
Plausible deniability
I think the combination of an understanding supervisor and the difficulty they would have to prove wrong doing means that nothing will happen.
As has been mentioned above, you should learn from this experience and take measures to make sure it doesn't happen again. If this happened in a public forum while giving a presentation... AWKWARD!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If it's a thesis about security in computing science you will probably acquire serious troubles with a bad mark!
In the other cases that will just eventually decrease slightly your mark but if you know very well your subject most of the examiners will certainly forget this trouble to stay concentrate only on the subject.
As teacher, I try to remember only the good things because I haven't time to waste for others things. As professional, I will certainly suggest you to change your computer and the day I like to stop to work with you I will eventually remember to you that event. Anyway, if you are young we can understand more easily that situation but we can't accept it that why your examiner reject it immediately. Next time, I hope you will be more watchful with the security of your computer and be careful with Internet, backups...
It's not necessary to wear all the time a suit and to have in your hand a Bible but if you have piercing, tattoes and strange haircut that is more difficult to think about an hitch. in other way try to keep all the time the maximum chance of success in your career with loyalty and honesty to vanish pitfalls and traps
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: If it's forbidden to surf non-university related sites, then this is an issue. If not, and you are above 18, then this is embarrassing and nothing else.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I have been in your situation...but sort of from the perspective of your professor.
I was doing an internship with a tech company.
I was assigned to a supervisor, he wasn't a very nice person and treated me rudely. He once slept in front of me while I was giving him a one-on-one presentation of some work I did for him. We had a terrible work relationship.
One day, he wanted me to run an errand for him, and do some simulations after work hours. Begrudgingly, I agreed. I logged in to his desktop and accidentally opened his "alternative" internet broswer (I preferred using Opera for some reasons and saw that he had one installed).
Let's just say, my mind was blown. He was into the some of the hardest of hardcore porn you can imagine (for some reason, it didn't come as that much of a shock to me, as he is known to be a Japan enthusiast). Nothing illegal, mind you.
You know what happened afterwards?
Nothing.
I wanted to tell the other interns. But what is the point?
I secretly wanted to blackmail him. Not worth the trouble.
Did it significantly alter my view of this guy? Frankly, no. I was already upset with the way that he treated me. His "porn" habits only give some rationale or explanation that hints at certain frustration in his life.
And in the end, it didn't matter. We parted ways, and that was the end.
Did he ever knew that I knew? No. Did he ever suspect? I don't know.
**Summary:**
1. Somethings are just better left unsaid.
2. There is nothing you can truly do to change whatever the other's opinion of you.
Even if you win a Nobel prize, if the person on the other end is petty, then he will be reminded of your accidentally slip up and use it to dismiss your achievement. If the person is kind and compassionate, then he will still be reminded it, but will not let him interfere with his opinion of you. There is nothing you can do, so don't ruminate on it and move on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: If nothing was said consider the *incident* solved.
How to prevent it from happening again?
1. Different computer accounts;
2. Different browsers;
3. Same browser but different profiles.
I use number 3 to separate work from personal browsing in Firefox. Other browsers might have similar capabilities. This allows you to have different extensions, bookmarks, history, etc. During a crash you only get back the tabs from that profile.
In your case you could have *work* and *other-business* profiles. You can name a profile *porn* but it might get awkward to open the profile chooser in front of others.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: If there are university guidelines, then you may experience issues. However, if there aren't, you shouldn't because, in your defense, you didn't do anything wrong.
**It isn't your fault that the web crashed.**
**I advise you to ignore this incident.**
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/07/11
| 862
| 3,483
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had a class last week and I was 10 minutes late. I missed part of the class, and I want to write an email to my professor to arrange a time to meet.
I prepared this email:
>
> Dear .....
>
>
> I’ve missed part of the previous session and this part is not clear for me. Could I meet up with you this week so you can explain it to me?
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
Is it appropriate?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is appropriate, though you will want to apologize for being late. Most professors, good ones anyway, value questions and the students who ask them. If the prof in question holds regular office hours that would be the most appropriate time to ask.
I don't think there is any "special" way to ask. What you suggest seems fine to me.
You can also try to get up to speed on the topic before you meet, using text books and the like. Or discussions with fellow students.
I was once thought to be very smart because I asked a lot of questions. On the other hand, my mother thought I was a "pain" because I asked a lot of questions. But she wasn't a professor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would like to take a different perspective than username_1:
You were late (maybe even disrupted the course when entering the room) and missed something. Now you want additional time from your teacher to catch up something which happened in the first 10 minutes - which will take ~5-15 minutes of the working time of your teacher. Multiply this by 100 students and 5 courses per week, and you will spot the problem ;-).
Therefore, I would suggest to try everything you can do to catch up on your own. Ask other students. Use books. If you invested >3h without success, you can still write this e-mail explaining what you already understood, where you struggled and at which point you need specific help.
This will show your professor you are really engaged and makes it easy to answer your question within seconds. Maybe (s)he will ask you "just to talk a few minutes after the next lecture" which is also very time effective.
The behavior also depends a bit on your local student-teacher-relationship. In my course, I would not mind if you just approach me after class, you will receive a little (friendly but sarcastic) remark about being late, and get an answer (and I'm happy that someone is trying to learn something).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Perfect question for office hours! Go and wait for your turn to ask.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: No, as a general rule, such mail is not appropriate. I would not be happy to receive such email. There are reasons courses are taught in classes of multiple (many) students, and that is, the professor's time is much more valuable than students'.
There may be exceptions to the above rule. For example, if you have been late to some widely known reason that affected many people (e.g. snowstorm, public transport breakdown, etc.), then the professor may be more generous (but I would not be surprised if he asks for multiple students that missed the class to arrange a single meeting).
On the other hand, if a) people are habitually late to this professor's class, or b) you were late multiple times, don't even think about this, because you may get pretty bad reaction. Do the math, if there are 100 people in the class and only 5% are late and want extra time with professor, it can easily add up to a burden that is non-negligible.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/11
| 711
| 2,889
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a question about plagiarism.
If a peer reviewer writes a negative review of a paper and rejects it, so that he or she can use the idea of the paper in their own work is that considered plagiarism?
Similarly, if a peer reviewer lifts sentences from a submitted, but rejected manuscript into their own paper is that considered plagiarism?
And if you have a strong suspicion either of those two have happened (e.g. you see a publication appear after a while with exactly the same phrasing as your submitted manuscript), is there anything you can do about it?<issue_comment>username_1: The answer to your first two questions are easy: Yes! It is considered plagiarism to take other people's ideas and represent them as your own, without giving proper credit. The same holds for sentences in a paper, no matter if it has already been published.
Your last question is more difficult to answer, as the burden of proof essentially lies with the person being plagiarized. Since the paper have already been submitted (though rejected), there should be a date stamped version of it somewhere in the journal repository. This is, however, not the best way to go, as the supposed culprit(s) can claim that they have never seen this paper - it is, after all, not in the public domain. For this (and other) reason I would always recommend authors to submit preprints to a service like arXiv, to have a valid, time-stamped proof in the public domain.
In the concrete case I would recommend contacting the editor of the journal where the new paper has been published, if adequate proof can be gathered.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> If a peer reviewer writes a negative review of a paper and rejects it,
> so that he or she can use the idea of the paper in their own work is
> that considered plagiarism?
>
>
> Similarly, if a peer reviewer lifts sentences from a submitted, but
> rejected manuscript into their own paper is that considered
> plagiarism?
>
>
>
It's a similar situation to a lecturer coping excerpts from student papers into their own work. It's plagiarism and a highly unethical behavior.
Contact the journal and inform them of your suspicions. Be as factual as possible. Include the excerpts you think have been plagiarised and/or your reasons to think so. You may want to discuss your suspicions with a colleague before informing the journal just as a "sanity check", to check whether your colleague also thinks the sentences / ideas are the same.
I don't know where you are but in my country there exist some organisations that focus on finding and naming-and-shaming scientists who plagiarise. So if you have a proof and the journal doesn't act, you may try to turn to a similar organisation in your country if it exists. Apart from that, you may consider contacting the plagiarist's institution and/or a lawyer.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/11
| 345
| 1,426
|
<issue_start>username_0: If a paper is accepted in poster session of a conference or workshop such that only one page of the article will be published in proceedings, how this paper can be credible? (in particular in computer science and in a workshop like this: <http://deic.uab.cat/conferences/cbt/cbt2018/>)<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure what you mean by credible. If you are a student, especially, being in a poster session is a really good opportunity to meet people in the field and impress them with your brilliance and future prospects.
As one of the senior professors who used to wander around poster sessions, I was honored to meet such new and upcoming researchers and learn from them. If I had anything useful to say, perhaps they gained something as well. You can usually, at a poster session, distribute a longer version of your work with contact information.
The same goes, I think, for young faculty, though to a lesser extent. But still, use it as a chance to make contacts and extend your reach.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The "paper" in a poster session is probably an abstract, rather than an actual paper. It is a record of the poster presentation, but may or may not have been peer-reviewed. Obviously you would not want to use it as a primary source of results or data but it could be used as a demonstration that a certain topic is being researched.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/11
| 648
| 2,711
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have started my master's degree and I am a fully funded student.
I want to get perfect marks and do my research perfectly.
What steps should I follow to become an outstanding student in my supervisor's mind?
How can I be a perfect student?
I also have a class with him this semester. I am also doing research with him.
It really does matter to me to have a very good relationship with my supervisor.
Please, give me any advice that you think is useful.<issue_comment>username_1: You should consider timeliness, for classes, setting up the lab, meetings, any planned activities...
So get there with time to spare to be able to help sort problems that may (or will eventually) arise... That is the type of attitude that will get noticed...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Try not to "show yourself as an active student", **be it**! There is really a difference in it.
As an active student, you are genuinely interested in the field, you are asking question no mtter how stupid they seem, you are going an extra mile in assignments, be helpful to others (even if no one notices it), be active in students activities, ...
In fact there are way too many things you could do to do them all. So try to be you and pick what's best for your personality. Then you will shine.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Let's assume that you are very smart and knowledgable about the prerequisites for the course. That seems obvious from your question and how you state it.
When I was a beginning graduate student I was thought to be very bright because I asked a lot of questions - good questions, not just anything. But if I didn't get a point during a lecture, I asked about it by raising my hand and asking. Of course, I'd done my "homework" so the questions weren't disruptive or insincere. I really needed to know.
But the interesting thing is that my fellow students *also* wanted to know but many were afraid to ask.
This is something you could try, starting out in a small way, and seeing the effect. If you get any "push back" you could try something else. But it is really important to use lectures to really learn things and not let important things go past because a question wasn't asked.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: **No one is ever a perfect student, because no such thing exists.**
You *will* make mistakes. It's a part of life and failure and errors are a fundamental part of the research process. Surving the adversity and challenges of research will make you a better researcher than doing everything "perfectly." I've seen people who try to hard to be perfect, and crumble when things don't go their way for some reason.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/11
| 557
| 2,175
|
<issue_start>username_0: I currently live in New Zealand an I'm studying animal science. I got my bachelor of science in New Zealand (from Massey) and my masters from Melbourne University.
Do you think it is strange if I go back to New Zealand to the same University to do my PhD? I've heard that it is good to go to different Universities for all your degrees to show that you are "open-minded", but if I have already gone to two different universities for my bachelors and masters, am I already showing that I am "open-minded"?
Thanks,
Chris<issue_comment>username_1: I think that the main reason for going to a different university is that you may have already learned just about everything that the current/past one has to teach you. By moving you will see new perspectives. It isn't that you have an open mind, it is that you may (hopefully *will*) be introduced to new ideas.
That may not be the case in especially large universities with large faculties. And it may be less important also, if the place you already are has the experts (and research) that you need to work with. But finding ways to stretch your mind and experiences is normally good.
New Zealand is itself a rather small place. Australia is a bit bigger, of course. I don't know how much "academic inbreeding" there is between the two. Europe or the US have a lot of diversity. But if the work you want to do is well done in a small place it should be fine.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Well if the topic or material is “local” to that university then it seems logical.
If you are going to study, for example, the effects of tourism on the breeding habits of koala bears then enrolling in the University of Wisconsin or Oxford or Cambridge may not be too helpful.
You should enrol at a Uni that has the course that you want, with the facilities you need and the environment you like - both for work and relaxation. It does not help, if you are happy in the stcks to be in a high-rise neither does moving to the sticks suit a city-dweller...
I am in an establishment where 1 metre of snow is common in winter and some new colleagues find winter just too much and leave...
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/12
| 5,641
| 23,649
|
<issue_start>username_0: One thing I don't understand about lectures is why the lecturer covers the material that is already presented in the book and assigned as reading material to the students.
Is the assumption that some students are actually incapable of reading? If not, what then is the point of covering the same stuff in the lecture? Imagine that reading the book is a lecture itself: what then is the point of giving two identical lectures?
I understand that some students may not understand the book, and a spoken lecture makes it possible to answer questions and provide clarifications on unclear statements from the book, or just to add more detail/intuition to a certain topic.
But, truth be told, those parts of a lecture make up a small, small minority. **Most** of the lecture is indeed spent on just repeating what the book said - except of course with much less detail, since you can't cram 30 pages of written words in a 1 hour lecture.
So would it not be much more efficient to do it differently? Here's one example for a 1 hour lecture, but you can think of your own:
* Spend the first 15 minutes on recitation of the book material. It gets everyone on board, sets the tone, refreshes everyone's mind. During these 15 minutes, certain added remarks can be made if the lecturer feels them necessary.
* Spend the next 10 minutes answering questions by confused students.
* You now have 35 minutes left to cover *extra material* not presented in the book. This could be in-depth examples or intuition of the topic just covered, advanced extensions, or just some extra topic that you wouldn't have time to otherwise cover in your course.
This way you are both more efficient since you are not wasting time repeating stuff, and you also take care of students' questions and get some time to add clarifying remarks. You get the best of both worlds.<issue_comment>username_1: Disclaimer: I'm not an experienced teacher, and I certainly don't represent all lecturers, so this is mostly just guesswork based on my experience in academia.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that what lecturers do now is optimal, I'm just explaining why they are doing it now. However, *planning and executing a good and pedagogical course from scratch requires a lot of time and effort* that might not be available to many university teachers, even if they were motivated. So the current method may indeed be a "local" optimum in many cases.
---
Lecturer's job is to help the students learn as well as he can in the time given to him. In an ideal world, the students would do everything as the lecturer has planned, but experience has told us that this is not what happens. So the lecturer needs to adapt.
I've been TAing a course where the lectures start by a small quiz about the contents of that lecture. The quizzes aren't graded, but you get some extra points by attending a lecture (on time), so the students have some motivation to do it. And the results vary from end to end. A few students seem to know everything the course wants to cover, and a few students seem like they haven't even heard about the things in the course, and the rest are anything in between.
>
> Why? Is the assumption that some students are actually incapable of reading? If not, what then is the point of covering the same stuff in the lecture? Imagine that reading the book is a lecture itself: what then is the point of giving two identical lectures?
>
>
>
The assumption is not that they are *incapable*, the assumption is that they are *not willing to* learn everything just by reading a book, for good or bad reasons. Lecturers often have chosen to target their lectures to people who, for one reason or another, prefer not to learn stuff only by reading a book. Beause students who learn well enough by reading the book don't really need lectures as much as the ones who don't.
Even the worst lecturers I have seen don't just *recite* the book. They allow questions and try to explain things in their own way. Another point of view often helps you if you didn't understand what the book said.
And if the lecturer's quality of teaching is so low that they really just recite the book without adding anything, I don't think the problem is the structure of the lecture, it's their motivation, skills, or time constraints.
---
>
> So would it not me much more efficient to do it differently? Here's one example for a 1 hour lecture, but you can think of your own:
>
>
> * Spend the first 15 minutes on recitation of the book material. It gets everyone on board, sets the tone, refreshes everyone's mind. During these 10 minutes, certain added remarks can be made if the lecturer feels them necessary.
>
>
>
Earlier you said you can't even cover everything in the book during one hour. So everyone who has not read the book or has not understood something will definitely not understand anything here.
>
> * Spend the next 10 minutes answering questions by confused students.
>
>
>
From my experience, at this point the questions would be anything between "no questions" or "I didn't understand anything" (which looks like "no questions"). If someone has a real question about one part, I don't see how this is any better for them than asking it while the lecturer is teaching that part in the 1 hour lecture.
>
> * You now have 35 minutes left to cover extra material not presented in the book. This could be in-depth examples or intuition of the topic just covered, advanced extensions, or just some extra topic that you wouldn't have time to otherwise cover in your course.
>
>
>
Books are designed to contain material that is suitable for one course, and I'd assume lecturers want to teach the material they currently have in the course. So they would probably want to spend this 35 minutes going over the material they explained in the first 10 minutes, but in more detail. So this would be like the usual book lecture you described, just structured in a different way.
>
> This way, you are both more efficient since you are not wasting time repeating stuff,
>
>
>
But repeating stuff is pretty much required for learning. Yes, you get repetition when you do exercises, but reading a book *and* listening to a lecture about the same things is another way of learning.
>
> but you also take care of student questions and get some time to add clarifying remarks.
>
>
>
Are you saying that your lecturers don't allow student questions during the lecture? I have seen lecturers ranging from horrible to excellent, but I've never met one who does not enjoy when a student asks a question during the lecture.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many students lack the discipline and/or commitment to devote themselves to a completely unknown subject. Instilling such work habits and essentially making the students independent is a major part of the school experience. In its extreme form, in grad school, students are expected to perform research by themselves, guided by the mentor, but still largely by themselves.
Students are also often inexperienced when it comes to extracting the important things from lectures. The professor can of course talk about only a limited amount of things from the book during the lecture, but these are the crucial parts of the subject. Think of it as a steel structure, which can stand on its own and provide students with the crude basics, but can also later filled in with walls, floors, windows, etc. as the students further study the matter. In other words, it gives them a framework for further study.
Finally, there is the scope. The contents of a course a covered in the literature for it, i.e. the book. The professor tries to convey those contents in a manner that would enable his students to absorb as much of the matter as possible, ideally so that the book can only be read through to fill in the gaps or even to realize that nothing new is in the book.
On the other hand, people who don't have access to the professor or the university can still learn the same things by going over the literature, same as with students who refuse to attend lectures. From experience, this is usually the much much harder way.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with you that lecture time (i.e. face to face time) is often badly used. Copying my notes to the board so that you can copy them to your notes seems (and is) foolish, unless the course is absolutely unique and I'm the only resource. The joke is that while this copying is going on, the information goes through the mind of neither.
However there are a few reasons to explain this. The lesser reason is that instructors try to be realistic in their explanations about what students do (and don't do). So they try to present a coherent picture of a topic, rather than just answer questions helter-skelter.
A more important reason is that the book itself doesn't tell the whole story and a good lecturer will, as part of that coherent picture, fill in additional ideas and, most important, insights. Many topics are actually insight-driven and it can be hard to capture that in print.
A still more important reason, however, is that different people learn differently. The term of art is "learning modalities". Some people learn fine by reading, others by seeing, or hearing, or interacting, or practice, or ... So a good use of face to face time is to "ping" the students with preferred modalities other than book reading.
But your bullet point description of a better way, is very good. You also need to get the students to practice the art, what ever it is. Sometimes this is done within a lecture period so that you can give immediate guidance (or use pairing so the students can help each other. But usually you end by sending them off to some active task (and more readings, of course). In fact your final 35 minutes might well be spent in having the students practice. This is called active learning and is an extremely important modality and generally a good use of at least part of "class time."
In fact a better use of class time is to do only those things that can only be done face to face. For the last several years of my teaching (retired now) I never lectured in the sense of writing things on a board (or showing slides) that students were expected to copy. We did group work (sometimes paired), active demonstrations (sometimes with student "actors"), academic games (think Jeopardy), etc. Students would have outside reading, but even then, most of their work was active practice of some skill.
---
An historical note: Charles University (Prague) was founded about a hundred years prior to the invention of the printing press. Books were very expensive if they even existed. Lectures then, were an efficient way to spread knowledge. But what was optimal then is past its "use by" date, perhaps.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: This will vary a lot by level.
I concluded at one point that, in "remedial" type courses1, many students are **not able** to read the textbook. And, therefore, the lecture was best used to help the students in reading the textbook.
*Here is the definition given in the textbook. What does this phrase mean? What does that notation mean? How is this related to what we did last week? Let's do some examples that illustrate it.*
>
> 1which, in my university as far as mathematics was concerned, included a large percentage of the incoming students: students who "chose" to take as little math as possible in high school.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: The answer may depend on what type of course we are talking about, here I'll focus on STEM.
The most obvious answer would be "because it would be a false assumption". **Many students don't read the books**. But then you get to the question: why don't the students read the books?
I'm an engineering student, and here's my perspective: in STEM courses it's quite often the case that the lectures are quite simply a boiled-down version of the books; they present the same theorems as the books, in the same order, often using the same examples, but without all the "fluff". Students don't read the books because we go to the lectures, take notes, and get all the necessary material in a document we wrote ourselves. Writing it ourselves helps us learn the material, and since it's a boiled-down version it's much less material to read through when preparing for exams.
As for professors, if they assume that the books have been read and understood, **they wouldn't have much to talk about** since what they planned to present was the book's material. They *could* use lectures for Q&A sessions and practice problems but attendance would be quite low in that case and *students would complain about paying for simply being told what book to read instead of being presented the material*. Besides, (at least in the case of my university) Q&As and practice problem sessions are typically done by the TAs on a regular basis anyway.
I imagine this may not hold for other types of classes such as history or literature in which documents are assigned to be read and then discussed and analyzed in class, but I have little to no experiences with those so I can't give an informed answer.
P.S: "*Imagine that reading the book is a lecture itself*". Fun fact: the word *lecture* is french for *reading*.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: It depends on the course. If I'm teaching a course on standard undergraduate material, I'm using a textbook that contains most or all of what the students need to know. So I'm not sure what would go in the 35 minutes of extra time you suggest. (There's plenty of extra stuff I could talk about that would make the lectures more interesting for *me*, but it's doubtful that this would be helpful for anyone else.)
The goal is not to cover as much material as possible, it's to cover the material thoroughly enough that the students will actually learn it. Seeing the material once isn't enough to understand it, and 15 minute refresher at the beginning of the lecture would be insufficient, even if all the students did read the book.
For a graduate course or a higher-level undergraduate course, the kind of thing you suggest is fine, and commonly done.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Because most students don't read the book, and in many cases *can't* read the book. Exact statistics vary somewhat by type of institution, of course.
* In 2016, 28.1% of students at 2-year institutions, and 10.8% at 4-year institutions, required remedial English/reading courses ([link](https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf), p. 15, Table 1).
* As a more restricted example, at CUNY in 1997 61% of students at 2-year institutions, and 43% at 4-year institutions, failed entry reading exams and were placed in remedial courses ([link](http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/cuny/pdf/freshmen.pdf), p. 51, Table 3). N.B.: Within the last year CUNY terminated testing and remediation in reading.
* Books being read in high school now have an average 5th-grade reading level ([link](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/top-reading_n_1373680.html)).
* Books such as *Help! My college Students Can't Read* by <NAME> are now somewhat in demand ([link](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1475814577)).
The trend of the so-called the "flipped classroom" does something like what the OP suggests; learn basics before class, and exercises further in the class -- of course, to my thinking, this is just "traditional classroom". Although the current trend expects watching video lectures, not reading, which bewilders me when high-quality textbooks are available. Anecdotally, from practitioners I've been told that they're hoping for a "critical mass" of students to do advance prep work before class and engage in discussions, which may at best be counted on one hand for a classroom of 30 students or so.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I think that [Flipped classroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipped_classroom) is what you are looking for.
Flipped classrooms are designed for students to prepare the material by themselves and devote lecture time to exercises, debates and questions.
I have heard about Flipped classroom implementation in university courses but I have never taken any myself. Personally, I find more appealing the idea of using lecture time for debates and exercises rather than expanding on the material. It gives the opportunity to go over what students have read and to put it into practice, reinforcing their knowledge. Every student can read and listen to the lecturer but fully grasping the material goes beyond that.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: Because not everyone is exactly like you and not everyone learns by reading. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles>
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_10: Usually the lecture is reserved for the most important material... As you point out, lecture time is more costly than book space. So if it is important enough to lecture on, then why wouldn't you also include it in the book?
If you lecture for 35 minutes on extra material (genuinely not covered by the book), then you will probably want to make that material available in a printed format. Even if you don't care about the poor student who got sick and missed it, you probably care about the student who diligently came to class and took notes but who didn't perfectly transcribe everything into their notes since they were trying to understand brand new material while taking notes. Since it's so much material, you might even decide to publish it as a bound copy, with pretty figures and nice problem sets for students to work in order to check their understanding. If you're really lucky, you have actually already written a textbook on the subject (or know someone who has), so instead you amend this material into your textbook... Now you're back at square one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Lectures are used to enhance what you learned from reading. They are used as a way to help guide interpretations on the material in the books. Most of my professors emphasized this a lot (especially in the STEM courses) during my time in school. The professor takes time to focus on the main focus of the material often glancing over the peripheral information provided in texts to ensure that the students are getting to the base of the course. The redundancy is meant to help students retain the information as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: I have pondered on this a lot and my impression is that: The primary reason is to pace the students, although i really dislike this method. The temptation for student to think that they will read the book later is too high. What most likely happens is the student starts too late and tries to cram the information. So by going through the material teacher is making sure that when and if the student eventually reads the book or a comparable source they are recieving the information a second or third time. This then railroads you into doing things in the same order as the book.
So the purpose really is to span as much time as possible. Drip feeding information is the name of the game so as to give you maximal time to diggest the info. Sure all examinations could be just in the template read this book and take this test. But the teacher is tasked to also carry along weak students.
While reverse classroom is a really good way to do things. It does quite contrary to intuition require a massively better prepared teacher. Also reverse classroom setups can fail to work for some semesters. The big problem of all the methods that rely on students to do the work outside of classrooms (that dont directly go into graded exercises) is that students have other time pressures. So you better reserve classroom time for students doing their own stuff.
So at the end of the day the talking head lecture is just the easy way out for the teacher! It sortof works, has been shown to work for a thousand or so years. It minimizes the effor, show that its not just the teachers oppinion. And last but not least, it is not different from what others are doing so you will hardly be blamed for doing it this way.
It is also somewhat easier on the student as there is a comprehensive material to fall back on. If the material presented does not follow a book than it becomes really hard for students to cope with any things they didnt understand.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_13: I'm going to answer this based upon my own experiences from collegiate level STEM: Some books are terrible.
Personally, I am a very visual and dynamic learner, meaning I learn best by seeing and doing something.
The most relevant example I can think of was when I was learning fluid mechanics and the followup course, hydraulics, they both used the same book. Almost all of the problems presented in the book are simply word problems, there are no pictures, and are written in such a manner that sort of assumes you have a solid understanding of everything they're talking about. The book is literally 250 pages of text with maybe 30 pictures in the whole thing.
This sucks for me. I can't focus on that well enough to learn it.
Whenever I would work my homework, I would try to draw something to illustrate to myself what the book was trying to convey. It was extremely time consuming and a lot of times, I wasn't completely correct (and thus am pretty much 100% wrong).
Because of this, I focused heavily upon attendance at lectures so that I could ask questions and force the professor to draw out their ideas. In doing so, I understood it better and I'm sure some of my classmates did as well.
In professional practice, I also make people draw things since that is so much more efficient for me than a lot of words.
In addition, I can also exemplify were we to do what you proposed, because that is what occurred with my Freshman chemistry classes. We had a lecture, we had homework from a chemistry book that relied upon reading the book and covered material not related to the lecture, and we had additional online homework that was related to additional material. On paper, Chemistry had only 1 lecture and 1 recitation period like my other classes, but it took up at least 25% more of my very limited time. I found that spreading myself so thin on so many subjects just meant I didn't learn any of them particularly well.
One last thing regarding the recommendation that 10 minutes be allotted for questions on the reading material. A lot of advanced topics cannot be adequately explained with only 10 minutes. A basic structural analysis for statically determinate structures usually requires 1-2 blackboards worth of algebra equations that aren't necessarily difficult, but very time consuming to demonstrate properly. The most useful thing from that class was the demonstration of how critical it was to be diligent at every step of a very long series of equations and it was far better demonstrated in the lecture than the book.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_14: There was a psychologist named <NAME> that introduced the idea of a forgetting curve. In a nutshell, after an extremely short period of time you will begin to forget about things you have read or heard in a lecture.
While reading part of your textbook in preparation for class is important, you need spaced repetition to increase the amount of what you remember on a topic. The class period is a good way to add a "spaced repetition" and ask the lecturer about anything that is unclear from your reading.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/12
| 761
| 2,877
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am giving in the next days a presentation to a UK university, as a part of an interview for a post-doc position.
The PI of the lab asked me to put one slide at the beginning with my academic CV.
However, academic CV is in general long and I have no clue on what I should put in this slide and what not, beside the obvious things.
What should this slide contain?
Which is the common practice for this?
I am sure I will need to add:
* Previous degrees (Bsc, Msc).
* Phd
What I do not know:
* Professional experiences?
* Teaching experiences?
* List of papers?
* List of conferences?
* List of journals for which I served as a reviewer?<issue_comment>username_1: I would treat it as a bullet point summary of your accomplishments:
* PhD/dissertation
* Notable experiences (e.g., teaching, internships, and professional positions, but not the typical TA/RA positions)
* Awards
* Summary of publications (e.g., "8 publications in venues such as A and B")
There are no standard rules for this. The goal is to convince them you are worthy of a job, so eliminate any noise and only provide the highlights. They can refer to your actual CV if they want more details.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I typically do two slides for short self-presentation, but the first one is relevant for you.
First slide
===========
* \*19xx
* BSc 20xx, MSc 20yy
* PhD 20aa from Burkington
* Venia legendi 20zz from ZU Zaplin
* Tenured at Marward at 20mm
Second slide
============
* Current research focus
* Further research interests
* A fancy research video
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: You could make a "multiple timelines" slide.
You could make a slide showing multiple arrows representing time, each one depicting one dimension of your scientific experience. Here are the dimensions I recently presented using this slide format :
1. Academic affiliations, classes I was in charge of
2. Lab affiliations
3. The research projects I participated in
4. Papers and conferences (represented as dashes of different colors with a highlight on written publications)
This list of ideas needs to be adapted to your own experience. I think that the main objective would be to make it as simple as possible and to refine your different points in your speech.
Generally speaking, I think that this kind of visual can help your audience to grasp your whole experience in a few minutes and more importantly, to grasp it's consistency.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Consider the EMPTY slide as a TWO-Column page as shown in the picture below.
The following picture is just the DUMBEST work I have ever done, but in short time, I could manage only this much to give my answer. You need to add color and flair to it
Good luck !
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/t1goB.png)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/12
| 427
| 1,869
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am curious if faculty appointees (at various levels) should request their schools to send their official transcripts to the employer to get a faculty position? Or is it only required for students?
When I finish my PhD, do I still need to request my school to send an official transcript of my PhD for starting an assistant professor position (and later on)?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends.
In my experience, I was required to list my degrees with where & when I obtained them. I was not required to get the official transcripts sent but I was also hired on where I completed graduate school (so they already had official transcripts on record).
My guess is that there is no single answer for **ALL** academic institutions across. My advice: submit the unofficial and be prepared to obtain official if needed (but you already knew that).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the United States, at least, the norm is that you send official transcripts once you are offered the job. At my university (and I believe by SACS regulation) the transcript(s)/degree(s) must be on file with the university for all faculty members, thus it is a requirement to be able to get the job.
During the application process, though, unofficial transcripts are generally sufficient, if they even ask for it. Sending official transcripts to 100 different places in the application process would get very expensive, very quickly. For example, if they wanted from every post-secondary school I had attended, I would need to request transcripts from no less than 8 different universities, some of which would just have a course or two I took in summer programs abroad or were unrelated to my field. Even if they only needed my terminal degree, at $10/transcript, it adds up fast in addition to being a gigantic hassle for everyone involved.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/12
| 1,279
| 5,597
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have written a thesis about applying some AI techniques to a simulation that my professor introduced. To make this happen, I had to implement a very large amount of software, because the simulation works in another language, follows different principles etc.
After 6 months of hard work, I did not reach my goal. I was not able to actually implement the AI technique I wished to apply to the problem. I created a lot of reusable components that future developers (and in fact other students as I was told) will want to use. But the actual question and also the title of the thesis (which both had to be fixed ahead of time and cannot be changed once it has been started) don't match the main body of my work.
**Can a thesis still be considered good even if the question was not answered because it was not "reached"?** If not, why? If yes, why? I can imagine this going either way but I'd like to hear opinions and experiences.
Basically I would require another 1-2 months and maybe someone to work on the problem as a team to get new ideas. I believe I still worked in a scientific manor (I prioritized reusability and usefullness over just reaching the question but without it being easily reusable) and no one ever said science is only good if it never misses a deadline. But I can also imagine an argument that simply states an unanswered research question is a bad work.
My original intention was to apply this AI technique to the common example research problems (like Atari games or locomotion) but my professor insisted I apply it to his field of work (energy market simulation). I had to agree if I wanted him to take my thesis and I didn't know how complex the mapping of his problem to the commonly used tools would be. The argument "a good researcher is also capable of creating a reasonable problem scope" therefore is a little unfair as he sort of forced me to extend it.
**Alternative B** I write a preface / authors comment at the beginning, stating that the title/research question won't be matched but due to university regulations may not be changed retrospectively.
**Alternative C**: A fellow researcher recommended me to just change the question and content but ignore the title. I hand in my thesis under the forced title but publish it under a more suitable title. That seems a little "fake" as I don't want to lie about my original goal and me missing the final goal.
---
**Edit**: Most suggestions go along the lines of "depends on your professor or institution". While I fear this is probably the only right answer that helps me personally, it doesn't seem right that it depends on the professors attitude or personal opinion. From an abstract perspective, is it OK to rate a scientific work as a bad work if it fails to reach a previously defined target when new information came to light along the way? Probably not. But is it common practice to change the research question at the end to better match / suit the line of argumentation? It seems to me the question should reflect what the researcher asked him/herself when he/she started the inquiry. If the results are not what was expected, that doesn't mean it's bad results.<issue_comment>username_1: I found the answer I gave to the other question :
You can have a valid result showing that the "XXX method" is not the best in YYY situation - that is, or can be, useful work for someone who does not waste their time on that possibility.
They can then focus on a different direction - which you can also do ie checking out if the Tabu search works for ZZ or AA for example..
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it can. Research is too flexible to be sure about a year in advance. Perhaps you found out that the question is the wrong one to ask, or perhaps someone proved that a different method is superior - it'd be foolish to persist on the same path then.
In any case, **talk to your professor**, who will know what your institution's policies are.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The short answer to your question is yes, you can have a good result even if you don't (completely) answer the original question. However, the advice you really need is from your professor. Don't express negative feelings about how he "forced" you or anything like that. Ask him for his analysis of your work and how to best position it.
Many research questions take a long time to resolve. Don't be discouraged by that.
But the work isn't a failure, and you, especially, shouldn't think of it that way. You want to ask yourself, however, "What, exactly, did I demonstrate in this work". Your wording of the rest should revolve around answering that question and showing how you did a good job of it.
You can have a final section that discusses how this work is part of a larger work and briefly describe the problem you started out to solve.
However, some of your statements confuse me. You seem to be saying that at some earlier point you gave a title to the university that makes a claim of success to the earlier question, and that that can't be revised. Such a policy would surprise me and I would make doubly certain that you are correct. But advice from your professor would also be valuable here.
When it comes time to publish your work, there is no rule anywhere that I know of that restricts you in the title of the paper(s) that get produced. So even if you are sort of "stuck" with an inappropriate title, you can just treat it long term as an anomaly. You then have a little joke you can share with future students if you stay in academia.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/12
| 1,399
| 6,088
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate student that was offered a role researching for a grant. I was able to get authorship status on a paper and will be attending a conference for it later this year. The professor I am working for connected me with another student at a different university in order to share a hotel room. We will both be staying for the entire week and are responsible for booking our own reservations. Unfortunately, the centre the conference is located at is booked, with only a single-bed room available that we would be required to vacate on Wednesday then move back in.
This student was fine with booking the room and asked me if I was okay with it, but after I realized that it is a very small, dorm-like room with a small bed and no futon I counter-offered a reasonably-priced room at another hotel a half-mile away with two beds that we would not need to move out of midweek. I thought this would be well-received, however the student pushed back saying that the other room had a better price (of course, as it was intended for one person or a couple) and we would have better involvement with the conference (doubtful, as long as we show up on time).
Besides already being an incredibly poor sleeper, I'm otherwise just uncomfortable sharing a small bed with another student I don't know, and the room is small enough that I can't confidently say a hotel cot would fit. However, I also don't feel comfortable making this a bigger conflict than necessary, and I don't want to upset my professor by costing our grant more money than necessary by booking my own room at twice the cost. On the other hand, I do feel I have the right to request sleeping accommodations that I am comfortable with. How can I handle this appropriately without offending anyone?<issue_comment>username_1: You may just need to come to the conclusion that no negotiation is possible and make your own arrangements. No one should be offended by someone who wants to preserve their personal space and privacy.
I doubt that your professor, who is the only one, other than yourself who matters much here, would think less of you if you don't yield to a situation you find somewhere between uncomfortable and untenable.
There is the financial issue of course, but your privacy is likely worth the cost and you will have a much better experience at the conference if you are comfortable personally. While cost isn't a factor for me anymore I often tell family (cousins, kids, etc) I'd rather get a hotel than use their guest room. Privacy, comfort, personal space.
That said, you might take a bit of time at the conference to see if the other student is someone you might want to be friends and colleagues with generally, but that is a question for the future.
---
Due to a comment, perhaps I should be more clear and explicit. This is not something you should accept if you have any reservations. You are perfectly correct to reject it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> The professor I am working for connected me with another student at a different university in order to share a hotel room.
>
>
>
I think this is the key point. The professor, who is your supervisor and is in charge of the grant funds, is sending you to the conference, and *it is their responsibility to ensure you have safe, reasonable accommodations during the trip.* Their proposed solution involving shared accommodations with the student they connected you with might have seemed reasonable when they suggested it, but it is becoming clear that it isn’t. Certainly asking that you share a hotel bed or other uncomfortably close quarters with a complete stranger is way outside the norm in almost all areas of academia (the only exceptions I can think of being a few disciplines like archaeology, paleontology and such where hardy researchers sometimes go on field studies in very spartan environments), and not something you should be expected to accept as a condition for attending a conference.
The conclusion is simple. You should email the professor, explain that you have not been able to find an acceptable arrangement to share accommodations with the other student, and ask him to help you find an alternative solution involving an acceptable level of comfort and privacy. Such a request, if phrased politely, would be completely reasonable and professional, and I’m sure any half-decent professor would not be fazed by it or have any trouble addressing the problem.
Good luck, and have fun at the conference.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You don't mention what country you're in and perhaps it might matter, that what's acceptable in one country might not be in another. Here in the US, it's not uncommon to be asked to share a room at a conference or in other professional situations with another attendee of the same sex. But it would never be considered appropriate to ask anyone to share a bed. Never. Period. It would only happen if a supervisor, e.g., your department chair was unaware it was happening.
So, if you're here in the US, I would be firm. Send an email to your professor, pointing out that sharing a room is okay, but sharing a bed is not and insist on your solution, the room with two beds at the other hotel. I would not feel guilty even for one second about the extra cost. You're entitled to your own bed. If your professor insists you share a bed, I would report this to your department chair and request help.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I do not know this person, but I would simply say it honestly. It's perfectly professional. Say something like "I understand that the room is a bit more expensive, but I would much rather find a room that accommodates two people and does not force us to share a bed. This room is the best I could find, but if you can find a similar one for a better price, send me a link."
This is a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to want, it places no obligation on you to pay a greater share, and it should not offend any person who is there in a professional capacity.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/12
| 788
| 3,351
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in the mid stages of my PhD, working on 3/4 of the components of a major project in our group. A post-doc has just started working on the remaining 1/4 using protocols I established (to keep our work comparable). My supervisor has now reassigned a lot of my original work to the post-doc, and let them re-optimise protocols independently.
Now it's looking like I will have no authorship for the majority of the project, as the post-doc modified my protocols (which were meant to be consistent between us) and has taken over the bulk of my project.
What can I do to ensure I still get first-author publications out of my PhD? I have spoken with my supervisor who does not want to discuss authorship 'at this stage' and has been known to publish in the past without consulting other members of the group.
Thanks<issue_comment>username_1: I think that such behavior on the part of a supervisor is unethical for the following reasons.
It seems to me that some people regard the research as more important than the people involved in it - students. I think it is understandable, if not commendable, that people are driven by results, but it is wrong, IMO, in almost all cases.
There are some aspects of medical (and some other) research, however, in which the need for a solution is so great that the results dominate everything else, but I think that kind of research is rare. But yes, some problems demand solutions NOW.
If a person (faculty member) just wants to get the job done - people be damned - then he should do it himself with only like minded colleagues. In particular he should not take on the responsibility of shepherding students who will necessarily be slower to find results than he and his fellow "superstars" are.
As I say in [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/112448/75368) to a different question, a supervisor has a responsibility to the student that overwhelms most other considerations. There is no essential reason why someone needs to have students. If it is required, and you accept the responsibility, then don't abuse those students, especially by taking advantage of their work and then yanking away the prize. It is really a form of intellectual theft.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: First things first: I fully agree with username_1 and whoever else that this sounds like a very dodgy situation. A supervisor reassigning work and then 'not wanting to discuss authorship at this stage' takes an enormous amount of agency away from you as a PhD student. That has to be demotivating and frustrating. You could indeed look into transferring to another supervisor.
If you want to stay with this group, the project sounds like a co-first authorship to me. If you've done 3/4 of the project already, that seems fair even if the postdoc will optimise some of your results. Since taking it up with your supervisor wasn't really fruitful, talk to the postdoc and make sure they see this project as a shared first publication as well. After that, stay involved by discussing results, , asking what you can do to help, helping with troubleshooting etc. Make sure you know what stage the project is at and especially when writing starts, help with that. Obviously if you can improve on results, that's a bonus, but just staying involved should come a long way.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/13
| 728
| 2,886
|
<issue_start>username_0: I went to graduate school in the United States for biological sciences. The first year was coursework + graduate rotations. I then spent 2.5 years in a lab and left (on good terms) but did not complete any research requirements with this adviser. I started over completely in a new lab and new field (neuroscience and bioinformatics) in the same school/program and finished with a PhD. Up to this point, I have always been in the biological sciences so I would simply list the biology-related work I performed prior to the lab switch on my resume.
However, I am now leaving my postdoc in computational neuroscience to pursue a career in industry as a data scientist. I am restructuring my resume to include relevant information. Everything I did prior to my lab switch is irrelevant to this industry and takes up a lot of space. I'd like to remove it but I am not sure what to put here so it doesn't look like I have a gap in my work experience.
One option is to have separate sections for "Relevant Work Experience" and "Work History" but this is redundant and takes up too much space.
What is the best option in this situation?
*(The tag says C.V. but I am aiming for something more like a 1-2 page resume rather than the typical, much longer academic C.V.)*<issue_comment>username_1: Just list it in brief. A single sentence will do it. You say 1-2 pages, so unless you’ve filled 2 pages, you should have room for one sentence (one line) to account for that time period.
What you see as irrelevant might give interviewers some insight and a good opening for questions. It might also give you a competitive advantage over other candidates and is unlikely to put you at a disadvantage.
This kind of C.V. doesn’t have to be rigorous and exhaustive. Responsibilities/work experience is sometimes (usually) listed chronologically from most recent to oldest. The most recent is often the most relevant but it all paints a picture. As an interviewer, I would definitely ask for clarification on any gaps. Gaps can be seen as deceptive and *might* cause a C.V. rejection.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Certainly, you want to include the time, the position title, and any skills that were picked up.
Most employers want to see a **complete** time-line, as an empty time-line is a 'red-flag' for them.
If you have a colleague there that you feel comfortable asking for a reference, do so. This will help you formulate what exactly you should put for this time in your life.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: (I used to work in academia and work in data science in industry.)
No one is (or no one should) care about the details of where you studied or worked. They care what you know, and what you can do. You didn't even change universities. Just put something like: 2011-2016: PhD studies in Subject X at School Y.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/13
| 639
| 2,807
|
<issue_start>username_0: At some conferences I attend(ed), plenary speakers are introduced with more than just name an title of the talk, but also a short CV by the session convenor.
While I don't know how these intros are compiled (do organisers run background checks on the speakers? do speakers provide the summary themselves?) it may happen that the presented information (roles the speaker holds / held) are incorrect. (Misunderstandings between the convenor and their sources, not full awareness of subtle seeming terminology differences, …)
I expect mostly nobody cares about the details in such a speaker introduction, but there may be cases where the speaker gets a role attributed which they didn't hold and the award of the role was disputed or a politically delicate topic.
I'm wondering, what is the correct way to deal with such an incorrect introduction (assuming the speaker didn't deliberately provide false information)? Should one embarrass the convenor by correcting them before starting the presentation or let it slide and off-stage apologize to those in the audience who will feel offended because the convenor attributed their reputation to the speaker?<issue_comment>username_1: In case your name is pronounced wrong, just let it slip. You cannot expect someone to know all of the correct pronunciations of strangers' names.
As for the title, I would recommend to only speak up when you are introduced with a status higher than your real one. A side remark like "Oh, and I do not actually hold a PhD" should be enough to clear the confusion and to show people you are not adorning yourself with borrowed plumes (taking false credit). Any further would probably unnecessarily embarrass the speaker.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your name and affiliation should be on the title slide and conference program. This should provide the necessary information.
I strongly disagree with the other answer about pronunciation of your name. While it's true that you cannot expect people to be able to pronounce your name, you should not just "let it slip." Instead, assume that the conference chair will pronounce your name incorrectly or inaudibly. Have a practice of always introducing yourself at the start of your talk. You don't need to point out that you were introduced poorly. Just say your name and affiliation. This way, all the people in the audience who could not understand the introduction or knew it was wrong will be thrilled that you've let them know who is speaking. For context, I work in a field where >50% of the time the chair cannot pronounce the speaker's name right.
I agree with the other answer that you do not need to correct your status, but it is acceptable to make a correction if the introducer overstated your rank.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/13
| 589
| 2,513
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my dissertation yesterday, one day before the due date.
Upon reading back through the dissertation, I noticed quite an error in my methods and discussion.
Unfortunately, due to adding a number of extra tables in my methods which in turn automatically were updated, I now have elements of my methods which is referring to the wrong table.
This also occurs in my discussion.
Example: "As shown in table 1 a p-value of....".
When in fact that is actually number as table 2.
I have a couple of hours so I could resubmit but I'd be cutting it very tight. Do you think I will lose many marks because of this?
I estimate referring to the wrong table occurs 6-8 times between methods and discussion but some references are on the same page so are clearly seen.
I emailed the lecturer but I haven't heard back along with a fixed copy.
Thanks for any help<issue_comment>username_1: In case your name is pronounced wrong, just let it slip. You cannot expect someone to know all of the correct pronunciations of strangers' names.
As for the title, I would recommend to only speak up when you are introduced with a status higher than your real one. A side remark like "Oh, and I do not actually hold a PhD" should be enough to clear the confusion and to show people you are not adorning yourself with borrowed plumes (taking false credit). Any further would probably unnecessarily embarrass the speaker.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your name and affiliation should be on the title slide and conference program. This should provide the necessary information.
I strongly disagree with the other answer about pronunciation of your name. While it's true that you cannot expect people to be able to pronounce your name, you should not just "let it slip." Instead, assume that the conference chair will pronounce your name incorrectly or inaudibly. Have a practice of always introducing yourself at the start of your talk. You don't need to point out that you were introduced poorly. Just say your name and affiliation. This way, all the people in the audience who could not understand the introduction or knew it was wrong will be thrilled that you've let them know who is speaking. For context, I work in a field where >50% of the time the chair cannot pronounce the speaker's name right.
I agree with the other answer that you do not need to correct your status, but it is acceptable to make a correction if the introducer overstated your rank.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/13
| 2,416
| 7,970
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to find papers of a specific journal. For example, I want to search papers about the smart grid security only in the IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid journal. Is there appropriate configuration criteria for the particular search in the Google Scholar or Scopus;
Thanks in advance<issue_comment>username_1: Go to the IEEE website and use the search they provide:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sTk6c.png)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you want to extract those papers programmatically from Google Scholar in Python, you can do it using [Google Scholar Organic Results API](https://serpapi.com/google-scholar-organic-results) from SerpApi, which is a paid API with a free plan of 100 searches to test out. [Check out the playground](https://serpapi.com/playground?engine=google_scholar&q=%22hierarchical%20model%22%20site%3Asciencemag.org&hl=en).
---
Code and [example in the online IDE](https://replit.com/@DimitryZub1/Google-Scholar-Scrape-Papers-from-a-particual-journal?v=1) which will iterate over all available pages from Google Scholar and extract publication data (on replit, you have to pass your SerpApi API key in order to work):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nMARg.png)
```
import os, json
from serpapi import GoogleSearch
from urllib.parse import urlsplit, parse_qsl
params = {
# os.getenv(): https://docs.python.org/3/library/os.html#os.getenv
"api_key": os.getenv("API_KEY"), # your Serpapi API key
"engine": "google_scholar", # search engine
"q": '"hierarchical model" site:sciencemag.org', # search query
"hl": "en", # language
# "as_ylo": "2017", # from 2017
# "as_yhi": "2021", # to 2021
"start": "0" # first page
}
search = GoogleSearch(params) # where data extraction happens
organic_results_data = []
papers_is_present = True
while papers_is_present:
results = search.get_dict() # JSON -> Python dictionary
for publication in results["organic_results"]:
organic_results_data.append({
"page_number": results.get("serpapi_pagination", {}).get("current"),
"result_type": publication.get("type"),
"title": publication.get("title"),
"link": publication.get("link"),
"result_id": publication.get("result_id"),
"summary": publication.get("publication_info").get("summary"),
"snippet": publication.get("snippet"),
})
# paginates to the next page if the next page is present
if "next" in results.get("serpapi_pagination", {}):
search.params_dict.update(dict(parse_qsl(urlsplit(results["serpapi_pagination"]["next"]).query)))
else:
papers_is_present = False
print(json.dumps(organic_results_data, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))
```
Outputs data from the one page as there's no pages for such search query:
```
[
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Pdf",
"title": "Hierarchical Network with Label Embedding for Contextual Emotion Recognition",
"link": "https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/research/2021/3067943.pdf",
"result_id": "vuRtqci4UKYJ",
"summary": "<NAME>, <NAME> - Research, 2021 - downloads.spj.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… In this paper, a hierarchical model with label embedding is … This paper explores a hierarchical model to learn contextual … (1) This paper proposes a hierarchical model to learn contextual …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Citation",
"title": "Toroidal Magnetic Fields for Stable Plasma Confinement",
"link": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/160/3826/439.3.extract",
"result_id": "kqZ_vhnt8KUJ",
"summary": "DW Kerst - Science, 1968 - science.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… The results of these studies are interpreted in terms of a hierarchical model of mental abilities going from associative learning to conceptual thinking, in which the development of lower …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Pdf",
"title": "A high-throughput phenotyping pipeline for image processing and functional growth curve analysis",
"link": "https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/plantphenomics/2020/7481687.pdf",
"result_id": "093PpcXeoM8J",
"summary": "<NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>… - Plant …, 2020 - downloads.spj.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… The hidden Markov random field (HMRF) model is a hierarchical model with an unobserved layer for the pixel class and an observed layer for the pixel intensity given its class. The …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Citation",
"title": "Galactic Blowup",
"link": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5950/206.2.abstract",
"result_id": "WQd-NjqsznsJ",
"summary": "M Cruz - Science, 2009 - science.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… Fritz et al. show that a hierarchical model can be used to calculate the diffusion coefficients and excess chemical potentials (solubilities) for ethylbenzene diffusion in atactic polystyrene …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Citation",
"title": "Microwave-Safe Dishes",
"link": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5950/206.3.abstract",
"result_id": "k-jOiH7l3-8J",
"summary": "J Yeston - Science, 2009 - science.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… Fritz et al. show that a hierarchical model can be used to calculate the diffusion coefficients and excess chemical potentials (solubilities) for ethylbenzene diffusion in atactic polystyrene …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Citation",
"title": "Dissolute Behavior Up North",
"link": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5950/206.1.abstract",
"result_id": "5FXzkE1KrfUJ",
"summary": "C Ash - Science, 2009 - science.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… Fritz et al. show that a hierarchical model can be used to calculate the diffusion coefficients and excess chemical potentials (solubilities) for ethylbenzene diffusion in atactic polystyrene …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Citation",
"title": "Embedded Sensors",
"link": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5950/207.1.abstract",
"result_id": "uJ2gwtehXzgJ",
"summary": "LD Chong - Science, 2009 - science.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… Fritz et al. show that a hierarchical model can be used to calculate the diffusion coefficients and excess chemical potentials (solubilities) for ethylbenzene diffusion in atactic polystyrene …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Citation",
"title": "Pregnancy Can Be Stressful",
"link": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5950/206.4.abstract",
"result_id": "f6-h2PtpV_gJ",
"summary": "BA Purnell - Science, 2009 - science.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "… Fritz et al. show that a hierarchical model can be used to calculate the diffusion coefficients and excess chemical potentials (solubilities) for ethylbenzene diffusion in atactic polystyrene …"
},
{
"page_number": null,
"result_type": "Pdf",
"title": "Recent advancements in optical harmonic generation microscopy: Applications and perspectives",
"link": "https://downloads.spj.sciencemag.org/bmef/2021/3973857.pdf",
"result_id": "xHvS7epGUmsJ",
"summary": "DS James, P<NAME> - BME Frontiers, 2021 - downloads.spj.sciencemag.org",
"snippet": "Second harmonic generation (SHG) and third harmonic generation (THG) microscopies have emerged as powerful imaging modalities to examine structural properties of a wide range …"
}
]
```
>
> Disclaimer, I work for SerpApi.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/13
| 1,211
| 5,538
|
<issue_start>username_0: My last paper evaluations in journals (rejects/major reviews decisions) emphasized I should make more clear the novelty and strengths of my work in comparison to the state of the art.
Which style is preferred?
* After presenting each related work, make a brief comparison with my work when possible, or:
* Make a summary of the strengths/novelties of my work as the last paragraph in the "Related Works" section, and point the differences and advantages over the cited works<issue_comment>username_1: Here are some suggestions based on things I learnt from a seminar on academic writing I got back from just yesterday:
* First, what follows assumes that the work you did is truly novel. However, unless you are doing a straight replication of some other work, then there must be some novelty in your work. Your first job is to clearly identify in your own mind what is truly novel, unique and valuable about your work. You need to be very clear about this before you can persuade anyone else.
* For the literature review, rather than looking for what literature exists and then comparing your work to the literature, try to write your presentation of the literature to surround what you actually did. Think of presenting the literature like a doughnut. You want to arrange the literature to look like a doughnut with a conspicuous hole in the middle of it--the goal of your article is to fill in that hole.
* In your literature review, it is extremely important to not mention research that is not part of the doughnut. I am certainly not asking you to hide any relevant research (if you try that, reviewers will skewer you); I am rather recommending that you not distract the reviewers with any work that is not directly related to the problem that your article is solving. (And to be clear, the problem you are solving should be what you consider novel and valuable, not more than that.) Your work in the literature review is absolutely not to review all the existing possibly related research; it is only to review the research that is directly related to the problem that you are trying to solve, that is, only research that is part of the doughnut with a hole in the middle of it. Less is more: that is, you do a much better job when you present the least amount of research necessary; too much research that is not directly related will lose the reviewers and make them lose sight of what you're really trying to do.
* After framing the literature review section, then go back to the introduction. In the introduction, be sure to summarize in one paragraph maximum the top two points from the literature review that demonstrate that you are filling a real gap in the literature. Note that I recommend that you write this part of the introduction last--because the introduction is absolutely the most important part of the entire article, I recommend that you write it last. I do realize that some excellent writers prefer to write it first, but for less than excellent writers like myself, it is usually best to write the most important part of the article last.
I hope these general tips are helpful.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that your abstract should feature a statement about in which domain(s) your approach works better. When listing related work, emphasise on their weakness compared to your work (was that mentioned by someone before? cite their work!). Then, in your results/discussion, make clear that you indeed found an approach superior to existing work. If possible, show that through simulations/experimental results/surverys/data.
Also, when introducing your method in detail, focus on pointing out differences to prior work. Keep in mind that since papers are densely populated with complex information, it is easy for readers to skip a sentence or two. (it does not help that a lot of reviewers seem to be very busy).
My current advisor holds the opinion that writing a paper is like selling a used car: while you should not keep quiet about downsides, you should still be very convincing.
Clear and structured writing is also important: to keep the readers entertained, the paper should work like an essay where you argue that your approach is indeed novel.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I very much like the answer of username_1. My training said: (1) establish a niche and (2) occupy a niche. You present two suggestions in your question which should both work.
Practically, my approach is to summarise the literature that fits the scope of my work, preferably along the lines of a few criteria or observations that differentiate the literature and my research. I end my literature section with a conclusion where I summarize the novelty of my research in comparison to the literature. Here a table or figure which visualizes domains/criteria and literature is often helpfull.
In my field, I also explicitly need to state the added value for real-life purposes. For that I often use a case study.
My first paper was rejected for a similar reason you mention. Hereafter, I changed my approach. However, still then, my experience is that one of the reviewers will always make such critique, simply because there is a massive amount of literature and reviewers often like to see their specific domain reflected in your work (and preferably their papers). It is also a very easy critique. A constructive reviewer will give you guidance on the specific strengths and weaknesses of your work in relation to the literature.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/13
| 780
| 3,414
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have one year left of my Biology degree in the UK, and I want to do a masters. I love biology and I enjoy learning, specifically in cellular and cancer biology. However, I do not enjoy labs, I find it very mundane and boring, and also not rewarding. Most of the research I have done shows that all masters courses are project-based, and thus require labs. I do not want to a bioinformatics masters. I was wondering if anyone had any information or experience that could help, or could point me in the right direction?<issue_comment>username_1: You want to do cancer/cell biology but you dont want to do lab work or simulation work (bioinformatics). You have really hemmed yourself in.
What it sounds like may be of interest to you is the field of science communication. There is a real need for individuals who have training/knowledge in a field and are strong communicators to the general public.
For example, I feel very comfortable communicating to an academic audience but I have found that I struggle to communicate to the lay audience. I had an instance recently where I assumed my audience knew a piece of what I thought was trivial information. This was a very poor assumption on my part and made the communication of my research impossible as I had used that "trivial information" for my analogy explaining my research.
I listened to a talk from one of the editors of Nature talking about science communication this past semester and how critical it was (and how it was an underdeveloped skill in academia). There really do need to be more people who understand the science and can communicate it to the lay person.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You didn't say why you want to do a masters. Presumably it is because you enjoy learning. If you successfully finish a bachelors degree, you should be able to keep learning on your own, without enrolling in a masters degree.
I discourage thinking of a masters or PhD as a way to continue what you enjoyed about your undergraduate studies. If your undergraduate studies were successful, you should not need to continue them in a formal way. A further degree should serve a different purpose. That might be qualification for a particular career, or developing skills in a different area. For example, a PhD teaches research skills for a narrow subject, not broad subject-matter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm not a biologist, so can't offer specific guidance, but perhaps you should first explore the feasibility of your desires. It may be possible or not. But the way to learn that is to talk to actual MS level biology faculty from a variety of institutions and ask them whether what you want is even possible.
But, be prepared for a laugh or two, since your wish is unconventional, I think. Don't let the chuckles put you off, however, they will usually be just because your idea is unexpected, not bad.
But faculty will tell you both whether it is feasible at their own institution and perhaps be able to point you to someone with a theoretical program not dependent on lab science.
One of the great places to do this is at a convention at which educators and researchers are likely to have a major presence. Some of these are annual and national, and some are regional. Best if you are presenting something, even a poster session, but a good place to see the alternatives in any case.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/13
| 705
| 3,134
|
<issue_start>username_0: If a topic (only one page) has been accepted previously in poster session of a conference / workshop, is it possible to submit the long version of the same topic (15 pages) to another conference? (particularly in field of computer science)<issue_comment>username_1: You want to do cancer/cell biology but you dont want to do lab work or simulation work (bioinformatics). You have really hemmed yourself in.
What it sounds like may be of interest to you is the field of science communication. There is a real need for individuals who have training/knowledge in a field and are strong communicators to the general public.
For example, I feel very comfortable communicating to an academic audience but I have found that I struggle to communicate to the lay audience. I had an instance recently where I assumed my audience knew a piece of what I thought was trivial information. This was a very poor assumption on my part and made the communication of my research impossible as I had used that "trivial information" for my analogy explaining my research.
I listened to a talk from one of the editors of Nature talking about science communication this past semester and how critical it was (and how it was an underdeveloped skill in academia). There really do need to be more people who understand the science and can communicate it to the lay person.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You didn't say why you want to do a masters. Presumably it is because you enjoy learning. If you successfully finish a bachelors degree, you should be able to keep learning on your own, without enrolling in a masters degree.
I discourage thinking of a masters or PhD as a way to continue what you enjoyed about your undergraduate studies. If your undergraduate studies were successful, you should not need to continue them in a formal way. A further degree should serve a different purpose. That might be qualification for a particular career, or developing skills in a different area. For example, a PhD teaches research skills for a narrow subject, not broad subject-matter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm not a biologist, so can't offer specific guidance, but perhaps you should first explore the feasibility of your desires. It may be possible or not. But the way to learn that is to talk to actual MS level biology faculty from a variety of institutions and ask them whether what you want is even possible.
But, be prepared for a laugh or two, since your wish is unconventional, I think. Don't let the chuckles put you off, however, they will usually be just because your idea is unexpected, not bad.
But faculty will tell you both whether it is feasible at their own institution and perhaps be able to point you to someone with a theoretical program not dependent on lab science.
One of the great places to do this is at a convention at which educators and researchers are likely to have a major presence. Some of these are annual and national, and some are regional. Best if you are presenting something, even a poster session, but a good place to see the alternatives in any case.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/13
| 1,001
| 4,301
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a master's degree student. A professor of mine offered me work on some parts of his paper that I have good knowledge about, because of my background. He said he'll pay me in return, and acknowledge me in his paper. I accepted and suggested a 10 EU/h work and he accepted. I suggested that rate mainly because this is my first experience of this kind (and hence, I don't know the average payment rate) and I thought it would at least take 40 hours and the final money will be enough for me to minimally live where I live. Now it turns out that (I guess, unfortunately?) I was faster than I thought and the work was done in around 12 hours. At the same time, of course, I'm not going to lie about my work hours just for the money. What do you think I should do? I had counted on that money, and it seems that my speed is turning against me!
PS 1: He's friendly with me; I'm just thinking bringing this up might make him feel I'm overstepping my friendship with him, and that's the last thing I need him to think.
PS 2: The paper that he's working on is part of a big university project that he's here for. Accordingly, the payment will be done from the budget of the project, not his pocket (or maybe they're the same?)
PS 3: The contract will be prepared by the university in a few days. **If** I ask him to raise the money and he accepts, he'll probably be able to convince the university for that.<issue_comment>username_1: You want to do cancer/cell biology but you dont want to do lab work or simulation work (bioinformatics). You have really hemmed yourself in.
What it sounds like may be of interest to you is the field of science communication. There is a real need for individuals who have training/knowledge in a field and are strong communicators to the general public.
For example, I feel very comfortable communicating to an academic audience but I have found that I struggle to communicate to the lay audience. I had an instance recently where I assumed my audience knew a piece of what I thought was trivial information. This was a very poor assumption on my part and made the communication of my research impossible as I had used that "trivial information" for my analogy explaining my research.
I listened to a talk from one of the editors of Nature talking about science communication this past semester and how critical it was (and how it was an underdeveloped skill in academia). There really do need to be more people who understand the science and can communicate it to the lay person.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You didn't say why you want to do a masters. Presumably it is because you enjoy learning. If you successfully finish a bachelors degree, you should be able to keep learning on your own, without enrolling in a masters degree.
I discourage thinking of a masters or PhD as a way to continue what you enjoyed about your undergraduate studies. If your undergraduate studies were successful, you should not need to continue them in a formal way. A further degree should serve a different purpose. That might be qualification for a particular career, or developing skills in a different area. For example, a PhD teaches research skills for a narrow subject, not broad subject-matter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm not a biologist, so can't offer specific guidance, but perhaps you should first explore the feasibility of your desires. It may be possible or not. But the way to learn that is to talk to actual MS level biology faculty from a variety of institutions and ask them whether what you want is even possible.
But, be prepared for a laugh or two, since your wish is unconventional, I think. Don't let the chuckles put you off, however, they will usually be just because your idea is unexpected, not bad.
But faculty will tell you both whether it is feasible at their own institution and perhaps be able to point you to someone with a theoretical program not dependent on lab science.
One of the great places to do this is at a convention at which educators and researchers are likely to have a major presence. Some of these are annual and national, and some are regional. Best if you are presenting something, even a poster session, but a good place to see the alternatives in any case.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/14
| 1,312
| 5,185
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it ethical to slightly improve upon someone's work posted in arxiv and publish before the original work, however citing the original work?
I mean suppose the original work gets rejected in a top-tier journal (generally top-tier journal takes so much time) whereas the improved version gets accepted in a mediocre journal (suppose the mediocre journal is fast in reviewing).
Then what should the author of the original work (I am the author of the original work) should do?<issue_comment>username_1: I question, as did [<NAME>](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40589/dan-romik), your characterization of work posted on arXiv as 'unpublished': it is made available to what amounts to the widest possible public, it is just an un-refereed publication (or perhaps arguably a kind-of very slightly refereed one, if you read the conditions).
I suggest that the ethics of it depend on whether the later-published paper acknowledged the arXiv paper as earlier work, or not. If it did, I see no problem.
If the later paper made no acknowledgement, then maybe there is a problem if its editor/referee(s) happened not to spot the earlier paper in arXiv and took the whole content of the later author as original.
But what the arXiv author could do in that event I could not begin to suggest. Best response would probably depend highly on the particular circumstances, which would no doubt be awkward to set out in this medium.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: No, publishing someone else's work is plagiarism. It does not matter if that work has been improved or if it is unpublished. It is still plagiarism if you cite and acknowledge them. It is totally irrelevant that the prior work is on ArXiv.
You can publish the improvement, but you must not include someone else's work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As long as you cite the prior work as such **and** make it absolutely clear what their contribution is relative to yours, then I think you are fine from an ethical standpoint. Papers on arxiv are published in the literal sense of the word, and there is nothing unethical about following up published work.
However, you also want to avoid annoying the other set of authors. The easiest way to do that is to get in touch with them and perhaps ask for feedback on your draft.
Unfortunately, this can be an awkward situation. Some people say they only post on arxiv after their paper is accepted to avoid people following up their work before it is accepted. The first paper deserves full credit.
TLDR: **Be generous with giving credit.**
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: A huge chunk of academia is about improving others’ work, whether by independent verification of results, pushing the research envelope, or correcting errors in prior work.
A work that is based on an earlier work should cite it, and clearly mark the point at which the new work begins.
I see 2 question’s posed, with the scenario that E edits O’s original work W1, cites W1, then publishes the edited work W2. W1 is publicly accessible (as opposed to a private letter or similar).
1. Is E being unethical? If E marks the new work clearly, then that should be fine (think of it as a lit review of sorts). Otherwise, they’re trying to pass off someone else’s work as their own - that’s unethical. Sooner or later, one would expect that the similarity between W1 and W2 would be noticed, especially since W2 cites W1.
2. What does O do? In the ‘lit review’ setting, O can do a happy dance at being cited. This is academic success - someone thinks the work is good enough to take seriously. In the plagiarism setting, O can write to the publisher of W2, referring them to W1.
*Credit to [<NAME>](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/112672/is-it-ethical-to-slightly-improve-upon-someones-unpublished-work-posted-in-arxi#comment296652_112672) for noting that Arkiv isn’t “unpublished work”, and that credit ascribed to the subsequent author is proportional to the significance of the new work.*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think the best solution here is to contact the original author. You do not know if the paper was submitted to a journal, what stage of review it is. Who knows, it might be already accepted and will be published tomorrow morning.
How about something along the lines of:
>
> Dear Author Authorson,
>
>
> I read your work titled "The almost most magnificent work ever done" published on arxiv, and I enjoyed it very much because it is relevant to my work on ABC and it can have implications for DEF. I wanted to ask you several questions.
>
>
> I have found that by applying the method of X and adding equations Y and Z, the uncertainty is reduced by half. *(you might want to be vague enough here to not disclose exactly how you did, otherwise the original author might scoop you on this)* Have you thought about this option?
>
>
> Is your paper submitted? What stage is it in? If possible, I would like to collaborate and potentially improve the paper to make it more suitable for XYZ.
>
>
>
Ideally, this might result in a joint publication for both of you. A win-win situation.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/14
| 1,536
| 6,049
|
<issue_start>username_0: [According to <NAME>](http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/03/30/how-to-get-tenure-at-a-major-research-university/), a famous cosmologist and tenured professor,
>
> Don’t be too well known outside the field. I hate to say this, but the evidence is there: if you have too high of a public profile, people look at you suspiciously. Actual quote: “I’m glad we didn’t hire Dr. X; he spends too much time in the *New York Times* and not enough time in the lab.” And that’s the point — it’s not that people are jealous that you are popular, it’s that they are suspicious you care about publicity more than you do about research. Remember the Overriding Principle.
>
>
>
According to an opinion piece by <NAME> published in the New York Times, in science it is also not appropriate to talk about hobbies. <NAME> is a famous scholar, his description of the situation in academia is worrying, and gives the impression that behavior is constrained and under close scrutiny. Being too expressive of personal identity can be viewed as running counter to scientific neutrality. In competitive venues, where complete immersion in one’s field might be the promoted ideal, the mention of an extracurricular pursuit can even be seized upon as a lack of commitment. I remember a young mathematician at a prestigious research institute sharing his love for piano playing after hearing I wrote fiction. “Don’t tell anyone in my department I own a piano,” he requested in the next breath. This is a shock to me because I perceived the STEM field as most openminded.
Am I hurting my chances by answering honestly about hobbies and extracurricular and social engagement activities? I work in a STEM field.<issue_comment>username_1: There is a time and a place for everything. When evaluating your application to determine if you’re going to be one of the half dozen or so people who might get on the short list, your hobbies aren’t going to rate very high in the decision-making process, unless they suggest that they’re going to pull you away from your work too much.
But I’d also rather not work with a potential colleague who is so focused on their careers that they give up being someone you want to work with. Having hobbies and interests that have nothing to do with your daily job make you a better person, and it’s something you can talk about during a phone or in-person interview.
In the specific case you’re asked, then that means it’s something they decided they do want to know about and you should answer candidly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It can definitely go both ways and will depend on the culture of the place.
People can mention that, with such an intensely run hobby, there is no worry you have a job if you fail academically (this is paraphrased from a true incident), or the other way round, it shows that you are a well-rounded human and it can open doors where otherwise you would be just one out of many nondescript gray mass of people.
You will have to find out what your target institution/group values more: single-mindedness or broad-mindedness.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: To address the question in the title (in line with other answers) I would say that if your Publications section is significantly longer than Hobbies and Interests, chances are nobody will read the latter (I admit I was never on any hiring committee, but I honestly cannot imagine any mathematician I know caring for hobbies in your resume or holding them against you in any situations). This of course must be field-, country-, and position-dependent, and I would only dare to comment that of the maths *students* I know, those overtly pursuing time consuming hobbies (piano or acting, for example) were often the first to drop off or in any case didn't apply for the grad school - but this is a matter of **statistics**, not **attitude** of my faculty.
That being said, I'd like to leave here a link to <NAME>'s [cello videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/matze1947/videos). Apart from being a celebrated mathematician he apparently does have time for other activities. Admittedly, he already has tenure, but I will also mention that once in [MRI Oberwolfach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Research_Institute_of_Oberwolfach) I attended an impromptu concert by junior topologists - played on instruments that are there for the guests to use. Clearly the ability to play music is not frowned upon among mathematicians (as @Buffy and @Stella noticed), on the contrary - such an interesting hobby can help you to become identifiable and remembered. It will make an interesting topic of conversation and will probably make the whole academia experience more pleasant. However, at the end of the day it's your research that matters.
EDIT: I think that all the answers, including mine, framed themselves around the playing piano or (at extreme) playing Pokemon, save for @Thomas comment to the question itself. On the high public profile problem, I would add that there is a great difference between occasional science popularisation in radio or press (I have a colleague who is greatly respected precisely for that), between being a regular pundit in a newspaper, between writing a column on not-science-related topics, and then between commenting current issues on national TV daily. If you mention on your resume you have a couple of articles in New York Times on top of a solid scientific publication record, that shows you are good with pen. If you mention that in your spare time you run a mayoral campaign in your town and speak at the rallies, that is a different thing altogether - and that may raise eyebrows. Disregarding the possible differences in political opinions, this would be mainly because you need to be truly exceptional to pursue two *careers*, scientific and public, at the same time. It can be [done](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/nyregion/samuel-eilenberg-84-dies-mathematician-at-columbia.html), but it is not very common.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/14
| 704
| 3,032
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background**: I am writing a MSc dissertation in a technology/business-related topic. I interviewed 15 people for about an hour each. Each interviewee was given a choice of anonymity (e.g. tech-sector employee), organisation only (e.g. Microsoft employee) or named (<NAME> of Microsoft). Most went for named; although in the final version of the text when I referred to interviews I just used organisations (mostly for presentational reasons).
**Question**: Is it considered polite to include the interviewees in the acknowledgements (clearly just those happy to be named)? If I did so I would probably email first to check they were happy (and I'd got their name/title right!); although might be overthinking this...
Edit: I have written consent from each participant regarding the use of the information they have provided.<issue_comment>username_1: To my point of view, an interview is also a (weak) kind of a source to be cited, so I would add each interview as a literature reference by giving the date, content ("Interview on Topic X") and the information the People allowed you to use (might be "anonymous, Person from industry X" to "<NAME>, CEO of Spiderman agency"). I would make a subsection in the references section showing "here are the interviews" and the list them.
While I was working in acadmica, I asked all my students to do so.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I would think that it is probably enough to recognize them as a group: Thanks to the fifteen people whose ... enables this research. You might want to name the companies, provided that there was some cost (monetary or otherwise) to the companies.
Alternatively you might, at the end, without connecting any individual to their responses, thank them by name, maybe obfuscated: <NAME>, <NAME> and thirteen others who prefer not to be named.
Likewise, if the positions held by the respondents is essential you might list that with or without names, even if it is just summarized: Three executive vice-presidents, one chairman of the board, and ... (That isn't the same thing as individual acknowledgement, of course, but informs your readers.)
My reasoning is that you probably don't want readers of your thesis to contact your responders, more to avoid them being bothered than for any other reason.
If the research requires that a name or other identifying information be associated with a response then you need explicit permission. You likely need to retain the written permission.
I'll also note that there are laws in various places that speak to issues like this. In the US, most universities have an office of research that will give you very detailed information about research, especially research involving human subjects. It may be the same elsewhere. In the US, see an officer of the IRB (Institutional Review Board) at the university. Your research may be covered or not. I suspect that for simple interviews it won't be covered, but you should check.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/14
| 1,499
| 6,141
|
<issue_start>username_0: One subfield of computer science that used to be quite popular is the computational complexity of playing particular games. At the end of the 1900s there was a slew of research on this, examine games ranging from the universally known such as Go and Chess to the more obscure such as Sim and Domineering. A look at [the Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity) shows that many papers along these lines were published not only in specialty venues, but top CS Theory venues as a whole such as SIAM Journal of Computing, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, and STOC.
Over the past years, there have been a number of papers along these lines, primarily targeting computer games such as Bejeweled, many classical Nintendo games, and Pokémon. These later publications tend to be not published in peer-reviewed venues, or published in venues far less mainstream than the previous wave. Looking at some algorithmic game theory proceedings and journals, I’ve noticed few have papers on particular games. Instead, they tend to focus on AI playing games or more wholistic theoretical concerns not restricted to particular games.
My questions are:
1. Is this assessment of history correct?
2. Assuming the answer to #1 is yes, has something changed in the culture or interests of computer scientists that has lead to this?
3. Are results along these lines no longer considered publishable?
Some context: I’m a young computer science researcher who hasn’t ever paid much attention to this field, but who has recently started dabbling in examining the complexity of games with my gaming buddies. I decided to do a preliminary literature review and was surprised by this pattern I’ve noticed.<issue_comment>username_1: *(Expanding [my comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/113691/do-computer-scientists-care-about-the-complexity-of-specific-games-still#comment297731_113691).)*
I think your assessment is correct -- it's much harder to publish results of the form "game X is NP-hard" today than it was last century -- although it is not something I've looked into.
I think the reason for this is the following.
The first few examples of NP-hard games are interesting. It means we can say "many games turn out to be NP-hard". That helps motivate research on NP-hardness and helps scientific communication with the general public.
However, once, say, half a dozen examples have been established, what is the value of adding more examples? Of course, there is value in having more examples, but it becomes more marginal. Each successive example is less surprising and doesn't really change the above statement.
Moreover, many of these proofs are quite messy -- not the sort of thing a reviewer is keen to work through.
Note that this phenomenon is not exclusive to results about games. I think there are many papers that struggle to get published today even though they'd sail in 30 years ago. For example, [Karp's 21 NP-complete problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karp%27s_21_NP-complete_problems) is a celebrated paper, but a similar list of NP-complete problems would struggle to get published today. The reason is simply that those 21 examples were surprising then, but are not today.
An important side note: In essentially all examples, the original game is not NP-hard because it has a finite, albeit extremely large, state space. Thus the NP-hardness is proved about some generalization of the game. Such as [Chess on n-by-n boards with slightly modified rules](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/6581/2022).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'm going to say that your assessment isn't correct (point 1). I'd also suggest that the Mathematics site here might be an even better venue for a question such as this. Here is why.
It isn't so much that game theory (complexity, solvability, completeness, ...) isn't interesting any more, but that it is the techniques applied to any given game can be *new* or old. The same is true of Mathematics in general. If I prove a new and wonderful theorem of any sort in math or cs, using "well-worn" techniques, it won't be interesting to very many people. You can make a lot of cookies with a a good cookie cutter. However, if I prove something with a novel and previously unknown attack, people will go wild. Well, those deep in the particular weeds of that field anyway. Whoa, a bitcoin powered AI cookie cutter. (Sorry.)
My own work from long ago is an example (Math Analysis). At the time I wrote it there were only about five people in the world who could read and analyze it comfortably, including myself and my advisor. I say that just to indicate how obscure a sub-topic it was, not to suggest anything about my ability. The main result was "very nice and a bit more than most dissertations offered", so said another professor who tried to grasp it (a committee member). So far, no big deal. However, the main result used a completely new methodology and a seemingly orthogonal attack on the problem. That is what made it interesting enough to be published in Trans. AMS. It just wasn't the sort of thing that would occur as a matter of course to others, even weed-dwellers.
On the other hand, it was getting extremely difficult to prove much of anything in that small area then as the ground had been so well trodden. The study of Analysis moved on to other areas in which less was known and more could be learned. Suddenly there were lots of papers in the new direction and few in my chosen somewhat weedy field.
But a paper now, to be published in Classical Real Analysis, has to be quite interesting in its techniques, not just its results, unless, of course, it concerns a classic unsolved problem.
So, I think the issue isn't whether games are interesting or not. It is what is new that you can show about how to attack an interesting game. And the problem gets harder and harder as the field gets more and more "trodden."
But that, I think, is true of any mathematical field, including much of theoretical computer science. Show us a new way to attack problems and we will wake up.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/14
| 988
| 4,197
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a big problem and I need your opinions and your advices.
Someone did his PHD 4 years ago using data collected over 10 years to develop some equations and simulate them. I re-measured the same data 2 years ago (i.e. spanning over 12 years; the methods of collecting the data are different) and I want to develop equations with simulating them in different program (I will do the programming of it). One of the equations was developed by him, and the two others are different. Is it ethical to continue my thesis or not? Is it considered as plagiarism? I have cited his results in the *Scientific Background* section, and in the *Discussion* I will compare it with my results.<issue_comment>username_1: It doesn't sound like there's an ethical problem here -- as long as you appropriately credit the earlier work. (That is, prominently cite the prior work and clearly explain the relationship.)
However, you should note that re-doing someone else's work with minor changes will generally be viewed as less significant and novel than the original work. In particular, doing almost the same analysis as someone else's PhD thesis is likely not sufficient for another PhD.
That said, it is valuable (and often publishable) to re-do prior work. This is helpful to you and the community, and could form part of your PhD.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Your concerns are a bit misplaced, though you should have concerns. Plagiarism is using other people's words and maybe ideas without attribution. Speaking "their words as if they were your own."
Copyright comes in to play when using other people's words, of course, though copyright law is a mess and varies from place to place. But if you quote and attribute the earlier work appropriately you won't be in the wrong here.
But note that copyright applies to words (pictures,...), not to ideas. While I can't publish images of Mickey Mouse, I can certainly discuss the "idea" of Mickey Mouse without ethical or legal concerns.
Patent law is a bit different and allows the exclusive use of "ideas" of certain kinds for a fixed period. But that doesn't apply here.
However, to have an acceptable dissertation, you need to do something that is considered *novel* by (at least) those who review it at your university. Simply repeating earlier work isn't new, though it may be that you use *new* techniques, or come to a different conclusion. Some research can invalidate older work, and, especially when it uses better techniques than the original, is certainly valid and worth publishing.
If what you do is truly different then you have the basis for a dissertation. If it is a little bit different, you probably don't. But ethics would only be involved if you copy and present the copy as your own.
It may be an apocryphal story, but Picasso is said to have said "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal." The same sort of thing has been said of "writers", "physicists", etc. But in the case of art, no one would accuse Picasso of presenting the work of another as his own, though he did steal *ideas* from other artists.
Build your work on the ideas of others. But make it clear what is yours and what is "theirs."
However, another problem that might apply here is the problem of parallel work. If you work in parallel with someone else but don't know that until late in your studies, you may wind up in a situation in which your work must be discarded. There have been exceptions to this, but they are rare. If you didn't know, but should have known, you are just out of luck. However, it has happened that dissertations have been submitted by people unknown to each other more or less simultaneously. This will generally cause, at least, an investigation. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but you may be in a situation in which the other person just reached the finish line first.
The reason for that is that "ideas are free" and what I can learn, you can learn. The thoughts I can have, you can also have. The insights might be shared, etc. But if you are a bit quicker to the end than me, then you have a dissertation and I don't. Not especially frequent, but it happens.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/14
| 1,598
| 6,798
|
<issue_start>username_0: About a year ago when I was a first-year graduate student, my advisor wanted me to follow up on a project left behind by an honors student. I agreed because, at that time, I thought the topic was important and the findings were rather interesting. However, over the past year, I was busy with other projects and my qualifying exam, so this project was put on hold for almost a year. This summer, my advisor urges me to get it done as soon as possible.
I'd be more than happy to, had I not realized the original project is **not methodologically sound**. My RAs who re-coded the original data share the same feeling: The experimenter made various mistakes and was overly flexible, yet all data points entered into final analyses. I don't want to spend months chasing after effects that don't exist. Moreover, due to the **complex study design**, I can foresee what a nightmare it can be to build computational models in the future.
I suggested radical changes that make the experiment more rigorous and subsequent modeling efforts more tractable, but my advisor refused my proposal several times, arguing that making *any* changes will only delay the starting time. I feel stuck: On the one hand, I don't want to pursue this project as it is since it's most definitely going to fail; on the other, I don't have the courage (or "moral capitals") to defy my advisor because I have put off this project for so long. To make matters worse, I only have one advisor, so if our relationship deteriorates, I have no one else to turn to.
Any advice on what I should do is much appreciated!<issue_comment>username_1: You are in a hard spot. I'll try to offer more than sympathy here. You seem to have tried the main direct approach (changing the problem) and indicate that the other (changing advisors) is closed off to you, so the advice will need to be a bit, well, subversive.
"Subversive" is probably the wrong word, so don't take it too literally. But note that proving that something *isn't* true is (or at least can be) just as valid as proving that something *is* true. Knowledge is advanced in both cases. If you set out to prove that "Dingledorfer's theorem proves the Smittyburger hypothesis" and learn that it doesn't, you may still have the basis for a thesis: "Dingledorfer's theorem doesn't imply the Smittyburger hypothesis". It is hard to speculate whether you have an option like that or not, but consider it.
The second option is that you can make the original study a very subservient part of the whole of your work. You can even, in the thesis, provided that your analysis here is correct, say why the original formulation is incorrect, make a correct formulation and work with that. Unfortunately that sort of thing costs you time as what was originally major is now minor.
However, I don't know exactly what you mean that you have "only one advisor". Is it the situation where no one else is available at all (small department...) or just that you have been assigned only one advisor from a larger pool. In the latter case, again costing you time, you can probably appeal to a higher authority and change advisors. The correct way to do this, I think, is to approach someone else with whom you believe you would be more successful and ask them to permit (and assist in) a switch. You could then go to the department head to make it a reality. I failed to do this once and it cost me more time than making a break would have. In my case it was extreme introversion and a fear of rocking the boat. But the boat needed rocking.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Sometimes it is necessary to "bite the bullet" and demonstrate that the method doesn't work. But you need to provide clear and irrefutable evidence in a way that can actually convince people, not just a vague claim.
A classic example of the failure to do this is the *Challenger* explosion: all of the information needed to delay the launch was known, but because the engineers who had the data didn't present it in a clear manner–just a raw output of data—their supervisors overruled them. If they had come in with plots showing failure of the O-rings as a function of launch conditions, anyone could have recognized the danger of the situation.
So if your advisor is insisting, you probably need to demonstrate why his approach is infeasible or he will continue to insist upon it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You seem to have answered your own question. If you can not discuss this matter with your advisor without your relationship deteriorating, then you are in for a truly terrible advisor relationship as time goes on, and anything is preferable to this, changing advisors, universities or dropping out.
Unless you are convinced that your advisor is incapable of understanding what is wrong with the project, its worth stating that you dont want to work on it because of X, anx see what happens, he may have an idea worth listening to.
The worst outcome is to do a useless project to keep your advisor quiet, since that is likely to result in being assigned several more useless projects between now and when you graduate, which will take longer the more useless things you do.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I think the comment by Down, should be incorporated in the answer. I and some other groups did following thing when dealing with the problem as OP have.
Ask external party for opinion (either in academia or industry), there are also companies that are specialized for feasibilities studies, some of them recommended by Elsevier and other publishers.
They will provide you information on how long and how much the project that your advisor what you to deal with will take resources and if it has sense to chase it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: The postponing of yours was a grave mistake for the beginning, yes, but it would still be problematic had you seen the flaws or the problems of the project in the first day.
The catch is this, there is a project around and made some way, even if it is clearly problematic. You only have one way out, you will rapidly advance that project and try to discern all the problems in data/method/presentation of the results and at the end will come at a point where you as clearly documented everything as possible that you can as well publish an article on it. You will then get your thesis and run away from that advisor asap.
Otherwise, they will ruin your academic career, with a *good intention*. You will be known as slacker/obnoxious blamer for everyone around, and all your future possible advisors question you that "you worked there for years and did not come up with anything", and they will both listen your answer and the previous advisor's. Imagine what they will think, then.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/15
| 1,266
| 5,456
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I'm in a bit of a weird situation right now.
I recently graduated from university with my BS, but was expecting to continue my education at the school as I was accepted into a BS/MS program at the end of my junior year. I put a tremendous amount of time and effort into my work and knocked out a significant portion of my MS during my senior year.
Since I graduated I had to do some transitioning into the MS program, which consisted of proving that I actually had my degree conferred, filling out some additional paper work -- you get the idea. I filled out every form that needed to be completed, met every deadline, and so on (and have tangible proof/records of me doing so).
And yet for some reason, I'm still not in the graduate program (The offer was never rescinded or anything like that). Even though I've done all of the work I've needed to do and was already accepted, I'm simply not considered to be in the program for some reason and can't register for classes, receive financial aid, etc.
I tried desperately to solve this matter with the graduate admissions office via e-mail, phone, and in-person meetings, and yet I've been continually left without help and without answers every single time. Class registration + Financial Aid deadlines are coming up and yet it looks like I'm posed to miss them due to the admission office's neglegence towards this matter (And mind you, this is **not** some kind of fake/phony/fraudulent school. This is a very well-known, reputable university in the US)
It's honestly gotten to the point where I'm preparing a letter to send to the president of the school, as I've run out of people to go to for help. It's been really frustrating to have done all of this work for so long and then be treated like this, and I don't know what do to.
I'm not really sure what to ask at this point, but absolutely any help/recommendations would be sincerely appreciated. Are there any actions/repurcussions I can possibly take against the school for this? Or are there any other courses of action I should take to help resolve this matter?
Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: There should be faculty members in the department you are to be enrolled in who are responsible for graduate student admissions and advising. These people should be able to tell you what's going on with respect to your case because, unlike undergraduate admissions, graduate admissions decisions in the US are made with the consultation of faculty members and not simply by a "central" graduate admissions office, which usually just acts as a clearinghouse for the applications.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree that the department should be your first point of contact. Somebody within the department is responsible for the graduate program and should be able to help.
If that fails, many US universities have an [ombudsman/ombuds office](https://www.google.com/search?q=ombudsman%20university&oq=ombudsman%20university) intended to help resolve difficult problems. While they can't overrule the admissions office or force them to do anything, they generally exist to help listen to your problems and assist in resolving issues informally. They may be able to suggest the best approach to getting this addressed or get the attention of the relevant office in a way that you cannot.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It may be a case of (1) you not understanding who's responsible for what, (2) someone neglecting their responsibility, or (3) some combination of these. Since you can't directly solve (2), you'll have to work on (1) by figuring out who's responsible for each issue and who can solve it.
It will help to more precisely identify the problem. You said you're "simply not considered to be in the program for some reason and can't register for classes, receive financial aid, etc" This will be easier to resolve if you specify who gave you this information and when, and where they get their information from. If you indeed followed all the correct procedures after your admission, you can insist that their information saying you're not in the program is inaccurate and that they help you get it fixed.
You've been assuming the admissions office has to solve the issue, but it's not clear why you assume this. The issue might be caused by a registrar's office, a dean's office, a department office, a faculty member, etc. If you're at risk of missing a deadline, talk to the office responsible for that deadline. Keep a log of who you talked to (name and position), so they won't send you back to someone you alread asked. If they tell you to contact someone who's already ignoring your contact, explain your prior contact and insist that they help you contact the person or someone else who can help. Keep talking to offices until you find somebody who agrees to solve the issue.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Thankfully, everything has been completely resolved with this issue and I thought I'd leave an answer here regarding what helped with this particular experience.
As many of the responders mentioned above, contacting members of my department definitely helped. A professor that I know quite well was willing to help and got the attention of the admissions office, and he was able to get their attention and worked with both me and them to get things back on track :)
Thanks again for all of the great suggestions made here. They really helped!
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/15
| 550
| 2,271
|
<issue_start>username_0: I can get a small raise if I earn 7 more graduate units from an accredited school. I have no intention of earning another degree, and I could be happy with either online or in-person work. How to go about it?
I could apply to some Master's program, get accepted, enroll, and then not finish the degree, but this seems dishonest, plus I might have to take their introductory courses instead of my own choices. Would some other approach do better? Do accredited universities ever offer graduate courses à la carte?<issue_comment>username_1: I believe the term you might be looking for is a "non-degree seeking student". Many colleges - at least in the US - allow students to pay per credit-hour of course they take, with the explicit arrangement that they will not count towards a degree. Exact requirements, costs, and arrangements vary by University, [but here is some info about the options at Michigan for example](http://www.rackham.umich.edu/admissions/non-degree-and-guest-applications). [Michigan's School of Education has its own page on this](http://www.soe.umich.edu/academics/non-degree/), with additional options.
The 'catch' is mostly money, whether or not you can get classes that interest you (Universities might reserve some classes for their own degree-seeking students first), and whether or not courses taken in such a way will count according to your employer (you'll have to check with them on that).
As for the money, non-degree seeking students generally receive no form of financial aid or tuition assistance, and in the US I would be surprised if you could take even 1 course for less than $1000, but the exact cost will vary wildly by University and program.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Often there are legally independent professional education institutions associated to a university which offer courses but the credits are given by the university (in our university we are having such a model).
You are enrolled in dedicated courses and you'll have to pay for it, the professors are giving their courses as sideline job.
The benefit is, that you are just paying what you need and you'll get a certificate. The downside is, it might be more expensive (at least in Germany).
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/15
| 560
| 2,377
|
<issue_start>username_0: Few days ago I appeared in a postdoc interview. The PI was very much impressed with my resume and the interview went very well. The PI asked me when do you want to join. The next day he asked recommendation letters from two of my references (I am sure that they will give me a very good recommendation). After 2 weeks I got the rejection letter. How to interpret this rejection (he told me that the position is filled by some other candidate). This will be useful for my future postdoc endeavors.
I politely asked him the reason. He did not reply.
Thanks in advance. Sorry if this question is inappropriate.<issue_comment>username_1: It is impossible to say without more information, which you should seek. It may be that the PI in question didn't have final say, or some funding evaporated, or ...
It isn't out of the question that it was just a mistake.
It may also just be that they found someone they liked better or thought would be a better fit in the interim.
If you feel comfortable with the PI, you could just ask (nicely) what happened and that any feedback would be appreciated. It may not be possible for him to give you much information, but you might learn something.
It would be good to know if there was a deal-breaker somewhere, but you may have no way to learn that.
But in general, if you got a good feeling about the interview, it probably doesn't say anything about your future. Carry on, do your best.
While it is true that some people will act very positively in person, just to avoid any potential conflict, don't let that realization get in the way of acting positively and naturally yourself in future interviews. You can't control the things you can't control. The PI may have acted toward other candidates precisely as he acted with you, but then had to make a choice.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There isn’t anything to interpret. The only conclusion you can draw is that there was another candidate whom the professor thought would be a better fit for the position, for an unspecified reason.
Our minds have a psychological tendency to want to fill in a lack of information with speculation and beliefs. The added information you have in this case is literally zero, so you must resist the urge to “interpret”; it is futile and serves no useful purpose.
Good luck with the job search!
Upvotes: 6
|
2018/07/15
| 914
| 4,106
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it convention for a researcher who changes institutions to reapply for ethical review (IRB) on ongoing projects at a new institution, or keep working with the IRB files at the institution where the researcher originally applied, until the studies are ready to be closed?
For context, I just finished my PhD in a social science and I'm moving to a new institution for a postdoc. As a social scientist, my projects are either solo or with a few co-PIs, so any answer may be different from people in the sciences.
For clarity, IRB is the term for US universities' ethics review committees. From Wikipedia: "An institutional review board (IRB), also known as an independent ethics committee (IEC), ethical review board (ERB), or research ethics board (REB), is a type of committee that applies research ethics by reviewing the methods proposed for research to ensure that they are ethical." source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional\_review\_board<issue_comment>username_1: There may be laws here that I'm not familiar with, but note that one of the purposes of an IRB is to protect the institution itself, not just the subjects of a study. I would guess that you should talk to someone in the IRB structure at the new institution to get guidance here. If any resources of the new institution are involved, they will likely care.
I would also suspect that they will have incentive, if asked, to approve your work based on the old application's documentation.
But it is better to have at least asked, than to be surprised later if there is any difficulty. This is especially true if you no longer have any relationship with the old institution.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: When you change institutions, you will need approval from your new institution's IRB to continue any human subjects research. From their perspective, the new institution is about to "start" working on your existing project so they will review them as normal projects using their normal process. Of course, the review process might be different since the project is in process, data may have already been collected, etc. That may change the process of making a determination and might even change the determination, but it doesn't change the need for a determination.
This might lead to an interruption in your ability to conduct your research. As a result, you should contact your new IRB about any ongoing research project as soon as possible.
Depending on the stage of the project, the IRB could say one of many things. For example:
* If you are still interacting or intervening with human subjects, you may need to either (a) submit brand new protocols for review or (b) have your new IRB delegate review to your previous institutions IRB. Both are common although the latter only really makes sense if your previous institution's IRB is going to continue overseeing the work (for example, because your have collaborators there).
* If the project is at a stage where there is no further interaction or intervention, when data has been collected, and if data stored in a form where individuals are not identifiable, the IRB might say that you do not additional review at all since the work, *at this stage* no longer qualifies as human subject research. In my opinion, it's always better to let the IRB make that determination.
* If data has been collected but if data continues to be identifiable or if analysis otherwise puts subjects at risk, you might need to put in a special request to analyze previously collected data. This is often a separate kind of application that can be a bit shorter and easier. I've had to do this even for projects that had been considered exempt at my previous institution.
As always, you are subject the rules of institution that is employing you. You should always check with them. I think it's not abnormal, in these situations, to set up a meeting with someone from the IRB to talk through these sorts of situations and make a plan of action.
[ For context, I am also a social scientist working in the United States. ]
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/15
| 531
| 2,188
|
<issue_start>username_0: Usually for the journals we have impact factor and for the conferences we have acceptance rate.
Now, is it possible to guess the acceptance rate of a journal using its impact factor ? For example, for this journal:
<https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-and-security/call-for-papers/special-issue-on-blockchain-and-cryptocurrency>
whose impact factor is 2.650<issue_comment>username_1: In a general sense, the answer is "no". Different fields have wildly different citation rates and hence impact factors, so that will vary independently of the level of prestige of the journal. Within a field, I suspect it's still "no", but it might be interesting to hear if anybody's studied it.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is like guessing a person's salary from their postal code. There may or may not be some correlation, but any prediction for an individual journal is bound to be far enough off that the prediction will be entirely useless for any practical purpose - and this is without taking into account that acceptance rates are a fairly useless metric to start with.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Intuitively, we would expect "yes"; according to a study by Frontiers in 2015 however [the answer is "no"](https://blog.frontiersin.org/2015/12/21/4782/).
Caveat: it doesn't look like a very rigorous study. In particular it is lacking controls for different fields.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I would like to point out the fact that many researchers (not all) are relatively self-aware when it comes to the perceived quality of their manuscripts. In this sense, they try to aim for journals with relatively suitable prestige (in this case, its impact factor). This results in a balancing effect in which journals receive more papers in tune with their level of perceived prestige and it causes less variance between acceptance rates than one might think because high impact journals would not receive as many low impact manuscripts.
If all papers were submitted to all journals, then there would be a direct correlation between the impact factor and the acceptance rate. This is not the case.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/15
| 1,309
| 5,672
|
<issue_start>username_0: About 4 years ago, a [question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16870/researchgate-an-asset-or-a-waste-of-time) was asked about usefulness of ResearchGate for academics. Judging by the most upvoted answers, the portal had a rather negative opinion back then. However, social media trends tend to change on much shorter timescales, and my experience with RG has actually been slightly positive. This makes me curious as to how the perception has changed since then.
To quote the previous question, I would be very interested in knowing if, as of 2018, ResearchGate is *a good way of increasing the visibility of your publications and finding fellows with common research interests, or is it just a "waste of time"?*
Since the above is - as many have rightly pointed out - too opinion based, I would like to ask, more specifically: In what ways has ResearchGate changed over the last 4 years? How do these changes affect perception of ResearchGate in the academic community?<issue_comment>username_1: You correctly tagged this with social media, because RG does share one quality of social media - it's useful only if like-minded people are already on it. In certain fields you will find a lot of relevant people signed up already, so there's a good chance RG will be helpful. In others, you may end up with irrelevant answers/article suggestions that could put you off.
I always recommend first finding out if researchers connected to your field, or researchers you know are already on it. If they are, it could be a great platform to connect. I have personally been able to get very specific inputs from very senior researchers, who may have otherwise been difficult to reach. You can't generalise though; different people visit at different frequencies.
The same holds for the Q/A section. You shouldn't go expecting an efficient answering system like SE, especially if there aren't many active researchers from your field already signed up. Think of it more as a shot in the dark, there is a chance you end up with valuable inputs withon a reasonable time. My personal experience over 3 years indicates a roughly 60% satisfaction level with answers/discussions.
As for 'whats new', there is an option for users to indicate labs/groups they work in. This can help you reach out to non-corresponding authors of work you may be interested in (possibly corresponding authors are too senior/busy to expect a short turnaround time).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I have a Researchgate profile, but I only see my activity decreasing in the near future. To me, the issue with RG is that it only appeals to junior or unknown scholars. While it is great that they now have a way of disseminating their research, RG doesn't help reaching the "big names" because most don't use the platform. Most fields are sufficiently small that people reasonably know each other or can ask someone else to be introduced. Hence, RG doesn't help narrowing the gaps between academic circles of "big names" and "unknown researchers", although this is something urgently necessary.
Additionally, many of the services that RG provides are subpar compared to competitors. I already have a number of ways to keep updated with the current literature in my field, and most of the recommendations that RG sends me are unsurprising or duplicate. The citation/read count is mostly useless, and many services such as Google Scholar and Scopus are much better at that. The platform for including current projects is also fairly inflexible and generally asks to share more than what the researcher is comfortable with---lab webpages are much better at that. I also don't see RG as a reasonable platform for uploading preprints, and like many uncurated venues, most people who do resemble cranks, and I don't use RG to look into someone's publications because it looks messy and incomplete. I use Google Scholar, Scopus or personal webpages for that.
I have never used the "Questions" section of RG, but the few times I glanced it, I expected to see some sort of a forum for academic discussion over some topic, but it seemed more like a watered-down version of SE minus the efficient curating. And most questions remain unanswered.
I do keep my RG updated, and every week or two I receive a request for a pdf of one of my papers. I suppose easing this request process is an advantage over other means of communication, but I don't think many people who use RG attend those requests anyway. I have also never received a request to collaborate through RG, but I have received such requests through e-mail.
I think the rationale behind RG is interesting (i.e., connecting researchers online), but it just doesn't work well, and doesn't appeal to most of the relevant people in (my) community. Collaborating in science is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I don't see how an online platform that connects people who don't know each other and have no way of knowing how each other work can reasonably help at that.
I do think one aspect of RG is fine, which is post-publication peer-review. But while it does allow people to publicly comment in publications, the platform is also not built for long comments, only back-patting, and most people don't use it for that anyway.
In general, it seems that maintaining your own webpage, even if with much less functionality, appears to be better than having a ResearchGate profile. But two things that RG attempts to implement are worth pursuing: 1) post-publication peer-review, and 2) some way to connect people from the same field but who belong to different academic circles.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/15
| 364
| 1,519
|
<issue_start>username_0: After finally getting an article listed on google scholar via preprints, Google Scholar has not listed me as an author on my paper on either preprint it has indexed. I was the one who uploaded them to the preprint sites and I am the second author but they have only listed the first and third author and have not listed me. How do I change or have this edited. And how does something like this even happen in the first place<issue_comment>username_1: Contact the first or third author. I *think* (but am not certain) that if Scholar has put them on it, they will then be able to edit the listing.
As to how it happens... ask Google? They won't tell you, though.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It is a bit difficult to speak on behalf of Google here. The best idea is probably to contact them directly [1].
Before you do that, however, I would encourage you to double check if the details on the websites where your paper is published are correct. Much of what Google Scholar does is just indexing those websites and taking their data from there. Google explicitly recommends to ask for corrections there and not on Google Scholar. They also say state that an update to any details might take quite a bit of time, in the order of months [2]. So any recent correction to details on the publisher's side might not be updated yet.
[1] <https://support.google.com/scholar/contact/general>
[2] <https://scholar.google.com/intl/de/scholar/help.html#corrections>
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/15
| 1,211
| 5,218
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduate student in pure Mathematics. My supervisor gave me an idea to work on, and in 6-9 months I found enough stuff to write 3 papers. After I did that, I was eager to work on some new idea, but my advisor only gave me learning projects, so that I just read many papers without doing any sort of research. After 6 months, I would like to start a research project, but all this reading didn't really help me in finding one (of course I thought about questions on my own, but since the area is quite old and competitive, I was not able to find a reasonable question that was not already answered). My advisor still does not give me anything concrete to work on, but merely suggests to read this or that paper. All of this is very weird, because his other students are treated very differently, they all have projects that started from ideas of the supervisor, and some of them even publish with him!
I am quite desperate, because I get really anxious about wasting my limited time, and I would like to know what you think about this.<issue_comment>username_1: Now that you've written three papers, you've shown you can solve problems. But you still need to learn the other important side of research: coming up with problems to solve. We can't know your advisor's motives with certainty, but I would guess he expects you to spread your wings and become more independent. Instead of asking him for projects, I suggest coming to him with project ideas of your own, and asking what he thinks.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I can imagine several scenarios, but don't have much information here to go on. The most hopeful one is that it is just a communication mismatch, or a mismatch of expectations. The only way to solve that, I think, is directly by asking him for guidance to the end. If
If he treats other students differently it could be a variety of things. Hopefully he respects you and your abilities, but if not you have a serious problem. Is it that the other students are more advanced already? Or that they have worked with him for a long time?
Another possibility is that he is overextended in his own work and advising and you are just the one with the short straw. Finding a different advisor might be a solution to that, if you can find someone more compatible who works in a close enough field that you aren't set back too much. I've mentioned in answers to other questions that some junior faculty are working toward tenure themselves and don't have time to advise effectively.
A wild, and unlikely, scenario, is that he is afraid of your abilities. That is rare, but possible. The correct behavior on his part, if he sees you as a superstar eclipsing his own, would be to get you going and get out of your way. This is the [Good Will Hunting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Will_Hunting) scenario.
[Another answer here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/113741/75368) is also possible, though not all doctoral students have yet made the transition of thinking deeply enough to come up with their own problem. It is the ideal, to be sure, but takes seasoning and maturing that not all students attain until they finish their degrees (I'm an example, actually).
You also mention working in a well worn subfield in which problems are just hard to come up with and results even more so. When a field of maths is new there is little known so a lot can be learned quite quickly. As the field matures it gets harder and harder and mathematics moves on to something newer, though not all mathematicians do so. This was exemplified in the switch from Classical Real Analysis to Functional Analysis fifty or so years ago.
I don't expect that I gave you an answer here, other than to try to talk to your advisor and improve communications, but hope I gave something to think about at least. Maybe one of them will lead to a solution.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You have already written 3 papers. This is a lot for a graduate student in pure mathematics. Although, technically speaking, you are still a graduate student, in terms of your research stage, you are already a postdoc. Hence your advisor is treating you like a postdoc.
As a general rule, in order for you to get a permanent position, you will have to formulate and solve some problem completely independently of your advisor. Your advisor thinks you have enough experience to start learning to do so.
If it turns out you can't develop the skills to be an independent researcher, it's probably best for you to find out earlier so that you can embark on a different career path.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You should talk to your advisor about this. Some questions you might ask are “I’m excited to start a new research project, do you have any more concrete suggestions?” Or “When you read papers how do you go about finding concrete projects to work on?” Or “I don’t think I understand how reading papers leads to a research problem to work on.”
I’d also encourage you do go to talk to other people and go to conferences and try to develop collaborations. Once you have done one project with your advisor it’s good to start working with other people too.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/15
| 685
| 3,053
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently in my second year of a PhD program. I have not yet decided on academia, industry, or entrepreneurship for a career, but in all these cases my success will be strongly influenced by my ability to lead and manage a team of students/postdocs, research engineers/technicians, or co-founders/employees.
I have found that graduate school offers no opportunity for practicing the kinds of interpersonal skills most relevant to leadership (delegating tasks, maintaining motivation, creating an inclusive atmosphere, resolving conflicts, etc.). Note that I distinguish leadership from teaching and mentoring. The closest thing I can think of would be to mentor an undergrad in research. The situation will likely be similar if I do a postdoc.
How can I practice or develop these skills while still in graduate school? Or what would be some important surrogate skills I should focus on instead?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, I am surprised your graduate school doesn’t offer these kind of trainings. Graduate schools prepare PhD-students for their future life, whether in academia, industry or entrepreneurship. My graduate school offers for example also trainings on: leadership, group dynamics, teamwork, effective negotiation, autonomy and self management.
You probably have some room for ‘electives’ in your curriculum. Maybe you can use that room and follow your prefererred trainings in another (nearby) graduate school or in private sector. It may bring some additional costs and your department should be prepared to pay for it.
I would certainly contact your graduate school about your needs because these are legitimate and in line with the objectives of a graduate school. In my university graduate students can also contact an HR advisor to talk about their future career development. I would be highly surprised if your graduate school or HR advisor could not / would not help you in shaping your future path. Maybe your request even helps your graduate school to improve or expand its curriculum.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it's likely you can develop these skills, they're just not taught formally. For example, you could join an extracurricular club, or serve as your class's student representative. From what I've seen these positions tend not to be in high demand, and some student representatives are even paid.
If you don't have even these options, then you could try to initiate something. For example, you could start a weekly meeting with other PhD students to discuss any interesting papers from last week. You could try to invite researchers from other institutions over to give talks (your department might be able to provide you with some funds for this), or join the organizing committee of a conference.
Finally you mention mentoring an undergraduate in research. To do this, talk to your professor and express an interest. If she takes on an Honours student, you could be a co-supervisor, if not in name then at least in practice.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/16
| 1,650
| 7,165
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in applied probability looking for postdoc jobs after submitting my thesis. What is the value of arXiv papers (not yet published in a journal) compared to papers published in a journal while applying for postdoc? For example, if I have two journal papers and one arXiv paper, whereas someone else has three journal papers, will he gets any benefit over me in applying?
My arxiv paper got rejected from a very top-tier journal after almost two years of review. I am working on the reviewer's comments; then I will submit to a new journal.<issue_comment>username_1: **Both quality *and* quantity matter.**
There are some sub-disciplines, such as high-energy physics and cosmology, that use arXiv as a means of establishing primacy and initial clearinghouse before eventual publication elsewhere. In those areas, it's harder to say what the impact is.
But in general, arXiv papers can be published without going through a peer-review process. Consequently, they are not viewed as highly as a peer-reviewed paper in a "known" journal in the field.
One should also not just look at raw number of publications. One paper in a major journal and two arXiv preprints may be better than three or four papers in low-impact journals.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: ArXiv papers are preprints, not publications, so their value in the context of a job application is definitely lower than a paper that has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In your example, **assuming all other things being equal**, the answer is that yes, the job candidate with 3 journal publications would be at an advantage relative to you with your 2 journal publications and 1 arXiv preprint.
Of course, all other things are never equal, and papers differ enormously in their quality, scope, and significance, so that it’s quite possible that your one arXiv preprint might still end up overshadowing any of the three journal publications of the other candidate. So I would advise you not to get too caught up in these sorts of numerical calculations. The number of papers has some significance, but it’s very far from the only thing people care about.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, in all of my experience (in pure mathematics), when evaluating candidates there is no distinction made between *accepted* papers and *published* papers. So I will speak about *preprints* versus *accepted papers*.
In all normal circumstances, having manuscript X as an accepted paper is strictly preferable to having X as an arxiv preprint. (What would be an abnormal circumstance? What I can come up with at the moment is: X is published in a shady journal, or X is published in a journal that is legitimate but of *much lower quality* than anyone would expect X to be published in. These are edge cases...)
So let us suppose that you have accepted papers X and Y and arxiv preprint Z. I think we can agree that the hypothetical candidate who has accepted papers X, Y and Z is strictly preferable to you....with the key understanding that X,Y and Z denote **the same manuscripts** in both cases! But now you see that this assertion is useless in practice. In actuality, you are going to be competing with people who have done different work from you. If a search committee views your manuscript Z\_1 as being of roughly similar quality to someone else's manuscript Z\_2, then it is a point in someone else's favor if their Z\_2 has been accepted. But it is just a point, not all the points. If your recommenders talk about the significance of Z\_1 and their confidence that it is correct and will be published in a very good journal, and if these recommenders have a strong reputation in the eyes of the search committee, then that is a point in *your* favor. Not that it is about points: please read on...
The phrase "all other things being equal" is often used in hypothetical discussions of job candidates, but those who have been on search committees are well aware of the irony: in practice, all other things are very rarely equal. People hire based not on rubrics or numerical schemes, but on partially verbalized subjective preferences. Which is not a criticism! We want to hire the person whom we sincerely and holistically believe is the best academic, not the one who has the most points according to some fixed system. If such "metrics" are used at all, they are probably used to sway the opinions of third parties on the search committee, i.e., faculty who are not going to be directly involved with either candidate. In my experience, such "metric differences" have to be rather stark in order for them to really matter: two accepted / one preprint vs. three accepted probably does not look like a significant difference, especially for young academics. But if you were competing with someone who had **eight more accepted papers** than you, then the person who is pulling for you probably has to convince the rest of the committee that your work is distinctly qualitatively better than that of the other candidate.
Finally, I certainly hope that as a young academic, when you post a paper to the arxiv you also submit it for publication shortly thereafter (if not concurrently) and that you are doing everything you can to make sure your papers are being processed in a timely manner. If so...okay, you are doing your best, and what remains is a lot of randomness that is entirely out of your control. I think search committees understand this and are not going to fault a candidate much for the vagaries of the refereeing process.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The biggest advantage here with arXiv preprints is that it allows you to include papers in a citeable way when they are not yet published. You can link to the paper, which is available in a readable format, with a notation of, "*Submitted for publication in ...*", or better still, "*Accepted for publication in ...*" in advance of having the paper published, at which point you could then use the vol./issue reference as normal.
While it may be unlikely that a review panel will read your papers, they may look at the author list for collaborators and affiliations of co-authors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: This answer will be a bit orthogonal to the others. It may also apply to other job-seeking situations, not just post-docs. It is based on the observation that few hiring committees choose between candidates just by weighing piles of paper.
For many positions, especially post-docs and those seeking a first position, what you need to show is *current* and *active* research activity. The hiring institution will want to know that you have a lot of ideas and that you are exploring them and that you can contribute to a research program. Even that you have so many ideas that you don't mind sharing them, especially with students.
In that sense an *old* journal publication may not have as much value as a few *recent* papers in arXiv. Show, however you can, that you aren't resting on your old laurels, but are still totally fired up. Show them that you have work-in-progress that shows promise.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/16
| 1,241
| 5,130
|
<issue_start>username_0: I finished my B.Sc. in physics 3 years ago, did a year of research, worked a year in tech, and have spent the last year off the grid living in the bush and running away from reality for a while. Now I'm going back for my master's or PhD, but I'm pretty rusty. I'm hoping someone out there might read this and have some good advice on the best way to do this.
My options are basically the following:
1. to do a master's in a field/at a school/with an advisor that are all
not ideal to me, because that's where I have experience and
connections
2. to spend a year or so doing a second degree in math and then going
on to do a PhD after that.
My reasoning for the second option is that this will afford me better opportunities for better grad schools in fields I have more interest in. Simply put, I don't believe I have a strong enough application right now to get into the programs/schools/advisors that I want to get in with.
My undergraduate grades are fine (A-/A average), but not extraordinary enough to carry me by their weight alone. I have two publications and a dwindling number of connections who could write me strong recommendations. Maybe one or two at most, with two others who would write generically positive letters. I don't think this is enough to get me where I'd like to be.
Grad school seems like too big of a commitment to go somewhere/work with someone I'm not 100% on board with. Is this "greedy" to think this way? Am I being too picky/asking too much? Should I take what I can get now and not waste my time trying make things "perfect"? Every grad student I speak to has the same advice: "Unless you're 100% sure this is what you want to do, don't do it," so I'm kind of going by that.
Is it worth taking a year or so to pad my application with a second degree in math (new networks, fresh good grades, strong recommendations from professors if I can build relationships with them), so that I can get in where I actually want to go? Or should I just suck it up and do the master's that I don't care about, do it well, and then go where I want from there (keeping in mind that I'd be wanting to switch fields at this point)?
Thank you very much in advance to anyone who takes the time to read/respond!<issue_comment>username_1: My reading of your question is that you already know your answer. You don't seem to be time or resource limited (as many others would be) and you express pretty strong preference for a second undergrad degree.
The only caveat I would have is whether you are feeling inadequate when it isn't called for (Imposter Syndrome).
An undergrad math degree (outside the US, at least) might not require you to repeat a lot of things as it is probably focused on just the Maths. So it wouldn't be backing up, really. Actually I don't know how similar the Canadian Educational System is to the US. Down here an UG degree requires a lot of things outside the major (Language, history, ....). Other places an undergrad degree is more specialized on one topic. Doing it in a year or so would depend on the university hosting it. Your original institution might be the best place for that.
Also, rusty is bad. You will want to somehow bring your work process and thinking process back up to speed. Any sort of study can help with that, but a grad program is typically more intense.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'd say do the masters degree. Reasons:
1. You already have a background in physics. If you've not forgotten all your quantum mechanics, relativity, etc, you should have a relatively easier time applying to grad school in mathematical physics than in mathematics, where you might have to start from zero.
2. MS studies are more similar to PhD study than undergraduate degrees. The MS degree might give you a better idea whether or not you really want to do PhD study.
3. If you decide after completing the degree that you don't actually want to do PhD study, you can rejoin the workforce with a higher degree, which is usually more valuable than a second undergraduate degree.
You write that you might be forced to go to a "less desirable" graduate school on a topic you are less interested in. This need not be so. Googling for "masters in mathematical physics" turns up programs such as this one at the [University of Edinburgh](https://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees/index.php?r=site/view&id=817). You could apply. An A-/A average together with two strong recommendation letters should suffice to be accepted into at least some programs.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I like your idea of getting back in and taking some math courses. This will help you towards a second degree, help you shake off some academic rust, and give you some time to make a more firm decision going forward. My opinion is that those who would review your academic background, would be very impressed with seeing extra levels of math study. If a second degree was not had, anyone seeing your extra math would view such as pure academics. It is always refreshing to see a person take a class in an effort to expand knowledge.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/16
| 445
| 1,946
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an engineering PhD student in Germany. I am planning to get a job in industry after finishing my degree? Is this common in Germany?
Thank you guys in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, many engineers do this. In fact, industrial partnerships with academia for PhD students are much more frequent in Germany than in the US. Many of these lead to job placements following graduation. So it certainly is a possibility—most of my grad students there decided to go to industry.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is common practice. You can compare the number of PhDs with the number of postdoc-positions and then it's easy to tell that most PhDs are going to industry afterwards.
People from industry are telling me, that sometimes they are interested at the expertise of the person gained during the PhD (e.g. if you are doing Computational Mechanics, there are many companies looking for those people), but even more because you will learn to be self-organized, you'll have a certain tolerance against frustration, you can develop first leadership skills, etc.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In general, yes. This is very common in Germany. Broadly speaking, science and engineering doctorates are well respected in German industry and it greatly increases your chances of finding a job *related* to your given field. I studied a chemistry doctorate in Germany. All of my former colleagues landed well paid industry jobs very soon after graduating. I, however, returned home to the UK where I struggled to find any work related to chemistry in the slightest.
The situation may well be different in engineering, but in chemistry at the time someone leaving merely having completed their Diplom (later Masters) studies would have struggled to find work in industry. A doctorate seemed almost mandatory following an undergraduate degree in the sciences for employment in related fields.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/17
| 7,233
| 32,063
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in my 3rd year of PhD. In my program, it is a requirement for PhD students to graduate with a paper that is published in a Scopus Index journal.
Before I entered, and during my PhD, I had already published a few papers to a Scopus index peer reviewed journal (for topics not based on my thesis). At the moment, I am trying to publish a paper as a part of my thesis (with my supervisors' names), but my supervisors keep criticizing the paper and making me rewrite it again and again. This has been going on for two years.
However, I did submit another paper (a part of my thesis) under my own name and without my supervisors' knowledge, and it was accepted. This paper was done without any intellectual contributions from my supervisors - no writing or reviewing. When I told my supervisors about the paper (but not its acceptance,) they were angry that I hadn't included their names, and they asked me to include their names in it. Unfortunately, the editor said I couldn't as I had submitted it initially as one author only.
I am aware that it is my fault that I didn't ask them beforehand, but I know in my heart that if I had included them, it would have taken months or years to even get their approval. In all honesty, they would have ended up demotivating me. I am now really scared to tell them that it has already been published and I cannot add their names.
Can you give me any advice how to handle this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: The key question is whether the supervisors made any intellectual contribution to this paper. Note, intellectual contribution does not only mean writing the manuscript! In some fields, advisors expect to be listed on all papers because of their work securing funding and running the lab (and the intellectual contributions required to do so). At a minimum, advisors probably expect to be looped in on all your activities, so that they can give advice and potentially earn authorship through those discussions.
If your advisors (according to the standards of your subfield) did in fact deserve to be listed as authors, then failing to list them could probably be considered academic misconduct on your part. In [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/56932/supervisor-delays-publication-over-style-questions-for-years-can-i-remove-him) post, we considered exactly this issue: given a supervisor who required 32 drafts over 4 years (!!), the [now former] student wanted to downgrade the supervisor to an acknowledgement so as to submit the paper without requiring their approval. The verdict was unequivocal:
>
> If he deserves to be an author based on his intellectual contributions to the paper, then it would be unethical to deny him authorship based on being difficult to work with
>
>
>
Now you may not feel that your advisors deserved authorship, but this is not for you to decide -- by agreeing to collaborate with them on your thesis, you agreed to work together and co-publish any results. You can't unilaterally decide their contributions were worthless after the fact.
In [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11460/shady-behavior-by-my-advisor-publishing-students-work-but-listing-herself-as?rq=1) post, we consider the inverse situation: a professor taking credit for his students' work without acknowledging them. As the answers show, this behavior was completely unacceptable, but it's difficult for students to seek redress when professors misbehave. Unfortunately for you, it's rather easy for professors to seek redress when students misbehave.
In the other direction, it is possible that your advisors were not eligible for authorship according to the standards of your field. In this case, there is no academic misconduct; this is "merely" an interpersonal issue. Still, I can understand your advisors being very angry: you are supposed to be collaborating with them full-time, and instead you are secretly doing - and publishing - other work. All the worse if they are paying for your time, equipment, training, etc.
**So, what should you do?** I would start by understanding what your options are. Is there any way to prevent the article from being published? Can you retract the article? Assuming the supervisors contributed to the work, could you publish an addendum saying that authors were incorrectly listed? Then, you should take these options to your supervisors. Tell them that you understand you had no right to publish thesis-related work without their inputs, that you regret it deeply, and that you will address the situation however they want. Hopefully this will resolve itself, but you should think about what you will do if they refuse to continue working with you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: To add on to username_1's answer, chances are the editor is being careful about changing the author list because situations where [authorship was purchased](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigious-science-journal/) have happened before. One can guess how it's done: the original authors submit the article, it's accepted (or accepted pending minor revisions), and then during the next stage they amend the author list. Superficially, from the editor's point of view, this seems like what you're trying to do.
It's likely that the journal will let you amend the author list, but only if you give a thorough explanation of why you need to change it. Tell them the added authors are actually your supervisors. Prove it by using your institutional email address, giving your supervisors' names, and their official institutional websites. You can copy your supervisors, too, using their institutional email address (this is arguably a good idea in any case, given the academic misconduct). You may be asked about what each author's exact contributions were, so prepare a response.
You can't change the past, but you can change the future. Making genuine, good-faith efforts to fix the mishap will go a long way towards fixing your relationship with your supervisors.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Well, based on your description, it looks like you now have limited options. If the paper has already been published it might be too late to add other authors except possibly as an addendum. If the journal editor is not receptive to this, you might find it difficult to correct. So presumably a big part of the issue now is what you should do to follow this up, and what you should do in the future, when dealing with other papers. From your post I am also assuming that you do not dispute the claim of your supervisors that they are legitimate co-authors of the paper. In view of this, here is my advice:
* When engaging in a relationship between student and supervisor, it is a good idea to negotiate the expectations for publications *up front*, prior to writing papers. Supervisors have reasonable claims to be included in publications if they are assisting you with your work. If they make an appropriate contribution to the research, they are entitled to be included as co-authors. It is a good idea to discuss expectations at the start of your supervisory relationship.
* Certainly you should not publish work they have helped with behind their back, without them having an opportunity to claim co-authorship. As others have pointed out, this could amount to academic misconduct. It is unsurprising that your supervisors are angry, since they have spent a lot of time helping with this research, but they are not acknowledge as co-authors. Since you are a graduate student, and not necessarily experienced in this, they might forgive this error in time, but you'll have to wait and see.
* As a student, you probably do not see things from the perspective of these academics. When you are an academic, supervising a student is a huge amount of work, and the main reward for that work is co-authorship of papers. Career success as an academic is hard work, and any activity that takes away time without producing research is generally a negative for success. If you take substantial time from your supervisors, but then prevent them from getting a valid co-authorship of your supervised research work, you harm their careers. (You are still paying the *university* for your degree, but the academics are not getting a reward for working with you.)
* It sounds like you have already made some effort to rectify this with the journal, but you have not been successful. It would be a good idea to push this and make sure you exhaust all avenues of possible mitigation. If it is too late to add new authors to the publication (I don't see why it would be, at least in the online version) then you could ask the journal editor if you can publish an addendum with this information. I would suggest making every effort you can to convince the journal editor to allow you an opportunity to make this change.
* Regardless of whether you succeed in adding their names to the paper, *you should keep your supervisors updated of the progress of the paper*, even if it is bad news. If you have been unsuccessful in adding their names to the paper, and it has now been published, you should update them of this fact. They might get angry again, but they are going to find that out sooner or later, so it is better if you disclose this information. If you are making efforts to seek an addendum, etc., you could also mention this, and keep them updated of your progress. It might even be worth asking them to help you convince the journal editor to allow an addendum (e.g., emailing the editor with you).
* For future papers, it sounds like you want to be able to get advice from your supervisors, but you also want to have the freedom to submit the paper once you think it is ready, without having to be constrained by them adding more requirements. If this is the case then you should negotiate this with them up-front. It may well be reasonable for you to ask that you be allowed to submit to peer review at a certain stage, even if they want more changes. Peer review is a reasonable test of whether the paper is ready for publication, but bear in mind that your supervisors want to be happy with the paper if they are helping with it and intend to claim co-authorship. You should negotiate with them up front to discuss when you will have discretion to submit.
Good luck with sorting this out. The best outcome here would be to get a change to the online version of the publication to reflect the appropriate authorship; second best would be an addendum; third best would be for your supervisors to accept that you have made an error that might not be able to be rectify, but you've tried your best to fix it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The answers here are generally explaining the fact that supervisors should not be omitted from the authorship *as they are supposed to direct and contribute to the research*.
The critical problem is, you are saying that they did not contribute at all, and they, naturally, did not write or review the published article. **Still they try to add their names as authors when they learned about the article submitted**. You can not be an author if you did not even review the article, just this information is sufficient to see that the ethical misconduct is mostly on their side.
Your problem is, you can not both submit an article without making "such" people authors and at the same time maintain a good relationship with them. A one-author paper is, for me, much better than giving credit to the people who disregard the functioning of the academy, by both hardening the situations unnecessarily and also making academic misconducts. Even if you somehow get your advisors' names added to the paper, they will never ever forget this. At the same time, you shake the ethical ground of your publication by this act of "correction", and it may, in the end, cause the rejection to your paper. All the while, you will still be considered untrustworthy by your advisors, quite rightly in their perspectives.
Your only choice is to forget about updating the author names, and find some other ways to correct your relationship with the advisors.
And please keep in mind that in academy, at least in Turkey, almost everyone faced in a situation that more than the bulk of work done by someone and just because their advisors don't like them they don't give authorship to the corresponding researcher. And these advisors made their Ph.D. in top-tier universities of USA. I think you will most likely face such problems from now on.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I am going to add a different point of view to this discussion. In my perception it is blown out of proportion. It is just a paper, one paper. And I understand your supervisors do not really have a legitimate claim to be co-author.
Don’t be too harsh on yourself. It happened and from your point of view I fully understand your actions. You just didn’t foresee the consequences what might happen when the paper against all odds would get accepted...
I guess the main problem is perceived loss of face by your supervisors.
For now, I see you taking your responsibility. You are trying to learn from this situation. My advise would be: discuss it openly with your supervisors. Tell them you feel you made a mistake which you sincerely regret. You tried to correct it, but couldn’t. You tell them what motivated you to take this initiative (sending in as sole author). You are really sorry and you want to prevent such situation from happening in the future.
I also hope your supervisors will equality take their responsibility. Everybody contributed to this situation. Your supervisors are more mature and more experienced than you are. If I were your supervisor, I would blame myself most and would ask myself (and you) what I should have done differently.
I have experienced similar situations from both sides (not as PhD supervisor but as master thesis supervisor (resulting in publications), as team leader, boss and the person being supervised).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: The answer you have accepted already has the main point right: a supervisor is not necessarily entitled to co-authorship on every one of a student's papers just because they are a supervisor. (But it may help to check if your institution has a policy on this if you intend to argue your point!) I have a few further thoughts on how you might handle the uncomfortable situation of needing these people on side to graduate.
During my PhD candidature, like your supervisors my supervisor would unnecessarily obstruct me in my attempts to publish most of the time. (One of many reasons I did not complete a PhD with him, but that's another story.) I actually missed the submission deadline on one publication I had specially written a paper for because he insisted I could not publish without his final approval and then ignored all my attempts to request that approval. But he was also a big help in getting me to publish work based on research I had done with him as a student prior - because having a publication already made the university more willing to take me on as a PhD candidate, and he wanted me as a student. So it benefited both of us in a way he cared about.
The fact that publication is required for your graduation makes me wonder if your institution also places publication requirements/expectations on research staff. And I wonder if they, like my supervisor, are unmotivated when it comes to pushing through to publication anything that is not going to usefully impact on their quota or - as they see it - yours. Perhaps the publication you are targeting is not of a type they need further authorship credits for and so they are happy to keep casually nitpicking or trying to discourage you from the effort until you are working on something they care to push through. Maybe they don't even realise they're doing it, or that they have been discouraging you rather than helping. Maybe from their perspective you are easily capable of getting your publication requirement fulfilled and they feel pushing you to perfect that publication is what they should do as supervisors. I happened to be at my university while they were transitioning to a system of expecting certain publication output, and the quotas had a peculiar impact on behaviour institution-wide to say the least.
To smooth this situation over you might seek their advice on what publications to submit to in future, even if they are not your preferred venues. Then you are giving them every opportunity to be on board and contribute. But if they continue to obstruct you like this resulting in your having fewer publications than you might be capable of, you are not obliged to let them do so. Cultural expectations of PhD students do vary, but given the situation you have described you appear to have or at least to want some independence in your course, and as someone learning to be an independent researcher it is fine to occasionally say, 'Thank you for these suggestions but taking this on board I am going to go with [this approach].' If you find you are never able to do this then this is not an ideal supervisory situation for a student with a desire to direct their own learning.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I think the problem here is very similar to the one in [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111859/i-independently-solved-a-fellow-students-research-problem-i-want-to-publish) thread.
The ethical issue is not that the advisor's name should be added at this late stage---which would be unethical, as they apparently did not contribute---, but that they should have been given a chance to contribute, and hence become a valid author, before publication. Similarly to the linked question, you agreed to collaborate with your advisor and went behind their back, denied them the chance to contribute, and published a paper on a topic that they presumably wanted to collaborate with you.
Honestly, there is not much that can be done at this point. I can understand your advisor's standpoint as well as you wanting to move faster. I also think that your advisor is being unethical by demanding that you add their name to a paper that is ready for publication.
I do think your advisor is overreacting a little, but it is difficult to predict people's behaviors. There isn't anything wrong with publishing alone *per se* during your PhD (as many do), but it has to be mutually agreed beforehand. Presumably your advisor has shared many ideas, comments and suggestions with you in the past, and you not wanting to share one of yours, and work on it together, may be seem as a sign that you either don't trust them, or work to make them not trust you, all of which are bad for an advisor-student relationship. In any case, use the approach to understand what you did wrong, and correct it in your future collaborations.
If you feel that leaving yourself as the sole author will definitely hurt your relationship with your advisor, in my opinion the path that would burn the least bridges is to prevent the manuscript from being published (if at all possible at this stage), work on a new version together, and submit to another journal. The editor may not be happy about this, but ask your advisor if this is something that they would be OK with.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As I see it, there are two distinct questions: (1) Can you publish without putting your PhD supervisor on a paper to which she/he has not(!) contributed? (2) Can you include such a paper as part of your thesis?
**1. Can you publish without putting your PhD supervisor on a paper?** Basically all scientific journals have publishing guidelines stating that only those people should be included in the list of authors who have made important contributions to the paper. So, if in your case your supervisor did not contribute to that specific paper, then it is not even allowed to put him/her on the paper. Naming people as authors who have not contributed to the work is considered scientific misconduct. Note, that some journal guidelines even specifically state, that being the head of the division, department or institute, or providing funding for the research is not sufficient for earning authorship. There must be an intellectual contribution. If, on the other hand, your supervisor has made an intellectual contribution to the paper, then it would be misconduct not to include him/her on the author list (or at least offer them to include them).
In order to publish scientific work in a journal you do not need an academic title: you can publish as distinguished professor, but also as student or even as layperson that has never set foot into a University or institution of higher education. If you read through journal guidelines you might also notice the general absence of words like ‘student’, ‘supervisor’ or ‘professor’. The only distinction that is technically made is between corresponding author and co-authors. Here again, a supervisor has no privileges or a right to be the corresponding author only because of his/her rank/function. The idea of academia is that your contribution is evaluated based on the content only and not based on your gender, nationality, age or rank. So, even as a student or as a lay person you have the right and the opportunity to publish on your own account–as long as this work is yours. (It’s not too frequent, but it does happen.)
**Has your supervisor made an intellectual contribution to the paper?** This might be a question that might be more difficult to answer and where you and your supervisor might disagree. If your supervisor read and commented on your manuscript, this counts as a contribution; but also if he/she just discussed the ideas with you informally or within seminars, this can be considered a contribution. Arguably, even suggesting the topic of the thesis can be seen as contribution, though here the question arises how detailed this suggestion is. If the suggestion is of the kind “you might work on quantum mechanics”, this does obviously not give your supervisor the right to be on all papers you will ever publish on quantum mechanics. If, on the other hand she says “Hey, look at the work of XY and their results YZ, which are rather interesting because they imply that XX and therefore it would be interesting to investigate what happens when ...”, then this idea/plan might be a substantial intellectual contribution. So it is really the question of how much did the supervisor contribute. Who can decide that? I do not agree with the notion that only the supervisor can decide this because of his/her experience. If you have never discussed the content of this specific work with them, then you will know that and then it is correct not to include them. (Note, however, that this is the best way to make new enemies for the rest of your life.) Legally, this is a question of intellectual property. Only few disputes between academic authors go that far that they are brought to court, but if they would, it is by no means said that judges would agree that a teaching relationship gives supervisors automatically rights on their PhD students intellectual output.
To sum this up, I cite from the [guidelines](http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) of the International Commettee of Medical Journal Editors: "*Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading.*"
**2. Can you include such a paper as part of your thesis?** This is a different question from publishing and depends basically on the policy of your University and the ruling of your thesis committee. The official University regulations are usually rather vague on such things. They sometimes regulate what kind of clothes you have to wear for the exam or graduation ceremony and they generally say that you have to hand in a written thesis that must be examined etc.. but they usually don’t say anything about shared authorship in publications. The supervision agreements I have seen, so far, usually have some statements that a requirement for submitting your thesis is that a number X of papers have to be submitted to or accepted by peer reviewed indexed journals, etc.., but I have never seen agreements that explicitly state that your supervisor has to be on all those papers. So, whether you can add your paper to your thesis depends on the judgement of your thesis committee. If your supervisor is part of the committee, that might be a problem.
At this point it is worth to mention that just 2-3 decades years ago the publishing culture was rather different with many papers being single-author papers –specifically papers stemming from a PhD thesis. <NAME> published his thesis outcome as a single author paper (in PNAS) so did <NAME>, <NAME> and many others. (Ok those were more than 30 years ago, but there are also enough more recent examples). Since then, publishing practice has changed, but most examination regulations of Universities haven’t kept up with that change and do not consider the issue of co-authorship at all. But they usually do consider the PhD candidate to be a rather independent and intellectually mature subject, and they do regard the thesis as a piece of work that should be the sole intellectual work of the candidate. When you hand in your thesis, you usually have to sign some sort of declaration that you wrote the thesis all yourself. If you are handing in a paper-thesis (where the main part consists of published or to-be-published journal articles) and if these articles are multi-author articles, then you are—strictly speaking—contradicting yourself (because in the author contribution statements of those articles you will usually read something like “XY did this, YZ did this and all authors wrote the paper together”). So, the old idea of a thesis as an entirely independent piece of work done by the candidate alone, as it still lingers around in the examination regulations of most Universities, does not fit together with the highly collaborative way science is done today. As current practice and the official rules and regulations do not fit together anymore, this is also legally a grey area.
Publication have a very central role in the evaluation of academic researchers and, as a consequence, many of the most bitter feuds that are fought in academia originated from disagreement about authorship of formerly collaborating scientists. Many people will have strong feelings about this issue, because they have already been in one of the two situations: where they have unjustly been left out from an author list or where they were pressured in putting people on one of their papers that did not contribute anything useful or anything at all. I, too, have experienced both.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: To begin with, you should have been totally honest with him. Failing to do that is entirely your fault. A successful PhD depends on the relationship between the student and the PhD advisor way more than any actual results and papers.
Now, the fact that he is your PhD advisor does not necessarily make him a co-author of yours. He must have contributed in some way to the paper, even remotely such as an idea or a conversation. I would go as far as saying that if you used equipment from his lab, especially specialized lab hardware (if it applies to your case), then yes, he must be a co-author. After all, the criteria for including your advisor as a co-author are considerably looser compared to any other person.
On the other hand, if his contribution was zero as you claim, then in my opinion he has no right to ask for co-authorship, even if you paper was in the same field as your thesis. Strictly speaking, your advisor does not own the scientific field you both work on, even if he did in fact invent it. Science progresses by expanding the ideas of other people - provided proper credit is given. Realistically speaking however, you have to work very carefully in order to prove that he did not contribute to the paper. In cases like this, academicians may resort to the slightest of technicalities in order to claim authorship. For instance, a scientific term that is not standard in the literature but appears in his papers and your paper for him, and probably your institution, constitutes definite proof that he was part of the work. Did you cite some of the past papers of your advisor? That would be really helpful for you. The opposite may as well be interpreted as a proof of misconduct on your part.
I totally agree with the person who wrote that is it something that blew out of proportion. Too much fuss for a paper, even an article, in my opinion. I think the real reason behind it is your advisor's hurt ego and not his decision to punish your for an academic misconduct. The fact that you managed to publish on your own an article to a journal without his contribution might just infuriated him. Is it a prestigious journal in the field? Has he submitted articles to that journal which were rejected?
To help you prepare your defense (sounds like you will need one):
* Do not bring the journal editor into this dispute. The more parties are involved, the more difficult the situation will be. Unless he gives you a way to add your advisor as a co-author.
* Check the policy of your institution. Is it required that he is a co-author in your papers? Are you required to publish a paper as the sole author?
* As stated elsewhere, consult an ombudsman such as the dean of students.
* Review your paper meticulously. Find as much evidence as possible that your advisor was not part of the work. Also, look for evidence which can be used against you. If you have cited his work, especially papers you are not a co-author of, it can be used to your defense.
* Along the same line of reasoning, check your written communication with him, mostly e-mails or even reviews of other papers he has published with you. Find any proof that he was not part of the research for that specific paper. If by any chance you find written evidence he has previously rejected the main idea of your paper, then it is to your advantage.
* Try using your advisor's ego to your favor. Tell him he will be a co-author to a far improved version of this article. With his contribution of course. And work on that improved version.
* Additionally, tell him that being the sole author of a journal article gives you some prestige, especially if the journal is well known. By extension, he gets some of that, since he is your advisor.
* Please keep in mind that it is crucial that you always remain honest with your advisor.
I hope the above will help you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: My answer is going to be more succinct than most because so many have already contributed so much, but I feel there is a single course of action that will address the concerns.
* Contact the editor of the journal and indicate that you are withdrawing the paper. In that email/phone call/letter/etc. BRIEFLY describe your oversight in citing your PhD supervisors as the reason for withdrawing the paper.
* Apologize to your supervisors for the oversight.
Journals *hate* to withdraw papers from publication after acceptance. They've already spent editing and review time to get to this place - withdrawing the paper is a nuisance and they would resent having that time wasted. No matter what they have told you about their policies, they likely prefer publication over withdrawal from publication. If they are trapped by their organizational policies, they will likely be able to respect the position you're in.
Then:
* Work with the outcome, whatever that outcome is.
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/07/17
| 688
| 3,071
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got puzzled by the definition of 'substantial similarity'.
Here is the case. I dealt with two related problems, say **P1** and **P2**, that could be treated in the same mathematical framework. I aimed to show optimal appoaches to both problems. Perhaps more details:
**P1**: the optimality criterion was already there (which alone was an open problem for quite a long time, like tens of years) and the tool was also ready. So I'd like to say, if one realized the criterion and the tool, the problem could be solved easily following some standard techniques. But no one recognized this before. In the paper, we examined three different approaches, with different preprocessing before applying the basic idea.
**P2**: the optimality criterion was not recognized. We proved it, which turned out to be of the same sense of **P1** but still different. The tool for solving this problem was also not ready, and we proved it almost from scratch (like 5 pages long), which we thought as the most significant contribution. Some discussions and applications were also involved in the paper.
We did not find a unifying theme to put the two into a page-limited conference submission, while stating related aspects in a clear manner. We also believed each had enough contributions. So we submitted two papers to the same conference. Following the conference guidelines, we tried to rephrase some common preliminary in the two papers, and cited **P1** in **P2** for some common issues and also for clearly stating the contribution of **P2** over **P1**.
However, the two papers were deemed to be 'substantially similar' to each other. I searched for what it really means and what is a criterion, but failed. So can anyone share any experience on this? Maybe I just should not submit two related works to the same conference?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: You could try submitting one if they will accept or you could consider writing one paper that deals with P1 and P2 as example cases for the method - that is, if I understood what you meant clearly.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It seems to me that they have decided, for whatever reason, that they could not justify publishing both papers. The two papers are are too 'similar', the alternate method is not sufficient to justify publishing the same result twice (and it is really hard to argue agains this even in the case where the difference between P1 and P2 is significant and offers some interesting insights).
It may be simply poor/unclear presentation on your part or their failure to see the 'difference' you describe (Maybe you needed to `convince them' by giving explicit reasons on why both should be published, and why both methods are interesting).
Perhaps, depending on the field and topic, they were more or exclusively interested in the 'end result' and the 'interesting' background and detail regarding P1 versus P2 was beyond their interest.
It is possible that you could have chosen one or P1 and P2 and briefly discussed the other.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/17
| 920
| 3,461
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've never delved deeper into this but I'm still curious: do I need to be enrolled in a PhD to publish scientific papers?
I have a MSc but I regularly read research papers of not-so-great-a-quality and think "I might write better stuff than this". It doesn't happen with the majority of papers but the point is: I don't think those authors are all smarter than me.
How does a 'private citizen' not enrolled in any PhD course publish a research to a journal?<issue_comment>username_1: You say that you have a masters degree. So you have an affiliation with the university where you have studied. It may be possible to use this. You could talk to your masters degree advisor or the head of the department and try to find out (Especially if perhaps you got the research idea or some work done there as a student).
If you tried to submit to ArXiv for example, you'd be asked for your affiliation.
So affiliation may be more important than a PhD.
You may contact the journal and ask them directly. In my opinion, if your work is good, the journal should make an effort to publish it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: No, you do not need to be enrolled in a PhD to publish scientific papers. You don't need to be a professor either. It's common, but by no means mandatory. For example the game [Arimaa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa) was invented by [<NAME>](https://www.linkedin.com/in/omarsyed1). He published [a paper introducing the game](http://arimaa.com/arimaa/papers/030801ICGA/) and has never earned a PhD.
As for how to publish - it's no different from those who have PhDs. Go to your target journal's website; it will have instructions for authors on how to submit the paper.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There is no qualification required to submit a journal to an academic publication. Most journals allow you to create a profile on their submission website and submit papers at will. The profile information for academic journals generally allows a range of titles (Mr, Ms, Dr, Prof, etc.), and this anticipates the fact that some submissions will be from people who do not have a PhD. Most good journals use the practice of [blind-review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review), so the referees will not know who the author is, or what qualifications the author has, or lacks.
If you would like to submit a paper to a journal, search for their submission page online, create a profile, and then undertake your submission. All you will really need is an email address for them to correspond with you, and a healthy sense of self, for dealing with inevitable rejections!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Last year I published a paper, and I don't have a PhD. I wasn't even employed.
First I contacted a researcher in the field to get recommendations on which journals are the best in the field. Then I emailed the editor of one of them, after doing my research, but before writing a paper, to see if he thought the topic was a good fit. After he said it was, I wrote the paper and went through the normal peer review process without any problems. For affiliation, I listed "Independent researcher", as did my co-author.
<NAME>. and <NAME>. (2017) [Calculating the prominence and isolation of every mountain in the world](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309133317738163). *Progress in Physical Geography* **41(6)**, pp. 788–802.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/17
| 911
| 3,915
|
<issue_start>username_0: I reflect about preparing research publications and possibly starting a PhD. The subject matter of my interest has connections with the social sciences different from mine.
Specialised in Law, I intend to research a topic which is closely connected with political science and sociology. Such publications, done in the sciences different from mine, would be of a great use for me as they may improve the description of the context proper to my own topic.
Therefore, it would be nice to know **whether using cross-discipline sources is allowed** in academia. If yes, which precise conditions would I want to respect to avoid getting my publications rejected?
Many thanks for any informative input.<issue_comment>username_1: As I have previously said in an [answer to another question on this site](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104186/is-it-right-to-cite-a-retracted-research-article/104247#104247), research is about telling the truth about facts of reality. You can cite any fact of reality you want, from any source. If you want to cite sources from other disciplines that is absolutely fine. You can cite papers from any discipline. You can cite a published academic paper, a newspaper article, a blog post, a letter, a tweet, the conditions written on the back of a bus-pass, or the graffiti written on the wall of the faculty toilets. Any source of information that is relevant to your paper is fine. So long as cited information advances your work, and you specify the source, and accurately transcribe the remarks, that is okay.
Generally academics stick mostly to citing peer-reviewed research appearing in academic journals so that they are dealing with reliable information. Cross-disciplinary research frequently cites work from across disciplinary boundaries. The main thing you will want to do to make sure your work is acceptable is to do your literature review well, and make sure you are citing relevant work that bears on your results. You are unlikely to get a rejection for citing work that the referee hadn't thought of. It is more likely you will get a rejection for failing to mention relevant published work that bears on your argument that the referee wants you to add. For that reason, cross-disciplinary research generally *requires* citations from multiple fields.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that the reason the question needs to be asked is that academia has become overspecialized in many fields. Most people work in very narrow parts of a discipline - though not all.
So, the short answer is yes, you cite the work that supports your own, no matter where you find it.
But the situation is a bit more complex from your standpoint starting out on your studies. You don't say whether you have an advisor or not. Your work will need to be acceptable to the advisor, including the breadth of the field you want to pursue. That may be easy or hard, but don't neglect to consider it.
The other issue is finding a place to publish your work. The academic marketplace seems to value specialization over generalization, I think/fear. Frankly, I have no experience finding such a publishing venue. It may be easy or hard. But your advisor should be able to answer questions like that. If it is hard to publish (no appropriate journals/conferences) you can do great work but be invisible to the world at large. I've done some work of a different kind that wasn't really publishable, but it satisfied a need of my own, so was worth it, but not for reputation building.
My personal view is that work that brings together disparate ideas from across a broad spectrum is both very interesting and very valuable. Not many are willing or able to integrate ideas from across disciplines. Some public scholars have achieved success at this, but it is usually after building a reputation in a narrow field.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/07/17
| 1,117
| 4,749
|
<issue_start>username_0: Current scientific databases hold papers that were published over the past few decades (I haven't checked what is the oldest paper available, but I remember seeing papers from the 1960s, there might even be older papers than that which are cataloged in current databases - not talking about *[the principia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica)*...). One can come upon such old papers either when searching through a database or as a reference in a more recent paper.
My question is: **how can I tell if a paper is too old such that I had better not rely on its findings while performing a more contemporary research?**
*(It probably differs between disciplines, so I'm looking for some general advice.)*<issue_comment>username_1: >
> how can I tell if a paper is too old such that I had better not rely on its findings while performing a more contemporary research?
>
>
>
It may be a little difficult to give a general guideline. However, a few points may come in handy here.
1. If you look into most contemporary work, you could find some patterns in their references. In other words, may of them would have some very common papers which they cite. It is reasonable to know for what reasons these papers are cited by checking where in the text they are cited.
2. The references of this contemporary work may also have some old references cited for specific reasons, for this reasons you may also cite these references.
3. Citing very old references may be very beneficial if you are able to properly trace developments in the area over the years. However this may be a bit difficult as a lot of literature may have to be reviewed.
4. Another thing is that, sometimes, the author may come up with something absolutely novel which changes a fundamental notion or aspect from those "old references". Such papers will draw the attention of the research community to a completely different finding which may impact on the domain for years to come.
In summary, in my humble opinion, it is not easy to say that papers from a particular year becomes absolutely obsolete for research today. As a general rule, based on my experience, new researchers are usually encouraged to extend their research from a recent (say now till five years back) publication. However, for some of the reasons mentioned above, there are circumstances where new values may emerge from those very old research papers.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The age of the paper per se should have no relevance. However, the researcher had better be certain about whether the conclusions of the old paper have been superseded or even invalidated by more recent work. This sort of problem is unlikely in, say Mathematics, but other fields can be different. There are Philosophy papers that, to my knowledge, have invalidated old work. The old work said "X is impossible". The new work said "X is indeed possible and here is an important example." This wasn't mathematical philosophy (logic) of course, but observations about learning (epistemology).
The fact that a paper hasn't been cited in 50 years is of little importance, especially in a narrow subfield of some larger field. The fact that it is no longer relevant is of vast importance. However, there are some studies intentionally done to compare the old with the new and here, citing both is the essence, of course.
One reason for not finding old papers is just the difficulty and expense of properly indexing them in databases. For "popular" things someone is likely to want to go to the trouble, but for arcane things, not so much as there seems to be little payback for the effort.
And yes, you normally don't need to go back before the Principia, but, you know, Euclid was an interesting guy.
---
Note that [another question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/112090/is-there-a-way-to-search-for-more-recent-papers-than-the-one-im-currently-readi?s=1|39.2013) here asks about finding more recent papers than the one you are reading.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Mostly, the age of a publication should not be an argument against citing it, as mentioned by username_2 and username_1. I agree with their answers but I'd like to add that for certain statements about state-of-the-art or recent developements, you absolutely need up-to-date references.
An example for why this is necessary is that it would make no sense to cite a 20 year old paper to show how widely used a particular software is used, because the information from the paper is outdated. You could, however, look for more recent publications citing this paper. That way, you'd get better evidence for whatever it is you'd like to show.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/17
| 718
| 2,801
|
<issue_start>username_0: In writing one article, I came across situation where my section title has one long word which I wanted to use with acronym later on. Now should I put acronym in section title or repeat word in text and write acronym there ? Take a following example for illustration...
Option 1
>
> **Section 1: Effect of Very Long Word (VLW) in section title**
>
>
> It is seen that VLW used in article sections are confusing part.
>
>
>
Option 2
>
> **Section 1: Effect of Very Long Word in section title**
>
>
> It is seen that Very Long Word (VLW) used in article sections are confusing part.
>
>
>
Which one is legal or appropriate in scientific writing ?<issue_comment>username_1: You should not use the acronym in the title, unless it stands alone and is very, *very* well-known. Otherwise it looks ugly and some journals have policies against it.
Define it the first time it is used in the abstract and in the introduction/main text. You should also include it in the nomenclature if there is one.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Use common sense and don't overthink it. People are way too strict in scientific writing, and not always for good reasons.
The purpose of the title is to describe (in sufficient detail) what the article is about: for potential readers, but also for search algorithms (eg. Google). So the title should contain the keywords people are likely to look for, as well as describe clearly what is actually in the article. If you like marketing (I don't) you could also say: the title should encourage people to go and read the article.
In my field (biophysics) everybody knows what NMR is and it is unnecessary to write "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" in the title: it usually makes the title less clear, and everybody will search for NMR when they are looking for the subject. However, sometimes journals forbid the use of acronyms in titles, and at the same time impose a character or word limit. If you are dealing with one of those there is not much you can do. Otherwise: PLEASE use the acronym if it leads to a better title.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: A third option:
>
> **Section 1: Effect of VLW**
>
>
> It is seen that Very Long Word (VLW) used in article sections are confusing part.
>
>
>
This is useful if VLW is truly very long, and messes up your titles, and you can trust most people have at least heard of it, and will have a clue of what you are talking about. Placing the full version next to it makes it discoverable.
Note that the operating distinction is "will have a clue", reading the title should give the reader a quick idea of what it is about.
If the acronym is not well known enough, use the full word, and assume people will skip titles when they read the article in detail.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/17
| 906
| 3,673
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I have a paper acceptance from a tier-1 conference in our field of telecommunication. I have also submitted the extended version in IEEE Transactions as well.
Is it ok (and acceptable) for me to write the patent out these papers? (I understand that paper acceptance does not guarantee patent acceptance)
What will be the academic/career benefits for me to write the patent at this stage when I am writing my thesis?<issue_comment>username_1: Patent law varies from place to place, of course, but generally relies on priority in time. I don't see any *academic* objection to filing a patent, but it can be expensive. Perhaps you need to consult a patent attorney (also expensive).
On the other hand, your work may be solid enough to establish 'prior art' if anyone should try to beat you to a patent. But in actual practice, there are anomalies.
---
The comment of user username_2 implies that the struck comment is probably incorrect. Wikipedia has a discussion of [prior art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art).
---
Note that I prefer conservative (i.e. safe) solutions. If I'm wrong in this answer, I apologize, but will leave it in place as a bit of a warning (aka Humble Pie). I stand by the statement that there is no Academic objection, but the OP needs to behave in an optimal way, and not depend on possibly wishful thinking answers (mine). See the answer of [username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/113814/75368) for better advice.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Any information which you disclosed in your publication will count as prior art, and cannot be patented by you or by anyone else. If you wish to write publications about an invention which you also wish to patent, you must file for patents first. Hence, a paper cannot be "transformed" into a patent. If you have an invention which builds upon the information disclosed in the paper, this may be patentable.
Patents cost money to file, and expensive to maintain. There is also considerable skill in writing patents. There is no point in filing for a patent unless you intend to exploit it. As such, the academic/career benefits do not justify filing for a patent *per se*, and without a good plan to commercialise the invention, it will simply be a waste of money.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: tl;dr: It's unacceptable; don't file a patent.
----------------------------------------------
In my view of academic ethics, the filing of patents is immoral. It calls on states' coercive power to prevent the use and further development of technology. The justification of helping individual inventors to support themselves financially should be rejected, for multiple reasons (see bottom link) - the damages far outweight the benefits; the main owners of patents are large corporations; and the very mechanism of enforcement is highly problematic.
Consider gowing through [this overview of some of the criticism of and objections to patents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_views_on_patents#Proposed_alternatives_to_the_patent_system) on Wikipedia.
In this particular case, you seem to want to try to take knowledge and know-how that has already been made publicly available and usable, and tie it up with a patent protection. Frankly, that sounds like an insidious idea, and many people may come to resent you if you succeed, or even if they realize you've tried doing so. The very knowledge that the taint of IP registration, patenting in particular, may be in touch with some piece of research is enough to drive many potential adopters away from it.
So just say no to tem-patent-ation...
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/17
| 1,585
| 6,523
|
<issue_start>username_0: In mathematics, it is usual to call terminal results "theorems" and intermediate results "propositions" or even "lemmas" depending on importance and place in the overarching proof. Suppose that one is refereeing a paper where the authors have decided to call almost all their results "theorems", making a paper with a large number of "theorems" that even emeritus professors don't usually reach by the end of their career. (Such theorems include computation that could conceivably given to as end of year exams to master students. Not to diminish the importance of the paper, the actual theorems are good, but the 20 others are not theorems. There are more theorems than pages.)
Would it be acceptable and well-received to suggest toning it down? Or would it be overstepping and rude? This is not just a philosophical question: I truly believe that it makes the paper harder to reader, because it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to say. A reader does not know what is important and what is not.<issue_comment>username_1: I think you are probably correct, but it is also a matter of style, not formal definition. I think, also, that the paper would be *strengthened* by more carefully separating what is supportive (lemmas) from what is fundamental (theorems).
The main difference (personal view) is whether a proved result has "legs" to prove many other things (a theorem) or is primarily just a support lemma for something that is more generally useful. If you can envision a "proposition" as being generally useful in itself, call it a theorem. Otherwise probably a lemma.
The term "proposition" is a bit more nebulous. Sometimes it is something that is the subject of exploration with no known proof or counterexample. The "Four Color Problem" was a proposition until it became the "Four Color Theorem", for example. Personally, I'd stick with "lemma" and "theorem" as described above unless presenting statements that might be provable (or not).
And, of course, a big part of a referee's job is to help an author improve a work. Some of what you say may well be subjective, but that doesn't make it invalid. The author remains the author, of course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think we should begin by acknowledging that it is the author's choice whether to label results Theorem, Lemma, Proposition, Remark, etc., so a referee should not insist on changing this as they should insist on the correction of an actual error or gap.
>
> Suppose that one is refereeing a paper where the authors have decided to call almost all their results "theorems", making a paper with a large number of "theorems" that even emeritus professors don't usually reach by the end of their career.
>
>
>
Don't say that to the author, by the way. It's snarky and not really helpful -- you seem to suggest that the author is somehow cheating their way to "too many theorems." That's not a thing.
Referees can make stylistic *suggestions*, of course. How much they should do this is quite a judgment call. I think a good referee should make stylistic suggestions when these suggestions impact the readability of the paper or affect its appraisal by readers. Will it look a bit weird to many readers to have multiple theorems on every page? Yes, I think so, and perhaps the author deserves to know. However, if by having "too many theorems" the author makes it hard for the reader to see what are the important results of the paper -- and, as a statement about human cognition rather than mathematical achievement, a paper simply cannot have, say, 50 important results -- then that's a much bigger deal.
If I were you, I would lead with the latter: explain that you had trouble isolating the important results of the paper because so many results are being presented in the same way, then suggest that changing some theorems to propositions or lemmas might be helpful in alleviating this. (Then, if you like, say that having fewer results called theorems might make a better impression on the reader.) I think this is putting things in the right order and does the best possible job at getting your concerns addressed.
But it is possible to address the main concern -- that the important results not get drowned out -- while still calling every result a "Theorem." If the author pulls that off...okay. Up to them, really.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I’ll work my way to answering your question by going down in decreasing levels of generality.
First, at the most general level, it is acceptable to require the author to make **any changes** to their paper that you believe in good faith to be warranted to bring the paper up to whatever level of clarity and readability that is your and the journal’s standard for publishability. In fact, it’s not just acceptable - it’s your job as a referee to do exactly that.
Second, it is perfectly reasonable if some of those changes are purely stylistic. If the paper has horribly formatted equations, or uses highly nonstandard terminology or notation (e.g., [using a swastika as a mathematical symbo](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/84829/40589)l), or any number of other stylistic issues are present, it is perfectly acceptable to make the author correct them to make the paper readable by the community the journal is targeting. Someone might object and say “but authors should get to choose their notation!” (analogously to <NAME> advocating in his answer that authors get to decide how to label a mathematical claim). Well, yeah, they 100% get to choose that, and the journal gets to choose whether to publish their paper once they’ve made their choice. You can’t “make” the author do anything, but you can certainly set conditions for recommending acceptance of their paper.
Finally, on the specific matter that you bring up, it seems pretty clear from your description that the paper does not adhere to standard conventions about publishing in mathematics. “(x+y)^2=x^2+2xy+y^2” is not a “theorem” in any context other than a middle school algebra textbook, and calling it (or something like it) a theorem in a research paper obfuscates the content of the paper and makes life difficult and unpleasant for the readers in exactly the same way as any of the other weird stylistic issues that referees are tasked with calling out. So, in my opinion it would be completely appropriate to ask the author to fix this issue.
As for whether it would be well-received, that’s anybody’s guess.
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/07/17
| 1,559
| 6,700
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international PhD student in Industrial Engineering at one of the average university. I have completed one year of my study. I already have an MBA from India. So it made sense to do PhD as I was very enthusiastic about this. I have good GRE scores, good academic history. I got TA position and funding for my first year. So I eagerly joined. But the moment I came here, I see new things each day: favoritism, racism. All the PhD students are made to complete 9 courses (just like MS students except the core courses), which doesn't make sense as I already had my masters. I got scholarships for 4 courses each semester but was forced to take only 3 courses each semester citing work pressure. Now I have got an RA position, but this doesn't have anything to do with actual research. I am made to sit in a local company with the workload of a full-time employee. This position is not in anyway related to my research proposal or dissertation topic. For my research, I will have to work concurrently with this RA position.
This is not I wanted. I wanted to work on my PhD in a lab, on the real problems. And not work for a company on shitty stipend and made to work as a regular employee. Moreover, my adviser is short-tempered, humiliates his students, yells, and bully. I have made up my mind to not be trapped in this environment for 4 more years.
What can I do now? I want to at least get a masters as I have a loan back in my country so, can't go back. I have three more courses left. Whom should I talk to? Can they force me to do PhD? or if I quit with MS, can they ask me for full payment of fees? Can they not allow me to quit with MS?
I can’t go and ask dept. secretary because my advisor will get to know my intentions from her. For MS we need to complete 9 courses plus thesis. I have so far done 6 courses. I plan to take 3 courses this semester. All the PhD students are required to do this coursework even if they already have MS degree from USA. The MS students have to do 9 courses (2 doctoral level) from a certain list. The phd students have to do 9 courses(4 doctoral level). These doctoral level courses have the core subjects as prerequisites. The department head is very shrewd favoring a certain section of students. Even for such MS students, he waived off GRE scores and core courses. I know when he will get to know my intentions, he will try to block my graduation and scare me. I am just worried that after completing all courses, they don’t block my MS.
Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: **Help is very likely available.** Consider contacting a neutral group at your university. Such groups typically include:
* the omsbuds office/ ombudsman
* the PHD student's association
* the student government
* counseling services
* international students services
* the graduate school
Your own university may have different groups. Try some google searches, such as "(university name) help graduate student neutral". Start the conversation by stating you are looking for advice and alternatives to your present situation. Up front, specifically ask which parts of the conversation are confidential, or not. Usually, for example, anything involving physical harm requires the person you speak with to report.
When meeting, put together a short narrative that frames your problem. Consider in advance what you want, and what your questions are. Also be open to options of which you have not thought. Realize that most of these groups will be more likely to give advice on how to move to a more tenable situation than they are to wade in and fix the problems that exist. Some may, however, offer to facilitate discussions, and advise you on how to negotiate.
Finally, realize that the university has a stake in your success. Within reason, they will likely work to make things right.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I am very sorry for the treatment you are receiving. Racism, especially, dishonors everyone, but especially those exhibiting it.
You indicate a lot of problems and most of those naturally lead to feelings of depression. I think that some of the problems may be due to nothing more than the fact that the University you are at (I'm assuming large) has fairly rigid policies that don't work well for everyone.
But, I will suggest that the crux of your problem is that you are working with an inappropriate advisor. I have had that experience also, but not to the extent you mention. But if you are to find a solution, I think you need to find a way to a different and better suited advisor. He or she may be able to help solve the TA/RA problems for you also.
The Department Head may be the place to go to effect a change, but it may be more effective for yourself to find a different faculty member with whom you would like to work. Present yourself as someone who would like to work with them, more than someone escaping the other's influence. However, if a faculty member is behaving badly, that may be well known in the department. After getting some agreement on changing to the new advisor from that person, then approach the Department Head. Perhaps the other professor will help you with an intervention.
The extreme case, is to find another university and hence a different advisor, though this will cost you time and perhaps money as well. But life is too short to continue living in pain. Good luck.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The other answers here give good suggestions involving attempts to fix the problems within your current position. Another option is to seek a transfer to a PhD candidature with another supervisor, or even at another university. The problems you mention sound like they are localised to your particular position, and you are not averse to the nature of a PhD candidature *per se*. Since you have just completed your first year of coursework, this puts you in a good position to seek another candidature at another university, and see if you can start directly with the research component (i.e., getting credit for your existing coursework).
I suggests you talk to some of the academics you are in contact with at your present university, and let them know the problems you're having. Use the information you get from them to have a think about how effectively your current problems can be solved within your present institution. It is still early enough that you could probably transfer to another supervisor or another university and not lose much momentum, so keep that in mind as an option. If you decide to do that, it is better to make that decision sooner rather than later, so be proactive, raise the issues, and see what can be done.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/17
| 2,557
| 10,558
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've recently quit my job as a maths teacher after doing it for 3 years and I have been incredibly lucky to be offered a fully funded doctoral training course at a top university. This is an extraordinary opportunity for me, especially given that I previously withdrew from a PhD, and this time I really want to make it work.
I am quite rusty on some things that many other starting students will not be, not because I can't do them but because it's been a very long time since I needed to apply them. I am currently a bit worried that I may be the weakest in the cohort or that it'll take me a very long time to understand simple things and that I may feel incompetent and like I don't deserve to be there.
What are some good ways to overcome these feelings of idiocy?<issue_comment>username_1: You have to accept that you are rusty and need to brush up on things. It is what it is, but there are others, myself included, who started a PhD after a few unproductive years.
The number one thing to do is not to take more classes than you're required to. If you are in the US system, there will be tons of homeworks and class work, so you need to make sure you will not fall too far behind. Your first objective is to pass the qualifier exam if your university has one.
But, you will also need to get an adviser, who will want you to do research. You need to pick wisely. Your adviser must be able to support you, especially if you are not allowed to teach. It is better to find someone who is a good planner and doesn't expect a student who takes classes and probably teaches to also do 60+ hours of research work. Not that it wouldn't be beneficial.
If teaching is included in the time balancing act, you have to be careful that your students do not abuse your time. Be strict with office hours, and be hard to find especially when preparing for your own exams.
The part with getting up to speed is harder, but be open and let people help you. If you have questions, do not be shy to ask your younger peers, or the course instructors. Also, participate in group study, especially if you feel it helps you and check homework results and discuss them with colleagues. You will learn a lot, but it will also help you understand more accurately where you stand in terms of knowledge compared to your colleagues. Even if you are more of an introvert and work a lot better alone, you still need the interaction with your peers.
Another thing is to plan alone time far from work. You have to have a more relaxed day, at least, when you don't have any work planned or you will end up burnt out and depressed. Also, if you have a family already, you have to understand that the PhD will take you from them more than a normal job would. Make sure you have a discussion with them where you set the expectations, and also try to leave the work at work as much as you can.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: For starters you aren't an idiot. The evidence is against that hypothesis. However, there is a phenomenon called [Imposter Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome) that is fairly common among even well accomplished people. "I can't *possibly* be good enough to work with these people."
Well, yes you can.
But being rusty on lots of details is also common, but I'll guess that you know how to deal with that so that it doesn't become an issue. Working groups of like-minded folks is a good way. Just throwing ideas around can help. But so can re-doing old exercises.
From my experience, asking a lot of questions is the best way. I've said similar things here in answer to other questions. Don't be too cautious in asking questions in class, if the class size is reasonable. Very often if you have a question about something in lecture or otherwise, others will have the same or similar issue, but be afraid to ask.
Also, it is ok to start out slow. Don't be concerned that others are faster. That is always the case.
Work with others. Ask questions. Take advantage of office hours or tutors. Solve small problems on the way to bigger ones. Take a lot of notes (by hand). Never. Give. Up.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I am currently a bit worried that I may be the weakest in the cohort
> or that it'll take me a very long time to understand simple things and
> that I may feel incompetent and like I don't deserve to be there.
>
>
>
If this is the mindset you're carrying into the doctoral study you're going to have a *very bad time*. Because even evidence is not pointing to that direction, you can still be subconsciously looking too hard into clues that match your expectation. I think you may have some introspection to do.
While competitions exist, doctoral study is closer to an individual backpacking than a 5k race. You chart your route, pack your stuff, get onto the track, deal with contingencies, take rest, enjoy, get lost, find new way, and perhaps enjoy again. Your supervisor would be like that shop keeper at a travel gear store giving you different levels of advice/service, or be like your GPS; most of the time, you're responsible for yourself.
But what of those horror stories about adviser pitching their students to fight over resources? About those shaming experiences for those who didn't get student grants? Or corridor gossips about so and so being dumb? Yes, they may happen as well, but these are largely out of your control. What I found useful to deal with most of the adversity are two things: **the will to grind and move forward, and a set of internal personal values**.
Familiarize yourself with the school/program expectations. Attend workshops and read up about opportunities. Build professional networks. Work with your advisor, lay out plans and milestones, and work towards completing them. If things go wrong, come up with some suggestions and consult the advisor.
Don't outsource all your sense of success or accomplishment to others. Think larger goals: focus on what career you'd like to craft, what kind of students you'd like to produce; not if you're the top pick of the faculty among your peers. Draft and keep working on a personal mission statement, and be very clear to base them on your own values: leave the world a healthier place, make education more equitable, etc. And not "people would think that I am the best this or that..." I can't give a whole introduction here, but do search online on how to craft a personal mission statement. Do that soon if you don't have one; it's super useful as a personal compass.
Up play your strength: e.g. as you have worked as an educator, you may also consider applying for teaching assistantship. Being a TA would allow you a great chance to review the materials, pocketing some money, and enriching your post-graduate teaching portfolio.
There will be stellar candidates, and plenty of people brighter than you (which, is exactly the reason you should be there to begin with.) If they are nice, befriend them and perhaps you just made the first step of a life-long research collaboration; if they are not nice, learn from their strengths and move on. Be aware that the playing field will be unfair: some will have more experience, more resources, more popularity; and that's exactly how the rest of the system works. You worked before, you'd understand.
While I don't want to trivialize your worry, the fact is that this move opens a lot more opportunities to development, expansion, enrichment as it does disappointment, anxiety, and frustration. In other words, you have a lot more important things to plan and be prepared for. Take your head out of the birdbath, stop drowning yourself, because if you turn around, you'll see that you have a sea to chart.
I'd recommend a couple titles that you may find useful:
"The Professor Is In" by <NAME>: This title discusses many things on how to be academically marketable. Kelsky, a seasoned admission director, shares a lot about getting ready to be a professional scholar.
"F\*ck Feelings" by <NAME> and <NAME>: This, or any other similar title that had recently conquered the Self-help book shelves, sometimes provides useful approach to deal with feelings. While it did not change my life, I did find seeing feelings through a comedic lens soothing.
"The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by <NAME>: Classic oldies that you can probably get a used one for 25 cents. It serves to give a good framework of seeing what success is. It's also one of the earlier titles (that I know of) which mentions the idea of "personal mission statement".
"Networking for People Who Hate Networking" by <NAME>: I hate networking or pitching myself. This book puts much of my anxiety into perspective.
I wish you best of luck. Take the dive and really enjoy the time. Move forward.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Congratulations on your great offer but...
... for starters, you should try to stop using/thinking the bit in bold (quote yours, emphasis mine):
>
> "I have been **incredibly lucky to be** offered a fully funded doctoral training course at a top university".
>
>
>
Someone (multiple people) looked at your application and *chose* to offer you a place. Your name was not drawn at random; someone with experience in admitting worthy students thought you would be a good fit for the program and you will have that in common with your fellow students :)
---
Another thing you can do that might help convince you you belong there is be clear about what you are interested in. Be able to tell people why you picked this program, what you hope to get out of it, what you plan to do research on. There are bound to be brilliant people in your cohort and you don't have to do better than them - that's not really a Ph.D. mentality since your aim is to contribute to knowledge rather than to come top of a course. It may help you to feel like their equal if you can speak with confidence about what your research interests are.
There's no quick-fix for being rusty. I guess you already know that you'll have to put in the necessary hours to brush up on things you've forgotten so certain projects might take a little longer at first. Don't let it isolate you - graduate projects are much more manageable if you talk to other people in your cohort / attend office hours (for courses) and talk to your supervisor frequently (for thesis work). Don't let the fear of appearing silly stop you from asking for help (this advice comes from recent experience in my own Ph.D.)!
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/17
| 4,189
| 17,831
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been bullied by my supervisor and other members of my research group for the past couple of years.
Some of the things which have indicated bullying include snide remarks being made during group meetings, exclusion from the group inside and outside of the research environment, not being kept in the loop for group projects and even my own project, having key work on my project assigned to someone else, being given unreasonable loads of work to complete in an unrealistic time frame, being called upon and humiliated during meetings in front of colleagues, being immediately blamed for any issues in the group without allowing for an explanation, having rules change on me last minute and not being informed of these, and being subjected to massive double standards overall.
There are also a few more serious issues, involving threats to remove me from the program, use of my content without referencing me, removing me from projects I had planned on publishing from and giving them to others without informing me until they have conducted 'my' work and published it, and having them ignore university policies in favor of their own rules.
I have spoken to PhD advisers, advocacy reps, and other staff members about this, but have not wished to pursue any formal complaints procedures out of fear my supervisor will compromise my PhD (by reassigning all the novel aspects of my project to someone else, or not providing feedback on my thesis), and ruin my ability to work in research (by preventing me from publishing during my PhD, providing negative references, ruining my reputation in the field).
Long story short, does anyone have any advice on how to approach this situation without compromising my PhD or future career in the field, something my well-respected and rather manipulative supervisor could easily do without getting caught?<issue_comment>username_1: My advice is very simple: get **out** of this place, **away** from these people.
You already have compromised your PhD by joining the wrong group. As soon as the issues surfaced you should have moved on. I do not know whether there was anything in particular which triggered their treatment, and whether this is "special treatment" for you, but maybe this is the first valuable lesson you can try to learn from this mess.
But I do not think you should continue doing this to yourself, and I do not think you can succeed in anything substantial while you're surrounded by such low class of parasitic individuals. You will not finish this PhD, accept this as a fact. Even if you did, what would you take from it?
Look in other directions, reconsider whether you really want a PhD, think about the acquired skills and experience transferrable to business, industry. Whatever. But first step: walk out and never come back again.
From a distance you will be able to see things clearer. Start now.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I have spoken to … but have not wished to pursue any formal complaints procedures out of fear my supervisor will compromise my PhD … and ruin my ability to work in research …
>
>
>
Okay, so I am going to be the bad-guy here. What you say you fear will happen here has already happened. What you describe ---if accurate--- is already massively compromising your PhD and your ability to research. The university has formal mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of issue. If you are not willing to avail yourself of the mechanisms in place to deal with these problems then there is nothing that anyone can do. (And frankly, it is quite difficult to muster sympathy for complainants who refuse to make a proper complaint when avenues are available for this.) You should have complained formally or got out years ago, but since you are still there you have a choice: use the mechanisms available to you for complaints of this kind, or not. Do not become a victim of the [sunk cost fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy).
If you decide to avail yourself of the complaint mechanisms at your university, the main thing you should do is this: document, document, *document*. Document everything well, and collect and keep all relevant evidence of treatment that is unfair to you. Make a chronological list of incidents, since the start of your candidature, detailing dates (or rough dates if you can't remember exact dates), what happened in each incident, and any documentation (emails, etc.) that constitutes evidence of the incident. Write this in a neutral factual way, but make sure you briefly explain how each incident negatively affected your candidature. Seek written statements from other sympathetic students that can back up your assertions. You have said that the university has breached its policies when dealing with you. Make sure you document instances of this as well. If that is correct, then the university will be in a weak position in respect to the conflict, and you have a greater prospect of extracting some reasonable concessions in a complaint process.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Not knowing the real situation here but I hope the following can be helpful. The other two answers here currently have a downside as well as any upside.
If you leave you will give up two years of progress toward your degree. That may be a worthwhile sacrifice if it is possible for you to take it. If you go to a different university you will have the experience needed, I hope, to get yourself into a better situation. I agree, that you are working with monsters. I once left one university for another and wound up in a better situation, but mine was very different.
If file formal complaints internally, you may, and only you can judge, face pushback from the administration who may rise up to protect "their own" as has been seen too often. If that happens, you will pay the price as you fear. I hope that you are overly pessimistic here, but not knowing more, I can't say. But the university may itself have an office that can effectively handle such issues, but you will need to vigorously defend yourself from attacks of those cornered by the accusations. If the Ombudsman office is strong enough you may be fine and you may be able to learn of their reputation before complaining.
The third option is to attack the problem with allies from outside the university. This is the reason I asked about sexism and racism, etc. There are organizations and individuals who have pledged to try to work with people being discriminated against and some of them can be quite effective. Universities don't like dirty laundry shown in public and so will sometimes make accommodations for people to avoid both/either of publicity or lawsuits. These organizations may have lawyers that can be brought to bear. They may even have external funding to provide services.
However, one hesitates to recommend such a course of action, since the results can be messy and may result in the individual (you) paying most of the costs (and I'm not speaking of money, here).
Deans don't like to be told that their faculty are unethical. They don't like to respond to groups of complainants especially. They don't want to lose face in public and among their peers.
But going this route calls for a carefully planned program of increasing pressure that requires allies, as I said above. If this is the real situation, search out those allies and discuss their options.
It is even possible that you will find allies among the faculty. Most of us don't like to be associated with abusers and other unethical faculty members.
---
I recognize that none of this may apply to you, but it is possible that it applies to others who face similar issues.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: On the surface the solution looks simple: get out of there. However you need a plan!
One thing is certain, universities do have liberal views, and all the "-isms" can be stopped, and the people responsible for it could be fired, doesn't matter how high rank they maybe. However, here is the catch: you need the right person to talk to.
**Start with the head of research group and beyond**: start discussing your issue with the head of group. Most of the time, this will stop the issue. If that does not stop the issue, go right to the human resources department.
**Meanwhile...**: During this stressful time, you should start looking for a new position somewhere else, you might get a position right away, and therefore you can leave. It might be the case that, your issue is resolved by going to another research group at the same university. Take your time and follow these two paths, because you don't want to leave, don't get paid, and then start looking for a position.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Bullying in academia is currently getting higher exposure as a problem. See the recent cases of [<NAME>](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/17/top-cancer-genetics-professor-quits-job-over-bullying-allegations) at ICR in the UK, or [Guinevere Kauffmann](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05683-z) at the Max Planck. In this climate it is less likely that complaints will be ignored. If faculties don't want the bad press that dealing with an abuser brings, they want the bad press of being found not to have done so even less.
As far as I see it, you have three choices (depending on the time constraints of the system you are working with, they may be more or less tenable):
1) You could walk away. Maybe start again somewhere else. Maybe don't.
2) You could start an official complaint against your supervisor. As others have already pointed out, you are now in a place where all of backlash you fear from this course of action may happen even if you don't start a complaint. Do you really believe this person will spend time on your thesis, or treat you fairly when it comes to authorship? Only you can answer that question.
3) You can try to change supervisors without a formal complaint: it might be that the supervisor would be willing to not stand in the way of you finding a new supervisor either within the department or, probably better, in a different, but related department if this meant that they could avoid a formal complaint. I've seen several people do this, and it has worked out well for them, even though some might see it as an affront to justice. If you decide to take this route, it should be someone from the department's hierarchy that approaches your supervisor, and not you.
**What I would say is doing nothing is not an option, don't allow your self to believe that it is.**
In the ideal world the perpetrator would be made to change their ways, or leave. But only you know if you have the emotional energy for that fight.
One thing you should note is that this will probably result is you not finishing your PhD with the same project you have now. While it might seem soul destroying to loose 2 years worth of work that you've already done, you will have picked up many skills which will make any new project easier and quicker to get off the ground.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: You need to abort this plan. No one is going to help you. Your supervisor is more valuable than you are to the university. Academics suffer from moral hazard when it comes to altruism and their livelihoods depend on ignoring this issue.
If you continue down this path, your phd will be only a piece of paper.
I spent 6 years in your situation. There is no solution. There is nothing to fight for. You can try again somewhere else, or not.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: If it's too late to pretend you don't understand what they are trying to do with you then you can't just sit around and keep cashing in any longer.
But that is clearly one thing you could do if you haven't told anyone of how you perceive things yet. Just slow down, stop taking things personally, deliver bare minimum of what you are supposed to, but always keep the best to yourself.
Always remember your boss always has bosses higher up. And (s)he will look bad in front of those bosses if he loses you somehow.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: If you meet a problematic person in the morning, you ran into an problematic person. If you meet nothing but problematic people for years, you're probably the problematic person. If it's been this sustained for this long from many different people, maybe you need to actually examine your attitude and behavior and spend more time considering your own actions instead of everyone else's. Most people don't wake up thinking "man, how can I screw that person over today", and if they're actually well respected in their field they probably didn't get there by making stuff up and plotting someone's downfall for no reason. Not knowing the situation any better than hearing just your side, those are my thoughts. This isn't the advice anyone wants to hear, but do some honest self-reflection.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: You're obviously in a complicated and emotionally difficult situation. I'm sure there's far more to it than you could cram into even a long StackExchange post. What you'd really benefit from is a conversation with a confidential professional skilled at handling these types of situations. Luckily, such professionals exist and many universities have them. They're called ombuds (or ombudsmen or ombudspeople) and can be brilliant at what they do. They'll listen and help you think through the situation and your options -- everything from what you might say to a problematic person to how to pursue a formal complaint, and much in between. They can also help with mediation if you choose to pursue that route. See if your campus has an ombuds office and if they do, go there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: If you can transfer to another university and start a new Ph.D program, you may "lose two years of progress" -- but you'll be able to make progress more effectively if no one is targeting you.
Life is too short to deal with bullies.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: >
> providing negative references, ruining my reputation in the field
>
>
>
It seems to me that this will happen anyway.
My advice would be fight back at the right time with sufficient resources. You are a PhD candidate, think about solid ways to document and validate your claims. Chose the right time; for instance get the supervisor to proofread your thesis and have everything ready then start the procedure.
My second advice is either fight back very hard or don't do anything at all.
I don't think using your right of defending yourself would completely ruin your chances to work in research. People have eyes and minds and can read. There will be some recruiters that will probably understand your situation the same way many people did here.
Best of luck.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: @username_8 made a point about this, but I need to elaborate a bit.
Last year, I have experienced **all the things you have written here** in my previous laboratory as an M.Sc. candidate.
You can blame the system for not being sufficiently efficient to see your effort and award you, yet it is quite a different topic.
Your critical mistake: Everyone now feels intimidated by you. Sit and think calmly as a 3rd person. You enter the lab, at least start with a smile on your face when greeting others.
Try to see the problems others are facing, in the laboratory or in their extra-curricular life. I don't say investigate but see. Give help or at least say some good words with a sincerity. You might not experience this kind of attitude from others but you, anyway, should be the one to do so right now.
In discussing a topic, clearly show that you care about others ideas, and don't destroy them when they are wrong, use the logic terminology to refute their ideas in a polite way. And be productive, if you don't have something to improve the current flow, don't be a nuisance and just go with it. Otherwise, you will be an annoyance to them, as in their perspective you are just retarding the progress.
Think your research group as a whole, don't focus on the *unjustices* on you. Nothing is 100% efficient so you will need to embrace any wrongdoing at first. Then find a way to constructively get over it.
Example, there is an article writing and you produced most of the data but not taken as an author, it may even be so that you accidentally hear the article writing from a person. In this situation, what you do is going your advisor and saying this kind of thing:
"I have worked on this and that and produce these results, I think it refutes this hypothesis and could refute the others, and results can be presented in this way to reach this conclusion, so I guess we can publish this, I will of course add what do you think is lacking, if you agree to make a publish". And of course with this "a and b person also make such contributions to this work so both their ideas and participation in writing will be of much significance, as I think." If an advisor will just ignore this and keep writing without you, well then go and blame her/him.
In short, it is messy around and you have the responsibility to tidy up in order to make a good face and reputation, stop blaming/cursing others, that will not make any more good even if you are completely right. Act more professional and cold-blooded when they are *biting* you. Don't take these personally, as I explained, you can really correct years of bad reputation with a couple of fixes. In the process, you may even forget an article or so, but for the future publish candidates, I strongly recommend you to proceed as I said.
Everything has its own remedy, don't immediately burn the ships or run away.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/17
| 1,255
| 5,338
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have just read about "German Phd in industry" in the site, "Research-in-Germany". It says that even if I get a phd position in industry, I need a university professor to supervise my research and award the doctor degree.
\*So, I wonder if a company accept me, I should work in the company or University (Physically, I often need to go to the company (or not), and no need to go to University).<issue_comment>username_1: I'm from Austria but the system is the same.
Only universities can award PhDs, so no matter where or how you do your PhD you need a supervisor at a university and you need to hand the thesis in at your university, get reviews like every other student has to and defend your thesis at that university. This is always the same.
In principle you can do your thesis wherever you want or got a position, as long as it's research based and your supervisor (and the dean of studies) approves the topic. The actual details on how everything works depend on the industry partner and the university, but there are two main cases.
1) You are doing your research directly at the company, in that case you don't need to be at the university except maybe for some courses you have to take and of course meetings with your supervisor. Usually you enter some kind of "PhD contract" that says you should meet your supervisor every X months or something like that. In this case you are usually paid by the company to do research and the university might not be involved.
2) The university is working together with a company on a research project, in that case you will work wherever you are needed. This is often the case if (smaller) companies need help in projects they cannot or don't want to do in house. In that case you might be paid by either the university or the company.
Be aware that in both cases you have to write a thesis which will be publicly available, which can be a problem when working with companies. There's usually the possibility to "lock" the thesis for a certain amount of time (some years) to get patents for example, but all of this is something you need to clarify beforehand! This is extremly important!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In many German universities, traditionally the PhD process is only concerned with what happens once you show up with your completed thesis manuscript in triplicate. Before that moment, there are little to no requirements - where I was, the only thing required was a letter from a Professor of this university saying "I agree to supervise X", submitted at least a year before the actual thesis. Therefore, it is trivial from an administrative standpoint to do a PhD in a company: you, Prof, and Boss agree on how to handle things among yourselves. This could be working all day in the company, and then writing it up on the weekends with the advice of Prof, it could be doing half time in the company and half time in the lab, it could be whatever seems good as long as it results in work of an adequate level (and earns you enough money to survive). The university only cares that at the end, you wrote a tome that a jury of three professors agrees is worth a PhD.
Of course, the devil is in the details. This might depend a lot on the field, but my previous lab had a collaboration with a Fraunhofer research institute, and I heard that even for employees of such a research-oriented company, where the possibility to acquire a PhD at the same time is baked into the contract and part of the attraction, the pressures of work life were such that many did not manage to make sufficient research contributions, and left without a degree when their time was up.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There was enough and correct said about the situation with thesis submission and formalia of the PhD awarding. I am tackling this question from a different viewpoint.
Money
=====
Basically, if you work at the university, you work directly under your supervisor, the university professor. Either, you are paid from state funds (which you are not), or you are paid from a third-party funding.
*Most* third-party fundings are basically "your supervisor get a sack of money". So, while your research topic might be shaped by the third party, your boss is still the supervisor, you work for him.
Now, I would imagine that many companies would not like this. So, in most cases of an industry-based PhD project, you *work* for the company. The company might be nice enough to allow you to collaborate with your supervisor on your job results academically. But this is not a given. (In this case you basically do your PhD on weekends.)
The only exception to this view is when the company plays the role of a third-party fund. So, it's basically, "here is a ton of money" for your supervisor, there is an interest for the research in the company, *and* there are capabilities to do it at your supervisor's lab. Where do you work depends now on some agreements between to sides, but you might have a choice.
In most cases, however, you cannot choose. You are either bounded to your supervisor (because the money for your position are with him and your university). Or you are chained to your company's chair (because they pay you and your PhD is at best a byproduct and at worst your own problem entirely).
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/17
| 690
| 2,821
|
<issue_start>username_0: I completed a project while I was an undergraduate student performing an internship at NASA-JPL. I recently graduated and I am editing the paper I wrote to make it conference paper ready, following AIAA guidelines. I also have a new job and master's program lined up at another institution starting in a month.
I don't understand what to use as my Affiliation for this paper. I did the work as an undergraduate student and was in the internship program of NASA-JPL.
Should I list my undergraduate institution as my affiliation and my current address/contact information at my new institution? Or is my affiliation NASA-JPL for the time of work? The work I did has nothing to do with anything at my undergraduate institution. My co-author is my JPL mentor.
Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: A very similar question has [a great answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/62037/94158) to this.
TL;DR It is a fuzzy area without set rules, meaning you can decide your affiliation without some kind of penalty from the journal or your field.
If you are still editing the paper once you enter the new institution it probably makes sense to use the current location. However if the paper was 90%+ completed at your former institution, whether the school or NASA-JPL, it's OK to use that as your affiliation.
I published a paper in 2014 that was 90% researched, analyzed, and written at one institution between 2010-2012, then underwent a journal review process for two years. I chose to use my current 2014 institution as my affiliation for the publication, but it would have still been acceptable to use the former one where most of the work had been completed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In the paper itself, you should just be clear about things even if it takes more than a few words. It sounds like JPL is correct, but you weren't really an employee, but an intern, so "Intern at ...JPL" would be accurate. If the work contributed or is contributing to a degree from University X, then something like "Intern at ..JPL while a student at UX". If the university arranged the internship that might be appropriate also. If you did it on your own, it is less important to list the university - possibly even misleading.
You could make it longer still, adding "currently at UY or CorpZ."
The main thing is that it needs to be accurate. If you try to make it too short, people will infer things that aren't true.
However, if you do your best and get complaints from an editor follow his/her advice. You will probably be asked to revise in any case so you aren't really risking anything by being verbose but accurate for submission.
Sometimes the affiliation is used just for identification. Sometimes it is used to help people find you later. Keep that in mind.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/18
| 1,056
| 4,514
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm working on a research paper and two well-known professors have reviewed and commented on the paper. They have also accepted that their names be mentioned in acknowledgments section.
My question is whether including the names of prominent researches would influence the acceptance of a paper by a journal?<issue_comment>username_1: For reputable journals, including the names of prominent researchers *should not* influence the acceptance of a paper, and in the top tier journals I expect this would certainly be the case.
It would be easy (but not ethical) to include the names of prominent or famous researchers in acknowledgements or as co-authors in the hope of influencing a decision for acceptance but reputable journals will not publish something that does not meet their publication standard.
If prominent researchers have provided feedback or otherwise helped with the writing (but not to the extent that they would be co-authors) then it is appropriate to include them in the acknowledgements.
Also, some journals only forward the text (without authors or acknowledgements) to reviewers in the interests of having impartial reviews, so that the reviewers will not see names and then not be influenced to recommend acceptance for a paper they might otherwise reject.
For not-so-reputable journals, they will publish regardless of the names (and if a paper includes the names of prominent researchers, the journal will sit securely behind the declaration that the submitting author has signed).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I believe it **does** affect positively the acceptance of a paper.
Pre-publication peer review is biased by a number of factors, particularly the typically low number of reviews, their brevity and superficiality, the secrecy around what happens, field politics.
In fact, I believe [my name](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111829/acknowledged-for-nonexistent-contribution) is being recurrently added to the acknowledgements section of a number of papers issuing from a [bad group](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104541/persistent-issues-with-salary-pay-as-a-postdoc-in-china-what-can-i-do?noredirect=1&lq=1) I recently happened to work with. These people believe I am fairly well-known in our field of research, and probably seek to avoid me as a reviewer. They have first-hand told me other manoeuvres locally (nationwide) employed to skew peer reviews and papers' acceptance. Also I am aware of a number of "reputable professors" who actually secretly pass on their review assignments to PhD students and postdocs who just want to "be done with that" -- likely these are reviewers who will cling onto just anything to support accepting/rejecting a paper.
So, if you wish to use this as an asset to speed up acceptance of your paper, go ahead. The system as it is remains quite open to manipulation. However do fear a few judicious reviewers and readers that do exist everywhere, particularly **after** publication of your paper. The weaknesses of your manuscript might be so easy to spot and expose that a single easily-published paper might be your reputation's demise. A late public exposure that could be avoided with the help of a couple of good reviewers.
Good luck, and welcome to the Academia.
P.S. Please note that I am not saying that you ought not to add names of contributors to your acks section. These people *must* be acknowledged for their participation. Also I am not saying that you necessarily seek to game the system: you're just asking here because you're curious. I am warning you and other passersby of some reality in relying on peer-review and paper acceptance gimmicks as 'scientific career shortcuts'.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Reading a paper takes several iterations. From a quick skim of figures and tables, to an in depth reading of the details. I only reach the acknowledgements in one of the later passes, if I ever bother reading them.
I cannot speak for others, but when I am reviewing, I take the same approach, but now I am trying to make up my mind about the merits of the paper. By the time I reach the acknowledgements, my mind is pretty much made up, and nothing you say in that section is likely to change my mind about it.
Who could be sway by this? Perhaps a lazy reviewer that just skims through figures? I don't know, but the review will show lack of effort, and one hopes the editor won't put too much faith on it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/18
| 2,575
| 11,120
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first year PhD student in the life sciences. So far, my PhD has been going well. I meet my supervisor regularly and he is interested in the project and generally supportive.
A couple of months ago my supervisor encouraged me to start writing a draft for a paper, incorporating the results I have so far. We regularly meet to discuss parts of the draft, mainly figures and main statements.
The problem I noticed once we started working on the draft is that my supervisor has a different attitude towards the project. Very often I try to emphasize that I am uncertain about a statement, a method or whatever but I feel unheard and ignored. I feel as if my doubts are not taken into account when we work on the draft at all. It appears as if my supervisor has this grand idea already fleshed out in his head and appears unwilling to hear that some statements might have to be toned down a bit. I feel uncomfortable and depressed as of late, as it is me who is ultimately responsible for producing a piece of scientific work that adheres to the standards of scientific rigor that I think are correct. I feel pushed into doing something that is wrong.
Could it be that I overthink this? Are there different shades of scientific rigor? 'Selling your story' is part of the modern scientific world, right? Do young PhD students tend to be overly defensive and critical of their own work? Is this just 'how the game works'? Should I just trust my supervisor?<issue_comment>username_1: You may be overthinking it. Or not. Certainly your supervisor has more knowledge and experience than you. (One sincerely hopes, anyway.) On the other hand you are right to be skeptical and cautious. After all it is your reputation that is at stake here.
If your supervisor is correct he may be willing to provide you with some references that have led him to his conclusions. I hope your relationship is good enough that you can ask for that.
Your dissertation gives you a chance to say many things in support of your theses. In particular you can have a section listing non-supporting evidence. That is, things that seem contrary to your main ideas. You also can, properly, rebut these - with appropriate evidence.
Skepticism is an excellent trait at your stage of development. In fact, for a scientist, at any stage.
If time and effort permit, consider, at least mentally, two versions of your paper, one in which you accept the assurance of the professor and one in which you don't. You needn't contradict the prof, but you *may* be able to simply sidestep the issue. I don't suggest completely developing these two versions. It is just a mental experiment. See where it takes you.
However, a solution that angers your supervisor won't help you, but you understand that already, of course.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you may be attempting perfection (though you may
not define it as such), but the reality of research is that it is constantly evolving, and may never mature into perfection.
Conflict, rejection and skepticism are all indeed 'part of the game'. If not your guide, then an editor, a reviewer or a fellow-researcher will (almost certainly) at some point refute your ideas. Many times they will not (and may not need to) justify themselves, which will add to the discomfort.
If an idea is wrong, it will be pointed out at some stage, maybe before submission, or during review (and sometimes after publication). Even if this happens, it will not blot your career as a researcher (unless the mistake is very fundamental, targets other researchers wrongly or involves some kind of trickery). So you should do your due diligence and rest assured after. By due diligence, I mean being thorough, verifying and re-verifying until you are satisfied that your work is technically and logically sound, in all aspects.
Also, never forget that the work is a partnership between you and your guide. Any responsibility for mistakes is held jointly between both. The more junior you are, the greater is the guide's responsibility.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience the attitude towards expressing uncertainty and hyperbole in manuscripts varies a lot between disciplines. Some fields (notably math, as far as I know) tend to be extremely conservative, while in other fields a certain level of confidence in your own experimental design and results is basically expected by peers and reviewers. In my field (applied CS), uncertainty about methods is virtually never explicitly mentioned in papers (that is, it is very rare that an author would write a variation of "we used method A, but method B would be promising as well but we did not try it"). Expressing a certain caution about results is common, though ("the results appear to support hypothesis C, but further research may be required"). My community is also very big on describing limitations of experimental design in a dedicated section, but many other CS fields don't do this either.
It is very honorable that you try to be truthful and conservative, but I suggest that you trust your advisor's experience on the expectations of the life science community on how manuscripts are typically written. Note that this does not mean that you need or should throw scientific rigor out of the window, but as a PhD student, you are most likely not in a position to change the general culture of how the community likes to write papers. Frankly, it's also not like a lot of harm is done by not describing obvious alternative methods or limitations. A qualified reader will typically be able to read between the lines - if you don't write anything about alternative method B, they will infer that you did not do B and judge your results accordingly.
If you are *really* unsure about this, you can get feedback from a trusted second senior person in the community, but in general, in the context of a PhD study, it is correct to trust your advisor's experience more often than not, and learn what you can until you have your own lab. This is the time to enact larger changes that you would like to see in your community.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: From on your key statement "It appears (...) my supervisor has this grand idea already fleshed out (...)[and is] unwilling to hear that some statements might have to be toned down a bit" my understanding is that you are perceiving potential flaws in your supervisor's thinking.
Firstly, *my congratulations*, as you seem to be maturing as an independent thinker, ie. a scientist. You are probably what I would call a 'true' PhD student, which (I am afraid) might be not so common nowadays.
I believe being skeptical towards colleagues' ideas is fundamental to healthy scientific logic. This is discussed in the invaluable books from Bachelard, Popper, among many others. The problem is, *this is not in line with the practice and expectations of modern academia*, where a sense of "collegiality" and smooth political connections are valued over traditional logical and scientific rigor. A main message here is: a maturing PhD student ought to understand the **dividing line between scientific practice from academic practice**. Contrary to what ivory tower inhabitants preach, science is not contained within its walls. I discuss the two sides of this coin below.
**Side 1**: Questioning your colleagues and being skeptical until convinced otherwise is healthy for your scientific formation. Constantly debating with your peers should be an essential part of your formation as a PhD student, towards becoming an expert in your field. In this line, I encourage you to politely push your advisor into discussing your project with you in open terms. Bring in papers, seek the opinion of others in the field. Come up with your own hypotheses and encourage others to question you.
**Side 2**: It is common practice in today's academia that institutions compete for available resources within a logic akin to the corporate environment of companies in the real-world market. Departments try to impress an internal sense of political unity focused at short-term materialistic goals (e.g. authorships, grant proposals, equipment, etc) for institutional survival. This favours a mentality where criticism and judicious thinking are counter-productive. Disagreement becomes an impediment to fast publication instead of the origin of new ideas. Advisors are seen as office heads and staff managers, and students/technicians/postdocs jointly regarded as employees to generate quickly the assets. Questioning an advisor equals insubordination which in corporate logic leads to micromanaging and firing (i.e. alienating the student and failing his degree).
My personal experience furthermore suggests your advisor (others here might say "your boss") has quite personal ambitions regarding your line of research that he would like to see published on paper. Under his name. However, unable to achieve this personally from his bureaucratic seat, the supervisor expect "his staff" to produce in his behalf. That would explain why you're not allowed to question his will, against any logical thinking. Because this person wishes his ideas published as such.
Finally, my advice is that you weigh inside yourself whether you value science over academia or vice-versa, and what is the current tradition in your institution and among workmates. Prioritise your objectives as strategically as possible to minimise conflicts of interests. Stay aware that successfully acquiring PhD training does not equate to successfully earning a title. Consider postponing the open reasoning and publication of your ideas if you wish to work as a true scientist inside the academia, while already being conscious of the necessity of finding the best like-minded colleagues and collaborators.
Sorry for an intricate answer, and good luck!
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: As assistant editor in the journal related to life science, what your advisor is doing, is to sell the manuscript to an editor. Unfortunately, many papers are relying on the strongly elaborated idea. This is something that you as for the first-time author, cannot understand yet.
Usually, it takes time and routine to get accommodated with such routine. Professor as expected to publish several publications in one year. Do you think they would succeed to do that in a timely matter if they would doubt about the content of the manuscript?
So main point is to pursue editor to send your manuscript to external referees.
As SE member @scientist said:
>
> your advisor (others here might say "your boss") has quite personal
> ambitions regarding your line of research that he would like to see
> published on paper.
>
>
>
and I agree with him, it is all about "publish or perish".
as about your other questions
>
> Do young PhD students tend to be overly defensive and critical of their own work? Is this just 'how the game works'?
>
>
>
yes, but over the time this disappear. What should you actually do is to be critical toward peer review comments.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/18
| 1,010
| 4,359
|
<issue_start>username_0: Obviously, I will mostly speak about my experience performing research at an undergraduate level and in internships and how I wish to undertake a PhD to improve my lab technical skills and contribute to known scientific research.
However, is it appropriate to briefly mention my reason for choosing the University in particular, not merely the research group? For instance, my pet hobby is the piano and I have found a couple Universities, that produce world leading research in my field, that have various performance opportunities for pianists.<issue_comment>username_1: It seems like a red-herring. That is, unnecessary and possibly misleading. Whether it helps you or not depends too much on personalities. If the faculty happens to include pianists (fairly common in Mathematics, actually) it might speak to your well roundedness. But most of the decisions made will be focused on narrow evaluations of your likelihood of success in the program.
I would focus more on what you want to do in the major field, and what future you see for yourself as a researcher.
Mentioning that you find piano as an excellent stress reducer (it can be) won't hurt you. But if they get the idea that you are more interested in performance of music than the "science-bit" then it would.
Sail carefully in these waters. Here there be dragons.
I'll note, for the record, that it is possible to get a doctorate, even a PhD, in music, focused, perhaps, on history or theory. A friend holds one from a top university. Her interest was history, but she is also an excellent harpsichordist. That would put you closer to the performance aspect and give you an "in" with performers and teachers around the world. Decide on what you really want to do before you jump.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is very unlikely that mentioning possible performance opportunities is a good answer.
(a) The question is why you want to do a PhD, not why you want to join that particular research group/university. This part would not change even if the reason was aligned to academics - answering 'why do you want to do a PhD?' with 'because this university routinely produces Nobel laureates' is still incorrect, because there is a missing link, i.e. your motivation to do research. That is in fact the crux of the question.
(b) Coming to the piano bit, that may itself detract. It could indicate that you will spend significant time honing your piano skills and not have enough time/energy for your research projects. It's a no-brainer that hobbies are not a bad thing; but interviewers have very little information to base their choice upon, so they would typically play it safe and not give you the benefit of doubt, especially if it's a very competitive programme.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: When I ask the question *"why do you want to study towards a PhD?"*, the very last thing I want to hear is something entirely unrelated to studying towards a PhD. Not because I fear that you get sidetracked (I don't necessarily worry much about that), and certainly not because I have some inherent bias against piano players, but because I worry that you actually *don't* know why you want to do a PhD. This is true for a surprisingly large percentage of applicants, and typically a fairly bad sign.
Consequently, if you get this question, I suggest that you explain why you want to do a PhD, and nothing else. If the question is why you want to do a PhD *at exactly this university*, this can be part of your answer, but it should not be the only, or even the main, answer to that question either. Quite frankly I would imagine this to be largely ignored - playing piano is not memorable enough to make you stick out from the applicant pool, and unrelated enough to virtually all fields of research that I won't count particularly positively either.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It is certainly sensible to talk about why you want to do your PhD at the particular university, but that should focus on issues that are relevant for your PhD. For example, you may be excited by ideas of a particular research group, or you think that the university is particularly strong on some topic, or that it has excellent collaboration between group A and group B and you want the opportunity to gain that broader perspective, or ...
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/18
| 856
| 3,653
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing my undergrad in engineering at a small liberal arts school. Due to lack of research opportunities at my current school, I am looking at getting a research position at a state university nearby. My question is, how typical is it for professors to let students from other universities join their labs? I want to send an email to a professor that I am interested to do research with, but I am not sure how to approach him in my email.<issue_comment>username_1: If the professor you propose to contact has relatively large labs with a number of researchers, your chances may be good. Less so if the students typically work as individuals.
In the former case a letter (maybe an email, but something more formal is better) to the professor is entirely appropriate. Detail your interest, your background and your skills.
However, before you send the letter get buy in from either your department head or other faculty on your idea. Then in your letter you can tell the prof to expect a supporting letter from Professor Xyzzy.
If the professor is interested, expect to be invited for a look around the lab, meeting other students and perhaps an interview. Be prepared for that. If your current faculty studied with this person, or otherwise knows him/her they can, perhaps prepare you for what to expect.
I doubt that, as an undergraduate, you would be asked to speak at a colloquium or other meeting, but it is (barely) possible.
Direct approach is good. Backup is also good.
Perhaps your contact might lead to a more formal arrangement that would benefit others. Your department head might be interested in that idea.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You should feel absolutely comfortable approaching professors you find interesting. Writing something as simple as:
>
> I am looking for research opportunity and always was fascinated by [your field of work]. Can we discuss possibility of me working in your lab?
>
>
>
At the same time, talk to your academic advisor at your school. They will definitely have an idea how to connect you with the state school. On the same note, contact state school's department administration (academic advisor or something) in order to get details on paperwork and process.
Best case scenario is that you'll be able to get paid to work in the lab. Worst case scenario you'll do it for free.
Chances are that the professor will miss your email. That is why it's a two-step process: direct contact and via administration. Both are important
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm playing professor psychology here; may serve as another approach for you to think about.
If it's an experienced professor and the school is large, your cold calling e-mail may not stand out (unless you have some stellar skill sets or experiences.) If it's a relatively new professor, hiring someone outside his/her school may be a deterrence.
My suggestion is this: talk to your school to set up a cross-registration arrangement and take a course at the state university. Preferably, take a course that is taught by the professor with whom you would like to work.
This gives you a few edges: you'd get to see if commuting to two campuses work for you, you'd get to check out all the resources and feel the campus culture there, and you will get to know the professor better, and be able to make a personal contact with him/her. Get a good grade, and use the semester to build a relationship with the faculty there.
Once the professor got to know you and understand your aspiration and capability, it'd be a lot easier for the professor to engage and make a decision.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/18
| 1,104
| 4,564
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was on good terms with my PhD supervisor throughout my studies. After graduation, I gave a talk at a symposium and my PhD supervisor was in the audience. I was planning to add a few sentences of appreciation to my supervisor during my talk, but decided not to (in order to prevent potential awkwardness). After ruminating about the talk, I also noticed that I perhaps took too much credit ("**I** developed this assay in the past" etc.) and never credited my supervisor once throughout the talk (must have been subconscious, because I don't know why I didn't in hindsight). All of that is true: I developed the experiments on my own and performed them on my own. However, my supervisor has been indispensable when it comes to "meta-knowledge," general guidance and feedback. Overall he seems like one of the nicest professors in our department, so I felt bad. After my talk, he just left the symposium without saying anything to me. Maybe he was in a rush, but I remember he had done it another time in the past, where he was unsatisfied with my performance on a previous talk. Right after the talk, I sent him an appreciation email with candour, but I didn't receive a reply. Over my entire studies, I can only recall a single email of mine that he had ignored. My friend tells me that he was likely busy with travels, but I think it's very likely that he is disappointed for the aforementioned reasons (or another reason I'm not aware of).
I now need a letter of recommendation from him for my next position. I'm confused on **what mode of communication** I should opt for (email, phone, in-person) and **what content should be communicated**. Although in-person seems like the best option, I don't think he is rarely in his office and I live far away now. We are both somewhat socially awkward and averse to awkward tension, so I also feel like a phone conversation might not the right approach. Regarding the content: If I'm apologetic, he might not respond out of awkwardness. There's also the small chance that I'm imagining his anger. If it's just a canned or standard request email, and he is indeed angry at me, he may ignore it or, in the worst - admittedly unlikely - case sabotage the letter of recommendation.
What mode and content is likely to lead to the best outcome in this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest that you do it in a way where you both can see each other face-to-face, whether that's in person or via a video service like Skype or GoToMeeting. I believe this approach works best because it's always easier to see and hear visual clues and body language that might get lost in a phone call or email.
But if he's a supportive advisor, he probably won't be too concerned about it in the long run. Having successful students is a bigger reward in the long run than hearing one of his students give him credit in a presentation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you were my student, I would fully expect you to take full credit for your work. If I helped you it is good for both of us, but a lot of other people helped your development before we ever met.
As to the letter of recommendation issue, I would do this in two separate parts, separated by a bit of time. First, make contact and thank him for past help and bring him up to date on your current life/research/whatever. If at all possible, do this in person. I don't know what you mean by a "long way" but a visit back to the university to meet old professors (and thank them) is always fun and worthwhile. If I'm the professor, I will be very happy to see you and hear about your current successes both academic and IRL.
This meeting should give you feedback on his feelings about you, though if you are both a bit awkward, it may be difficult to judge.
But a bit later, it needn't be long, ask for the letter of recommendation. Your earlier meeting will give you an idea of how formal you need to make the request. Or, if you are completely comfortable in the first meeting, you could do it then, but don't force it.
As to the [answer of username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/113901/75368), the video suggestion will work with some people, but not all. If he is a frequent user already then it should be fine. But that, or even a phone call, won't work with everyone (me, for example). In person is best. The more formal the person is, the more important to meet face-to-face, I think. For a generally informal person, first name basis, less formal communication is possible.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/18
| 2,167
| 9,147
|
<issue_start>username_0: A bachelor's degree takes you three years to complete, and say it consists of about thiry courses, and say each course is based on a book of about four hundred pages (fairly standard for fields like mathematics, physics, computational science, etc).
This could be learned in a month: 30 courses in a month is 1 course a day, or 400 pages a day. If you read for 12 hours a day, you’d need to read 33 pages per hour. Most certainly doable.
**Why exactly are degrees several years long when I could self-study it all in a month?**
Now I have often heard arguments like this:
>
> A day per topic is not enough to get an in-depth understanding or do exercises or master the topic or be able to pass an exam or complete any decent assignment.
>
>
>
However, a person who obtained their degree quickly forgets most of that anyway. For example, I've had a course in linear algebra. But a person who picks up a linear-algebra book and studies it for twelve hours most definitely will know more about linear algebra by the end of the day than I do currently. Simply because it will be fresh in the memory, while for me, it’s been three years since I had my course in linear algebra.
My point is: Yes, twelve hours a day per course won’t give you a deep understanding, but you’d still know more and be more knowledgable about the topic than a person who actually obtained the degree!<issue_comment>username_1: A degree is far more than just reading material. For example, you left out the time used to *practice* what you learned. (There are plenty of resources out there that will describe the benefits of going to university that you haven't mentioned: exposure to many topics, social skills, work ethic, networking, etc.)
I don't think anyone is claiming that getting a degree is the fastest way to learn something. It certainly isn't!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> But you'd still know more and be more knowledgable about the topic than a person who actually obtained the mothereffing degree!
>
>
>
And two or three years from now, unless the rapid reader has an eidetic memory, she will certainly remember even less of it than someone who's been exposed to the subject multiple times a week during the course of a semester and then used it later on.
Look at learning a foreign language. I can spend all day reading a book, and I'll remember something, but I don't think four days of reading a set of textbooks will give me the skill to actually speak the language or write in it or *apply it*.
Degrees take time because the material is difficult and cannot normally be picked up "by osmosis" just from reading it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There may be one person out of thousands (or millions) who can *learn* a lot in such a short time. However, you are not taking account of how the brain actually works. I order to really learn something you have to physically change the brain - establish synapse connections between neurons. That doesn't happen instantly, but takes time - and for everyone else, it takes repetition.
Education is not just about facts. All the facts are online, say wikipedia. You don't need an education for facts. But you have to learn how to actually think: to put the facts together in a useful way so that you can operationalize what you learn. This takes time (and repetition).
I you don't want an overly narrow education, it also takes learning different kinds of things that you can integrate into a whole.
If you "learn" thirty courses worth of material in thirty days, then in another thirty days you will only have disjoint "facts" that don't really do much for you beyond filling out crossword puzzles and irritating people with your "smarty pants" comments.
Moreover, each field of study has a special way of thinking about problems. This can only be learned through practice. A lot of practice. You won't actually have enough time to complete the process in those three years most likely, but if you are always hammering in more facts you won't learn it at all.
However, that isn't to say that the process couldn't be shortened at all. Whether we have an optimal system is open to debate, of course. However, efficiency is not the first goal of education systems.
Doctoral programs especially seem to have been extended in time beyond all reasonableness. Four years should be plenty (past a baccalaureate), but few achieve that anymore.
On a final note, if you try to do thirty courses in thirty days (or even three in thirty days) there will be no time for pizza. A big loss. Actually that is more important than you think. With pizza comes socialization and bouncing ideas off of other people, which contributes to the "integration of ideas" that you need to be educated.
---
Find a copy of <NAME>'s, *The Art of Changing the Brain*, for what is known of cognitive science and how the brain actually works.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: At many universities, units will list an expected time commitment (i.e., in class and out of class activities).
To take a hypothetical but plausible example, the time commitment might be 10 hours per week per unit with 4 units (i.e., 40 hours per week of class, study, and assignment preparation). If you want to do your best, you might put in more time than this. Including the teaching period and exam study period, this might amount to around 16 weeks (plus or minus a few). So that's 32 of 52 weeks.
There's a reason why a full-time work week is around 35-50 hours. At a certain point, people stop being productive, and the marginal return on effort will be minimal. Sleep is essential for learning and memory consolidation. So you can't skip that either.
So in general, how a university conceptualizes a full-time load is not arbitrary. And if you feel like you have more time, then you can invest that in learning the material better and doing better on assignments.
At some universities, if you have good grades, you may be able to overload your enrolment (do an extra unit above a full-time load). But in general, this will have consequences for the amount of time you allocate to each unit.
In other cases, you can get credit for prior learning.
Thus, the main slack-time where you could potentially accelerate your degree are the holiday periods. Universities vary in the degree to which they run units over break periods (typically the summer break). In most universities, it will be a shorter period where you might be able to fit in one or two intensive units. In others, as in my university, the year is structured to enable students to potentially do a full-load over summer (i.e., do typical 3 year degree in 2 years).
In the end, fundamental transformations of your knowledge and skills take time. Degrees are structured in a way to enable this transformation. If you are highly intelligent and learn fast, then many students will just master the material better than others, rather than dedicate less time to their degree.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: To my knowledge, universities don't state "a degree takes 3 or 4 years to complete". They say "to be awarded a degree, you need to have completed \_\_\_\_ requirements". It is those requirements that take 3-4 years to complete.
There's commonly a standard timetable which students adhere to. For example students might typically take 5 courses a semester. However, there's nothing stopping a student from overloading. In principle therefore a student can take 6, 7, maybe even more courses a semester. He can even work through summer. But here's the catch: can the student do that and still pass all those courses? Remember it's usually not just reading. There could be labs, homework assignments, essays, exams.
Furthermore, often you cannot take a course without having completed the prerequisites. For example you cannot take Quantum Mechanics II without having completed Quantum Mechanics I, for good reason, since you need the material in the first course to understand the second.
That's not saying it can't be done. I completed two years' worth of courses in 1.5 years. Maybe an even more motivated student can go even faster. But to squeeze three years of coursework into one month- I don't believe it's doable even if the university bent over backwards to let you try.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: Reading is critical to learning but it is terrible for retention of knowledge. In order to learn a student should consider moving back and forth between theory and application. This allows the concepts to become not just in the head but apart of the person.
To move that fast through content would nevet allow a student to develop expertise in their discipline. I know of universities that offer intensive courses in graduate school. You cover the material in one week of lecture and then have the semester for assignments. Often those students learn nothing because the content is cover in 40 hours in a week rather than over a semester. The rationale is that the students can't quit their jobs to study which should man that they don't have time to learn.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/19
| 549
| 2,363
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've seriously never encountered what I just have, nor have I had to ever ponder this before. I am taking an international business class where we have to write six papers and six journals. I am currently writing my third paper and am now stuck here. One of the criteria for the last paper I wrote was to explain the cultural components in international business. Further breaking down the components, I had to write about learning language in international business, so I did about three paragraphs on that. Now I am writing a completely new paper and one of the criteria is to do what I just said I did in the last one regarding language. I'm sitting here thinking: do I seriously repeat myself? Can I even? In this case, what exactly is expected of me when the same thing is being requested to be written essentially back-to-back?
I just want to make sure it is clarified, this is the same course. This is not about re-using content from one paper in one course and asking to use it in another.<issue_comment>username_1: The correct way to use your old work and protect yourself from a charge of self-plagiarism is to treat your old work just as you would any other piece of related work. In other words, quote yourself properly and provide a proper reference to the old work.
This actually simplifies your job since you don't need to say everything again, or try to come up with a new way of saying it.
Presumably the new task isn't identical to the old, so you make the new arguments as usual and just use your old work as a reference to support the new work.
The main idea, really, is to make it clear where and when and with whom the ideas originated.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two issues to consider, self-plagiarism and meeting the course requirements.
The [existing answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/113911/10220) deals effectively with the self-plagiarism issue. If you quote and attribute just as you would for something written by someone else, you are not plagiarizing.
Even so, your paper might get a poor grade for not meeting course requirements. It would be unusual to set two exercises such that quoting the first one is sufficient for the second. For example, you may be expected to go into more depth.
Consulting the professor is the best solution to that issue.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/19
| 806
| 3,554
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate researcher working with another undergraduate researcher in a group. I believe the other undergraduate researcher wants to look particularly good between the two of us for a good letter of recommendation, and she has been doing this to my detriment (giving me false or misleading information on our shared project).
The graduate student that's also working on the project now certainly prefers her and sees me as kind of useless. Of course, I'm going to try to just perform well independently now to see if I can demonstrate my value, but I'm wondering if this sort of a thing is appropriate to bring up, and if so how. I'm only here for a Summer.
Edit:
As an update for whoever is interested, I found a solution. The other students' only incentive is to look good, though thus far it has been to my detriment. I asked the other student openly if they thought I unfairly got the short end of the stick in our last meeting, and she agreed that I did. So then we agreed that if she actively made clear the work that I was doing in the next meeting, that I would do the same for her. This way all our efforts are acknowledged, so there's no need to employ subterfuge, and so there's no drama involved. The grad student acknowledges both our efforts now. A game-theoretic perspective can be helpful sometimes! I'm happy I can proceed together with the other student on our project.<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately it happens, not just in undergraduate research.
What you should or could do strongly depends on your evidence and the perceptions of other people involved, here supervisors. However, assume you are right and you have evidence, still then supervisors often do not like to hear you complaining about someone they like or value. You will not change their minds easily.
So my advise would be to follow what you expressed already. Just perform well independently. But also make sure that your work and effort is visible. You may need to step out of your comfort zone and be more extrovert and assertive. If you do not occupy your space, others will.
You can see this as an excellent learning opportunity to improve these skills. Try to park the negative emotion for now if it does not help. Do not deny it but promise yourself to assess it later. Experiment with different behaviour and approaches and consider it as a training in personal leadership. After the summer make a list with behaviour you considered effective and less effective.
Wish you all the best.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you contemplate taking action, you must document the advice given. Save everything and record conversations if needed.
However, and I think this is more important:
Verify any advice give and take it as very tentative until you do. One way to both verify and make the problem known is to share the advice with a faculty member, stating that you aren't sure it is correct and if the prof can give you guidance. Don't think of this as "blowing the whistle" or "ratting out" the others, just express doubts about it and ask for clarification. You needn't even specify where the advice came from initially, but you can say if asked.
But if you take it as a learning opportunity you might even benefit. If you think its wrong or if you have reason to doubt the source it is good to find the truth. For yourself, not for justice or any other reason. Even misdirection can sometimes lead you to the correct direction if you are skeptical, which you should be in any case.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/07/19
| 588
| 2,684
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have some publications in Elsevier and Springer journals. After publication, I received an author's personal copy of one of my articles. I don't know how they sent it to me because I don't remember ever had requesting a personal copy. After that I did not receive any personal copy for any of my published articles. Lately, I had a conversation with my supervisor and he asked me to provide him the author's personal copies of my published papers as I was the communicating author. He told me that the author's personal copy is mandatory for official use.
I could not understand that. How could the author's personal copy be anyway different from original copy for the purpose of official use?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you are hitting legacy procedures. Before the internet and electronic publication and such, author copies were very usual. Since the publisher was busy typesetting the copy anyway, they would print off some number of copies of the paper to give to the author. Depending on the journal, these might even be typeset in exactly the way they were in the journal, starting at the same place on the page for example. Then when researchers wanted copies they would request them from the author.
It was usually cheaper, and higher quality, than photocopying. It also acted as a nice intro between the author(s) and people interested in the work. The prof I did my post-doc under had a huge collection of author copies.
These days, electronic publication has mostly taken over. Protected PDF copies, with built in water marks, for example, are fairly common. And usually a lot cheaper and more convenient. You don't have to wait for mail just download. And you can use them on your favorite device. They're searchable, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Assuming your "author's personal copy" is an electronic file, then I would guess that it's simply a procedure the publisher has: after your paper is published, they send you a copy of it. They do this so that even if you don't have a subscription to the journal, you still have a copy of your paper. It's not different in any meaningful way from the "official" version you can download off the journal's website.
If you want an author's personal copy from publishers that didn't send them to you, write to the journal (or whoever sent you the proofs during production). My guess is that they're likely to provide you one for free, although different publishers may have different policies.
If you want the *physical* copy of the paper, then you'll have to order it. Again, write to the journal. The desk editor of the journal will know how to procure them.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/19
| 548
| 2,276
|
<issue_start>username_0: After reading yet another news article about predatory journals/conferences and how they weigh on the finances of labs in some countries, I started to wonder the following. Were they widespread before publishers of reputable journals started introducing the model where the author pays to have their paper open-access, the so-called "gold open access" (a name I dislike very much, but that's not the point)?
Indeed, I would expect that before that (which seems to be a relatively recent development, maybe less than 10-15 years ago...?), labs would have been much more reluctant to pay for the publication in a predatory journal, because that would have been a surefire way of telling that the journal was junk. And if a researcher had to pay from their own pocket, then I would expect the practice to be much less common, simply because fewer people could afford it.<issue_comment>username_1: Anecdotally, a significant proportion of journals on post-Soviet space in 90s were quite happy to publish literally anything as long as author covers the "publication costs". The peer-review was either very light or non-existent (e.g. authors could invite their friends to act as a referee). This was used by some high-rank officials to secure the publications required for their academic degree, which gives a bearer a certain level of prestige even if they never practice science.
This happened before any OA was introduced in Europe/USA and it is still happening now. The existence of predatory journals is probably more driven by the [publish or perish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish) principle, than by [OA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: What you’re essentially asking is what happened before the digital publishing revolution that started around 2000. Before then, it was hard to be a “predatory” journal, because you would still be expected to produce a *physical* volume that could be deposited in a library. If you just took the authors’ fees and didn’t produce, you’d be exposed much more quickly as fraudulent.
So while there might be some that tried it, the opportunity cost was too large relative to the potential profits to make it as lucrative as it is now.
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/07/19
| 851
| 3,701
|
<issue_start>username_0: It would be quite interesting to have others' experience and opinion on what guidelines are followed, and/or would make sense to follow regarding conference expenses for a researcher having recently transitioned laboratories.
It is very common for PhD researchers to do a post-doc in a different lab, and for post-docs to move from one lab to another. In that case, which lab should cover the conference expenses to present the work done (and fully completed) at the previous lab which the researcher just left? Should it be the one where the work was done? If that lab refuses, should the new one cover the expenses or should the researcher give up the opportunity to present his work? Or maybe the new lab should cover the expenses anyways as the researcher is now affiliated there?<issue_comment>username_1: It's pretty hard for me to imagine the new lab paying. The funding for a lab is, one hopes, related to the work of that lab. It is also rather a lot less than infinite. The old lab may desire to pay for it to get their own work presented, but may not if the researcher is no longer affiliated.
In general, I think this situation may not be covered by established rules and you should approach the lab director for funds. Starting at the old lab if you haven't already been approved. The new lab's director may, contrary to good sense and if funds are closer to infinity, agree to fund the travel if the researcher is valued enough. But the old lab's director might refuse to pay on symmetric grounds since the researcher is no longer contributing to the work. Begging may be indicated.
It may also be that the funding grant for the lab includes travel for presentation. I think this is pretty common. However, the lab director may have discretion over *who* presents the results. They may be considered as the "property" of the lab, not of individuals. But that probably varies widely.
On the other hand, if funding comes from some common containing organization, the question may be moot.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My perspective comes as a research group manager at a US national lab.
I pay for conference attendance for my people - it is part of their job, and their ability to grow as a researcher depends on attending conferences. Whether they are post-docs or new staff, I hired them in no small part because they were performing work that was at least tangentially relevant to their first assignments. So, I will get them to the conference to maintain and grow their reputation and skills. The cost of registration and travel is really small compared with a loaded salary. And I at least get my institution listed as their current address at the talk.
For post-docs in particular, I tell them that 'the job of a post-doc is to get a job.' The way they will get a (permanent) job is by doing good work, publishing, and presenting at conferences. They need to be visible, have chances to network, and come back with good ideas. So what if the first conference they go to is based on older work? They need to be out there to keep developing, and it is my job to make sure they develop.
Finally, I do this at least partly because that is how I was treated as a post-doc and new staff. That first conference at each institution was based on my 'old' work, but it was at conferences and in areas that were important to my 'new' job. And, my bosses agreed. The least I can do is arrange that for others.
I understand that there may be budget issues in other situations. However, the PIs really should consider if they are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Good things happen at conferences, for both the post-docs and the PIs.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/07/19
| 1,631
| 7,187
|
<issue_start>username_0: There have been a multitude of questions about the fact that in computer science and a couple adjacent fields, the standards conferences are held to is quite different than in most fields. CS conference papers in general are peer reviewed and count just as much as journal papers, the most prestigious venues in Theoretical CS are conferences, and it seems that CS poster presentations are assigned a higher credence than in most fields. These statements are very different than what you'd find in many other fields (political science, philosophy, physics, biology).
I work in an interdisciplinary field in industry adjacent to computer science, and some of my work is submitted to CS people and CS venues and other work is not. I don’t expect everyone reading my resume to know the differing standards, and it seems misleading to list, e.g., computer science and political science conferences next to each other.
I was thinking that on a CV/resume I might draw a distinction between “Peer Reviewed Conference Papers” and “Conference Papers,” but I was wondering if anyone had suggestions about how to best disambiguate this in contexts like writing a CV or grant application or whatever where you might not be able to just explain the difference and it matters that people understand.<issue_comment>username_1: I think you are wise to make a distinction. Computer Science and some related subfields use conferences as the major way to disseminate new results with journals more or less reserved for more settled ideas.
I can only speak for ACM (i.e. not IEEE), but many of the conferences are extremely important, SIGPLAN has several such and the SIGGRAPH conference usually introduces remarkable results. The Agile Software Development community holds a number of conferences with peer-reviewed work, but has no journal. The Software Patterns community works on a completely different model, publishes the work of conference-workshops, but again, no journal.
Part (maybe all) of the reason for this is the young (~75 years or a bit more: the Turing Machine was described in 1936) age of the discipline. Much of the development of the discipline has occurred in the internet age with frequent if informal communication.
Political Science, of course is a lot older (Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, ...) and more developed.
How to do it is another matter. If your work falls into the two disciplines separately it is easier - just have two sections in your CV. Different audiences will focus on one or the other and will likely know the expectations of the field they are interested in.
But a lot harder if your work is integrative of the two disciplines. It will be harder for each audience to appreciate the difference (A footnote that "username_1 sez" won't get you there, of course). I don't know of a reliable and official source for the things I've said here to which you could point, though there is probably some documentation of it "The importance of conferences to CS", say.
However, I think the issue is more important for a new member of the profession, rather than an established member as I suspect is the case of the OP. Your general reputation will be clear to people with no more than an introductory statement (among the rest) that you have published in appropriate and (respected) venues to the disparate fields.
---
With respect to grant applications, I think you should actually have more flexibility to inform reviewers than in a CV. If the granting agency is more concerned with one field of the two or more you are covering, then they will be mostly concerned with your references in that field and wouldn't know much about the others in any case.
But you could give as part of your background, I hope, in most cases, an explanation of the importance of conferences in CS re journals. It would only take a short paragraph and a reference or two. However, I don't think it would really be critical unless the grant was primarily NOT CS but the reviewers had to understand how CS actually works in practice. But I think in such a case (never actually having danced on the cusp, here) that they are more interested in the "other" stuff and see the CS part as primarily methodology. But you need to be able to back up your methodology in any case. The CS folk will "get it" and the others will think the "other stuff" is the most important anyway.
I find it hard to believe that a political-science grounded grant would fail for reviewers thinking you weren't a mover-shaker in CS. What I mean by this is as follows. If I'm a political-science guru reviewing your grant application to explore some deep topic, I'm totally focused on my own field and on what I think is your potential contributions to it. The fact that your methodology uses, say, machine learning, will be foreign to me and it will be hard for me to judge in any case. But I'll be intrigued. However, if I think you are primarily interested in CS and are naive about political-science, I vote no. But if you are clearly well published in the field I'm interested in, and your arguments are good I'll vote yes without a deep dive into your position in CS, though I will need "sufficient assurance" there. The one overbalances the other. I suspect I'd be intrigued by a new approach to things I consider important.
However, if I'm an AI guru instead, I understand the quality of your CS publications and will focus on that. I'll see the political-science stuff as an intriguing application of what I consider important. But here, I won't know about the quality of the political-science journals you are published in without asking someone.
The importance of journals v conferences is asymmetric, but the problem you face is, itself, asymmetric in a matching way. Pretty sure, anyway.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Having been on a couple hiring panels for people like you - and indeed being in the same situation (for a long time my statement was that my two most prestigious publications were each recognized as a thing by exactly half of the people reading my CV), a couple suggestions:
* Cover letters. It might be appropriate, in a cover letter, to call attention to conferences that are particularly prestigious and *state that*.
* Reference letters. If you have authors on the CS side of things, ask them to push that expressly. Talk about how impressive your work is and what a big deal those conferences are. This is what I asked my letter writers to do. Regardless of field expectations, it's important to have your letter writers put your work in context.
* If possible, try and find out who is reading things, and see if you need to do this kind of advocacy. For example, for an interdisciplinary hiring panel we had, we expressly included someone from each discipline so that they could provide context - because even though I know CS uses conferences as their major venue, I still can't distinguish between a great, good, and just okay conference.
I think it's appropriate to make the distinction in your CV as well - like the difference between submitted and invited talks, they are somewhat different animals.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/07/19
| 1,428
| 6,440
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am mid stage PhD student. I have done qualification exam and course work etc and from last around one year I am working on a one research problem. There is small progress on that problem, but till needs to add more things to make it publishable. I am also aware that in the field I am working research gets their PhD with 1-2 papers and even I have heard they can award me a PhD without even a single publication ( I have seen few online ). Some senior researcher told that TAing etc also a part of work and should be considered as a integral part of PhD.
**Question :** Is it possible to get a PhD without a single publication? What can stop me from getting a PhD? Other than If I show a bad behaviour etc<issue_comment>username_1: It is pretty rare that one gets a doctorate without publications and/or an acceptable dissertation. What is "common" in your field has little relevance to your particular situation. You need to make your advisor and maybe a committee satisfied that you have done work of sufficient quality. Your requirements are local to a University, or, perhaps, to the regulations of a particular country.
Serving as a TA may get you better recommendations for an academic job after you finish, but have little relevance for the doctorate itself.
Yes, bad behavior would stop you most likely, but you need to focus on the research that leads to acceptance.
Complaining to a supervisor that "others have done it" will likely get you precisely nowhere - if not set back.
---
In another question here you have indicated you are in your fourth year. This makes me wonder whether you are getting sufficient guidance from your PhD supervisor/advisor. If not, you might try to improve your relationship with him/her in hopes of obtaining the guidance you need. Four years isn't yet excessively long in the current situation, but you should assess your progress and make sure you and your advisor agree on a plan for completion.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The usual formula is to "add to the knowledge of humanity" or some such thing. It isn't ALWAYS a research publication, this is true. But that's the most frequent thing by far. And most usually reported on in a thesis. Usually there are some other requirements that must also be fulfilled, such as a residency requirement, often but not always 3 years. There can also be requirements to take certain number or types of course work and pass it with some particular level. There can be lots of other requirements, depending on the degree. A psychology degree, for example, probably has clinical work attached.
Some times there are also limits. For example, some schools will have a time limit on how long you can take to do a PhD before they start to ease you to the door. There may be other limits.
Such details are likely to be somewhat different from university to university, even from one department to another in the same university. The requirements for your PhD are quite probably set out in some sort of document at your school. Probably there is some kind of charter or guide or some such that will tell you such details.
If you are concerned, the thing to do is probably ask one of the administrative assistant staff persons for some guidance. Maybe the head of your department's graduate work has a secretary (or it may be that some other job title is used). Or your department may have an admin. Or maybe the department of grad studies at your university.
They are good people to know and be friendly with in any regard. They usually know all the non-academic details and can give you the "inside" information about what you need to do, what you should do, and what you should avoid doing. Often more accurately than the profs, since the admins usually wind up doing the gritty details the profs are too lazy to do.
The admins will also be able to get you lots of other good information like when to apply for various things, what you need as far as documentation, how to fill in forms, etc. etc.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: There is no connection between successful Phd. and any number of publications in most of the universities. The evaluation of the Phd. is done independent of the publications. It can be the case that a student fail even with multiple publications if these publications were not sufficient for Phd. and vise versa, many students can pass without publication but their work is sufficient for Phd.
Also there is no connection between tutoring and getting a Phd. but you can get good relations with other professors, get experience, and learn from it. A good behavior is required for every relationship even with strangers in the street as well as in the university. But each university have guides on what constitute an offense and the penalties. Good behavior does not mean you suffer in silence or you see something wrong but accept it not to be viewed as problematic. There are rules and procedures for how/to whom you talk.
What gets you a Phd. is a novel contribution in the field. Not necessarily a breakthrough or an invention, but new results or methodology, etc. By definition, novel mean not known before and new. So the results/study/system should not been something have been known already (replication). This must be discussed with your supervisor and also you should make your own judgement as at the end the examiners are independent of your supervisor.
I have not ever seen publications as requirement for a Phd. in any university. Students can graduate without publications and I know many have done this. They can work on publication afterwords and some have published after the Phd. Most of the times, your supervisor must support your direction if you want to postpone publication.
However, it is highly recommended that you publish at least one paper. Venue/journals/publishers and reviewing committees have different strengths. Try to send your paper for a reasonably good one. Try to benefit from the feedback if your paper got rejected to improve your work before the Phd. exam.
Publishing will give you confidence before the Phd. exam. It will also give the assessors some confidence that others have looked at the work and accept it. But they make their independent judgement.
If you did not publish, that does not mean you do not have novel contribution. But make sure from your supervisor it is acceptable for going to Phd. exam.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/07/19
| 817
| 2,921
|
<issue_start>username_0: A journal drop-down menu for selecting a person's title has four options but none of them are *Mr.*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7BeoV.jpg)
(I definitely scrolled down enough.)
As a male, non-PhD holder should I select *Mx.*, or is this a mistake by the journal?<issue_comment>username_1: [Mx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title)) is a gender-neutral honorific. It's probably not a typo.
Dr would typically be used if you have a doctoral degree, and Prof if you are employed in a professor-like capacity (it means different things in different countries, but generally any semi-permanent faculty job is reasonably included). Otherwise, you can decide which of Ms and Mx fits you better.
If you feel that there isn't an option that's appropriate for you, you can take it up with the journal.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Based on the context, the options most likely are:
* Dr: Doctor (PhD)
* Ms: usually written MSc (master of science)
* Prof: Professor
* Mx: Ms/Mr/x (no academic degree/title)
So you would fall either under Ms or Mx depending on your level of education.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I personally understand it like this:
1. Dr => Doctors (PhD, medicine.. we czechs have Mudr, PaeDr, etc.)
2. Ms => Masters (of Science, Art, Business, etc)
3. Mx => Gender specific (Mr, Ms, Mrs)
4. Prof => Professors (and maybe candidates?)
I do not necessarily see it as a flaw per se as it seems logical to divide per earned title. Just a bit unclear spec..
It is flawed by the idea of having Ms understood as Miss instead of M-s, but other than this it is completely logical!
**Small advice:**
Tell the official to clear things out by giving a hint.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Since no one else answered your actual questions:
>
> Is Mx. the default title for [m]ale non-[P]h[D] holders?
>
>
>
No,
===
it is not. It's a recent gender-neutral form of the usual English titles Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms which might be allowed for those not wishing to signal or accept a binary gender. It's not standard, and Mr. remains much more common. More common still would be for an untitled person to simply be untitled.
*This* use seems bizarre to the point of inviting a sex-discrimination lawsuit. They require that you provide a title, with lower-level academics forced to declare themselves *either* female *or* other. The only rationale for such a setup besides trolling (cismen who complain have their applications filed circularly) would be if they intend to assign extra credit to applications by self-declared women.
>
> As a male... non-PhD holder should I select Mx... or is this a mistake by the journal?
>
>
>
**Yes**, you should select it if you plan to continue your application, despite knowing your gender will probably hurt your chances.
Upvotes: 5
|