date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2018/08/04
| 947
| 3,968
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm about to start a 5th year Master's program in CS at my university (one extra year after B.S. for a M.S.). I've also been looking at applying to grad schools for a PhD program, and the main thing that I've been worried about is recommendation letters.
I know one professor somewhat well (took two classes with her, one of which was a project class where I presented to her) and I think she would be willing to write a rec letter. However, she's fairly well known in her field and I don't know if that makes it harder to get a rec from her.
But, most of the colleges I'm looking at for grad school need three letters. I've had good grades throughout my undergrad, mostly 3.9 and 4.0s. Because I was fairly comfortable with my classes, I rarely went to office hours. As a result, I don't think any of the professors who've taught me know anything about me other than that I was in their class and that I did well.
I'm totally unsure now about how to proceed. Is it normal for professors to be asked for rec letters by students they only maybe recognize? Do they usually say yes or no? What are my options?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I don't want to put my name on something that uses data that is
> potentially full of errors
>
>
>
You are right. Do not publish if you do not think the data is correct.
Next time address the data quality at the start of the project.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You have come across an important lesson in research: if the person or organization providing your data is not responsible somehow for that data being correct, it won't be. Collecting and preprocessing new data is an iterative process with lots of restarts as you discover that common techniques need to be adapted to the particular dataset. If someone just hands you data they didn't have to test or validate anywhere, what you get is their first failed result. If they touch the data to do anything to it at all, they almost certainly did so incorrectly; if there is a sign, they probably created sign errors; if they did any sorting, they probably did not sort the labels and values consistently, etc.
As for how to proceed, there's another unfortunate lesson here for anyone in a mentored research position: you should generally do whatever your supervisor wants. I don't mean behave unethically if they push you to. But to change your focus to doing the best with what you have rather than letting the perfect be the enemy of the "at-least-you-did-something". Honestly your supervisor probably has a better grasp of the big picture. I.e. getting a result out to show the funding agency you were productive, getting a notch on your CV, and such outcomes, are the critical ones. While a wonderful research result that drives the science world vertically is probably out of reach already. You can however adjust how you present the data in your paper, e.g., focus on the methods not the results, or put some mixed validation results and note not all of them worked properly, caution that your data may be flawed as one possible cause, and so forth.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: While the advice of [username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/114756/75368) is sound, I'd add that you can, in fact, let your supervisor know that the data you got "isn't ready for prime time." Be prepared to show why and what you see as issues with it. You will, I hope, then get advice that you should probably follow even if you don't agree assuming you want to preserve the relationships.
It isn't necessary to blindly go along, nor is it necessary to scream and rant. Just point out the flaws and why they will negatively impact the work. It is possible that the supervisor has some influence to get the data improved that you don't have directly. Of course, one option is that you get the improvement dumped on you, which isn't fair or ideal, but it will result in better work in the end.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/04
| 257
| 958
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am looking for resources that can let me access scanned documents and memos to train my OCR application. I have some client documents but need more for product development. Any ideas?<issue_comment>username_1: Go the other way round: Find digital documents, render them as images (e.g. print and scan them), then apply OCR and compare the result with the original document.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Have you tried working with Project Gutenberg? Apart from pioneering work in offering free eBooks, they manage an army of volunteers to help with the processing of these gems.
They have a library of OCR images that sounds just up your alley. Check out their [FAQ](https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Volunteers%27_FAQ#V.52._What_role_does_proofing_play_in_Project_Gutenberg.3F) on proofing. Most people head of the [Distributed Proofreaders](https://www.pgdp.net/c/) site.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/04
| 786
| 3,250
|
<issue_start>username_0: So say if you graduated from a college that practices grade forgiveness, and you mention that you got forgiven at least this many, on a blog where PhD students appear frequently(without mentioning exactly the name of the college or my own name or the exact name of the company that I work for) can I be given a disadvantage when I apply to, say, another field of study, such as an MBA program? That is, could anybody identify it as me? Could anyone actually care, since I should only be reviewed of my candidacy through the required documents, not information that is omitted from them?
PS I did say what group of schools the college belonged to(ivy league, big 10, seven sisters et cetera), what industry I worked for. And I wrote the said post because I really wanted to find out what chances I had of entering certain programs given a certain kind of background (whether college name or certain kinds of experiences could override gpa, for instance)<issue_comment>username_1: The **Top, Golden, Number 1 rule** of typing stuff that is going on the internet is "make sure, "**BEFORE SENDING**" that you are happy to see it in 5 weeks, months or years time...
If not, then **Don't** hit "**SEND**"...
If not, then be prepared to deal with the fallout - there are examples of people losing jobs due to holiday tweets or taking a "sickie" and then being seen in the crowd at the football or tennis etc...
I heard a story of this - before internet, where a student asked his father for money to buy textbooks and spent it on Rugby Final Tickets. He then got stuck in the toilets at half-time and as the TV cameras had nothing else to show - they showed the rescue of someone stuck in the toilet... His Dad was watching the match : cue conversation between Dad and son... ")
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: What you wrote is "out there". It can be found. It may be less likely that it would be associated with you personally. However, as with everyone, it is what it is. The fact that you talked about it doesn't change the fact that "it" is a part of your record.
Your best response is to "carry on". While you may have hand bad grades and the grades may have been "forgotten", the policies were set by others. But your record itself will be more relevant to admissions than anything you said about it. Even if the institution disguises some facts, you may still need to be able to explain gaps.
On the other hand, many successful people have lapses in their past that they have been able to overcome. Work toward that.
Play the cards you were dealt. Play them as best you can. Any applicant to a program needs to be able to detail to the admissions group why they are suitable. It is no different for you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: No, no one dealing with graduate admissions is going to search for comments you've made on the web, and even if they did they would not care about your "grade forgiveness" events. The other answers posted so far seem to have very strange beliefs about the time people on admissions committees spend on candidates, the amount of detective work they are inclined to do, and their opinions about students who re-take courses and improve their understanding.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/04
| 1,459
| 5,625
|
<issue_start>username_0: ### Question
*Salami publishing* refers to the practice of splitting scientific work into overly small pieces (least publishable units) and publishing a separate paper about each.
I am looking for a term for the opposite practice, i.e., lumping together a lot of or too much scientific work into one paper.
* I prefer terms that can be understood (by a suitable audience) without further explanation. Essentially, I want something less cumbersome than *opposite of salami publishing.*
* I have no strong preference regarding the tone of the term. E.g., it can be derogatory (but doesn’t need to be).
* I am open to neologisms, but please consider the first point.
### Background
This term would be useful for me to talk about the publishing culture in biology (or certain subfields thereof), where new relevant methods often do not get papers on their own, but are only published as the appendix to some paper that is primarily about findings achieved with that method.<issue_comment>username_1: Would 'syncretic publishing' come close? Syncretic is generally used in religious studies to denote a mixture of different faiths/traditions in an unstructured manner. The structured version of this would be 'synthesis'.
Religious connotation aside, syncretic is a legitimate philosophical idea by itself. I haven't found an instance of it being used to describe academic publishing though.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: *Disclaimer: This answer is full of tongue-in-cheek neologisms ;-)*
I would like to stay in the context of food and suggest
**Gluttony publishing** (more derogatory)
or
**Banquet publishing** (less derogatory).
You could even go as far as labeling the publication itself as banquet as in the following sentence.
>
> He has just written a *banquet paper* of 40 pages. He could have easily salami sliced it into 5 papers. Doesn't he know that for most grants only the number of publications counts?
>
>
>
A slightly different term would be a *buffet paper* denoting a paper that is a collection of not necessarily tightly coupled topics where everyone can pick what he likes. It can also refer to [a paper that is written to suit everybody](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/114402/61201).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I call it "kitchen sink publishing." I apply the term to papers which contain redundant methods for determining the result.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/everything_but_the_kitchen_sink>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: A term with the positive connotation of completeness: All-in-one-publication.
A term with a slightly negative connotation of "good, but too much": The paper is an embarrassment of riches.
A term with a negative connotation: Overkill publication.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: This depends on what you mean by "opposite". If you treat "salami publishing" as an extreme, then the more ordinary case (by far) is just "publishing". It needs no adjective.
However, if you mean the opposite extreme, consider the following. Sometimes a field will have a period of intense work with a large number of (possibly) relatively small results. After that period ends or at least the rate of advancement slows, someone may decide to "consolidate" what has been recently learned in a summative paper that will have many references and a new top-level view of the field as it is then known. "Consolidation" and "Unification" are good terms for that sort of publication. Such a publication is a great resource for new researchers in the field (say, new PhD students).
However, if you require a food metaphor, try paella. Of course it is best savored in Andalusia. And I guess that if you need an explanation about why this is a good metaphor you haven't tried to make (or eat) it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I propose **smorgasbord publishing**.
Merriam-Webster [defines](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smorgasbord) *smorgasbord* as:
>
> 1. a luncheon or supper buffet offering a variety of foods and dishes (such as hors d'oeuvres, hot and cold meats, smoked and pickled fish, cheeses, salads, and relishes)
> 2. an often large heterogeneous mixture : mélange
>
>
>
Seems appropriate.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I had a mentor who did this a lot and I referred to it as "Magnum Opus Publishing", where the objective is to have a singular publication of such heartbreaking insight and magnitude that it encapsulates an entire research question in a single work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: Almost all of the other answers are better than mine, but while *holistic approach* doesn't work grammatically for this purpose, could *holistic publishing* work?
For *holistric* Google returns:
>
> characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.
>
>
>
If holistic publishing is the style that a person with a holistic approach to their research and their way of communicating and teaching and writing works for publication, then perhaps they can be said to be a holistic publisher.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: I usually call these papers "book" or "tome", which conveys that they are way too long (at least when you look at the page count when the supplement(s) are included). The more technical criticism that too many things were lumped together there is kind of implicit, though. (These terms also apply only to the papers themselves, and not the publishing style.)
Edit: if you want to stay in the culinary realm, maybe "casserole publishing"?
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/04
| 365
| 1,629
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a student I wrote a paper for a course. I am now preparing the paper for submission to a journal. My teacher will get a general acknowledgment for the discussions we had on the topic as a footnote on the paper's title (as is the custom in my field). There are a couple (~3) very specific pointers the teacher gave me, such as a relevant piece of literature. These are not vital for the flow of the paper but are useful pointers for the reader; they appear in footnotes. Should I add a sentence to such a footnote such as "I am grateful to <NAME> for this reference"? Or is it kind of implicit in the general acknowledgment at the start of the article that the acknowledged persons have contributed such details?<issue_comment>username_1: Perhaps it would depend at least a bit on how important that contribution was to your thinking and to the direction taken in the paper. In some cases it could point out the general importance of an idea or another paper. If a small comment led to a "forehead slapping moment" it is more important than a general hint. But much of that can be expressed in a general ack also.
Also, for an undergraduate, I would lean more toward expressing such things than I'd suggest for a grad student. Still not essential, though.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I've often seen specific points included along with general thanks in a single footnote, something like "I thank my supervisor, <NAME>, for numerous helpful discussions and, in particular, for calling my attention to reference [7] and for simplifying the proof of Lemma 2."
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/04
| 984
| 4,151
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in the process of developing my academic profile and I am starting to create a shortlist of programs to apply for. I plan on applying to 8 Grad schools (although I do not know which ones yet). From what I've read so far, many of you recommend undergrads seeking to attend post graduate programs to first contact a professor to see if they are taking on any new students. Now I obviously won't go with the buckshot approach and submit an email to everyone. However, I've also read most professors do not reply. If I plan on applying to 8 programs, and most professors don't reply, or are not available to take on students, how many professors should I contact? Like I said, I won't just randomly send emails, I will get to know them and their work first, to see if I would be a good fit. I'm currently down to 40 possible programs of which I'm certain I can find at least 20-30 individual professors who would fit well with me. Would it be wise to find, assess, and contact as many as 30, in the hopes that maybe 10 or so reply? Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think the direct answer to your question will help you much. It can be too variable and depend on too many other things. As a matter of fact, I didn't need to apply at all (more than 50 years ago) as I was invited into a program. That wasn't based on my obvious brilliance, though (laugh here). Another graduate of my college did very well as a new student at the university and my advisor was contacted with the question "Any more like that?". It actually turned out to be a mistake for me and I later changed universities - it was a very bad fit all around.
You are wise not to take a scattershot approach. It also depends on the strength of your background. But I think you've made a good start by identifying places you think would be a good fit. Any professor you contact will also be interested in what you can do for them as well as your likelihood of success.
I guess my advice here would be to pick out about five or so places that you would be interested in and which you think are good candidates for actually accepting you. I wouldn't choose only the top of the top schools. Write to people there as a sort of experiment and see what you learn. You can expand the search later or decide that someone in your initial list is the right place for you. Another way to say it is to use the initial information you get to refine your search if necessary rather than using all your ammunition in an initial blast. Having the right supervisor and the right problem are likely the two most important factors in success other than your own hard work.
Also, there is no reason that you can't start the application process with more than just a few universities immediately. You don't have to string that out. Many places the professors won't talk to you anyway until you are near or past the acceptance point.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This depends on the context. In the Netherlands and Germany PhD positions are usually advertised. After all, they are regular jobs. So you need to know where that happens. You should not contact a prof directly if they didn't advertise a position. The fact that they didn't advertise means they are not hiring. This is organized differently in different countries, so there is no general rule, you just need to follow local custom.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I didn’t contact any faculty, and I got into the programs where I was an obvious fit. I didn’t get into any others. Honestly, it did not even occur to me to contact professors. I am not sure this is particularly common in the social sciences and humanities in the US. In my program, only the international students pre-contacted professors.
To check, I would recommend reading “The Professor is In” to lean more about the graduate admissions and hiring process for the humanities.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> How many professors should I contact?
>
>
>
Do it sequentially until you have the responses you want. Quality is more important than quantity.
Nobody can predict the response rate.
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/08/04
| 394
| 1,636
|
<issue_start>username_0: When submitting a paper to a journal, often a cover letter to the editor is submitted as well. When this letter is sent by mail / uploaded to the journal's website, do I need to sign the cover letter? And if yes, how? With a certified electronic signature, or with a digital scan of my handwritten signature?<issue_comment>username_1: No, you don't need to sign it. (At least that's been my experience with every journal I've dealt with.) My cover letters just tend to be PDF files (uploaded to the journal site) that end like
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> < List of authors (printed names) >
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are actually very few times when a signature (either scanned or posted) is mandatory. In the journals I've edited (mainly in the health and medical fields) we would require some form of signature for contractual arrangements such as in the case of a supplement or a commissioned piece such as an editorial, when the type of submission requires it such as a case report and the author and patient submit consent letters to us, or when we
We don't require a formal signature for cover letters, but we do appreciate it. We need to know that the author stands by the statements in the cover letter as, for example, when the author asserts that the submission is not being considered anywhere. This can be accomplished in a number of ways and a signature is one of them. At the very least, a signed letter shows respect for classic codes of etiquette.
(Who here remembers having to submit manuscripts prepared on typewriters?)
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/04
| 498
| 2,209
|
<issue_start>username_0: What happens if one has a PhD scholarship and drops out in the second year of the PhD program? Should he pay back the money that he got in his first doctoral year?<issue_comment>username_1: This will depend on many things including local law and the details of anything signed. In the absence of some rule, it is unlikely that there is any need to repay. In particular, many funding agencies have no real way to accept money paid back. The reason that the person dropped out may be very complex, and actually a shared issue with the institution.
But this can differ widely. Read the fine print if any.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the scholarship agreement of the UK research-intensive university in which I work, there are no conditions under which the recipient will be required to pay back tuition support. The only provision that comes close is a clause for suspension of stipends (as opposed to the tuition component) if the recipient fails to demonstrate appropriate academic progress. (What many don't know is that a formal finding inappropriate academic progress often takes up to 12 months to weave its way through the university bureaucracy, so the termination of the stipend can take a while to take effect.)
In the case of a staff member undertaking a part-time PhD, there is such a clause. Eligible staff are awarded a tuition waiver to undertake a part-time PhD. Those that take this up are required to work at the university for a specific amount of time. The clause to which I refer states that if employment is terminated prior to the work requirement is fulfilled, the University may seek to recoup the tuition waiver. I have never seen this clause enacted.
The effect of a termination of studies has an effect on the supervisor, too. The scholarship policy states that terminations or withdrawals within the first six months of candidature means that the supervisor may choose to reopen the search for a scholar. If the termination or withdrawal occurs after six months, then there is no chance for the supervisor to do this and the scholarship opportunity is cancelled by the Graduate School.
I hope this information helps. Good luck.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/05
| 2,384
| 9,866
|
<issue_start>username_0: ### My situation
I could go into the details of the situation in some detail here, but I fear it would read like a shaggy-dog story. For the moment I'll limit myself to these (what I hope are) salient points:
* I enrolled for PhD in October 2011.
* I made a breakthrough in my second year, which would be the subject of my thesis. This work has been ratified by colleagues both within and outside of academia.
* After this, I took a considerable time off for personal reasons.
* The likely earliest date I would have completed is October 2015.
* If I were allowed to do so, I could likely complete in October 2018, so three years late.
* Some would say that because my PhD is two years long, I would be five years late. I would counter that that's two years of funding the institution has saved (this irony would not be lost on anyone familiar with the workings of academia).
* A senior and respected academic is on my side and is currently doing his best on my behalf to persuade the powers that be. However, I no longer think it is fair to drag him into the dispute. He is kind and reasonable, and for that reason this has become his burden. I want him out of it.
* Nobody has told me that I cannot complete my PhD yet. The university has not responded yet, and I suspect they never will.
* I don't need any funding. I just need to be allowed arrange the final examination and get this out of the way.
### My question
I'm wondering whether I shouldn't just force the institution's hand with (at least) the threat of legal action, rather than expecting someone else to fight my battles for me. At the same time, however, I don't want to start issuing threats. I would do anything to avoid this course, to be frank.
1. Can you offer any wisdom on doing this?
2. Are there any relevant precedents? The institution is UK-based.<issue_comment>username_1: Without knowing all the details, it’s hard to provide clear guidance, but a few general principles still hold.
* Jumping into legal action before you’ve tried to resolve this via less obtrusive means is generally a bad idea.
* What personal reasons delayed your PhD matters. For instance, personal time off for health or raising a family is almost always considered “excused,” and can be cited as reasons for extending deadlines. However, taking time off to work or do something unrelated may be problematic.
* Equally important in this process is the view of your thesis committee. If everybody views this as being very important work that deserves a PhD, that will carry weight with the administration even in spite of their regulations.
So, instead of going for legal action right now, talk to your thesis committee and work out a plan. If they have your back, the administration will generally accede to their requests.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Plenty of people have left school then finished their PhD up while working in industry. Though they generally have been at the ABD stage where you can maintain enrollment with a small fee. After only two years enrolled you are really asking for special treatment, regardless of your break length. When you say your work was "ratified", does this mean publication in an extremely impressive journal plus 1k citations by now or something? Because you need it to be so great that it will overcome rather unrelated requirements regarding your knowledge and expertise. A PhD is supposed to be mentored training to teach you to lead research investigations, not just a fishing expedition for a big score.
As for deciding how to proceed. You need to dig into the rules. Schools operate on legalistic procedures (which includes a massive amount of paperwork for handling exceptions and waivers of the rules). You need to do two things:
1. Determine the hurdles you need to jump through to finish, and their requirements in turn. For example there may be another exam prior to your defense. You may be required to be enrolled to do some of the steps. You may need to have people sign up for your committee and for them to sign off that you have successfully completed those steps along the way.
2. Find the show-stopping rule(es) standing in your way, if any. For example a hard deadline of 8 years is common. Then find out if you can get a waiver to get past that.
If people don't respond to your emails call them or go visit them in person.
Finally, legal action (or at least believable threats of it) can motivate people to sign off on your good faith attempts at actually accomplishing the graduation requirements. Though it is a drastic, scorched-earth approach to doing so. You can often accomplish a similar effect (for free) using the university's own internal procedures for resolving disputes. You may just need to convince them you are serious about finishing by showing up there regularly and submitting requests formally.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: My broad diagnosis of your situation is that your time in your PhD program was too short and too long ago to give you a clear understanding of what the process of getting a PhD entails. That lack of understanding is definitely going to cause you problems so should be addressed right away. What other problems you may have, if any, is hard to tell at this point.
Let me now try to address some specifics:
>
> Nobody has told me that I cannot complete my PhD yet. The university has not responded yet, and I suspect they never will.
>
>
>
I'm already a bit lost. The university will certainly respond to halfway reasonable questions directed to the right people. Whom are you asking? You should start by talking to people in your department: your advisor, the director/coordinator/chair/whatever of graduate studies, the department head....
>
> I am considering legal action. I'm wondering whether I shouldn't just force the institution's hand with (at least) the threat of legal action, rather than expecting someone else to fight my battles for me. At the same time, however, I don't want to start issuing threats. I would do anything to avoid legal action, to be frank.
>
>
>
Please read this over yourself. It's conflicted bordering on contradictory. But let me chime in: **no**, you should absolutely not try to "force the institution's hand" with the threat of legal action -- certainly not at this point, and in my opinion and experience, virtually never for someone in your broad situation. The institution knows its own rules and policies intimately and you don't seem to know them at all. The institution employs a team of lawyers; you do not. A legal threat is not going to spook them into any positive action.
Also, IANAL and doubly not a lawyer in the UK, but in order to bring legal action you need to have some legal basis: a law they broke, a contract they breached, something like that. You didn't mention any such thing. Timing out your PhD may not be very nice, but that's not the same thing at all.
>
> If I were allowed to do so, I could likely complete in October 2018, so three years late.
>
>
>
You haven't been in academia for several years, but you think you could complete your PhD within three months from now? Unless you have a completed thesis ready to go (or better, already submitted to your committee) that is basically impossible. Your unrealistic time frame is a bit worrisome to me.
>
> I made a breakthrough in my second year, which would be the subject of my thesis. This work has been ratified by colleagues both within and outside of academia.
>
>
>
This is a key point in regard to how close you are to finishing your PhD. "Ratified" is a strange word to use, and "outside of academia" is not very relevant either. If your "breakthrough" resulted in a publication in a strong journal, then you're going in the right direction. But you still need to work out with your thesis advisor whether the work of this publication alone is sufficient to be written up into a thesis (such writing may or may not take substantial extra time). If you haven't spoken to your thesis advisor about this -- or, and here I am cringing as I type and hoping I am way off, if you don't have a thesis advisor -- then you are much less close to finishing than you think, and whatever acclaim you have gotten from people outside of your department is good rather than bad but not nearly so directly relevant as you seem to think.
Let me end where I began: please talk to your advisor or other sympathetic department personnel. Please do not try to strong arm the institution at this time. Good luck.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Where I did my PhD (in London, and I started one month before you), there are several strict rules regarding the time.
* There are evaluations at 3-month, 1-year and 2-year milestone. In particular, if one cannot pass at the 2-year evaluation, they have to quit with an MPhil (or nothing)
* Students have to **enroll to the program every year**. Several months before deadline, I received several emails saying that there would be serious consequence if I didn't enroll on time.
* My funding was only 3 years. After exactly 3 years, I need to change to the thesis-writing stage, otherwise the school would start charging me tuition fee (crazily expensive for international students like me)
* Students are expected to submit the thesis within 4 years, **not one day later**.
I'm not sure if all universities in the UK adopt the same procedure, but the 4 year deadline for thesis is very common. It is not clear from your question what is your current status. Before considering legal action, you need to check if you break any rule.
* Did you pass the second stage evaluation?
* Are you currently enrolled in the program?
* What is your current stage in the program?
* Did your PhD supervisor approve that you made enough contribution to write a thesis?
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/05
| 951
| 4,157
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in Applied mathematics. I submitted my PhD thesis (not yet defended) and am applying for postdocs. Until now I have gotten two unofficial postdoc offers: the PIs unofficially informed me about the offers mentioning the salary and duration. I accepted one offer by emailing the PI. However, I have not signed any contract yet. Till I get an official letter can I also apply to other places?
Any help/suggestions will be useful. Thanks in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: How important is your personal honor to you? How important is your academic reputation? I strongly recommend that you consider your acceptance as final, even though not yet legally enforceable, unless you come to an agreement with the PI in question that you want to withdraw "firm" acceptance until such time as the arrangement can be made official.
The proper (ethical) course of action is to communicate with the PI. You don't want to get a reputation that your word can't be trusted. Nor that you are willing to leave others "in the lurch" while seeking personal advancement. The negative consequences can all be on you and your academic reputation.
Of course, the PI can than withdraw the offer altogether if you don't come to agreement, so state your case carefully. But there is nothing unethical about changing your mind and communicating that to the PI. You just need to try to work out a suitable accommodation that is acceptable to both.
However, if you consider yourself bound, the only downside of looking elsewhere is that you may be wasting resources of the places you apply to. It may provide backup to you, but it would also be good to be honest with those new institutions that you are in the final stages of an acceptance. But then, if you get a new offer, you are in a deeper bind, unless the earlier offer wasn't as serious as it seems.
When you get such an offer it is even better to be clear in your intentions. If you are a bit tentative and feel at risk, you can say that the offer seems *acceptable*, but that it needs to be official before you can really accept it. In such a case you are clearly free to continue your search and even accept another offer. But even if you say that you would accept it if offered formally, you have given your word and shouldn't go back on it. But in this latter case you need assurance that it *will* be offered formally.
Consider for a moment the opposite situation in which they offer you a position verbally, which you accept, but then they continue their search without notifying you that it isn't *really* an offer. Suppose they then hire someone else instead.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Until you have accepted a signed offer in writing, you don't have a job and should continue to search for one.
If you've verbally accepted a verbal offer, you are free to continue to be cautious and continue to search, but you might want to prioritize accepting the eventual written offer that matches that verbal offer.
Of course they might send you a written offer that differs significantly from that verbal offer, in which case, feel free to decline it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Till I get any official letter can I apply to other places also ?
>
>
>
Depending on the laws in your country, it is likely that you are allowed to do so without breaking any law. However you should be very careful about damaging your reputation in case you end up committing to several positions.
In my experience, in academia an unofficial commitment can be trusted and official paperwork can take some time to be issued. This depends on many things obviously, in particular how much you trust the PI who offers the job.
Since you mention that your main concern is about having a backup plan, I would recommend inquiring with the future PI (or the administration of the future institution) about their administrative procedure. Why not also mention to the PI that you are considering other offers? This could motivate them to speed up the process. And in case you feel that they are stalling, then you have a good reason to look elsewhere.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/05
| 596
| 2,337
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently found out that [bioRxiv](https://www.biorxiv.org/), the main biology preprint server, actually does not allow postprints to be submitted (even if allowed by the journal) according to its [policy](https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv). This is in contrast to arXiv (after which biorxiv was modelled) which does allow submission of postprints.
To clarify, *preprints* are the authors' version of the paper prior to intial submission, and *postprints* are the authors' version of the paper which was accepted for publication (typically without the editing performed by the journal). The term "postprint" is a little confusing because the paper will often be accepted by the journal but not printed or released yet.
I can understand that these two types of manuscript are different and should probably be tagged differently, but I can't really see a significant benefit in not allowing postprint submission - after all they do provide access to otherwise paywalled information, often before it is actually published.
**I would be interested to know if there are any alternatives to bioRxiv which allow postprint submission.**<issue_comment>username_1: In the U.S., everything funded by the NIH is available on PMC after 6 months: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/> . It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good way to ensure accessibility.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many of the OSF preprints are postprints. OSF is a platform that unites several preprint servers, and the posting rules may vary from one provider to the other. You can check it here: <https://osf.io/preprints/>
Also, I can suggest checking individual servers. You can find a comprehensive community-curated list here: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17RgfuQcGJHKSsSJwZZn0oiXAnimZu2sZsWp8Z6ZaYYo/edit#gid=0>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In addition to username_2's answer ([OSF Preprint servers](https://osf.io/preprints/)).
[**Zenodo**](https://zenodo.org/) is an alternative server that is not solely restricted to biology subject-wise but does contain a lot of biology content. It accepts preprints, postprints, data, and software deposits. It is [hosted at CERN](http://about.zenodo.org/infrastructure/) so you can be confident of the sustainability of the service provided.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/05
| 1,035
| 4,181
|
<issue_start>username_0: My full name on passport is <NAME> (first three names + surname). In my publication, I only used the first and the surname (i.e. Amir Al-Attraqchi). Is it going to be a problem proving the publications to be mine?
I'm worried about proving this when applying for new universities, promotions or fellowships<issue_comment>username_1: That is very unlikely unless the name you choose to use for publication is very common in the field that you work in. In the US, a person named "<NAME>" might need to distinguish himself in a field with a lot of practitioners. Otherwise, I see no problem.
Another consideration is how formal you want to be. If you are a young academic building a reputation, it might be advantage to err on the side of formality rather than the opposite. As you grow into the profession and meet lots of people, etc., you can move to a less formal name if you would then want to. Some academics I know insist on being represented in print very formally so as to build a "brand". In person they are not formal at all.
However, since names like el Masri, indicate places, Timmy el Masri might not be very distinguishing (assuming lots of Egyptians are named Timmy). So think about that. Icelandic (and old Norwegian) surnames names are traditionally also not especially distinguishing: Lavransdottir (daughter of Lavrans).
I share a real name with another academic. Fortunately he is not in the same field. We are unlikely to be confused. An internet search on our common name can confuse people, however.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: None of the names listed in my publications are identical to the one in my passport or birth certificate. In fact, I have one or two diplomas where this is also the case.
When I applied for an honourary post in a university in China, they questioned this exact discrepancy and required me to show that my diplomas and publications were mine. (I've found out that the idea of a name is different there than in my home country.) I managed to convince them by presenting a [statutory declaration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_declaration) (or affidavit, for those outside the Commonwealth) to that effect.
This might work in your case.
Good luck.
Note: Edited to explain what a statutory declaration is. Thanks for the link, @Nij.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Arguably, you did the right thing.
In my experience, too many names tend to confuse people. I have 2+2 and I saw my name being cited in lots of different ways, without any consistency.
One thing that really helps to prove that you are the same person is to set up an ORCID and use it in the publications.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: It shouldn't be a problem at all. It's very easy to believe that <NAME> <NAME> and <NAME> are the same person because it's very common to abbreviate names in that way. I and most of my British co-authors have three names; we only use the first and last of them on our papers.
People's legal name and publication name often differ much more substantially than yours. For example, in many western cultures, women often change their name when they get married. Female academics often continue to publish under their birth name so all their papers appear with the same name. I don't think they have to spend any time convincing people they wrote their papers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: As everyone has said, publication names don't have to match an official name such as that on your passport. The answer by <NAME> mentions ORCID. This is a good way to make sure that all the publications with different variants of a name are by the same person (and distinguish between two or more people with the same name).
This doesn't directly fix your problem of proving that you are the person who 'owns' that particularly ORCID. However, as part of the public information attached to an ORCID, you can include information such as employment, which would make that connection. Or a supervisor is likely to be a coauthor and probably one of your referees, so that also makes the connection.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/05
| 2,323
| 9,979
|
<issue_start>username_0: **TL;DR: I developed a way of solving systems of equations which is up to 25,000x faster than base methods. I want to publish but my advisor doesn't think it's worth it.**
---
I work as a data scientist with hyperspectral data. In this area, we treat every single pixel as its own system of equations. Because of this, we need to solve potentially thousands of systems of equations. Obviously, if we use traditional tools this is exceptionally slow and potentially not worth our time. However, each problem is relatively small, think 1 variable with ~100 non-linear equations.
I came up with 2 separate systems to solve these equations much faster. The first one adapts MATLAB's fminbnd so that every single one of these problems can be solved at once. This allows the function evaluation to take advantage of vectorized processing which in many languages, particularly research based languages gives a drastic speedup. [See the MATLAB codebase.](https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/67405-fminbnd_vec_released-funfcn-min_bound-max_bound-num_vecs) In addition, this allowed us to use GPUs to solve the problem resulting in a much larger performance increase. All told, this allows us to have a ~300-1000x performance speedup.
The second system is meant for solving much larger systems of equations. This uses the same idea but with a Levenburg-Marquardt implementation. This utilizes MATLAB's pagefun and with an aggressive implementation, this beats out the best global solver I could find by a factor of 25,000 for the same results (this method also allowed me to obtain an order of magnitude improvement for my results with a 4000x speedup).
While these results are impressive, my advisor wants me to focus on my primary research and wants me to present those results. I'd like to present both results as I believe they are both valuable to the body of knowledge but my advisor has always been honest with me and I feel like I should follow his lead.
**Should I publish this linear programming method despite my advisor's advice?**<issue_comment>username_1: It is good to have publications. It is also good to follow the advice of your advisor for many reasons. Advisors have some say over your future, of course, so caution is indicated, at least, in every case.
Note first that it has been many years since I was current with the algorithms of integer and linear programming. I suspect you are more current and your advisor more so, so be a bit careful in analyzing what I say below.
The field in general is quite mature and the existing algorithms are very sophisticated. This was true 30 year ago, in fact. If the field has settled down since then there is little urgency in publishing *now*, as it is unlikely that you would be beaten to publication if you wait. You can make your advisor happy and, indeed, make progress on your main work without abandoning what you have.
However, I think that a real advance should be questioned and you should be the one to question it. In particular, it may be that the reason for such good results is that your specific problem has characteristics that make this possible and your algorithm is nicely tailored to a special case. The possibility of that actually opens a door for your future work. If it is true, then knowing and describing that special case would be very useful, along with the algorithm.
Also, if it is, indeed, a special case and you have tested only with the confines of this case then your results may not apply generally. It would be good to know, before you publish, whether this is true or not. And it would be especially good for you if you are the one to discover this. Fortunately, you can test your algorithm on a wider class of problems found in the literature. Thus, you can, perhaps, rule out the situation in which you have an anomaly. But your primary work should likely come first.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I do not know, who is "right". Your contributions look quite impressive, though. So I am trying here to come up with arguments that might lead your supervisor to his/her decision. I deliberately omit politics and strategising.
* Your new method seems to work very well on your data. **Does it work well enough on other kinds of data?** It might be the nature of your data that allows for such speedups. While this would still be of interest for your actual narrow topic, it might not qualify as a broad solution.
* You use MatLab. This is probably the correct tool for you to use. This *might* be not the right tool for the general claim. (In other words, you'd be more or less desk-rejected if you present your MatLab solution to the specialists in linear programming. I am not sure, this *would* happen, but this totally *might* happen. Your supervisor probably knows more.) Thus, **you'd need to re-write your code in C and/or in CUDA,** with major and non-trivial investments towards memory alignment, pointer juggling, low-level optimisations, bandwidth optimisation, and what not. **Writing fast low-level code takes a lot of time.** It might be that this time is better spent doing other things.
* This is a part of a publication build-up for a thesis, right? **The way your supervisor envisions your thesis, this linear programming thing has no place there.** (This is quite strange, as typically, as long as it is related (and it is) and successful, it does not really matter.)
* Your supervisor has little expertise in that other field, does not feel like he/she can provide sufficient guidance, and **would rather give up on that direction completely**. This is also quite untypical, even if own expertise is lacking, one would typically be acquainted with colleagues, who are experts in that particular area. If a PhD candidate slowly wanders to that area, one might even think of a joint supervision.
So, to re-iterate. I do not know the rationale of your supervisor behind his/her decision, but it **might** be one of these. Do you have a good and informal enough relationship to simply ask why?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Loops can be slower in MATLAB, so using matrix operations to apply a particular algorithm to all the values is going to be faster than looping through the values and applying the algorithm individually. Since the number of calculations doesn't change, you haven't come up with anything scientifically novel, you have just found a way to use MATLAB more efficiently.
When I profiled your demo code in MATLAB, I noticed that the built-in `fminbnd` spent a lot of its time fetching a termination string and loading the optimisation settings structure. Maybe if this function was streamlined to the bare bones it would be much faster. The point is, these things are all just implementation details of same algorithm. Unless you are coming up with some previously unknown way of leveraging the CPU or GPU instruction set to speed up things I don't think the implementation is scientifically interesting.
So, your advisor is correct. You should focus on your primary research. The vectorisation has technical merit, speeding up things is a huge help (I spent hours and hours in front of MATLAB doing similar things, speed up `roots` for me please hehe). So I think you should properly document your code (no "I don't know what is going on here" easter eggs) and share it on File Exchange so that other people can take advantage of the tricks you have learnt. (GitHub as well, which has greater exposure)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Figure out why your advisor recommends against publication.
If we assume that your advisor is a reasonable person, then he's probably against you publishing these results for concrete reasons. Why? Does he think it's not significant enough, not extendable, pointless, etc? If you can provide great counterarguments for your advisor's objections, then you have a good chance of changing your advisor's mind.
In some sense, your advisor is your first peer reviewer. If you can't change your advisor's mind, then you're not likely to convince an editor or reviewer either.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I will expand on a point that username_2 mentioned in his answer:
>
> Your new method seems to work very well on your data. Does it work well enough on other kinds of data? It might be the nature of your data that allows for such speedups. While this would still be of interest for your actual narrow topic, it might not qualify as a broad solution.
>
>
>
In areas where performance is important (including but not limited to mathematical algorithms), you will often find that standard benchmarks have been developed in order to compare different methods. These may include a range of difficult cases in order to get an idea not just of the method's speed, but also of its robustness.
If you have a new method that you think might be better than existing methods, I'd recommend looking for a relevant set of benchmark problems and testing it on those to get a picture of overall performance. You may find that it performs well on some problem classes but fails on others.
If you're lucky enough to find that your method reliably outperforms the market leaders, then that's a major advance and you should look to publish, or alternatively explore the possibility of commercialising it, depending on how you feel about such things and any restrictions that might apply.
In this case, something like <NAME>'s "[Benchmarks for Optimization Software](http://plato.asu.edu/bench.html)" might be relevant. As an example, [this page](http://plato.asu.edu/ftp/lpcom.html) compares solver performance on a set of 46 linear problems. Gurobi, CPLEX, and Xpress were able to solve all 46 of the benchmark problems, with Gurobi being the fastest of those three by a small margin. MATLAB-R2018a solved 42/46 and was about ten times slower than Gurobi overall, according to the metric used.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/05
| 2,122
| 8,784
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have returned to my country after [one negative experience as a postdoc](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104541/persistent-issues-with-salary-pay-as-a-postdoc-in-china-what-can-i-do) in China.
In short, I was hired based on false salary & funding expectations supported by shady vague contracts written in Chinese. I stayed until the end as to escape a raging crisis at home.
Now I am back home, among long-date colleagues & collaborators. A large international conference in our field of study starts today. The very same PIs who lured me into their trap are coming, *now in my country*, **actively seeking for new candidates**. Surely they expect me to treat them politely, coldly at best. These people owe me a lot of money, plus stolen time and project ideas.
I think they expect me to stay nice and quiet for fear of getting bad recommendations and in the hopes of perhaps getting paid/compensated in the future. The culture here is certainly different from what they expect. *In just few hour*s I will meet them at the conference hall, for the opening.
I am revolted. At least in my country, LoRs are not required for getting jobs, and I do not think they're too influential outside of their institutions.
**Should I openly expose them**? **Or would that just label me as some begrudged nuthead?**
There is one special roundtable about work ethics included, and I am thinking of approaching the organisation about this. Any suggestions, ideas on this, would be appreciated.
P.S. This is *not* in the US.
UPDATE:
Finally the event is coming to an end. I have carefully considered the views of commenters and answers here. Thanks to all for so much attention.
I have avoided the scammers as best as I could. They approached me individually, on different casual occasions, to greet and initiate some chat. I was just plain cold, cutting it short. Fortunately they got the message and have been also avoiding eye contact and interaction.
I have outlined the absurd situation to a large number of peers, yet only when asked. “How was it in China”, “I remember you complaining about some problems, how did that fare” etc. I did not mention names, except when directly asked for confirmation.
A couple of friends are part of fhe organizing comitee. They agree in that it’s best to only bring this up to the chairman in case these scammers are openly advertising positions with false information.
I did contact some local reporters I know who asked for an outline. Yet once they had the story they didn’t reply. I don’t think then this will hit the newspapers unless something new and remarkable happens.
The event ends tomorrow. They might approach me one last time. If they do I’ll comment below. Otherwise I’m leaving this at this. I’ve focused on intensively networking and getting collaborations moving, learning new ideas. Much easier without having to interact with this mess. Hopefully I’ve warned enough people to at least avoid someone else fall in this trap. Hopefully they’ll move to a different field or just stop. Thanks to all here.<issue_comment>username_1: There is a lot going on here. If you want to play power politics make sure that you have the power first.
You contemplate making an accusation. Depending on local law and custom this could open you to a charge of slander that you would have to defend. Far in the past a duel on the green would be seen as the appropriate response. Now it is lawyers instead of pistols, of course.
If you can make the claim fairly and can also do so anonymously you protect yourself. If the journalists you intend to speak with can really protect "their sources" (i.e. your identity) it might be possible. But they will need evidence even though they are less susceptible to a charge of slander.
But an emotional response won't help anyone and might reflect badly on yourself.
But I see your dilemma. Others may be at risk here if you don't make some attempt. I think that the conference chairs that I have worked with would listen to your complaint if you can contact them. This won't guarantee anonymity, of course, but in the best case it could put other powerful people in your camp. On the other hand, if the committee is somehow aligned with the PIs in question it would be the worst situation of all.
One rather scary possibility is that you confront them privately and tell them your complaints and that you don't like to see them recruiting others into the same situation you faced. If you know of any others who already faced the same situation and you can confront the PI as a group it would be even better. Some people have no shame at all and some are driven by forces even they can't control, but you might let them think that withdrawal is a better option than continuing. Scary, though.
Ethics don't require, in a case like this, that you put yourself at risk to save others.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not know your local laws and I am not a lawyer, but I suggest that the appropriate way to speak out is to use your local courts. It sounds like you have a legal issue (wage theft) not an academic one. You can begin litigation against your former supervisor.
Presumably, if your former supervisor appears in your local court, they can win any litigation on the basis of jurisdiction. But you are interested in speaking out and stopping your former supervisor from seeking new victims. Unsuccessful litigation could achieve those goals. I would expect your former supervisor to respond to litigation by avoiding your country.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I advise you to talk with a lawyer ASAP.
If it were in my country the embassy/consulate was involved, as per work law, I can choose the jurisdiction as my home town...and so, being the jurisdiction local, local laws kick in, and a signature of mine in the Chinese version of contracts would be mostly nil because I do not understand Chinese.
However there might be lengths of time to do that, 1 year at most year in my case, so hurry up.
Some of the charges besides monetary might be criminal...as said, pay a consultation with a lawyer to clear out if you have any leg to stand on in a case.
I would also talk with your University body to see it is worth filling a written complaint that prevents them to deal as an accredited academic reputable entity locally. If you can find others that were also wronged, so much the better.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: **If I might propose an alternative?**
Your goal here isn't necessarily to accuse the supervisors in question, but to warn potential vulnerable victims to their scam. I don't work in academia, but I do sometimes have to cover the topic of government corruption, and avoiding slander can sometimes be simply the case of not accusing anybody directly.
So instead of saying these X people did Y terrible thing to me, consider:
I experienced Y terrible thing that has A, B, C traits (EG Chinese document that contains a dodgy contract, being paid less than stated amount).
So in your case, what you're doing is giving the people sufficient information to identify the scam/trap themselves (without saying who is responsible. If anyone asks, you can simply decline to name). Anyone reading between the lines will see what X person(s) are doing fits A, B, C traits and put two and two together. If X person(s) accuse you of accusing them, you can simply point out you never even mentioned them by name.
For them to argue it's slander, they would have to prove that their actions matches the ABC traits, which would mean they would effectively be proving it is a scam.
For handling them directly, I would propose you alert the appropriate legal/goverment/police department that handles fraud (potentially as an anonymous tip-off, but more useful if you were a named source), because if they induced you into accepting a contract via deception, what they are committing in most countries is effectively a crime, and it's likely you're not the only person they've scammed, and they appear to be, as you say, hunting for more.
It's worth adding: If they've left you out of pocket, you might even be able to get a no-win-no-fee lawyer to chase the costs back. Especially if you still have all the documentation to prove what you got wasn't what they induced you to believe.
**Summary:**
Your goal here is to use what you've learned in order to alert people to the signs of a possible scam so they don't fall for the trap. It might not just be the people you've met that are engaged in such practices, so it's probably an excellent idea to make it a warning in general.
Any matters of dubious legal practices should be handled legally and not in the public arena.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/05
| 1,265
| 5,697
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my department, we hire graduate TAs as both graders and teaching assistants. The teaching assistants are assigned to lead discussion sections that meet twice per week. The graders are assigned to grade all of the homework and exams.
The department requests that both TAs and graders spend three hours in the academic skills center. During these three hours, students can basically ask the grader/TA whatever they want.
My current assignment is an upper division undergraduate course. Many of the students aren't prepared for the course difficulty (ten hour homework assignments, projects, and exams). Inside the academic skills center, I am asked frequently about how to do homework problems when I am not a TA.
How should I handle this situation? Am I responsible for helping students do every single individual homework problem before the assignment is due? I thought that a grader would solely be responsible for grading homework. I spent a nontrivial amount of time helping students do their own homework.
Should graders have some sort of protection from these scenarios? I don't know why an undergraduate student would ask the grader grading their homework for help.<issue_comment>username_1: This is really a question for the professor(s) in charge of the course. You can and should get specific direction from them.
However, just for background and context. A lone professor in a smaller class will find him/herself in this situation frequently. It is unlikely that it is wise to not answer at all, but also unwise to give such specific hints that student learning ceases and the student just follows directions.
But it may take some experience to be able to balance the needs (and also to keep the prof happy). In general, you can think about the question you were asked, and before answering it, ask yourself whether the student has an unmet need that generates that question. Do they have a misconception? Have they missed an important reading? Something. I suspect that it is generally fair to address those needs rather than "helping" them with the specific assignment. Even giving them an easier task that might help them understand where they are and why they are having problems might be suitable.
The base line is, don't get in the way of their learning just to help them complete a specific task.
But you might check even this advice with the prof. You might also cause more specific training to be provided to you are your fellow graders/TAs.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I thought that a grader would solely be responsible for grading homework.
>
>
>
Then it appears you misunderstood the expectations of your job.
Job titles like "grader" are loose and don't necessarily describe the complete set of duties expected of a person holding that role. (A "professor" does much more than just "professing"!) It's certainly very common for a student to be hired for a job which includes both grading and helping students with questions, and sometimes other duties besides. It seems that at your school, this job is simply called "grader" for convenience. The assumption is that both grading and helping students require a certain level of expertise with the course material, so somebody qualified for one should also be qualified for the other.
If they assigned you to spend time in the skills center, the implicit expectation is that you are to spend this time assisting students who come to the center looking for help. In particular, you should not plan to spend this time working on grading (unless no students show up). Grading time would be on top of this and you should plan accordingly. So no, there isn't any kind of "protection" from doing what is simply part of your job.
Assisting students at the center may *also* be one of the duties of a TA, but that doesn't mean that you can't be asked to do it too. It seems clear that there's plenty of this work to go around.
Note that *assisting* doesn't necessarily mean *answering questions* - if a student just asks you "what's the answer to problem 6", you should not answer that question directly! But you should work with the student to help them learn what they need in order to solve the problem on their own. There is a fine line between helping and giving away answers, and you'll get better at it with experience. You can also talk with the professor or TAs to get some guidance.
If you really don't like this task, you have the right to quit your job (unless you have some sort of binding contract). But many people find working with students to be valuable experience, especially if you have any interest in a career involving teaching. It also helps develop your communication skills, and tends to help deepen your understanding of the topic of the course.
(If you have some sort of written contract that specifies that a grader is required *only* to grade homework/exams and nothing else, then you might have some remedies through HR or a union or some similar structure. But I doubt that this is the case.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, if you are there in an office hours type of setting where students may ask anything, then you should expect they will ask anything, including questions about homework. And you should be prepared to answer them.
When helping students with homework, your objective should be to help them understand the material well enough to do the assignment on their own. You should not do their work for them. So, instead, it's more about identifying and coaching them through the parts where they're stuck, perhaps going over the lecture material they didn't understand well enough.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/05
| 1,194
| 5,262
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am looking to apply for graduate programs for Fall 2019 and I am so confused about my chances of admission for different universities.
I know it cannot be really calculated and there is no such formula (2\*GPA+5\*publications etc) but I think there should be a way to estimate a rough probability. Like someone with a 3.0 GPA and no research won't in %99.99 of the time get admitted to MIT right?
Particularly in case of international students like me, knowing your chance of admission is the key to just apply for where you actually stand a chance and not to waste money on application fees.
I think I shouldn't mention my own GPA and application material by the rules of SE. So I won't. If I can please tell me in comments so I add them.<issue_comment>username_1: This is really a question for the professor(s) in charge of the course. You can and should get specific direction from them.
However, just for background and context. A lone professor in a smaller class will find him/herself in this situation frequently. It is unlikely that it is wise to not answer at all, but also unwise to give such specific hints that student learning ceases and the student just follows directions.
But it may take some experience to be able to balance the needs (and also to keep the prof happy). In general, you can think about the question you were asked, and before answering it, ask yourself whether the student has an unmet need that generates that question. Do they have a misconception? Have they missed an important reading? Something. I suspect that it is generally fair to address those needs rather than "helping" them with the specific assignment. Even giving them an easier task that might help them understand where they are and why they are having problems might be suitable.
The base line is, don't get in the way of their learning just to help them complete a specific task.
But you might check even this advice with the prof. You might also cause more specific training to be provided to you are your fellow graders/TAs.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I thought that a grader would solely be responsible for grading homework.
>
>
>
Then it appears you misunderstood the expectations of your job.
Job titles like "grader" are loose and don't necessarily describe the complete set of duties expected of a person holding that role. (A "professor" does much more than just "professing"!) It's certainly very common for a student to be hired for a job which includes both grading and helping students with questions, and sometimes other duties besides. It seems that at your school, this job is simply called "grader" for convenience. The assumption is that both grading and helping students require a certain level of expertise with the course material, so somebody qualified for one should also be qualified for the other.
If they assigned you to spend time in the skills center, the implicit expectation is that you are to spend this time assisting students who come to the center looking for help. In particular, you should not plan to spend this time working on grading (unless no students show up). Grading time would be on top of this and you should plan accordingly. So no, there isn't any kind of "protection" from doing what is simply part of your job.
Assisting students at the center may *also* be one of the duties of a TA, but that doesn't mean that you can't be asked to do it too. It seems clear that there's plenty of this work to go around.
Note that *assisting* doesn't necessarily mean *answering questions* - if a student just asks you "what's the answer to problem 6", you should not answer that question directly! But you should work with the student to help them learn what they need in order to solve the problem on their own. There is a fine line between helping and giving away answers, and you'll get better at it with experience. You can also talk with the professor or TAs to get some guidance.
If you really don't like this task, you have the right to quit your job (unless you have some sort of binding contract). But many people find working with students to be valuable experience, especially if you have any interest in a career involving teaching. It also helps develop your communication skills, and tends to help deepen your understanding of the topic of the course.
(If you have some sort of written contract that specifies that a grader is required *only* to grade homework/exams and nothing else, then you might have some remedies through HR or a union or some similar structure. But I doubt that this is the case.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, if you are there in an office hours type of setting where students may ask anything, then you should expect they will ask anything, including questions about homework. And you should be prepared to answer them.
When helping students with homework, your objective should be to help them understand the material well enough to do the assignment on their own. You should not do their work for them. So, instead, it's more about identifying and coaching them through the parts where they're stuck, perhaps going over the lecture material they didn't understand well enough.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/05
| 2,139
| 7,593
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing several papers that require density plots of complex-valued functions of two variables f:R^2→C, where I'm primarily interested in the complex argument arg(f(x,y)) as a function of the input variables, but I wish to emphasize only the regions where the modulus |f(x,y)| is high.
Because of this, my approach thus far has been to produce density plots where the phase arg(f(x,y)) is encoded as the [hue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue), and the modulus |f(x,y)| is encoded as a [HSV chroma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV) blend from white (where the modulus is zero, and arg(f(x,y)) is meaningless) to fully-saturated color at maximal modulus, where the phase is a meaningful variable.
However, this scheme suffers from being "non-orthogonal", in that some hue values (notably yellow and cyan) are much lighter than the baseline set by e.g. red or blue. I am looking for a combination that fixes these shortcomings, by providing:
* A periodic color scale for the angle-like function value that passes through as many different colors as possible (i.e. at least some six distinct values, with a premium on contrast between them) while still maintaining a constant visual 'strength' throughout that traverse. I care primarily about subjective strength, but lightness is probably a good stand-in.
* A conjugate color scale that goes from white to fully-'saturated' color that is as 'orthogonal' as possible to the angle variable.
As an example of what I'm looking for, this is a plot of the function f(x,y) = (x+iy)^2 exp(-(x^2+y^2)) using my current plotting conventions:
Mathematica source via `Import["http://halirutan.github.io/Mathematica-SE-Tools/decode.m"]["https://i.stack.imgur.com/NFhW1.png"]`
Note in particular how you can immediately read the `^2` exponent from the fact that over a round-trip around the origin you do a red→green→blue→back-to-red loop twice, while still being able to clearly tell that the function is concentrated at a ring around the origin between radii ~0.5 and ~1.5. However, there are still perceived 'intensity' gradients azimuthally within this ring (notably the perceived 'lobes' around the blue areas), which I would like to avoid. I would also, if nothing else, like to smoothen the visual contrast around the sharp ray-like features at yellow, cyan and, to a slightly lesser extent, magenta.
A few final notes:
* This problem arises because I'm attempting the ambitious goal of plotting two-dimensional values on a single density plot. I know that this is an ambitious goal and that it may be impossible to fulfill completely. Nevertheless, I think it is still worth doing as good as possible with it.
* I have indeed considered other formats to present the same information; you can assume that I've explored them thoroughly and found that they are too cumbersome or otherwise unclear.
* This approach will obviously only work when printed out in color, and grayscale printing (either on the print journal or when readers print it out at home) will leave most of this information out. You can assume that I've weighed the pros and cons of this and decided that it's still worth including.
* This is also an accessibility problem for readers with color vision deficiency. This is, I feel, an unfortunate necessity of plotting two-dimensional values on a density plot, and I feel the added clarity for non-CVD readers is a worthwhile tradeoff once the information loss for CVD readers is mitigated via other means.
So, with that said: are there better options for dealing with this problem than the hue-chroma combination I'm currently using?<issue_comment>username_1: As you note, there are problems with the typical rainbow colour map.
Kovesi has done some work on [perceptually uniform colour maps](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03700.pdf). Code is available here: <https://peterkovesi.com/projects/colourmaps/index.html>
In my work, I replaced the rainbow map with the Kovesi's first cyclic colour map for the angle values, and used either saturation or intensity (multiplication) for the modulus. In hindsight, it would probably make sense to map the raw modulus values to saturation / intensity using one of the perceptually uniform greyscale linear maps as well.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lfcsr.png)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am a fan of the Solarized colour scheme, which amongst others contains eight colours that have:
* equal perceived brightness,
* distinct tones.
Using these eight colours for the angle and then whitening (using Solarized’s white) according to the absolute value gives me for your example:
You may still perceive some sharp transitions, but most of these depend on the specific screen in my experience.
Note that this colour scheme is optimized for screen and not for print. In my experience it also works nice with projectors, and I use it for presentations (using the more intense variants for black and white).
### Appendix: Code
Here is the Python code I used to generate the above image:
```
import numpy as np
def rgb_to_numerical(string):
return np.array([
int(string[1+2*i:3+2*i],base=16)
for i in range(3)
])
white = rgb_to_numerical("#FDF6E3")
colours = [rgb_to_numerical(colour) for colour in [
"#B58900", # yellow
"#CB4B16", # orange
"#DC322F", # red
"#D33682", # magenta
"#6C71C4", # violet
"#268BD2", # blue
"#2AA198", # cyan
"#859900", # green
]]
segment_size = 2*np.pi/len(colours)
def tone(angle):
segment_num = int(angle//segment_size)%len(colours)
stride = (angle%segment_size)/segment_size
left_colour = colours[segment_num]
right_colour = colours[(segment_num+1)%len(colours)]
return left_colour*(1-stride)+right_colour*stride
def bleach(colour,amount):
amount **= 3
return colour*(1-amount)+white*amount
f = lambda z: z**2 * np.exp(-np.abs(z)**2)
size = (600,600)
re_range = (-3,3)
im_range = (-3,3)
mod_range = (0.55,0)
rgb_array = np.empty((*size,3),dtype=np.uint8)
for k,x in enumerate(np.linspace(*re_range,size[0])):
for l,y in enumerate(np.linspace(*im_range,size[1])):
value = f(x+y*1j)
modulus = np.abs(value)
angle = np.angle(value)
intensity = (modulus-mod_range[0])/(mod_range[1]-mod_range[0])
rgb_array[k,l] = bleach(tone(angle),intensity)
from PIL import Image
Image.fromarray(rgb_array).save("circular.png")
```
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In general a good colour map is perceptually uniform (avoiding how the yellow and magenta stand out in your original), works when printed in black and white, and works for at least the majority of colour-blind people.
I'm not aware of any cyclic maps that manage black and white well (it's not really possible, because you can't have a monotonic progression of lightness and get back to where you started), and I'm not sure how well any of them do for colour-blindness, but perceptually uniform is achievable.
The other answers are good in pointing out the theory and offering some examples.
The "Phase" map from [CM-OCEAN](https://matplotlib.org/cmocean/) is another example, and is available in "ready made" form for Python and [Matlab](https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/57773-cmocean-perceptually-uniform-colormaps).
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/05
| 1,687
| 6,775
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently, I have submitted an early draft of a report summarising the results of a year-long project at my university, to my advisor for review. We have met up for a review of the paper, and he pointed out my frequent use of the word "we" in the paper. He considered it a mistake and asked me to change everything to a third-person view.
Personally, I found this incredibly strange. I am in the field of mathematics, and based on other papers and publications in math, it is very common and even considered "good" language to use the word "we" in writing, especially in proofs and discussions of results. For example, instead of
>
> This proof demonstrates Theorem 3 to be true
>
>
>
it is considered desirable to instead write
>
> We have thus proven Theorem 3.
>
>
>
The reasons cited for this preference, I have seen, is due to both convention and to avoid dodgy writing (third-person wording may suggest that the authors did something, but it could have been taken from somewhere else).
I have seen different questions on this site pertaining to this issue. [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58045/how-to-decide-whether-i-should-use-we-in-an-essay), for example, has answers which suggest to take reference to the *style guide* provided by one's university, which unfortunately mine does not have. The accepted answer deals with economics, so I am unsure it applies in mathematics. [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/choice-of-personal-pronoun-in-single-author-papers) suggests it is good to use "we" in mathematical and scientific writing. A quick search on Google, however, apparently suggests it is **always** undesirable to use first or second person pronouns in academic writing (see [this site](http://en.writecheck.com/blog/2012/11/30/writing-no-no-1-video)).
Thus, I am asking this question for my specific scenario for clarification. Should I follow my advisor's advice, or should I discuss with him further? Again, I find his advice rather odd and I definitely prefer to be able to use the word "we" as I please when appropriate.<issue_comment>username_1: I'll make two points. First, it is always good advice to a student to follow the advisor's advice. He or she has more experience and is supposed to look out for your interests.
But second, if you are writing mathematics or most other things, you aren't writing a blog or a diary. You are, in fact, writing for the ages. What you have found to be true is true, and has always been true, independent of your action. The writing should be about the *it* not the *who*.
When you present the work at a conference, you can be more informal and talk about your contributions and what made it challenging and/or rewarding for you. But in the writing, focus on the math itself.
I'd have to think about whether I'd give the same answer for Computer Science, which is an act of creation, not discovery. I'd need to think about it for a while first.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If you were writing for a journal, you would want to check the journal's style guide. If it doesn't cover that issue, then the next step would be to check previous publications and see what the norm is.
For an internal report with no applicable style guide, one should write for the intended reader/s. If your advisor is going to be the main reader for this document, then write it in the style that he requests.
To me, this change seems unnecessary, but it may help to consider [this story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Chess) from the development of the computer game Battlechess:
>
> The producers of the game were known to demand changes to the game, presumably to make their mark on the finished product. To this end, one animator added a small duck around the queen piece, but made sure that the sprite would be easily removable. Come review, the producers, predictably, okayed everything but asked for the duck to be removed.
>
>
>
In my experience, this is a very broad tendency among managers/advisors, and now that I'm a manager myself I understand the temptation to micro-manage. Even if a document is quite good enough as-is, if we don't suggest changes we don't feel like we're doing our job.
It may be that your use of "we"s is the sacrificial "duck" shielding you from more annoying change requests.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Reports and proposals in math often have different style than other mathematical writing. For example, in NSF grant proposals you would usually say "the PI" instead of "we". Similarly, in a document going to a broad science audience, conventions of science might be more appropriate. I'd suggest following up with your advisor to better understand where he's coming from, maybe he just means "we" is inappropriate for this particular document.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I have a bit of overview over the fields, having my MSc in mathematics, prolifiely working in computer science, and having some contacts to medical research.
* As someone mentioned above, "mathematics is for eternity". When I wrote my own texts in that field I was very, *very* wary of using "I" or "we" or anything. I think, I have overloaded my texts with passive voice then, and "we" should be Ok in mathematical texts in my opinion.
* In computer science it is perfectly Ok to use "we".
* In medicine "we" is actually frowned on, use passive voice. "The operation was performed in order to ..."
* In liberal arts, when you express *your* opinion and your position, you use "I". Have seen few such papers, completely alien to me, but obviously an accepted usage in that fields.
And yes, "we" does not really mean "the authors of this paper", thus forcing you to "I" in a thesis or a solo paper. "We" means "us, the reader and the writer".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Think of it as follows: you are a guide at a museum and show people around. You would say things like "Here we see an example of ..., from which we conclude that ...", which is perfectly fine. What would sound wrong is using 'I' in this way. You don't say "Here I see ..." because you the visitors are also seeing this with you and you guide them through it. This is a different scenario from when you give a talk about some personal accomplishements, as in "Here I dug out this specimen on a trip to ...". In a mathematics paper you are reporting on a result, and not on your personal experience and circumstances in getting there (though you can, of course, choose to do so, in which case I would be fine). This is also why you find different advice for single author papers in other scientific disciplines, where you document how you arrived at your results.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/06
| 1,889
| 7,681
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just saw an ad for a new Statistics course that will be offered this fall semester and it states:
>
> For postdoctoral, graduate, and advanced undergraduate students ...
>
>
>
I am surprised and a little bit shocked from seeing "postdoctoral" in the ad as a potential attendee of that course. Is it usual to have postdocs take courses?<issue_comment>username_1: I run short courses and have post-docs (and professors and PhD students and...) as participants regularly. For example, you may need a methodology you haven't used before to deal with some aspect of your research question. You don't stop learning just because you've finished your PhD. Conference workshops, short courses and other training opportunities are full of postdocs. It's unlikely a postdoc would attend a course 'for credit', but auditing a course where you work is an easy way to find out new ways of doing research.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Learning never stops. In your PhD you should have gotten a good overview of the relevant methods in your field, and gotten an in depth knowledge of the methods relevant to your thesis. That leaves a lot of methods you have "heard of", but not quite know. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. So it is perfectly normal that a postdoc starts a new project where (s)he needs to apply such a method. If a course is offered on that topic, then that is great. In fact, as a postdoc you know the people who can offer such courses, and you can just ask them if they can offer such a course next semester. I offer such methods courses and I get such requests quite often. If the request is halfway reasonable, then I'll try to fit it in.
This does not end with postdocs. Faculty often want to follow such courses as well. It does not happen that often for two reasons. First, the courses are typically offered in a period when the faculty also has to teach, so they just don't have time. Second, some feel uncomfortable showing they don't know something in front of collegues and/or in front of students. Others feel uncomfortable when teaching in front of colleagues. If the atmosphere in the department is good, then that is not a big problem. If there are tensions, and there often are, then that could inhibit faculty to attend. For those two reasons faculty tend to more often attend courses from outside facutly offered in a compact format (a couple of days intensive course on ...) outside the teaching period.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Adding to the other answers to reply to the comment: sure, a postdoc would have the skills to learn the subject on their own. But do they have the time? It's (usually) faster to learn when you get a world expert to teach you, than trying to do it on your own in your office. You can ask questions to the expert, and depending on the format of the course and your questions, the expert can even adapt the course to the audience (a book can't do that). You also have a few other motivated people learning the same thing beside you, and you can ask questions to them. It also provides motivation: if you have an appointment every Monday at 10 to learn something, it's harder to blow off than "I'll read this book some day during the week... maybe...".
Finally, well, learning is fun. Maybe the course isn't strictly necessary for what the postdoc is working on right now. But it's always nice to take a couple of hours every week to learn about something new, open up new perspectives. And it's quite refreshing when you know you are doing this for yourself and not for some exam at the end of the semester. (Almost?) nobody has learned all there is to learn during their PhD. And who knows, maybe you will have a revolutionary idea by attending the course and thinking "wait a minute, I've seen this sort of phenomenon before...!"
Of course, as the others said, I don't think any postdoc would "take" the course to get credits or something like that. Postdocs aren't students.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It is extremely common for a post doc to audit a course. The auditing post doc is not officially enrolled, does not pay tuition, earn credit, take exams, or grade papers, or teach.
They just sit there, auditing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It is odd to have it advertised but sure, I've had Profs attend courses I've given (many) and as a former Asst Prof in Mathematics, I attended some Grad level Econ courses which I thought quite interesting. Postdocs don't take exams and don't pay fees, so the course shouldn't be geared to them.
It's a different experience of course--I made friends with all the senior people in my courses and the prof whose course I attended, and they're all possible collaborators, something you're always on the lookout for when in academia.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'll just drop it here in a response to [Maarten's fine answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/114837/68958) (see the [Dunning-Kruger effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/U9XvC.jpg)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: It is a little odd as post docs are not generally formally enrolled in a program that leads to a degree and hence do not typically need credits. That said, post doc training can involve work outside the lab/classroom. For example, NIH funded post docs need to complete training on [Responsible Conduct for Research (RCR)](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html). Some key excerpts from that guidance include:
>
> Instruction should include face-to-face discussions by course participants and faculty; i.e., on-line instruction may be a component of instruction in responsible conduct of research but is not sufficient to meet the NIH requirement for such instruction, except in special or unusual circumstances.
>
>
>
Most RCR plans include a component on
>
> data acquisition and laboratory tools; management, sharing and ownership
>
>
>
The RCR training also has a [core component on reproducability](https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training/instruction-responsible-conduct-research-postdoc-irta-crta-vf-research-0).
It is possible that a stats class could be tailored to provide training to satisfy the NIH RCR requirements (or maybe requirements by the NSF or some other large funder). For administrative purposes, post docs (and faculty and others) may be forced to enroll in these courses as non-degree seeking students.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: people change, and fields change. At my institute, technical computing courses are regularly run, and attract postdocs. E.g. someone who did their PhD using Stata or Excel and now want to learn a package like R, or is starting to use High Performance Computing facilities and need to learn Unix. Your example is for a statistics course. The postdocs in attendance may not be from a heavily statistical background, having statistics issues in their current projects and need a wider knowledge of statistical theory to help with their research. At the start of my postdoc, I attended many courses as I completely changed fields for my postdoc, going from mathematical modelling to biomedical statistics, and needing basic knowledge of genomics. A PhD in applied mathematics doesn't make me immediately able to learn genetics independently, as I knew virtually nothing about the field going into the postdoc, I was hired for my numerical skills.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/06
| 919
| 3,832
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing myself for a job interview for a lecturer position. According to many articles on academic job interviews, a common question to be prepared for is that " what can you do to enhance our department?"
I'm not sure what exactly the committee would mean by that? I understand that I should tailor my own answer but question is not really clear to me.<issue_comment>username_1: Well, what can you do that nobody else in the department can? Some possible examples:
1. If you've had experience teaching electronically, and the department doesn't currently offer e-learning, you could point this out.
2. If you have expertise in a certain subject that nobody else in the department has, you could point this out.
3. If you've seen the content, homework assignments, etc, of the current courses the department offers, and you think you can do better, you could point this out. For example maybe in your experience students like to learn about [topic] which would be a really good addition to the department's [course], and you are very capable of teaching [topic].
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is an obviously open ended question that is intended to be hard. It will be used differently by different people. Often it is used because they can't think of anything very specific to ask you. In the book Siddhartha by Hesse, Siddhartha is asked the question by a potential employer. His response is "I can think. I can wait. I can fast" which seems a bit non-responsive. The statement has been widely analyzed.
A similarly orthogonal answer is sometimes fine, or not, but it depends on your reading of the situation. But the answer should somehow be meaningful to you.
One specific piece of advice, though, is not to use the question to appear arrogant. "I play well with others." Fine, even if a bit silly. "I have a 180 measured IQ." Not fine.
It is good to think about the question. It is also good to think about why you want *this* job. When you think about such questions, think beyond your professional capabilities. Think about your goals, your other interests, etc.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: This is an opportunity to sell yourself. The question is vague which allows you to take the conversation to whatever topic you want to bring up. Teaching? Research? Potential collaborators?
Here is a short list of ideas that I used when I got questions like this:
* I can teach X, which I think could help the department.
* My research interests overlap with Y's.
* No one in the department is currently doing research in Z.
Another technique is to transform vague questions into questions that you can answer. I did this a lot. See my [list](http://austinhenley.com/resources/facultyinterviewquestions.html) of questions that I was asked during my faculty interviews for more ideas.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: This is an update for those who are planning to go down this route:
I had my interview. I was asked a lot of questions regarding my teaching philosophy and experience.
* I was asked why I like to teach at their university?(to protect my privacy name of university will remain anonymous-but lets say it's a prestigous research university).
* One particular question I was asked was that what was the most difficult part of teaching I ever faced and how I dealt with that.
* Also they named a few courses and asked if I've taught them before.
* They asked if I have ever taught classes as instructor and not a TA.
* They asked a follow up question asking if I did A to Z of the course preparation myself, e.g. writing syllabus, making exams etc.
At any rate, while I didn't get the cliche of why-are-you-a-good-fit? the committee aimed to get to know me and investigate my teaching skills in detail by asking straightforward questions.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/06
| 877
| 3,668
|
<issue_start>username_0: My official, legal name is A, but I'm know by most people as B. B relates to A as Bob to Robert, however this connection is only obvious in my country of origin where I am no longer based. I am known primarily as B, among my friends and colleagues. In order to build a consistent professional profile over the past several years I've been making a conscious effort to not use A at all, as I've noticed it causes some confusion. My undergraduate degree certificates have my legal name on them but I feel like in a Masters I am currently writing up I would like to proceed with "migrating" over to being a "full-time B". I am not sure though if that in itself won't generate damaging inconsistencies in my professional profile / online presence etc, with various certificates awarded under different names.
Should I use my official legal name or the one I'm known by on my Master's dissertation? What kind of problems can I expect from going either way?<issue_comment>username_1: That is a question to ask your advisor. There are most likely rules on how the dissertation has to look like, including things like where to put the university and institute, how to mention the advisor and, of course, also how and where to put your name (e.g. "name must be the same as on transcript/certificate").
If there happen to be no rules regarding that at your specific university, then your advisor might still be the best to ask, as he knows both the names A,B and also the field you are aiming to work in, so he can say which name might be better.
edit: This recent question here might be relevant to you: [Proving authorship when name in publications does not match name in passport](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114793/proving-authorship-when-name-in-publications-does-not-match-name-in-passport)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are going to change the name you are known by, it is best to do so early. The more you publish the harder it will be for people and the more likely it will be that you need to stick with a name you don't prefer. People will look more to your publication record than what is printed on your official transcripts and diplomas unless you are seeking a new job, etc. However, you can also help inform the world about your formal and informal names by listing yourself as, say, Robert (Bob) Smith. List the informal name in parentheses. It is also possible to footnote your formal name at the top of a paper with "Also known as Bob".
Some editors might object, I suppose, but I would probably press it. Professional women (and even men, actually) who change their surname at marriage often have a similar dilemma and may need to connect the two names in the public's eye.
I don't predict "trouble" no matter how you resolve it, but you will need to explain things to people as you go along until the name you use becomes closely associated with you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: If this is in the US, unless you have changed your name legally, it might be considered fraudulent by the authorities to use B instead of A.
My wife has a similar issue. Until she changed her name legally when we became citizens, she had to use her legal name instead of the one she is known by.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: You could write your name as **Robert "Bob" KubaFYI**, if your university policy allows for it. At least in the US, that's a standard stylization to indicate a nickname or unofficial name one goes by regularly. Classmates of mine who were international students from Eastern Asia and had traditional legal names but went by English names commonly did this.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/06
| 811
| 3,514
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a native English speaker, when I review papers I sometimes carefully go through the English and list my proposed changes, which adds a fair amount of time to the review process.
The most extreme case of this was for a good paper I reviewed for a top computer-science journal, but with fairly poor English. I went through everything in detail, marking proposed changes on a hard copy, then sent back a scan with my review. This kind of review typically adds hours, possibly even days.
It makes me wonder if it's at all appreciated. Perhaps the authors groan when they see such reviews, thinking there's a lot of tedious legwork to do. Or, as I hope, they actually learn something meaningful from this effort. I don't really know.
**Question**: Do non-native English speakers appreciate it when I carefully correct their English in peer reviews?<issue_comment>username_1: That might depend on the field. In mathematics I wouldn't say that this is a good idea, as it will annoy the authors more than anything. If there is only one error or two, you can of course mention them, but if there are lots and lots of errors, I would just mention that in a general statement, not list them all.
I think that everyone makes mistakes when writing a long text (I'm sure there are some even in my relatively short answer here), so if there are way too many, that is most likely due to a wrong use (or no use at all) of a spell checker. Thus, an author that cares about that can go over his file again after reading your comment and will know how to properly spell check for upcoming papers.
If, on the other hand, you list all the errors, he will most likely just correct them without learning anything for the future.
Of course that is assuming that authors do care about spelling.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it is a good idea. Yes, even in mathematics. And even papers by native English speakers.
Sometimes, if the English has many errors, I just note that in my review, and suggest the author have the paper corrected by an English speaker before re-submitting.
Journals **should** have their own people to correct English after papers are accepted. But who knows what happens with modern free-access no-fee journals who cannot afford such luxuries?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As someone who was exposed to the British "Programme" English early in his life. Then moved to American "Program" English, I much appreciate feedback on my English as I have no time for Tutoring and I do not like "special editing services" (mainly because the manuscript will be edited by someone not expert in the field).
In fact, I usually memorize reviewers' suggestions and criticism over my English because they are coming from "peers" that are likely to judge my future manuscripts.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Whatever you do, and for the benefit of anyone looking who might have done so: **please stop writing that we should have our manuscript checked by a native speaker.**
I am referring to those who do write that, not you in particular.
Do not "gatekeep" the knowledge of the English language behind a nationality. It's a matter of proficiency, it's not about the country in which one was born. We are perfectly capable of reaching C1/C2 level in English (advanced fluency) even though we might not have been born in an anglosaxon country.
Something like "please have someone fluent in English proof read the manuscript" would be better.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/06
| 2,580
| 11,108
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently doing my literature review in preparation for my graduation (masters degree) thesis work at a Dutch university. The past semester I worked as a student assistent on a first-year project, that had quite a heavy focus on learning to properly cite and refer to source material. Together with the project supervisor, we'd run all student reports through plagiarism checking software. If we found anything wrong or suspicious, we confronted the students and explained them that their current practice was not the way to go. For example, when a group failed to put quotation marks if they'd literally copied something, we gave them a warning, *even though they did include a reference*. We upheld high standards.
Fast forward to my current work doing my literature research, in which I'm trying to figure out and document the exact workings of a number of software programs - in order to make a detailed comparison supporting selection of a subset of these programs for inclusion in my thesis research. Some of these codes are well-known and open source, others are quite obscure. Especially for the less-known ones, I'm coming close to the point of having read (or at least: knowing about the existence of) all sources there are on that program, and where I'm able to basically guess what paper a numerical reference points to - simply based on content.
Today, I've come across a PhD-thesis in which a full paragraph was directly copied (*not formatted as a blockquote or similar*) from a journal publication, *not written by the PhD-candidate or supervisors*. That paper is mentioned (on a previous page), but quotation marks are absent from the copied paragraph. This is not the first time I've seen something like this (also noted a few conference papers doing this) and it leaves me quite confused.
1. If this is acceptable, aren't the standards I used to teach to my student groups ridiculously high? I'm also adhering to these standards, which not always comes easy. For example, I'm sometimes going through hell and back again to find the original source of something and/or including secondary references, other times including lengthy footnotes on how I think contradictory information might have been mangled up in a chain of citations and pointing out potential errors in peer-reviewed publications. Similarly, I feel I'm walking the line when putting "The information in this section is obtained from reference X, unless indicated otherwise", rather than including a reference after every individual sentence in that section.
2. If this is not acceptable (and the 'high' standards are indeed *the* standards), what should I do about the plagiarised texts I have come across - and might come across in the remainder of my review? Accept it, shrug it off and do better myself, or take this up with somebody from university?
*I realise there might not be an absolute, factual answer to this question - but I'm hoping it is 'allowed'. Other knowledgeable sources that I know are employed at this university and I'd rather first get some external advice/ideas - before becoming the whistle-blower or wrongly accuse people.*
Edited the first and second paragraphs (italicized parts) for clarity.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, the standards should be high. However, people aren't perfect. They aren't perfect in many ways, but one of the ways is just that we make innocent mistakes through inattention. When you write a paper you are swimming in a sea of details. You are focused on your main task and some of the other details escape you in the heat of the moment. It is hard to think both tactically (lets get this done) and strategically (what is the whole thing here) at the same time. Too often we focus on too low a level since the task seems to require it.
Doctoral theses may be a special case since very few people actually read the dissertation and give feedback to the candidate before acceptance. Most of those readers don't have an editorial view, but are also focused on the details. So they let things slip through inattention as well. Articles for publication have more "eyes": reviewers and editors. So the author gets more feedback. I have found that it is also extremely difficult for an authors to read their own work with an editorial eye. It is too easy to re-adopt the mind set taken when writing and miss even quite important details. You see what you think you should be seeing.
Before you "blow the whistle" on anyone, think about what was their intent. Do they intend to deceive or are they just a bit sloppy on some details? The example of the copied paragraph in your question seems to me to be just an oversight since the original authors were named just previously. Sloppy? Yes. Evil? Unlikely.
If you were to catch this before publication it would be good to mention it so that it gets corrected. You are, then, a helpful editor, looking at the document with a different mind set. But if no change in the document is possible it would probably be wrong to raise it as a violation of ethical norms, unless you have some assurance that it really was.
It is good that you help students understand the issues and learn to keep to a high standard. If you can help other professionals better adhere to the standards that would also be good. But the word "plagiarism" is ethically loaded. Don't charge it unless you have some evidence of evil intent.
I'll note that standards change. Self-plagiarism seems to be a recent thing. At least I never thought about it until recently. I understand the concepts behind it (and agree) but it didn't seem to be taken so seriously until a few years ago.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It’s not acceptable, but it happens.
However, the bar about when to report things as plagiarism versus sloppiness can be tricky. Is there a citation and the author forgot to put the quotation marks, or vice versa? There can also be some issues with the nature of the material being “plagiarized.” Is it from a methods section? Then perhaps it’s being reused because it’s the same approach as the new paper.
That said, you are not wrong trying to work to higher standards. By doing so, you insulate yourself from problems later on.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It's also worth noting that conventions on citing and quoting are not universal, and can vary between academic communities. For example, in mathematics, it is quite common to copy definitions or statements of theorems verbatim, or nearly verbatim, from other papers. The precise wording and notation can be critical, so wholesale paraphrasing is risky. However, the convention in this field is that quotation marks are not used in such cases, though a citation should usually appear. Likewise, if a definition or statement is "common knowledge", it might be that every paper discussing it uses almost identical wording (maybe without citations), even though they have not consciously copied from each other.
(I don't really know how this practice arose, but one point is that it often happens that you want to state a theorem almost verbatim, but modify the notation to match what you're using in the present paper. Now it's not an exact quote anymore, so you can't strictly use quote marks, and noting your amendments with brackets could be very confusing when mathematical notation is involved.)
This can add up to several paragraphs or pages of "copied" text over the course of a paper. A newcomer to the field might see this and be horrified by the blatant "plagiarism", but within the field it's regarded as perfectly proper.
Additionally, it's completely normal in mathematics to write things like "The material in this section comes mainly from [3]" without adding [3] to every other line. It's more about common sense than following rules.
So, the moral is to make sure you're calibrating your standards properly to the specific discipline in which you're working.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: I've always believed in keeping myself to a higher standard than I expect of others. That said, if I care for that person than I might bring it to their attention privately. If the result of the plagiarizing would result in harm to another then I would feel obligated to report or publicize it. As to quotations, it is lazy to simply not rewrite the paragraph in one's own words however the end result is the same. I have a low opinion of Academic honesty due to too many ridiculous journal articles that in theory went through "peer review" by those preeminent in the field. An example was one of my professors, who came to question one of the truisms in our department's teaching program. She showed that the senior academic who had published the research of the truism was incorrect (honest error?). I mean truism in the sense that many younger academics had based their research on this truism, as well as even younger academics had based their research on that research. And this is not the only case of incorrect or outright fraudulent (discovered well after publication) journal articles becoming the basis of subsequent significant works. Considering how well those who cheat and lie seem to make out in this world (e.g. the US President), the plagiarism you mention may be a start to a great career for them.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: It's not acceptable, but unfortunately more common than it should be. I'm expecting [Debora Weber-Wulff](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32489/debora-weber-wulff) to show up any moment, as this is her specialty. Back when we had a very public scandal about [then-minister of defense Guttenberg's thesis consisting 60% w/w of missing quotation marks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttenberg_plagiarism_scandal), his defense was "but everyone does it!" And when people started looking they did indeed [find evidence of the practice left and right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VroniPlag_Wiki). You might chat with some of the VroniPlag people, as they have surely accumulated a significant amount of experience with reports of plagiarism by now. (Although be aware that their opinions will tend to be more zealous on the subject than the average researcher, after spending 7 years invested in this topic.)
Before the advent of plagiarism checkers, there was unlikely to be any consequence to this type of sloppy practice because only rarely does someone know the literature closely enough to notice. If you never see anyone calling out this type of problem, it's easy to start thinking that it's not great but probably acceptable. Now that it's becoming easier to attach at least some amount of shame to it, that should help reduce rates. If it's only one passage that ought to have been in quotes or paraphrased, mild embarrassment is probably enough to change people's practice. An e-mail to the authors saying that you've seen this and suggest they not do it in the future might be enough to make them change their habits, but you might want to weigh the risks of them getting angry at you (a common reaction to embarrassment).
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/06
| 544
| 2,075
|
<issue_start>username_0: Should I email the editor of a journal to ask for a final decision on an article when I know that all reviewers' comments were submitted weeks ago? The online article submission interface shows me that all reviewers' comments are submitted.
I'm applying for jobs in a few weeks, and I'd like to be able to add an R&R to my CV if possible.
**If writing to the editor is appropriate, what can I say?**<issue_comment>username_1: You can ask, of course, but it may not be possible to give you a definite answer. In fact, it is easier for them to give you a negative answer if they have sufficient backlog, so don't press the case too hard. But mentioning your job search should be fine.
A positive answer, however, may take them more work as a number of people could be involved in the decision and they might not have an easy process in place to speed up decisions.
Express your need, not your demands.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Normally I would advise against that. But in this case, you could try. Keep it short, keep it polite, add the document number for your submission so the editor can quickly look your submission up. Something along the line of:
>
> Dear editor,
>
>
> I submitted an article to your journal (nr XZ000038d). I'm applying for jobs in a few weeks, and I'd like to be able to add an R&R to my CV if possible. I saw that all reviews are in, and I wondered if it would be possible to get a decision.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Dr. Beeblebrox
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Make sure you wait at least 3-4 weeks if you do choose to write, so you're sure the Editor is not planning to ask another referee (this can happen if your paper has both positive and negative reviews).
Be polite; asking for a "final decision" sounds too blunt, and is best avoided.
Also, there is no need to remind the Editor that the reviews are done, they know that already. Something along the lines of "I would be grateful for any updates on the status of my submission" should be adequate.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/06
| 502
| 2,030
|
<issue_start>username_0: For context there is a graduate student who has graduate from my program (at my school) working in my subfield (high energy theoretical physics) but he graduated before I joined the program so I never got to introduce myself.
He's now a post-doc at a highly respected university and is probably extremely busy.
However, I would really like to reach out to him and ask him for some advice for a beginner in the field, (I'm just starting my second year of the PhD program). Do you think it is appropriate to cold-email him and ask for some advice or the opportunity to speak with him over skype or on the phone or some form of communication?
I feel a little bad because I never introduced myself and I'm really scared of being flat out rejected by him but I also feel that he might have some really good advice for me.
Mostly, I'm worried about how to write the email and how I might sound (desperate?) to them.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there is any reason not to do it. Just introduce yourself and say what you'd like to know and why. If he's too busy he might not respond back with much but I don't see any problem. Of course, one of your professors probably knows him better and can give you good advice on this.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it's fine. High energy theory is a casual, non-hierarchical, small field of ~2,000 people. If you lived in a town of 2,000 people, you shouldn't be afraid of talking to anyone in it, even the mayor. Here that goes doubly so, as they're only a few years older than you and went to the same school.
As an undergraduate I cold emailed plenty of full professors; some of my friends preferred directly knocking on their doors. The best physicist I know started doing this in high school. I never got any negative feedback, besides occasional admonishment to call them by their first name rather than by their title. In the long run, excessive deference to perceived status will hurt you more than any email ever could.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/06
| 933
| 3,978
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can a postdoctoral fellow, who holds a PhD in the relevant field, serve on a PhD student's dissertation committee? This might vary by field, but I'm curious whether there is any general trend on whether being a committee member depends on holding a PhD or holding a faculty position.<issue_comment>username_1: This varies by country. I've known it to happen in UK, for example. In other places it would be forbidden, I assume. However, it is very unlikely that such a person would be the lead supervisor, at least on paper. But as a committee member it just depends on local custom and any applicable laws or regulations.
As for a general trend, I doubt that it is very common anywhere, nor likely to become so.
In an extreme case, a post doc might be, in fact, the main advisor due to specialized knowledge not held by other faculty. But a regular faculty member would almost certainly be the advisor of record and the main signatory on the dissertation. This might actually be seen as advantageous in some places to help the post doc get experience with the process. But the actual responsibility would remain, as I said, with a regular member. I'd be surprised to learn of any exception.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In the U.S., at many universities, in addition to being "on the faculty", one cannot advise PhD students or serve on the relevant committees without further vetting. At my current place, this is called "being a member of The Graduate Faculty". Peoples' credentials have to be submitted to some campus-wide entity for scrutiny.
... and it is rare (in mathematics, at my university) that post-docs go through that process, which takes several months, in any case.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The main concerns for bringing in people to sit on a dissertation committee are satisfying the institutional regulations for committees (X members from outside the department, Y members from inside who aren't the advisor, Z members from outside the college) as well as bringing in possible expertise and exposure to additional ideas and approaches that may help the thesis candidate.
Normally a postdoctoral fellow will not count toward any of the composition requirements—one must be a faculty member or hold a similar position somewhere else (e.g., government research or industry). However, if one were to have a unique set of skills that someone thought it was essential to ask you to act as an additional member of the committee—this would typically be at another institution—there might be room and incentive to make something happen.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: It varies not only by country but by institution. Heck, probably by college or department within an institution.
In the case of my department, the answer is "No."
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: From the other answers, it seems clear this varies greatly. I imagine it varies greatly by committee chair (preference) as well.
At my institution, post docs may serve as *Technical Consultants* with no departmental approval required.
They may also serve on committees, but this requires a vote from the department faculty to grant *graduate faculty status*. If granted, the post doc could then serve on committees or even co-chair a committee with a faculty member.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: My university, which is in Australia, does not have dissertation committees. It has supervisors. Each student gets at least two supervisors. A new postdoc can hold up to 25% of responsibility for supervising up to three students. The rules are the same for temporary or permanent employees. Academics can earn additional supervisory responsibility with experience and training. These supervisors do not evaluate the students' theses. That is done by external experts.
This system is quite unusual, in my opinion. As the other answers say, at most institutions, postdocs cannot be on PhD committees.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/07
| 1,090
| 4,511
|
<issue_start>username_0: When applying for US NSF grants as a PI, does it help my case to discuss how little funding I've had?
To give some background: I am a new-ish faculty member; so far in my career I've received 1/2 of a rather small NSF grant (shared with a co-PI), which didn't even come close to covering the actual cost of a PhD student. On this shoestring budget I've been able to produce a bunch of good work, but in ways that are not sustainable as a long-term funding strategy (getting financial help from senior colleagues, begging my department to let me use startup funds past the original deadline, sending students away for internships so that I don't have to pay for them some semesters, etc.).
---
**Question 1:** When applying for new grants, will the NSF panelists consider my productivity *relative to my budget?* Or do they only care about productivity full stop? If the former, how do I effectively convey this lack of funds in my proposal?
---
Confounding the situation is that I am at a very highly ranked place in my field. In past talks with programme managers at the NSF, I have heard the message, *"we try to spread the funds around and not give it all to people at rich institutions like yours."* The problem is that **I'm** not rich, and if my university has money, I'm certainly not seeing it. Ergo, my impetus to ask this question: how do I convey to the NSF panel that I'm actually pretty "poor"?
Another confounding factor is that students at my institution far more expensive than the national (US) average: I have to ask the NSF for about USD $92k/year for each PhD student I want to fund, whereas I have colleagues at other places who pay about half as much. So even the small amount of money I do get from the NSF doesn't stretch very far. I don't get the sense everyone on the NSF panels realises how big this discrepancy can be: for instance, after receiving the grant above (which covered <1 student) I asked my PM about submitting another proposal; the response was along the lines of, *"Why don't you just have fun and enjoy doing research on your current grant?"* Which leads to my second question:
---
**Question 2:** In my proposals, should I address the fact that PhD students are particularly expensive at my institution? Or will this just turn off panelists who think I am "too expensive?"
---
To put all of this another way: I once had a vagabond friend who told me, *"if you want to beg for money in the rain, you should hide your umbrella."* Should I be making it clear that I don't even have an umbrella?<issue_comment>username_1: Interesting challenge. I haven't served on any of the panels. From word of mouth, my assumption would be any proposal will be evaluated mostly on scientific merit. It might help your case that you've been productive without much funding, but then the lack of funding might also be a perverse signal of less previous success. We can all hope they evaluate the proposal on merit, but the history of decision making even among experts suggests other heuristics are likely to matter. In your case, I would hesitate to explicitly signal the lack of funding.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Having served on ~10 NSF panels, I don't think any panel will care that you're "poor," both because that is difficult to evaluate and because what the panel cares about are the scientific merits of what you're proposing and the likelihood that you can do it. About evaluating "poverty:" resources available vary a lot between and even within universities, and this is impossible to assess. Suppose you can't support a graduate student and the student works as a teaching assistant -- does that, in actuality, take 20% or 80% of their time? Also, how would one fairly evaluate resources shared by colleagues (as in your case)?
More importantly, the panel cares about your proposed work and the likelihood that you can get it done. The *quality* of past work definitely matters, and what you've done with the resources you have available is important. The *quantity* matters, but I've been happy to see that quality counts more than quantity.
Aside from all this: Will anyone feel sorry for you given that you've had financial help from senior colleagues and are at a top-tier institution?! I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader...
About Question 2: You want to tell the panelists that the NSF's (and therefore taxpayers') money would go farther if they gave it to someone at a different institution?
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/07
| 2,676
| 11,836
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let's say someone young (~PhD student stage, possibly earlier) wants to become a professor. He doesn't mind moving around and will go wherever the best offer is. He'll obviously need English, but he's also motivated enough to learn another language. What is the best language to learn that will open the most opportunities?
If we proxy the number of jobs available in any country by research spending, then [according to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending) the most likely destinations are the USA, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea in that order. The main language in the US is already English, but the other four have local languages. However, I don't know how easy it is to get an academic job in any of these countries (or the ones later in the list - India, France, Russia ...) without knowing the local language.
If the answer to this question varies by field, the I'm most interested in the sciences.<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on what kind of job we are talking about. For a PhD student, or for a postdoc, knowing the local language is not necessary in general. I know plenty of examples of people who got such a job without knowing any shred of the local language (in France, Switzerland, Korea...). The general expectation is that you make an effort to learn the language after some time, though. If only to have an easier time ordering food in restaurants and talking to your colleagues during coffee breaks.
For a professor job it depends more on the location. In some countries (e.g. Switzerland, the Netherlands, and many others) some classes are taught in English, so you don't need to know the local language immediately, although that is probably expected after some time. (In fact, I've been told it's a "disadvantage" to know the local language, because only lower-division courses are taught in it, and they are less interesting than upper-division courses.)
In some other places, courses are taught in the local language, but new professors get some teaching-free time (say, six months to a year) before being required to learn enough of the language to teach. (I know an example in Norway.)
In some other countries (e.g. France), you need to know the local language before getting the job, because teaching is mandatory in the local language. But I expect that if you are a good candidate, they will make an exception and arrange for you to only teach during the second semester, so you have time to take a crash course in the local language. But you would have to make it worth their while...
There exists some permanent or long-term research-only positions, all around the world (in France CNRS, in Germany Max-Planck...) It's often possible to get hired for one of these even without speaking the language, since you do not have the constraint of teaching.
---
In any case, it is impossible to give a general answer to your question. It is not helpful to look at global statistics, because a particular person is interested in getting a job in their own particular subfield. Which countries have the most jobs is not uniform. Even in "the sciences"...
But as you can see from above, learning a language in the hopes that it will land you an academic job is rather pointless. Your academic record is infinitely more valuable. You would have to be in an extremely specific situation for it to give you any kind of edge. Unless you have another reason to learn the language, I expect that your time is better spent on research. You will have time to learn the language later.
Also, most people don't approach the job search as "I'll take any job anywhere in the world". Most people have family, friends... that they like to see every now and then. If your whole world is based somewhere in Western Europe, will you take a job in East Asia or the Americas? Some people will, some people won't, especially if it's a permanent job. (Other make an effort for their postdocs.) So I'm not sure that you can approach this as "I'll learn the language where the most jobs are".
---
PS: it is not "obvious" that the person you are talking about will need English. In some fields, English is not the main language. For example in "history of [location]" the main language will probably be the language of [location].
PPS: Your Wikipedia link is about R&D, not academia...
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Probably the quickest & easiest benefit to learning another language will just be in giving you another item for your diversity statement in the US (with Spanish probably most valuable, particularly to teaching schools with large hispanic enrollments), or giving you some favor in other countries or with people from there (at jobs that are still in English). For example I know postdocs whose only distinguishing feature appears to be knowing a little Chinese due to spending a little time there, who landed jobs in the labs of Chinese profs in the US. It probably won't have a measurable benefit for a R1 TT job search though.
As for getting a job which requires speaking and writing in the language, some languages are much harder than others (for native English speakers). Japanese, for example, takes a lot of years. You can get functional in a shorter time with simplified Chinese, for example, though still years. And of course with the Romance languages and German you go much much faster because you can leverage similarities to English words and alphabet.
I'd suggest thinking about where you'd like to live first and look from that perspective, as a way to enrich your life. Because the time commitment will probably not be worth the payoff if your only goal is just finding a job. You'd get a lot more bang for your buck by devoting all that effort to building your technical skills or producing more work output.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Learning a language is a huge commitment so it is important to be motivated to stick at it. Since English is almost universally the lingua franca for academic research, there are many opportunities for your career (even in foreign countries where English is not an official language). Many people postdoc abroad who do not speak the local language. There are labs that work in English in most countries, although options are more limited in countries such as Japan (where English is seldom used) compared countries such as the Netherlands (where many people understand English). There’s generally an expectation that a postdoc will try to learn the local language if they’re in a foreign country since it helps for daily life. Preparation helps if you’ve got a particular country you are seeking to work in but taking a career opportunity and showing up with no language skills is commonplace. Some countries will require administration and teaching in the local language so it is more important if you intend to be a professor in a specific foreign country. Of course, even a few greetings and cultural awareness will be appreciated if you are travelling or collaborating internationally.
Learning a foreign language is not needed for an academic career but there are several reasons to do so:
1. It will enrich your understanding of the difficulties of second language speakers working in English such as your future students and collaborators.
2. It will enable you to communicate with the locals in your daily life if you live in a foreign country (or visit for conference or sabbatical).
3. It will give you a better understanding of the cultural heritage of your people or the place you live.
4. It could enable you to read historical texts or understand terminology in your field (e.g., Latin, Greek, Hebrew, ancient Chinese). This is only beneficial in a few fields.
There is no one most important second language for an academic career. It depends on where you are, where you want to live long-term, and what your interests are. It’s a long-term commitment, not something you can pick up over summer to fill out your resumé.
If you want to communicate with minorities in the US, learn Spanish or Navajo. If you want to teach in New Zealand, some Te Reo Māori skills will be beneficial. If you’re studying Chinese history, brush up on rare Hanzi.
For instance, I’m learning Japanese not because it will benefit my career: I could do similar research in another country and be just as successful or more so without the language barriers. I’m doing it for personal reasons: I want to understand my partner's native language and culture. I enjoying living in Japan and sought a career here because I wanted this experience. You don’t need to have the same reasons and choose the same language as I did but you do need to have strong motivation and personal interest since it is very demanding on your time to get any useful level of proficiency.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I am Finnish. The Nordic countries share much of the culture and climate and are an easy place to move to also for bureaucratic reasons, but in all but the most research-oriented universities the ability to teach in the local language is a requirement or at least a benefit, and it is likely a benefit in even the research-oriented ones. Now I can speak Norwegian, write that and Danish, and communicately intelligibly with Danes and Swedes, too. This increases the size of the job market for me significantly.
I have also read some mathematics articles in French, Spanish and some parts in German, and if I could, I would have read at least some abstracts and maybe articles in Russian, Japanese and Chinese. I can't speak any of these languages, but knowing the basics of French allows me to read French and Spanish mathematics close enough to my research field. Learning the Cyrillic alphabet properly is on my to-do list and should help in understanding paper titles in Russian; right now I can do it only slowly and partially.
If I ever decide to learn another Germanic language (maybe Icelandic or German), knowing one of the Scandinavic languages will certainly help.
Conclusions:
* Are you interested in moving to particular countries? Knowing a language spoken there certainly helps. It might be required, but is doubtless helpful.
* Is the science in your field done in multiple languages? Learning one that you occasionally meet can be slightly helpful. In some humanities subjects it can be very helpful, from what I hear.
* Learning an additional language is easier the more languages you already know, and the effect of closely related languages is obviously even larger. Knowing at least two dissimilar languages is a huge step over knowing just one.
If you don't have any particular preferences for different countries, which I find unlikely, Chinese and Japanese are very different from English, and therefore difficult to learn, but also useful for that reason. French and German are a lot easier and faster to learn, but already useful.
According to rumours, many French jobs require French (I have not checked) and the language is also used in several neighbouring countries and several former colonies. German positions might or might not require the language. At least some Japanese positions do require the language. I don't know about Chinese positions.
You might also consider that every country has to educate teachers and engineers. Much of the education will happen in native languages and employs people with an academic background, though whether this education happens at universities or some other institutes varies by country.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: since you are interested more in the sciences , it is known that the most important language in science after english is german language , also it is one of the major languages used in academia in general .
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/07
| 667
| 2,831
|
<issue_start>username_0: My greetings to all users.
I am a student with my UG in Electronics and Communications, planning to enroll in a masters program in computer science (preferably with thesis, but open to coursework option as well). In my UG, I had the following courses related to mathematics and computer science:
Maths:
1. Calculus
2. Discrete Mathematics
3. Optimization techniques
4. Numerical Analysis
5. Information theory and coding
Computers:
1. Computer Programming (basic C)
2. Computer Architecture
Apart from these, I had Data communication also.
Apart from US universities which offer flexibility to non-cs background students to enroll in MS in CS, do **Canadian** and **European** universities offer this flexibility also? I visited some university websites, and they have listed some courses like Data structures and Algorithms, DBMS, Operating systems, which I did not have in my UG. Does this mean elimination therein or do I still have a chance?<issue_comment>username_1: Elimination is perhaps too strong, but you will have a hard time selling yourself to an admissions committee without the named courses at least. All of your classmates will likely have all of those skills and so the courses you take will assume them. It would be a rough time for you even if you were admitted.
But in a lot of places you will get a chance to make your case. These would be smaller schools who don't have to depend on rules to weed out the masses and have the ability to look at each candidate.
But I wouldn't give much encouragement.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: For some of the UK universities, you can take the Master Program based on your background. Even if you do not meet some of the criteria (maybe you did not take DBMS for example), you are still eligible to apply. Just email the student administration office, they will give you advice and guidance. Don't worry!
[Rules are dead]
Cheers!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I would find it difficult even for a university in the US to accept a student for masters studies without, at least, data structures and algorithms. It is one of the most important courses in the curriculum and is where many people drop out of studies because of its difficulty and because it is a stepping stone into more theoretical CS (which is what graduate studies consists of!).
Basic C programming isn't really enough for a masters program. I am not an expert on the UK or European systems but from what I know I would say that your chances are very slim- though not impossible. If I were you- I would take more prereq courses that you see commonly listed on websites (especially data structures and algorithms- I'd also recommend an advanced algorithms course) and then apply as that would maximize your chances of admissions.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/07
| 583
| 2,518
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD applicant and I am preparing to send an introductory email to a potential supervisor.
I have two questions:
1. I am self-funded. Should I mention this in the initial email?
2. Is the following sentence grammatically correct?
>
> I would be delighted to undertake a research project under your supervision, kindly let me know if this might be a possibility; I have attached my CV and academic transcript for your consideration.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: You could mention self funding or not. However, it is important that you give some indication of why you are interested in this person and what it is in your background that might interest him/her in you. Mentioning past research projects in the same specialty would be helpful. Your statement is fine, but only as an opening.
In particular, you should investigate the background of the potential supervisor, including publications and past students. In mathematics, for example, the Genealogy project can give you information about where the person fits - advisor and students. For famous people, even wikipedia will give you information.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I remember meeting with a potential supervisor who told me he was very concerned about students being self funded, particularly in fields like computer science, as typically there is enough funding that if something is worth doing, it'll almost certainly be able to be funded in one way or another. If you're in humanities that's obviously a different kettle of fish, so I think whether you mention this depends on your field.
I would never personally use the phrase "kindly let me know" as it may come off as accidentally abrupt, but perhaps something like "please could you let me know if this would be a possibility based on x, y and z?". I'm assuming this is only a small part of a wider email, so be sure to appeal to their own research, and explain why they're a good fit to your future work.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think a good introductory email should highlight your strengths and your project.
A PhD is your task, a supervisor in my experience will advise, but it is down to you to come up with the research ideas etc.
I would mention that you're self-funded as it can only increase your chances of them looking for funding.
Use the website www.jobs.ac.uk and show some initiative and that Professor may help you get some funding you have already introduced.
Be proactive and best of luck!
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/08/07
| 537
| 2,338
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'd like to have a tool (software or website) that helps me in doing literature surveys. Here's how I pictured that tool in my mind.
Let's suppose that I've found myself a few relevant papers. As soon as I feed such references to the tool, it starts suggesting me other papers I might be interested to. Suggested references could be paper that are cited by several papers that are already in my bibliography, or papers which cite several entries I provided. If I find something interesting, I could "swipe right" (if you get my Tinder analogy) and that paper is added to my bibliography. The more paper I have in the bibliography, the more fitting the suggestions of the tool become. Of course such a tool should rely on an existing database (Scopus, google scholar, etc.)
Do you know anything like that?<issue_comment>username_1: Ok, in Science Direct, I see 'other papers that might interest you'.
Also if you're reading a really good paper look for the papers they cite and the other papers that have cited that paper.
I find this is incredibly useful when doing a literature survey.
Best of luck with it!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Although I don't use it myself actively, what you describe seems to be included in the [social network aspects of Mendeley](https://www.mendeley.com/research-network/community). Mendeley is primarily a fantastic reference management software (very similar in functionality to Zotero, which is what I personally use), but it additionally has a rich social component which seems to include recommendations of similar articles. So, it seems to both included the recommendation agent and reference storage features that you are looking for.
Another tool that partially has such features is [ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net) (see the "Similar research" section when you scroll down below any article you look at). It has quite a rich recommendation agent, but not quite as rich reference storage features.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: As well as Mendeley, for Biology and Medicine people there is also [PubChase](https://www.pubchase.com/), which does exactly what you say you are looking for. How well it works I couldn't say. It always has interesting suggests for me, but I wouldn't rely on it to be comprehensive.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/08
| 1,382
| 5,952
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a tenure track assistant professor at a liberal arts college. I Iike my job quite a bit, but it is located in an impoverished, rural area. My partner works in the nearest large city, 2.5 hours away. I live there as well; the commute and the 2 nights a week I spend away from home are wearing on me.
This year there is a job at a very similar (on paper) instituion less than an hour from my house and accessible by public transportation. It is the same size, in the same region, serves a similar student population, and the departments are of similar size and composition. Adding a small amount of complication is the fact that my current institution is (slightly) higher ranked. I don't put much stock in such lists, but I could see it rasing eyebrows. If it matters, both institutions are top 30. At the very least, my current administration cares a lot about such things.
To be clear, I am unconcerned about my tenure case; I am an outlier in terms of grant funding and publications, I have solid teaching reviews, and my school has an 80% tenure rate. I also work in a field where transitioning to industry would nearly certainly lead to higher salaries; my field has abundant job opportunities in my city. I don't think getting denied tenure is likely, and if it happened, I would be ok with that.
My question is simply how do I pitch my application, particularly the cover letter? It is hard to come up with a compelling narrative for why I would leave my current job for this one aside from the simple fact that I would love to be closer to home and continue my work in a similar institution. I am not certain if addressing 2 body issues directly is a good idea. My partner is happily employed; they are not looking for work from this school.
Edited to add: I worry that by mentioning my personal issues, the committee will be disfavorably inclined, as @strongbad has indicated below. That is, they get hundreds of applications from qualified people, they do not care about my personal life. However, excluding that detail might make them think there is some difficulty that doesn't appear in my materials.<issue_comment>username_1: I would tell it like it is: You have a two-body problem and a 2.5-hour commute that you need to solve. As soon as you say those words, everyone will understand.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I can't give real advice on this but would point out a couple of things. You don't say how far you are from a tenure decision, but if it is close consider that it would normally be easier to move if you already hold tenure. Moving before tenure could reset the tenure clock back to zero. Getting a job that comes with tenure is rare, but usually comes with a short clock for an already tenured person.
On the other hand, moving after being denied tenure can be much harder. However, some people are denied tenure for strictly financial reasons. When this occurs they are wise to get whatever documentation of positive action by tenure committees and the statement that the only reason was financial.
It is impossible to predict what the academic economy will be for more than a couple of years, so be a bit cautious.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I suggest you be very careful about this. On face value, the question you are trying to answer is *why do you want to work with/for us* and an answer of *the commute will be better* or *the pay/benefits will be better* is not going to make the committee want to hire you. Search committees are generally looking for colleagues who want to work there for an academic reason.
Given the schools seem very similar on paper (similar rank, size and student demographics) your current department has probably spent considerable time thinking about what makes your department better then their department. Similarly, their department probably has a sales pitch for students about why they are better. This can probably lead you to a host of reasons to justify your desire to switch that the new department will probably weight considerably. Once you convince them that there are academic reasons, explaining that there are also personal reasons that will make your recruitment very easy and that you are nearly a sure thing and wanting to stay for the long haul, will be icing on the cake.
It is also worth explaining early on that you want to move not because you are worried about tenure, but rather that you have established yourself and they can really see your value.
Once you convince the search committee that there is an academic reason you want to work there (maybe there are some nuances in the curriculum or a different philosphy about teaching/research
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I think you have to be up front about the reason for wanting to move. But of course it's not why they should hire you. Perhaps you can frame your cover letter as giving this new institution the chance to hire someone (you) who has proved him/herself of great value to a similar institution.
You can say at some point that you are open to any tenure clock reset, but probably not in the first cover letter.
If you know or can find a good referral to someone at the new institution you can talk to you might be able to get a sense of the lay of the land. It need not be someone in authority, or even necessarily in the same department.
If your existing institution knows about your job search a letter from them saying they are really sorry to lose you but understand why you want to move would be a plus in your application.
Small benefit you need not make explicit: the new place can add you to the list of finalists to interview without incurring travel and lodging cost.
I've served on lots of hiring committees. I tend to be sympathetic to problems like yours, and view them as an opportunity to get someone better than we might otherwise attract.
Good luck. Come back here and tell us what happened.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/08
| 1,303
| 5,446
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was admitted to a PhD program last year with guaranteed funding for 4 years. The funding offer was structured as a fellowship for the first year and an assistantship thereafter. I'm done with my first year now, and I will be on an assistantship from this semester onwards. I was asked to sign a contract which states "although we will be able to renew the assistantship in most cases, renewals are contingent upon the availability of funds".
Given my initial admission offer guaranteed funding, while this new contract is a bit more ambiguous, which of these contracts will hold? Is it possible that the grad school will renege on the assistantship citing a lack of funds? This is quite concerning to me, and I would appreciate any advice on this issue.<issue_comment>username_1: While labor laws depend on the country/state/region, your contract that guarantees funding probably doesn't really guarantee it. From a labor law perspective, if you are even classed as an employee and the letter is seen as an employment contract, what do you think your recourse is if they do not pay you? If you were in a union position you might have a collective agreement that would provide a means of enforcing the contract, but in reality the guarantee is worth only as much as the reputation of the university.
That said, it cannot hurt to ask your graduate student faculty chair about the wording.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am the Graduate Coordinator of my department, so I have some experience both reading and writing letters like this. I find the phrasing
>
> "although we will be able to renew the assistantship in most cases, renewals are contingent upon the availability of funds".
>
>
>
strange. It is not clear to me what "most cases" is quantifying over: you are only one case.
But here's a key point: what is being taken away from you in going from a letter in which funding is guaranteed to a letter in which renewal is contingent upon the availability of funds? In *all cases* the renewal *must* be contingent upon the availability of funds, right? Within the culture of American universities it would certainly not be acceptable for your department to, say, go over budget on renovations and then tell a student "We're sorry, but funds are no longer available -- we warned you!" Not having the funds to cover promises made to students would be a nightmare scenario in any department that I know of. A subtle linguistic change in a contract would not affect that.
However, I agree that the new letter is not exactly encouraging. In my view you are well within your rights to inquire about the meaning of it, and you should of course do so before you sign the contract. I would discuss this with the department official who wrote the letter, unless you feel uncomfortable doing so, in which case you could act through a suitable intermediary (ombudsperson, faculty advisor...).
In conclusion, I think it is highly unlikely that your funding will get cut, but they are taking from you some peace of mind -- which is also worth something! I'm sorry for that, and I wish you the best.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: You may want to review the initial offer letter that you received from the program. You may find that the language there is not absolutely "guaranteed"—there is almost always a bit of "wiggle" language such as "subject to adequate progress" or something similar that does not completely commit them to paying you for the full term no matter what. (What if you just decide to take the money and do nothing the whole time?)
However, at public schools, one must also remember that they are subject to state laws and regulations that a private school would not face. The change may be coming at a policy level higher than that of the department.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You are in the unfortunate position of being employed in a super-precarious position, not enjoying a full recognition of your employee status, and living under the US' regime of heavily employer-biased labor law (in my opinion).
In the best case scenario, graduate researchers in your university are unionized, and the union is active, functional and enjoys backing and involvement from its represented public. In this case there would probably already be a struggle to remedy this situation and ensure 4-year contracts with the university having to bear and manage any issues it has with funding, making up for possible shortfalls from some sources with its general funds or inter-research-budget transfers.
If that's not the case, then as other answers suggest, this technically depends on the specifics of labor law in the state you're in. Note that in a landmark 4-to-1 [decision](https://columbiagradunion.org/app/uploads/NLRB-Case-02%E2%80%93RC%E2%80%93143012-DECISION-ON-REVIEW-AND-ORDER-20160823.pdf) in 2016, the NLRB recognized graduate researchers as employees, mostly regardless of how the university defines their status or the source of their funding. ... unofortunately, that's not good enough. Because even you could make an argument against your termination the university may well do whatever it pleases, and the main question becomes: Do you have the will, the time and the resources to fight it? More often than not, the answer is negative.
Thus, for most graduate employees - without bweing unionized, the answer is "Effectively, yes".
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/08
| 1,535
| 6,333
|
<issue_start>username_0: The idea of working on multiple projects simultaneously during PhD study is introduced in Feibelman's "A PhD is not enough", Chapter 8. It identifies the following advantages:
* When you temporarily run out of ideas, you need not be blocked but can simply turn to another project.
* When a project has been completed, you do not have to spend entire days wondering what to do next.
* Working on more than one project is the only way a young scientist should undertake an inherently long-term project.
* It forces you to be broader than otherwise.
* It will lessen the impact on your career should you be scooped. This is something to worry about if you have chosen to work in a hot area.
And I think doing so will keep me more self-motivated because sparing some time on a more ambitious but risky project would remind me that what I am doing now is connected to bigger and profounder problems. However, some suggest this would make a distracted PhD study.
PS: I am in the field of Machine Learning and Statistics.<issue_comment>username_1: IMHO, it is not a good idea to work on **completely unrelated** projects during PhD.
* If your thesis will be a monograph, how will you tell a story that connects two unrelated papers? You may need to leave one out, and the contribution of the thesis is thin.
* When you get stuck and you turn to the second project. A likely result is that the first project will be abandoned forever. Procrastination, in any form, is never a good thing.
* Suppose after finishing PhD, you have 6 papers: 2 in each topic A, B, C. You want to apply for a postdoc in topic A, how would you compare yourself with another applicant with 4 papers in A.
* You are considered an expert in a research direction only when you keep pursuing it. Publishing one or two good papers then moving to another direction is considered street smart, but never got the respect as an expert.
Broadening your research and working on different project is only good after you become more senior, e.g. postdoc, and have several junior collaborators to work with.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is very subjective and environment-dependent, and my opinion is orthogonal to [qsp's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/114961/68958) based on my experience.
My PhD topic was a continuation of my MSc topic with the same advisor. However, halfway through I found another topic, unrelated to the first one, that really interested me. Long story short, I ended up with a sandwich thesis (this was planned from the beginning) consisting of 3 published papers on the 1st topic, and having published 8 papers on the 2nd topic to fill my CV (plus 2 papers on a third topic from a completely different field, and 2 other *dydactic* texts in lesser peer-reviewed journals). This was enough to graduate with honors (1st topic) and to get a prestigious grant on the 2nd topic which is my main research interest now and on which I'm building my scientific career. I'm very pleased with this outcome. (I abandoned my 1st topic altogether as eventually I lost interest in it.)
So if anyone asked me if they should work on unrelated topics during their PhD I would without hesitation advise to go for it: one broadens their knowledge (some ideas from one topic may be useful for the other), builds a bigger professional network, learns to work on different things in parallel, and ― like me ― may find a topic that is a much better fit than the original one. And I think it should be considered an advantage, as it shows one is open-minded and flexible ― and it was by my thesis referees and the grant committee.
At least at my institute, it's rather common that PhD students are involved in a number of projects on different topics, lead by different senior scientists, and also conducted by themselves. One of my friends is actively involved in ~5 of them, and keeps doing well in each.
But, as I said in the beginning, this is subjective. Some people may simply not be suited for it; some advisors may dislike it (having a conflict with one's own advisor is almost always a bad idea; on the other hand, a PhD is a time to build one's independence and scientific maturity, but this is a different issue); if someone is in a short (e.g., 3 years) program with fixed duration, indeed it might be a better idea to focus on one topic for the time being (I did my PhD in 5 years); if someone loves their topic, why should they look for something else? Etc.
So one should judge by themselves if it's a good thing to work on multiple projects. This is advisor/institution/field/culture/perspectives/... dependent, so there's no one universal "yes/no" answer.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: You don't say where you are in your studies, but I'll guess near the beginning. If that is true I'd suggest that you keep a few things in mind.
Normally doctoral studies are about depth not breadth. The exceptions are rare. You delve very deeply into a very narrow subfield of the larger field. You want to make a significant contribution there. If splitting your time leads you away from that goal it will not serve you well.
However, you don't need to turn your mind off to all other thoughts while you pursue depth. Of course you can think about other things and when the going gets hard on your main topic it is sometimes useful to turn to something else that is related or not.
You can, in fact, carry on a long term relationship with these alternate thoughts, returning to them on occasion without losing contact with your main study. Your dissertation won't last forever. If you do it well you will have the opportunity to then follow up intensively on the other things you've been thinking about.
But keep notes about those other thoughts so they don't dissipate as you progress toward the degree. When I finished the doctorate (math), I had a drawer full of thoughts (and minimal progress) on other things that it would be worthwhile to pursue. Since these were somewhat related to my main thesis they actually gave me a deep knowledge of a somewhat broader field than my dissertation covered. Still just a subfield, but an important one.
Focus on your main study. Let your mind wander. Don't get confused about or distracted from your main task. Take notes.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/08
| 539
| 2,089
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wrote a paper with a collaborator. The collaborator wrote a followup paper where they referred to their work in that paper in the first person, i.e. "in a previous paper, I presented the idea that...". To be clear, that particular idea really was their idea, not mine.
Is this acceptable, or should they have instead said "we presented the idea that..."? Does it differ between different fields, such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and economics?<issue_comment>username_1: In maths you never use the first person singular anyway, so they question as stated does not apply. Also, all work in a paper (in pure maths at least) is understood to be the work of *all* authors. In fact, it is common to refer to the other paper in the third person, even when the authors are the same.
In short: no, this is not acceptable.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The I and we is less of a problem in my field. In my field (sociology) double blind review is standard. A reference "we (2018) shows" identifies the authors, so it cannot be part of the review copy. In principle, you could have a review copy that says "A and B (2018) show", and the final copy replace it with "we (2018) show", but that is rarely done. It is usually left as "A and B (2018) show". Now your colleague cannot say "A (2018) shows" as that does not correctly refer to the entry in the bibliography, so it will always be "A and B (2018) show".
This is a non-intentional side-effect of this tradition, but I think a good one. I would consider all co-authors responsible for the entire paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In physics
* Most often the paper and its authors are not mentioned. The results are stated followed by a citation.
* Occasionally the authors are mentioned in the third person "Lastname et al." where Lastname is usually the first author of the paper.
* "We" or "I" would be rare but I don't see why anyone would care if they were used.
As a final note, papers with only two authors are not so common. I have never published one myself.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/08
| 1,598
| 6,482
|
<issue_start>username_0: Assume you are reviewing a paper and discover that some general definitions therein have been copied from Wikipedia without mentioning the source. Should it be considered plagiarism or can it be considered legit because Wikipedia is freely available and anonymous?
Surely this behaviour shows poor effort in literature research because if something is on Wikipedia it surely is also in some more authoritative document. However, generic definitions of centuries old concepts should now be copyrightless and Wikipedia is as good as any textbook or giving one in your own words.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it's plagiarism. Being freely available and anonymous doesn't mean you can copy from it liberally, because it's still written by someone other than yourself.
Note that Wikipedia has its own "cite this page" link ([example](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Enkarterri&id=813739767)), indicating it also thinks it should be cited if you take information from it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Copyright for a written work expires some years after the author's death; the length of time under copyright law varies from country to country. Wikipedia and other sites use a variety of licencing models which allow the material to be copied and the conditions that apply to the use of the material.
***But regardless*** of whether something is still copyrighted or not, open source or not, freely available or not, if it is quoted, cited, copied or otherwise repeated in a text, if the source is not cited then ***yes, it is plagiarism***.
When something passes into "common knowledge" then it can be written without having to find a quotable source. But there are also specific situations where something that might normally be considered "common knowledge" needs to be referenced to a source, such as student work where values, definitions, etc., are expected to be researched for accuracy and should also therefore include a reference.
There may also be the case where the value/definition is used in a way that is outside the norm, e.g. a definition that is unusual in the mainstream but is used in a specific way for a specific context, or a value that is based on some work that extends the precision beyond what is considered to be the norm.
The criteria remains, that if someone else wrote it and you copy it then not crediting the original author/source is plagiarism - academic theft.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It seems you are conflating intellectual property rights with plagiarism. The two topics are, for these purposes, unrelated.
Just because a body of work is released to the public and has generous terms of use DOES NOT give you license to claim that work as your own. That is plagiarism. The definition of plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Generous licensing does not confer ownership of that property, and a citation is required to attribute that work to its original source.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It isn't necessarily plagiarism: The authors may have written both their manuscript and the Wikipedia article.
The authors may have avoided self-plagiarism in their manuscript by writing it first, the self-plagiarism issue on Wikipedia still remains (I'm unsure what Wikipedia's policy is).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Yes, that is plagiarism. But even beyond that, it's not true that
>
> Wikipedia is freely available and anonymous
>
>
>
Instead, as you will find on the bottom of every Wikipedia article,
>
> Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.
>
>
>
That license specifically requires (as by its short summary)
>
> **Attribution**—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
>
>
>
Wikipedia has a *very lenient* understanding of proper attribution – normally, attribution according to the CC licenses is the extreme opposite of *anonymous*! Traditionally, a CC license would require listing *every single contributor* to the document used. The revision history of a Wikipedia article (I'll use ‘Eigenvalues and eigenvectors’ as example) [is public](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors&offset=&limit=500&action=history), and [statistics](https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors) suggest that most of the edits are not anonymous (IPs), but at least pseudonymous (users with named accounts) and several of the main authors have account names that suggest those are their real names. We are permitted to give attribution to “the Wikipedia contributors“ (which is at least somewhat anonymous) instead of that list, but an appropriate mention is still required, [such as](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors&id=853269180)
>
> Wikipedia contributors. Eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. August 3, 2018, 15:11 UTC. Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors&oldid=853269180>. Accessed August 8, 2018.
>
>
>
(In addition, that license means that if someone makes use of a text under this license, for example, using some definition on Wikipedia in their paper, they would have to publish their document under a compatible license!)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: My general litmus test is thus: Is the definition as-is riddled in textbooks everywhere? Therefore I see no reason to, since it is "common knowledge". If that definition is relatively new and only available in, say, one or two journal articles or some obscure textbook that is the sole authority on a subject (and possibly the wikipedia page), then one references the journal article, if only so that others know where to go learn more about the subject.
Sometimes I discover that I learn a thing from Wikipedia about that definition. But, since Wikipedia disallows original research, that thing is generally reasonably deducible from the definition with a minimum of logic. And, anyhow, you can't copyright ideas. Since the thing is not original research, I generally do not cite the idea. However, since there exist those who would complain about mere phrasing, I reword whatever it is for their sake.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/08
| 1,833
| 7,501
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was asked to give a talk at a workshop. I plan to tell a short story, 5 - 7 minutes, about how my collaborator and I came up with the idea presented in the talk. This story would:
* Give the motivation: I have this problem, and my collaborator had a solution for a (seemingly) unrelated problem.
* Explain the contribution: I did this and he did that.
* Explain the intuition of the solution: he said this and we recognized that etc
I think the story would be interesting, and as it involves two people, I wonder if I should use two [rage faces](http://meme.wikia.com/wiki/Rage_Comics) representing my collaborator and I (yes, I often visit 9gag).
On one hand, I think it would be funny. On the other hand, I'm afraid people may think I am not polite/unprofessional, in particular old people. The workshop is co-located with a top tier conference, and I don't want to leave any bad impression.
---
Update: Thanks everyone for the answers. At first, I intended to use the avatars on our homepages, but I think it's very award to keep showing my face from slide to slide. That's why I think about rage faces, the reason is that they are very simple, but emphasize the emotions very well: struggle, then confused, then surprised...
But I understand not many people like it, so I will think of other way.<issue_comment>username_1: TL;DR: If in doubt, leave it out.
In talks, avoid anything that can offend or be misunderstood, especially if you do not know your audience. It is ok to make self-deprecating jokes, but you want to keep the atmosphere somewhere between serious to light (depending), but outside the sentiment of sadness or anger if you do not have political ambitions. Your "angry faces" may be funny, but never underestimate that they may be misunderstood (including people believing that you *did* have a fall-out with your friend in the preliminaries of this work - you would be amazed at what people can read wrongly into a throwaway remark).
Myself, I am quite happy use caricatures in talks, but spend time choosing them carefully to help to highlight the scientific point, never on a meta-level. People are busy enough trying to understand what you are doing, do not waste their brain power on issues you think are funny, but irrelevant to the matter at hand.
But if you think something can backfire, you are probably right. If in doubt, better one caricature/clever idea less.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The problem with internet culture references is that some people might not get it and that out of those who get it, many might dislike it. This is one reason why people prefer more neutral presentation layouts. Another reason is to avoid sidetracking the core of the presentation. As an example, you don't want attendants trying to figure out how to interpret the emotions those rage faces show and thinking about how they might fit into the context of your research process.
As a rule of thumb, I gauge the level of detail of any non-technical content of my work. If it seems to invite second thoughts or even pause, let alone ambiguity, it is a serious red flag.
In your case, those rage faces ask definitely people to interpret them and put them in some context. As such, I could imagine them in a comic-like presentation, where you literally show the progress of your research as a comic, but that doesn't strike me as very professional. For other purposes, they carry too much detail and food for thought to be useful.
If you do want to include emoticons, memes, etc., I'd advise using simpler, more minimalistic ones.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Please don't do it.
Look at all the cases of your audience:
* People who know rage faces, and who like them (the minority)
+ Even if they like them in general, they might not like them in a presentation
* People who don't know rage faces
+ For them it will seem odd
* People who know rage faces, and who can't stand them
+ Myself included, I would judge you really hard on why you decided it was a good idea, and I will say you know little about internet culture (judging that you like 9gag, which steals content from everywhere without crediting anyone)
Memes are a shitty form of humor, from experience, and depending on your subject you should apply humor from the improvisation of your presentation (look at good humorous TED talks, or how improvisation theatre works).
I would visit this site before adding rage faces: <https://www.reddit.com/r/FellowKids/>
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> <…> and I don't want to leave any bad impression.
>
>
>
Then definitely don't use memes, especially old memes such as rage faces. I cannot overstate how dated that format of humor is today.
There's an argument to be made in favor of using more recent memes if the audience can accept humor at all, but from your last line I think the best idea would be to avoid dubious humor entirely.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Avoid the whole issue: The fact that you have space in your talk to consider illustrating two researchers discussing their problems is a problem to begin with. The solution to that problem will avoid the whole question of memes.
In general, 5-7 minutes of background on the primary content is too much, unless this is a 90 minute talk. But it sounds like the genesis of this work had an interesting cross-domain component. The interesting part is the overlap of problems leading to a novel solution, so in this background section, illustrate the problems and the crossover. If you do a good job finding and describing this material concisely, you will not have any space left over for caricatures of two researchers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: It sounds like you care at least somewhat about leaving a positive professional impression, but the other answers overlook that you might have goals other than an academic career.
I went to graduate school with a student who did a lot of things like this. He enjoyed making things "his style" immensely, and planned to work in industry following graduation. Shaking up the "dry" academic environment was great fun for him, and actually served to help other like-minded folks find him at conferences. He ended up working at an industrial lab that fit his personality exactly, and I think he got this job via contacts made through his antics.
I think the other answers are right that this is a bad plan if you want to work in the academy, which is often pretty formal. Many researchers are likely to be offended by this kind of content, and it is borderline unethical to antagonize them this way. *But*, if you don't mind having some people think you have been immature, this might not be a problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I think a middle ground between the adamant "don't do it" voices and the desire to shake things up and be unique is to use other fun images that aren't rage faces.
Spend some time finding unique images that enhance the presentation and add a touch of humor (with proper attribution, of course). Or even draw your own "rage" faces and sprinkle them throughout. Make sure that the actual content of your presentation remains the focus, though.
If you really want to add a personal touch to your presentation, I think there's room for that without recycling old internet memes. Doing a little bit of extra work will go a long way in showing your creativity and willingness to think outside the box.
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/08/08
| 993
| 4,170
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've contacted a professor who I have taken 2 courses from and who has known me for over a year. I asked him for a recommendation letter and he agreed to write one. The moment I got his letter, I knew it wasn't entirely his words since he doesn't have a good command over English. So I ran a plagiarism check and found he took paragraphs out of this letter that is freely available online: <https://www.eduers.com/reference/template/>
Now, I'm a bit concerned about this. If the graduate admissions run some plagiarism test on this letter, this would almost certainly be flagged and that might void this letter entirely and reflect poorly on my entire application.
The way I see it, I have 2 options:
1. Contact another recommender
2. Somehow let my professor know about his plagiarism and request a new letter. (Not sure how I could address this via email appropriately!)
To address the first point, unfortunately, he is my 3rd (last) recommender so I have no one else to go to. Regarding the second point, he does not have a good command of English, so I'm not sure if he would be able to express his thoughts concise and precisely. And finally, I cannot have a face to face discussion since I'm not in the same country as him now, so the only practical interaction is via email.
That's my current situation, any ideas or suggestions are greatly appreciated!<issue_comment>username_1: Ok,
The problem is your Professors not yours.
If it was me, I would 100% send the letter.
You cannot be penalised for plagiarism if it wasn't you.
Also, there is absolutely no incentive for the school to run a plagiarism check on the email.
One piece of advice I can give you is DO NOT mention this to the professor that gave you the letter, they're probably very busy and they still got their point across.
Best of luck with the application!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Unfortunately, I've found when asking my supervisors for reference letters and similar they're often very generic (to the point where I once had a letter where my name was not swapped out for whoever it had been written for previously!). I wouldn't be too concerned, the recipient will no doubt be expecting a fairly generic template anyway. Academics are asked to write hundreds of letters of recommendation, references, etc., so it stands to reason they'd use a generic template. I *very* much doubt as others have said that a plagiarism check will be run on this letter, all they want is confirmation that X Prof/Doctor recommends you. Having worked in higher ed admin this is usually little more than a box ticking exercise.
Good luck with your application! :)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The problem isn't so much the plagiarism, but that the letter is generic. The best letters include examples of interactions between the student and letter writer. Consider [this paragraph](https://www.eduers.com/reference/template/)
>
> At a personal level, Jane is a well disciplined, industrious student with a pleasant personality. She went well beyond the course requirements in the quantity and quality of her project, putting in a lot of extra research and attending office hours every week. Throughout the course, Jane demonstrated great perseverance and initiative. She was not only interested in and motivated to learn the material, but put great work into assimilating it to her own experience and developing her own ideas about each ethical topic that we discussed.
>
>
>
Were are the personal details. How did Jane show that perseverance and initiative? Did she just come to office hours, or was their a memorable interaction about Ethical Relativism? The best letters are personal. The template is nice in that it touches upon the important topics for a letter, but it still lacks the details that readers want to see.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You overthought. I would just let it go and submit the letter as is. Most of the recommendation letters for PhD admission should be blinded to the applicants. You can apparently see the letter in your case, which actually is a bigger concern than the letter's originality.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/08
| 721
| 3,025
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a lot of data from my PhD, which I believe confuses my supervisor quite a lot. Therefore, he is hesitant to publish them for now. How can I get good academic feedback on this data without submitting it as a paper?<issue_comment>username_1: Ok,
The problem is your Professors not yours.
If it was me, I would 100% send the letter.
You cannot be penalised for plagiarism if it wasn't you.
Also, there is absolutely no incentive for the school to run a plagiarism check on the email.
One piece of advice I can give you is DO NOT mention this to the professor that gave you the letter, they're probably very busy and they still got their point across.
Best of luck with the application!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Unfortunately, I've found when asking my supervisors for reference letters and similar they're often very generic (to the point where I once had a letter where my name was not swapped out for whoever it had been written for previously!). I wouldn't be too concerned, the recipient will no doubt be expecting a fairly generic template anyway. Academics are asked to write hundreds of letters of recommendation, references, etc., so it stands to reason they'd use a generic template. I *very* much doubt as others have said that a plagiarism check will be run on this letter, all they want is confirmation that X Prof/Doctor recommends you. Having worked in higher ed admin this is usually little more than a box ticking exercise.
Good luck with your application! :)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The problem isn't so much the plagiarism, but that the letter is generic. The best letters include examples of interactions between the student and letter writer. Consider [this paragraph](https://www.eduers.com/reference/template/)
>
> At a personal level, Jane is a well disciplined, industrious student with a pleasant personality. She went well beyond the course requirements in the quantity and quality of her project, putting in a lot of extra research and attending office hours every week. Throughout the course, Jane demonstrated great perseverance and initiative. She was not only interested in and motivated to learn the material, but put great work into assimilating it to her own experience and developing her own ideas about each ethical topic that we discussed.
>
>
>
Were are the personal details. How did Jane show that perseverance and initiative? Did she just come to office hours, or was their a memorable interaction about Ethical Relativism? The best letters are personal. The template is nice in that it touches upon the important topics for a letter, but it still lacks the details that readers want to see.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You overthought. I would just let it go and submit the letter as is. Most of the recommendation letters for PhD admission should be blinded to the applicants. You can apparently see the letter in your case, which actually is a bigger concern than the letter's originality.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/08
| 525
| 2,260
|
<issue_start>username_0: When writing a research paper draft, what should be the purpose? Is the goal to write the draft with the aim of producing a finished product but expecting that it may need changes? Or is the draft more of a glorified outline that shows the path in which the author is going to take?
I'm referring to the objective/intent of the draft writing. For example, writing the draft with the goal of creating a near completed product (assuming there will be edits) versus writing the draft as a mere outline of the "plan" you want to take.<issue_comment>username_1: It is a good idea to start sketching out the paper before writing it. That way you know what you want to write where. If you want to call that first sketch a draft, then the purpose of that draft should be a "glorified outline". Then you fill it in. If you are very good, or the paper is very simple to write, then you may get it right in one go. Probably, you will have many further drafts, which will (hopefully) gradually become closer to the final product. So, the answer to your question is in one word: both.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The purpose of a draft is to organize your thoughts about what you intend to say and how. You can continue to fix the language and flesh out the details as you work on it, but your draft should make clear what your paper is about and what it has to say on the topic. It should organize your ideas, arguments and evidence in a logical and understandable way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The draft itself is only the term for something that is surely not finished. The **purpose** depends on what you intend to do with it.
1. Drafts are often shared with collaborators to have a common ground for further discussion, fixing some notations and in general keeping them up-to-date with the progress.
2. Drafts can be just for personal use to keep track of ideas and what has already been done.
3. Draft is also the version of the paper that is 5 pages over the limit and you know you will need to make changes to fit in.
Draft writing is normally not the goal itself, instead it makes sense to think about what the draft will be used for and then write a document that is useful for this.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/08
| 934
| 3,814
|
<issue_start>username_0: Continuing [How to cite a technical report for a double blind review process?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114470/how-to-cite-a-technical-report-for-a-double-blind-review-process), how would you proceed if your paper is acutally 53 pages long, most of it occupied by mathematical proofs, but you have to compress it into 10 pages (including all the appendices, and allowing for two additional pages for the bibliography) for an A\*-level conference with a double-blind review process, a rebuttal and an explicit ban on relying on supplemental material? The time between the submission and the 2-day-long rebuttal is 2.5 months, which is then followed by a month till notification.
Here is a part of the guidelines:
>
> Do not rely on supplementary material (your web site, your github repository, a youTube channel, a companion technical report or thesis) in the paper or in the rebuttal submitted during the clarification period. Supplementary information might result in revealing author identities.
>
>
>
Or would you consider *not* submitting to that particular conference, since it involves too much work which does not improve any of your results?
Several technical options are available, but I'm unsure about their acceptance in the community:
1. Use the PDF file with the main paper text as a container for the anonymized proofs as an embedded file, or
2. Upload the anonymized proofs to a (megaupload-like) file-storage service and provide the reader with a URL, or
3. Any of 1. and 2., with password-protected supplemental material, where the password is exposed with/after the rebuttal.
Are such solutions accepted by the community?<issue_comment>username_1: The real problem with such a paper is that conferences have deadlines. Therefore the review process needs to be expeditious. Journals can in most cases handle long papers since they don't need to promise when the paper will appear and try to have a big enough backlog that they can fill an issue with interesting work. But if the call asks for 10 page papers that is what they really are depending on.
I don't think the "method" by which you make the longer work available is the issue. You can probably find a way to make it blind. But the length isn't copacetic for purposes of their *very hard* deadlines.
For the conference, write something else. Or write some small excerpt of the longer work that fits the expectations of the committee.
But if you prove a long standing and important theorem, a short, even one page, announcement is probably enough for a conference, ending with "Proof will follow." You will want to include some information about why you think your proof stands up - vetting by some other folks. If you want to get bold, mention the key element of the proof (the crux) that made it come together. Now you are up to around, say, 10 pages. All is good. The full proof can appear later in a more appropriate journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Several options:
1. Split the paper into several parts, submit only the first part. Not every paper can be split up like that, but often they can. If you're not sure where to make the split since you're too invested in the "wholeness" of the paper - ask a colleague who has taken a look at it.
2. It's the wrong venue for your paper - try someplace else. Perhaps a journal which takes really long works? Or maybe extend it into a monograph?
3. Ask for a special exception from the PC. Probably won't work, but who knows, right?
4. Guerilla publishing. Print a "draft" of it as a booklet, attend the conference, distribute it to people. Also, put a draft online somewhere and pitch it to people you know / sort-of-know with a link.
I wouldn't try any of the three complicated tricks you've listed.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/08
| 3,179
| 12,215
|
<issue_start>username_0: [JeffE's answer here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8085/would-getting-a-faster-msc-instead-of-just-bsc-affect-admission-chances-for-phd/8092#8092) indicates that holders of a master’s degree are held to higher standards when it comes to graduate admissions. The stated requirements for some graduate programs ([example from UC Berkeley](http://grad.berkeley.edu/admissions/requirements/)) also outright exclude applicants with doctoral degrees. These seem to be saying that holding a higher degree prior to application is a disadvantage (a fatal one in the case of a PhD).
This also applies to private universities: Stanford [apparently has the same restriction](https://cs.stanford.edu/admissions/faq#a2) (at least in computer science); [same goes for MIT](https://eecs.mit.edu/academics-admissions/graduate-program/faqs#10).
I don't understand why:
* If there are two applicants, Alice and Bob, who have achieved largely similar things, it seems logical that both should have a roughly equal chance of being admitted. However, based on JeffE's answer, if Alice has a Masters degree while Bob does not, it's Bob that gets admitted instead of Alice. JeffE's answer even indicates that if Alice has achieved slightly more than Bob, it's still Bob that gets admitted.
* If graduate admissions is looking for students that are capable of succeeding in its program, then Alice should be more likely to succeed than Bob since she's already had some experience of graduate study. This should be even more the case if Alice already has a PhD – if she can do it once, she should be able to do it again.
JeffE's answer indicates that since Alice has had more opportunities than Bob, she should also be held to higher standard. However it should also be true that Alice has already achieved what Bob has yet to and in fact might not be able to achieve. Further, JeffE's answer seems to be saying that Alice should do the academic equivalent of financial engineering and pass her graduate-level courses & thesis *without getting a master’s degree even if she qualifies for it*, which sounds silly.
As for applicants with PhD degrees, my first guess would be that this is because [multiple PhDs is not a good idea](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17232/is-doing-two-phds-a-good-path/17245), and the university is acting in the applicant's best interests. However if this is the case, then this is effectively telling the applicant "I know what you want better than you do", which also sounds silly. UC Berkeley's requirements also seem to be saying that if someone with a CV worthy of a tenured position were to apply for a PhD student position, the university will say "no" even though it's clearly better in their best interests (in terms of research output) to say "yes".
Presumably I'm misunderstanding something because if this behavior were irrational, it would already have been changed. What am I missing?
**EDIT**: I wonder if things are different in programs where the student is involved in research directly without spending time on coursework?<issue_comment>username_1: Whether it is made explicit or not, I would imagine that most graduate programs try to evaluate candidates on the basis of *future* *potential*. Probably most programs should be more clear about this.
So, for example, if one has been allowed to take qualifying exams endlessly, for 20 years or so, and eventually passes all of them... what does it mean?
It's like age or weight classes in various sports. The possible fact that a 30-year-old can bat 1000 in T-ball aimed at 5-year olds does not earn a spot on a major-league team in the U.S.
Although there's very little age-ism practiced in the U.S. in PhD admissions in mathematics... the point is *not* "maxing out on prelim exams", or anything similar. It is infinitely more about people on an *upward* trajectory...
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: [Berkeley offers the following rationale for their policy](http://grad.berkeley.edu/policy/admissions-policy/):
>
> The Graduate Council views academic degrees as evidence of broad research training, not as vocational training certificates; therefore, applicants who already have academic graduate degrees should be able to take up new subject matter on a serious level without undertaking a graduate program, unless the fields are completely dissimilar.
>
>
>
Although this is rather vague, it does suggest that they believe that when one already has a PhD, it is pointless to enter another graduate program in a similar field, as one has already demonstrated "broad research training" and shouldn't need more. And since PhD program spaces are a limited resource, and involve a considerable investment of faculty time and university resources, they don't want to spend it in ways that they consider pointless.
That's my interpretation, anyway.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> If there are two applicants, Alice and Bob, who have achieved largely similar things, it seems logical that both should have a roughly equal chance of being admitted.
>
>
>
Not at all. PhD admission is primarily based on **potential for future success as an independent researcher**. Between two people with identical research portfolios, it is natural to judge the person who built their portfolio faster and with fewer opportunities to have stronger potential for future success.
>
> If graduate admissions is looking for students that are capable of succeeding in its program, then Alice should be more likely to succeed than Bob since she's already had some experience of graduate study.
>
>
>
You've moved the goalposts. If Alice produces more concrete evidence of research potential than Bob as a result of her graduate study, then she meets the higher standard expected of applicants with graduate-school experience! On the other hand, if Alice does *not* produce more concrete evidence of research potential than Bob, *despite* her experience of graduate study, then Bob is a more attractive candidate.
Merely having been a graduate student is not by itself evidence of research potential; research rarely resembles coursework.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: If by "succeeding in its program," you only mean finishing a PhD, then your premise that a graduate program is looking for students capable of succeeding in its program is quite flawed.
The impression I got from my graduate program is that they consider outcomes like mine failures, and I have a tenured position in a department with a PhD program, albeit a low-ranked one, and publish a paper or two a year.
If they had a choice between Student A, whom they thought was 100% likely to end up in a position like mine, or Student B, whom they thought was a 20% chance to end up in a top-30 research department with an NSF grant and an 80% chance to drop out after 2 years, I'm pretty sure they'd take Student B. In fact, if there was Student C, whom they thought was a 2% chance of eventually winning the Fields Medal and a 98% chance of dropping out in the middle of their fifth semester, dropping the ball on their teaching duties, I'm not sure they wouldn't prefer Student C to both.
If you have already had graduate studies and did well but not brilliantly, you've proven that you won't be a disaster, but you've also shown you are less likely to be wildly successful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: PhD students do useful research work. Supervisors will want a PhD student who successfully completes a project. A candidate who *already has* a PhD may be more likely to quit prematurely. I've seen it happen.
When I did my PhD, a new colleague PhD student joined. He already had a PhD from a developing country, from a university that is perhaps not very well known outside his home country. He considered that a PhD from a more established university in a more developed country would be more valuable.
Fast-forward two years, he suddenly left when to take up a postdoc position in yet another developed country. His supervisor was not happy, and I expect will think twice before accepting again a PhD student who already has a PhD.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: What we are looking for, or at least I'm looking for, when talking about graduate admissions is your *potential* as a researcher.
I'll touch on the PhD portion, which I think is actually more obvious, and then move onto the Masters.
**PhD**: As username_2 notes, one of the concepts behind a PhD is that you should have learned *how* to engage with a field, interact with the literature, learned new methods, etc. And you should have learned how to do it beyond what's taught in classes. Applying for a new degree program, unless it is in a *vastly* different field, suggests that you have tried to move into a different area *and have failed enough that you think you need to go back for coursework and supervised learning*. That's not a good sign.
**Masters Degrees**: The thing about a Masters is that, in some ways, you've already taken a "swing at the bat" - which means that you've had the chance to show your potential - so you need to have done so.
>
> If there are two applicants, Alice and Bob, who have achieved largely
> similar things, it seems logical that both should have a roughly equal
> chance of being admitted. However, based on username_3's answer, if Alice
> has a Masters degree while Bob does not, it's Bob that gets admitted
> instead of Alice. username_3's answer even indicates that if Alice has
> achieved slightly more than Bob, it's still Bob that gets admitted.
>
>
>
In this case, they actually *haven't* achieved similar things. If Bob has gotten the same *output* despite not having Masters level coursework, access to faculty at the graduate level, etc. then they haven't achieved the same thing.
>
> If graduate admissions is looking for students that are capable of
> succeeding in its program, then Alice should be more likely to succeed
> than Bob since she's already had some experience of graduate study.
> This should be even more the case if Alice already has a PhD - if she
> can do it once, she should be able to do it again.
>
>
>
"Getting through my degree program" is not actually what I'm looking for. For some reason, if Alice is reapplying to a PhD program, she has gotten through with all the tools she needs...and then wants to go back for more tools. That's not a good leading indicator of her potential as an independent researcher in the future.
>
> However if this is the case, then this is effectively telling the
> applicant "I know what you want better than you do", which also sounds
> silly.
>
>
>
They probably do. If nothing else, UC Berkeley is working with a much larger experiential data set.
>
> UC Berkeley's requirements also seem to be saying that if someone with
> a CV worthy of a tenured position were to apply for a PhD student
> position, the university will say "no" even though it's clearly better
> in their best interests (in terms of research output) to say "yes".
>
>
>
An extremely unlikely edge case that might prompt an exemption to their policy, but policy is not written for once-a-generation savants.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: In addition to the other excellent answers (from people who have infinitely more experience with the process than I), consider: It seems to be the case that for successful researchers, there is unique academic credit/prestige assigned to the PhD awarding department and advisor. Examples: (1) [<NAME>'s blog](https://www.google.com/search?ei=h6dtW8oohvj8Brakm4gE&q=supervise%20site%3Arjlipton.wordpress.com&oq=supervise%20site%3Arjlipton.wordpress.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3...23274.23274.0.25054.1.1.0.0.0.0.74.74.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.zypujaAP7VY). (2) [<NAME>' blog](https://www.google.com/search?q=supervise%20site:jdh.hamkins.org&ei=MKltW93nFau4ggeGwJfgAQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=985&bih=772). If a person has multiple PhD's, then who gets that credit? At best this credit would seem to get split and diluted. At worst, one or the other is at risk of being forgotten entirely.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/09
| 860
| 3,215
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied for a PhD program in 2017 and got rejected. I'm preparing to apply again in 2018.
Could a professor who gave me a recommendation letter last year refuse to do so again? If so, why, and how could I approach this issue? Is there any unwritten rule regarding how long a referee will provide a reference for a student?<issue_comment>username_1: Maybe there are cultural differences, but when I am writing a letter of reference for a student, it will hold lifelong. The rationale is simple:
* It has a date on it, so the other side can see when it was issued and decide by themselfes how valid my interpretation of the student's performance is at the current date
* I'm writing my true opinion on the student, there is no reason to change my mind.
* If someone want's an updated version, they can call / contact me via e-mail.
I know of no official or inofficial rules (in Germany).
The situation might be different if you need a *new* reference letter. Then I would only write it if I can tell something new about you.
So if you need an updated letter of reference, the referee should recieve some content from your side to put into this letter, together with a brief explanation of your goals, how you improved, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the Graduate School I manage, we require reference letters to be submitted with, among other things:
1. a clear date when it was prepared
2. an estimate of the length of time the referee has known the applicant and
3. a description of the capacity in which the referee knows the applicant.
For example:
>
> 09 September 2017
>
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
>
> I have known Ms <NAME> for three years. During that time, I was her thesis adviser, served as her academic adviser and taught her in three courses (STA101 Introduction to Statistics, STA305 Statistical Inference, STA311 Simulation).
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Professor <NAME>
>
>
>
With this information, assessors are able to situate the reference letter in the context of the rest of the evidence provided by the applicant.
In answer to your questions:
>
> Could it happen that the professor who previously supplied him reference refuses to do so again? If Yes, why?
>
>
>
Yes. This can happen for all sorts of reasons, some being more personal than others. For example, the professor may have not changed his assessment of the applicant and the original reference letter holds despite the applicant's claimed additional "preparation", or he may be reluctant to assert that the work done by the applicant *after* the original reference letter is of any value, or a million other reasons.
>
> And, how should one approach this issue?
>
>
>
There's nothing you can do about this. Someone not willing to write you a new reference letter has given you their answer. Thank them for their time and look for a referee who will.
>
> Is there any unwritten rule regarding how long a referee would provide a reference for a student?
>
>
>
None that I am aware, at least in Australia, the UK, Southeast Asia and East Asia where I have worked. We're looking for relevance, not at dates.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/09
| 1,966
| 8,427
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is more important in academia (bioinformatics, computational biology) for a person when he/she has already completed their PhD:
1. Number of first authorship articles he/she has
2. Number of published articles (he/she may or may not be the first author)
I wanted to know what do post-doc positions value more, the quality (only first author journals/conferences) or quantity(more number of journals/conferences, with/without first authorship)<issue_comment>username_1: I'm sure the answer will depend strongly on your academic field. I will try to make it as general as possible:
As a postdoc, your role might be switching from working as team member to leading a smaller team. Therefore you'll have to demonstrate that you can hold a team together and work on a broader range of topics. This can be demonstrated by senior authorships. The more *significant* senior authorships, the more active is your team (please don't aim at numbers for the sake of numbers - high quality is more appreciated!) and you are demonstrating, that you can quide others to do high quality research.
Still, there is a need to show that you are doing your own research and are not just on the administrative side. This is shown by first authorships. Depending on your group size, it might be difficult to find the time to write those.
Other positions in the list of authors are less valuable and they are more or less showing how large your network is. If you have to decide between three second-author papers and one first-author, I would choose the first author paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As an experienced researcher, I think that this choice is a false dichotomy.
What I look for in a researcher's record is their ability to do meaningful and impactful work, and the strongest researchers in most fields I know of typically have a record that shows a mixture of first-author and Nth-author papers:
* If you're capable of innovating and of doing the core work of a project, that should produce some first-author papers.
* If your work is impactful and useful to others, that will result in collaborations, many of which will *not* have you as first author.
Complementarily, I would consider it a red flag to see either very few first-author papers (often indicating poor core research capabilities) or nearly all first-author papers (often indicating poor ability to work with others).
The further along a researcher is in their career, the more that I would typically expect the balance to shift from first-author papers to non-first-author papers, both as there is more time to build collaborations and as they start to supervise more junior researchers (student or otherwise).
To answer your specific question about a postdoctoral application, then, I would typically expect to see at least a few strong first-author papers and also some non-first-author collaborations. At that stage of career, however, the number of significant papers is typically small enough that strong candidates can have all sorts of different mixtures. In the end, at least for a researcher like myself, my judgement regarding a postdoc is less about the number of publications than what's in the publications and what you did for them.
*Note: the general expectations expressed here may not apply to certain fields with very different publication expectations, such as pure mathematical theory or experimental high-energy particle physics*
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: First, you are talking about at least three dimensions:
1. **Contribution**: In most but not all disciplines, first authorship often denotes greater contribution. Other indicators include being one of a smaller list of authors (e.g., being second author on a two author-paper compared to a ten author paper).
2. **Quality**: The quality of your papers; this can refer to the actual quality of the paper as judged by experts who read it; equally, some will judge quality based on the reputation of the journal or other indicators such as citations to the article.
3. **Quantity**: Number of papers.
You could also contrast **total career output** versus recent **average annual output**. Total career output speaks somewhat to your overall reputation, whereas average annual output speaks to how productive you are both in general, and in recent years. This distinction is more important when people are comparing output of researchers with varying career lengths. In the case of comparing graduating PhD students for post doc positions, this distinction is often less relevant.
More generally, there is substantial variation in how contribution, quality, and quantity are weighted to evaluate you as a researcher.
In general, people evaluating you want to see lots (high quantity) of high (or at least good) quality papers with a decent number of first authorships, and see that this productivity has been sustained in recent years.
Of course, the amount of your time required to generate a given output is broadly related to the value assigned to it by people evaluating your research. On average, higher quality papers where you are the lead author take more time to write than lower quality papers where you are playing a support role.
Given the huge variation across disciplines, countries, universities, academics, it's difficult to give general advice. But here are some general comments.
* Try to get a few good first-author papers. But also get involved with other people's papers. This shows that you can collaborate. And in the cases where "number of papers" matters, playing a support role can speed up the process.
* Ask around to get a sense of the relative importance of journal rankings / impact factors / journal reputation in your area.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There is no answer that is uniform across academia.
In many fields, such as pure mathematics and much of computer science, paper authors are listed alphabetically and being first author is an accident of birth rather than anything else. [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Aagaard) would be first author on almost any pure maths paper he wrote; [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmo_Zumwalt) would be last.1
As I understand it, there are fields where most papers are single-author so, again, the question becomes meaningless.
---
1 I was once at a workshop in honour of [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Vardi). [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Ullman)'s talk included a slide about why he likes working with Vardi: 1. He's a nice guy; 2. He's super-smart; 3. His name comes after mine in the alphabet. Vardi stands up and says something along the lines of, "That's very kind. I work with [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Wolper) for the same reasons."
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Since you asked about bioinformatics and computational biology, which is my field, let me add my two cents...
When I am hiring a postdoc, what I want is going to depend on the project, but it will be some combination of:
* Ability to guide your own research
* Technical competence
* Ability of work with others.
A high quality first author paper generally demonstrates the first two of these. If it is obviously multidisciplinary paper, it might well demonstrate the third as well.
In the UK (where PhDs have limited time) and particularly in bioinformatics (where collaborative politics often lead to the computation element of projects being under valued), it is not unusual for perfectly good scientists to finish their PhD without a first author paper.
In an interview I would generally ask a candidate what their precise role was in the publications they are middle author on to see what skills these publications demonstrated.
In a collaborative role it may be better to have many (good) mid-author papers than one first author, although you'd need to explain to me how your role was key for the papers in question and your didn't just do a quick DESeq for supplementary figure 10.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: In my field, atmospheric sciences, the first author/corresponding author is the most important. As an example, a scientist working in a federal research institute with more than 200 publications was only given an assistant professor position when he moved to a top university.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/09
| 492
| 2,098
|
<issue_start>username_0: For my PhD thesis, I have conceptualised an experimental setup which is similar to an already existing patented design. Can I do research work on that setup (conceptualised by me) by simply citing that patent ? Are there other things to keep in mind ?<issue_comment>username_1: You should probably consult an IP lawyer. Your institution probably has someone who can help with this. Depending on what you are doing you may be using the patent idea or not (ie violating). You might be able to get a license from the patent holder. Lots of possibilities here.
In one scenario, the patent owner may be interested in your work.
But there is too little stated in your question and too much implied to be able to give nay definite answer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think not all patents have the same rules. Sometimes only commercial use is forbidden, research use may be ok. Some patent holders are reasonable and will give you explicit permission to use it if you ask nicely. Others refuse. It doesn't hurt to ask, though.
If your design is only similar, but not exactly the same, it may not even be covered by the patent. You should look carefully at exactly what the patent is for. Or better yet, ask a patent lawyer to look at it (your institution probably has one).
In practice, patent enforcement usually happens when the patent holder finds out, and then sues you for causing them to lose income they "deserve" by virtue of holding the patent. Since you will probably obtain little income from the patent, the case will not be very strong even if they do decide to sue. But more importantly, the journal where you expect to publish may have stricter rules on patents than your local regulators, so I would check their policies as well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: On top of others excellent answers, just to add that please check if the patent is already expired. There is a status stated in the patent information (18-20 years from the approval time). If it is already expired, then I guess there is no concern on the legal side.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/09
| 699
| 3,042
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm going to enter my second year in my PhD after two months from now. I start to think that I can write some chapters from now instead of waiting until the fourth year. This would help me to finish my study early is that possible or at least avoid the stress of writing in my fourth year.
However, most of my friends who are in the third and fourth year suggest not to do that because it is going to waste my time and instead I need to focus more on the literature review and prepare for the field work.
Need advice about this from students who go through this.<issue_comment>username_1: While in most cases a thesis is not written until the end, there is nothing preventing you from beginning earlier. Having said that, there is possibly little that you could write now as you say there is still work to be done on the literature review. Without the literature review it may prove difficult to write the introductory chapters.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It is probably a good idea to keep a running outline of your work as you go. Also, sometimes you get stuck for some period of time - say waiting for experiments to mature. In those periods if you can't otherwise make progress it might be a good idea to write up (and to revise) what you already know.
I wouldn't do this to "shorten" the time, however, but rather to keep myself on track and to keep an overview of the work in mind.
One advantage of this, if you have the discipline to do it, is that the thesis gets revised many times this way before you finish, rather than only once or twice.
In short, it could be time wasted or time well spent, depending on when you do it and how you approach it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: A thesis is based upon research conducted during a PhD. That research should be in publishable form and, ideally, some of it should already be published. Thus, a thesis is based upon publishable/published research.
I recommend that you **focus on publishing** or, at least, preparing publishable manuscripts, rather than starting to write chapters of your thesis.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it really depends on individuals. I personally like doing multiple projects at the same time, for two reasons: 1) It helps me build connections; 2) It improves my research skills (e.g., study design and data analysis). However, I do feel very burned out sometimes when there were just too much for me. I also realized that I was not able to focus on my main line of research when I was also devoting my time to other projects. I think it depends on what you want, if you want to find a job in academia, then you definitely need publications, so more projects; but if you just want to work in the industry, then probably focus more on finding practical opportunities and build connections with people in the industry. The bottom line is don't burn out yourself, after all, doing too much side work simultaneously would distract you from your focus, which is counterproductive :)
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/09
| 2,404
| 10,074
|
<issue_start>username_0: While certainly there is value to learning something you are passionate about, one might also have to consider the finnacial responsibilities after college. Thankfully for me, what I am passionate about is also what I can expect to make a decent career out of.
I am entering college as a mechanical engineering student, however I feel like I would very much like to pursue a double major, the second degree being in math. While what drives me to this is my interest and passion in the subject (Ive always been a fan of numbers), I can't help but pause to consider if the extra time and money spent is practical. In short, how much more can I reasonably expect to make with a bachelor's degree in math and in mechanical engineering, upon graduation?<issue_comment>username_1: That depends on a great number of things. So it may be possible to get a difference in mean income, though that would not be easy as we are dealing with relatively small groups. However, the variance tends to be very large for such estimates (I am not talking about statistical significance, just the raw variance). So a realistic estimate of the benefit of adding a second math degree would be somewhere between minus a lot and plus a lot, which is just another way of saying "that is unknowable without a working crystal ball".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Pursue the dual major because it interests you and this is your opportunity to do it, not because you expect a higher salary, because the higher salary probably won't happen.
I spent a long career in industry in engineering before coming out of retirement to teach a few years ago. In my experience, hiring managers generally don't care that someone was a dual major. Part of this may be a reflection of the fact that managers tend to hire people who "look like them". Not very many managers were dual majors, so they don't value it. But there's a practicality to it as well: If they're hiring you to be an engineer, it's probably because you are an engineer, not because you're also a mathematician.
What hiring managers do value is the master's degree. Again, this may be in part because so many hiring managers have master's degrees (which many of them may have earned part-time while working). Hiring managers tend to have master's degrees, so they like to hire people with master's degrees, and they will pay more to get them.
If your concern is best financial return on any additional effort beyond what it takes to get a bachelor's degree, I recommend going for the master's over the dual major. Many universities have programs that allow students to go straight through to their master's, double-counting some of their credits and earning both degrees with just one more year of coursework only, no thesis required. For example, here at University of Michigan in computer science, where I teach, it's called SUGS (Sequential Undergraduate/Graduate Studies); to be admitted to the program you need to be a junior or a senior with a 3.6 GPA. Your school probably has a similar program.
If your objective is a career in industry and you're concerned about "bang for the buck", the master's is the way to go.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: *I'm in IT, so take my opinionated answer with a grain of salt. This may seem like a rant, but I have heard the sentiment from colleagues, often.*
>
> In short, how much more can I reasonably expect to make with a bachelor's degree in math and in mechanical engineering, upon graduation?
>
>
>
Frankly: if you are looking at two *bachelor* degrees, relatively unrelated, then I, as a hiring manager, could not care less. Yes, I would see that you are a good learner, but I assume that the mechanical engineering covers all the maths needed, thus the additional maths bachelor only reinforces the fact that you like (and can do) maths. I would assume that I have to teach you a lot if not most real-world techniques on the job anyways.
It would be a bit different if you had two masters. For a master's degree, you not only need to get the deeper education, but also that much more personal effort. I.e., you're not only learning what is pushed your way, but writing a lot more stuff yourself, and your marks have much more meaning.
In my industry (IT/CS), I am noticing a trend for young students to skip their masters, and end their academic career with the bachelor. I am very unhappy about this. Yes, at least in my country the unis don't really offer that much real life experience during the masters, but I'd never, ever underestimate the value of learning. Even if it's just advanced concepts. Or time spent on uni projects with significant resources available (depending on your uni of course) but without the stakeholder pressure of getting a usable product (in other words: *research*).
When I was little, we did not have the bachelor/master system in technical studies in my country; instead, there was a "Vordiplom" after 4-6 semesters, and then the "Diplom" after 8-12 or so semesters; the Diplom being somewhat comparable to the master's degree. My point is that the "Vordiplom" was worth *nothing* at the job market, at all. On the contrary, it signified that you aborted your studies before getting a real degree, and was a real bummer that you'd need to really explain in the interview.
I may be old-fashioned, and I know that reality has moved on, but the bachelor degree seems a little bit like that to me as well. Yes, those people *have* studied a topic for a few years, and they *have* their degree, but they chose to do the absolute minimum. Why? If they are interested in the topic, why would they not go on? Especially if they then had the time to do *two* of them?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As part of my teaching studies I practiced at a university of applied sciences (ammattikorkeakoulu), an institute which trains engineers and other professionals mostly up to bachelor level, and offers no PhD studies. I talked to people who teached mostly electric engineering and the discipline where one learns how to construct houses and bridges etc. (It presumably has a specific name in English, which I do not remember off the top of my head.)
One long-time math teacher told me, that one thing companies look for in graduates or trainees is their mathematics grades, especially in advanced math courses, because these tell how challenging tasks they can set to the workers.
Supposing this second-hand knowledge from *mathematics* teachers is true (there is certainly motivation for bias), extra studies in mathematics might pay off as higher employability and more demanding positions. I cannot estimate any effect on wages.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Expecting a difference in salary is not reasonable. It just wont be that simple. Your expectations will not be falsifiable.
You can expect to have more options. That is where the value here lies. You will definitely have more options to choose from, one of those options could include a higher salary, but also working environment, residency location, etc.
Having more options is always desirable.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: You will acquire more debt and as you make more you will spend more. Start this journey and you'll learn why 80% of the money in America is on credit. Good luck and stay positive on this depressing road to nothing.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: If you are interested in mathematics, but are also trying to maximise your future earnings, I would recommend a minor in math, then getting an MS in mechanical engineering.
A dual major won't earn you any more on its own. It might open additional opportunities, but since an undergraduate degree in pure mathematics likely will present less opportunities than an undergraduate degree in mech engineering, the benefit there is small. (but those additional math opportunities are something you might want to keep in mind if that is what you want to pursue, but at that point, why get a degree in mech eng?)
A masters degree will earn you more in engineering though. I will give you an example. The first company I worked for, a big bay area tech company that everyone has heard of, had this as their hiring policy: $x for new grads with a BS, $x+10k for new grads with an MS.
A minor in math would look good an a graduate application. A graduate degree in ME should earn you more money. So that path seems to check all the boxes you are looking for.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I used to employ 100s of graduates in the UK in a relatively high paying profession for which undergraduate degrees are available. When looking at candidates for employment I used to bear the following points in mind:
1. A bachelor's degree on its own is not normally a qualification to do anything: at best it provides some evidence of work ethic and of intellectual interests;
2. Further, in a way, any particular formal qualification tells only part of the story as to why its holder should be employed in an organisation. My staff were not exchangeable units of qualified people, but individuals who brought all sorts of skills over and above their technical qualifications;
3. I was slightly suspicious of candidates who had specialised too early. I wanted to see evidence of intellectual flexibility and that could be harder to see in a very specialised young person;
4. I was looking most of all for candidates who showed promise: capable of absorbing the further professional training they would need and then being brilliant;
So, if the someone like the OP had turned up for a job with me with a dual major in mathematics and engineering, I would have been slightly more interested than if they had turned up with just one or the other degree, but the crucial issue is not what they did in the past but what can they do in the future.
So should the OP do a dual major or not? The answer depends on how he wishes to present him or herself to the world of work: how does the degree fit in with the intended career path.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/09
| 1,095
| 4,857
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had a strange situation a few months ago:
I was reviewing a paper which was on an interesting problem and the authors used machine learning to solve this problem. Unfortunately, they seemed to have little experience with the methods so they obviously ran into the problem of overfitting without noticing this. Therefore, they drew wrong conclusions from their experiments. (Short summary for people not familiar with machine learning: They did not use the methods correctly and so their results were invalid).
I elaborated on the problem in my review and stated that the result cannot be generalized due to this problem and that the methods were used wrongly.
I was a bit surprised to receive a revision of the manuscript, where my remarks were just included in the discussion section: In fact they did not improve the experiment, but in the discussion they more or less stated that:
>
> it is possible that everything we wrote in here is invalid due to the problem of overfitting.
>
>
>
So in the end they had a paper with a good justification for the project, a *maybe* working method which was not applied correctly, and they interpreted the results correct – so all in all it was a well documented example for a failure, and it was formally correct.
Still, my recommendation was to refuse the paper, but I was considering if it might be helpful to others because they could learn from the mistakes. On the other hand, publishing such a paper would not be a reference for the authors since this is a severe flaw in the use of methods (and readers might skip the discussion and think the results are valid).
Did you have similar experiences before? And how did you react?<issue_comment>username_1: I haven't personally had similar experiences before, and probably am much more junior than you (only really have reviewed a relatively small number of papers at all still), but here's my thoughts (I am familiar with the specific case of Machine Learning though):
>
> I was a bit surprised to recieve a revision of the manuscript, where my remarks were just included in the discussion section: In fact they did not improve the experiment, but in the discussion they more or less stated "*it is possible that everything we wrote in here is invalid due to the problem of overfitting*".
>
>
>
Did they really only just add that in a discussion, or did they also adjust other places? Typically, a very short (e.g. one-sentence) summary of results is included in places like Abstract / Introduction / Conclusions, something like "our approach X performs well on problem Y". If there are any claims in any places like that, those would be unjustified in my opinion, and that would be a serious problem. **There really shouldn't be any unjustified claims about performance anywhere in the paper**.
>
> So in the end they had a paper with a good justification for the project, a maybe working method which was not applied correctly, and they interpreted the results correct - so all in all it was an well documented example for a failure, and it was formally correct.
>
>
>
If the intuition / ideas behind the proposed approach are sound / interesting and new, if it all sounds like it could work out and be interesting... I think there might be some value in publication. Of course this also depends on the venue, some have lower standards than others. **I suppose I'd treat it as a paper that simply didn't have any empirical evaluation at all**, try to decide whether or not you'd still accept it then?
>
> Still, my recommendation was to refuse the paper, but I was considering if it might be helpful to others because they could learn from the mistakes.
>
>
>
That's not what peer-reviewed papers are for. I do believe papers with "failures" in the sense of interesting ideas that, after a proper evaluation, turned out not to work should be valued more highly than they tend to be (only success stories that "beat state of the art" tend to be accepted). Such failures can provide useful insights when published, prevent others from coming up with the same ideas and wasting their time on them again. But accepting a paper with a methodological flaw so that others can use it as an example of what not to do in a paper? That doesn't seem valuable to me.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the end the decision on these sorts of things lies with the editor, not the reviewer. As reviewer you could write back saying
>
> The authors now acknowledge the possibility of overfitting. In the abscence of any attempt test for overfitting (which I believe to be likely here rather than just a technical possibility) it is unclear what value the results obtained might have for the field, other than as a warning to others.
>
>
>
And leave it for the editor to decide.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/09
| 1,497
| 6,035
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm going to be a senior college student in the fall. My gpa is close but not high enough for the bare minimum graduate school admission criteria (gpa=3.0). I am wondering whether I should wait until I finish senior year and see whether I get a cumulative gpa of 3.0 before I study for GRE/apply for graduate school or whether I should study for GRE now. The disadvantage of studying for GRE without the GPA criteria fulfilled is that I might end up studying for a useless test.<issue_comment>username_1: I doubt that studying for the GRE would be useless if you do so effectively. Among other things, it should help you consolidate what you have learned generally.
However, as you suspect, studying for your courses should come first for a lot of reasons, not just your GPA. But don't waste any odd moments during the year doing unproductive things. When you have a few minutes (waiting for a bus, say) have something to study.
Also, take a lot of notes (paper is preferable) which helps you remember and operationalize what you know.
It is also pretty common for a student to get distracted in the final year. Don't let that become a problem.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Focus on repairing GPA first. Here are a few things that could be helpful when your admission profile reaches the committee: i) your last year's GPA shows an uptrend, ii) you have taken some courses related to epidemiology or public health and did very well, and iii) if there is a serious dip in your GPA some where along the study in the transcript, you have provided a fair clarification in the statement.
So, if credits allow, consider cross-register into some intro-level public health course to see whether the topics speak to you, and work hard to get good grades.
If for some reason you created a gap year/semester while studying for GRE, consider using that chance to work with some researchers, even as data collectors or data entry staffs, to get some field experience. This is particularly helpful if your resume does not have any noticeable relevance to health care, public health, or epidemiology. In additions, be a professional worker and cultivate a good relationship with the team; they could potentially write you a powerful and relevant reference letter.
Also, if you are in the US, I am pretty sure some students with GPA lower than 3.0 did get into public health graduate programs. With public health programs popping up here and there, there may even be more chances. In the US, public health programs are mostly accredited so in terms of contents they don't vary a lot. So, look carefully what the faculty work on and see if their topics speak to you. Sometimes the works that attract you may not be in the top-tier institutes.
Lastly, broaden the options. Do a brief job search on epidemiology-related works, you'll see that this field hires diverse kinds of specialists. For example: economist, policy scholars, psychologists (esp. quantitative psy., questionnaire development, etc.), nurses, computer programmers (data informatics and analytics), statisticians, biochemists, toxicologists, etc. Hopping into one of those options, and then get a Master in Public Health part-time while working may also be a way.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I would not spend time and money in my final year of college studying for the GRE if there was anything more than a small chance I'm not applying that cycle.
Put that energy into improving your GPA and getting relevant research experience. The GRE and planning materials aren't cheap (it's a racket anyway), and it will be easier on your wallet if you wait until next summer, when you have a full-time job.
Besides, instead of studying for three classes *and* the GRE, you can focus only on the GRE after you graduate.
And in any case, GRE scores are valid for five years:
>
> For tests taken on or after July 1, 2016, scores are reportable for five years following your test date. For example, scores for a test taken on July 3, 2018, are reportable through July 2, 2023.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I went through graduate school in Epidemiology at a major school of Public Health, and am now the epidemiologist on a number of multidisciplinary admission committees.
**Improve Your GPA First**
There's no subject-specific test for the GRE for Epidemiology (which isn't surprising, as it's not really a discipline with good undergraduate representation), and the general feeling in the field is the GRE is a supplemental piece of information - a way to *maybe* push an edge case into "Admit", or to provide context for schools where it's known that the GPA doesn't mean much. My program has gone so far as to seriously consider phasing it out entirely.
GPA cutoffs are also often a function of the Graduate School, or another administrative group where there isn't much room for nuance. If you don't meet the GPA requirements, you're sitting squarely in the "Do Not Pass Go" category. I wouldn't bother investing any time or money studying for the GRE until you're past that line.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Accepting the answer of <NAME>, I want to add that studying for GRE is not something lasts for months. Those exams of ETS and any other similar tests have always some key tips, in which you learn them and in a short while you get satisfactory results.
I, for instance, used GRE for my applications 3 times, I made quantitative part full, but no one made a fuss over it. It just takes sufficient amount of focus. For verbal part, reading English novels, espcially classic ones help a lot to get the vocabulary. For writing part, I can't say anything but there will be people around you who can at least direct you to improve your writing while improving your GPA at the same time.
GRE assesses everyday skills, so if you manage your own business, here improving GPA, in an efficient way, there will be no need to study GRE, still easy to say as its cost is quite high, though.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/09
| 922
| 4,074
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in the field of Psychology. One of my manuscripts is now under review after the 1st round of revision. However, I found one of the variables was calculated in a wrong way, the results are better with the corrected variable because the significance levels were higher (i.e., p values were lower), but it didn't change the conclusions of my study, all the significant results still remain significant and non-significant results are still non-significant. I would like to know what would be the best option to deal with it.
**option 1**: ignore it.
**option 2**: correct it when I receive reviewers' feedbacks WITHOUT letting the reviewers and editor know.
**option 3**: correct it when I receive reviewers' feedbacks AND let the reviewers and editor know.
I'm worried that letting the editor and reviewers know would leave a bad impression on me and the quality of my work.
Thank you in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: I work in biomedical field so am not sure how vindictive psychology specialists are. The few I worked with are pretty nice, but n=3.
My opinion is definitely option 3. It's not just the p-value that matters, but also i) the statistics itself (e.g. the regression coefficient) could be different and ii) replicability could be threatened as well. If someone would like to follow your work they may be perplexed by your errors.
As for leaving a bad impression. I'd rather get rejected because I was being diligent than getting an acceptance with a flaw that I once convinced myself was trivial, but occasionally came up in the back of my mind. Just bad flavor.
I'd say no need to drum up what was corrected. Simply point out that in a final code review you spotted an error, and corrections to xxx variable was made. Overall associations/differences and conclusion remain unchanged. Give a short apology. And hope for the best.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is potentially problematic, but probably not for the reasons you expect.
By all means, ensure that you raise this when you make your second submission. Provide a detailed description of the problem and your modifications. Set this apart from the revisions requested in response to reviewer comments, though. In addition, inform the deputy editor in charge of your manuscript that this has happened.
The reason I state that this is problematic is because some journals have been taken to task by late additions to the text that were inserted during the later stages of review when only minor modifications are expected. Let me give you an example of one such incident. A manuscript describes the effectiveness of a new way to mitigate the harmful effects of soil erosion in the coastal areas of Malaysia. It's reported primary and secondary outcomes, while showing a positive effect, was lacking in practical significance. The manuscript's reviews were generally positive. During the third round, the authors inserted (without any prompting from reviewers or editorial staff) a new outcome that was substantially positive. This insertion consisted of a single sentence in a 3,500-word third revision. No one spotted it and it proceeded to publication.
When it was published, the authors issues press releases highlighting the effectiveness of the program but using the newly inserted outcome as the headline. "New technique reduces cuts soil erosion by 90%!" The journal received complaints from the reviewers stating that internal processes were breached, that the outcome did not undergo proper peer review, etc etc. Internal investigations were conducted. External arbiters were engaged. The main author was traumatised and had to go on leave because of the flak she was getting.
This incident was described to us by staff of another journal in my field during our regular get-togethers a few years ago now. It's caused us to be very wary about late insertions.
In the final analysis, you need to protect yourself from these allegations by being forthcoming about the revisions you plan on making.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/09
| 1,161
| 4,374
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to apply for (top) US PhD programs until this December for being potentially admitted in September 2019.
This personal information is relevant to my question:
* Bachelors in non English-speaking country (Sept 2013-June 2016)
* TOEFL exams (Sept 2015 - Overall score: 106)
* Masters in UK (Sept 2016 - August 2017)
* Working in UK (Oct 2017 - present)
Do I have to sit again for TOEFL to apply for US Phd programs this year even though I sat successfully for TOEFL in September 2015 and even though since September 2016 I am living, studying and working in UK?
P.S.
If yes then this does not make any sense....haha....<issue_comment>username_1: This may well depend on a stipulation made by the program / institution that you are applying to in terms of how recent the results are - they may say within the last 3 months or 6 months or they may not - you need to check with them.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: TOEFL is only good for 2 years, your current 106 has already expired in 2017 September.
When you apply, ask the admission office what are the criteria for a **TOEFL waiver**. Ask if a 106 in 2015 (not a bad score itself) and a Master degree in UK can fulfill that requirement.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In general this policy is set per-University and sometimes per degree program, so its impossible to give a one-size-fits-all yes/no answer to your question. However, in general every program should explicitly specify on their website about materials required (such as a TOEFL score), including information about who (and how) you can be either exempt from providing a TOEFL score or whether or not your current score can be accepted.
However, if you are specifically referring to the TOEFL iBT, [the ETS states that they are only valid for 2 years](https://www.ets.org/toefl/ibt/scores):
>
> TOEFL scores are valid for 2 years after the test date and there is no
> limit to the number of times you can take the test, but you cannot
> take it more than once in a 12-day period.
>
>
>
As for officially stated policies of a University, as an example from the [University of Michigan's College of Engineering international graduate student's requirements (2018)](https://www.engin.umich.edu/admissions/international/graduate/english-proficiency/):
>
> Exceptions to the English proficiency tests include only lifetime
> residents of Australia, Canada (other than Quebec), New Zealand,
> United Kingdom or the United States (other than Puerto Rico). Students
> who have recently and successfully completed at least 4 years of
> rigorous academic studies in one of the countries listed might also be
> exempted if SAT critical reading scores are in the mid-600 range.
>
>
> Applicants that meet the above criteria and wish to request an
> exemption from the English proficiency requirement must present SAT
> scores and send a written request containing full name...
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Test scores are valid for two years from the date an application is
> received. Expired scores will not be accepted.
>
>
>
So for this specific program, you would need a more up-to-date TOEFL score according to official published policy, as your scores are more than 2 years old. You would also not meet the requirement of "at least 4 years of rigorous study" in the UK, so you would also be less likely to be given a waiver from this requirement.
You will basically need to check these requirements for every program you wish to apply to, as some programs have more or less stringent requirements.
Ultimately I could foresee you having 3 options:
1) Don't apply to programs that won't accept your existing score.
2) Email the the program, specifying your specific situation, and ask if your existing information would be acceptable.
3) Take the TOEFL again. It certainly won't be the only part of the process that doesn't seem like it makes any sense! Most programs require the GRE, too - even though it has a reading/writing component in English, most programs will probably still require a fresh TOEFL score.
A fourth option of "apply anyway and see what happens" is less advisable, as you'll probably be spending 75$+ per application only to have your materials thrown out and no money returned if they decide not to accept your out of date materials. I wouldn't suggest it.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/09
| 910
| 3,819
|
<issue_start>username_0: For most of university, I usually got around a ~3.5, with my GPA in my fourth year being around a 3.8.
However, during the first semester of my first year, I had some medical issues that made it really challenging to focus on school. Because of that, my GPA that semester was around a 1.7.
This one semester 4 years ago is completely destroying my GPA. Because of it my cumulative GPA is around a 3.35 instead of the 3.6 it should be.
I'm applying to PhD programs right now, and I'm afraid that most grad schools will take a quick look at the 3.35 and immediately dismiss my application because it's so low... I've done as much as I can to mitigate the effect of it, including doing quite well my fourth year, publishing a research paper and doing several research internships throughout university.
I was hoping for some advice on the best way to deal with this. I'll definitely mention this in my SOP, but I don't know if that will be sufficient. I'm also not sure how many details I'm expected to share about the medical issue. It's obviously very personal and I'd prefer to not share too much, but if I absolutely need to I guess that's okay...<issue_comment>username_1: I would think that the one semester is an anomaly. As such, since it was your first semester, it likely won't have much impact as long as you explain it adequately. People do get sick. Other people understand that. On the other hand some people do tend to party a lot and others may not be so understanding. But an explanation should suffice. If appropriate (it isn't always) be able to back up your statements with some evidence - say a recommendation from a doctor that the issue is in the past.
Some people won't even blink since your trend line is positive.
If you can also show the the poor grades early on didn't leave you with a hole in your education, all the better. That seems unlikely in this case, of course.
But of course, my analysis won't be universal. Some people will look harshly, but it should be rare most places.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a common issue that we encounter in the Graduate School that I manage. The short answer is that your GPA is your GPA and you can't do anything about it. Here are a few of the techniques I've seen tried in applications:
1. Describing mitigating circumstances in the personal statement.
2. Calculating what I can only describe as "stratified GPAs" whereby the applicant calculates the GPA for subsets of subjects (often those directly related to the major). What they're trying to say is that my cumulative GPA is such-and-such, but if you focus on these subjects, my GPA is significantly better than the cumulative GPA.
3. Arguing that the cumulative GPA is a poor summary that conceals significant trends in performance. This is a variation of the "stratified GPA" argument, but I call this the "mistakes of my youth" argument. The applicant is saying that we should excuse their performance in the early stages of their degree because the later performance is a much better gauge of their work.
The problem with these efforts is that the GPA is just one of the many pieces of evidence we require and applicants are often fixated on this number, which they cannot change anyway.
In your case, I believe that you should address this in your personal statement, but in a way that doesn't focus on excuses but on the work that you've done subsequently to mitigate its effects. In fact, that you've used this issue as a trigger to sublimate your performance speaks volumes of the maturity, forward thinking, initiative and diligence that I would be proud to have join our university. (You shouldn't consider this a general endorsement, of course, given that I don't have your complete application.)
Good luck to you.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/09
| 3,457
| 14,537
|
<issue_start>username_0: I find it very annoying as a reviewer when I get asked to review a paper several times as it gets submitted to different journals/conferences or, worse still, I help send it to the reject pile only to have it published elsewhere with my comments ignored. I definitely get the impression that a small minority of authors "shop" their papers around too much, which wastes a lot of the community's time. Often these papers are completely unpublishable, but sometimes it seems the authors are just going down some list until they reach the appropriate "level", rather than submitting appropriately in the first place.
I often devise hypothetical schemes to prevent this. For example:
1. Require authors to pay to submit.
2. Require authors to disclose the submission history their article.
3. Have journals/conferences publish a list of rejected articles.
4. Calculate an acceptance ratio for authors, along the same lines as bibliometrics.
5. Somehow publish rejected articles too, so that they cannot be published elsewhere. E.g., have a journal that accepts nearly 100% of submissions, but includes a review or rating with each article, so readers know which ones are the good articles.
Of course, these are just wild ideas, many of which are impractical and would greatly annoy authors.
I'm curious to know if any such schemes have actually been tried and, if so, whether they seem to have worked. Surely, in some far-flung corner of academia, one of these ideas has been tried.
**Question:** *Are there systems that have been tried by journals/conferences to disincentivize authors from submitting their articles to too many journals/conferences? If so, did they work?*
I am only aware of one experiment along these lines: [ICLR - the International Conference on Learning Representations.](https://iclr.cc/) All submissions and all reviews are made public and they stay online even if they were rejected. I don't know what effect this system has had. I would like to hear other examples and also know if there is any evidence regarding the effect of such policies.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not aware of any disincentives. However, I can describe a process we're currently undertaking to preserve the valuable information that is often lost when a manuscript moves from one journal to another. I consider the present situation wasteful of time, effort and resources. I participate in the Editorial Board of a general medical journal considered the premier medical rag in my country. At the present time, we're running an experiment of sorts in collaboration with other medical subspecialty journals and craft groups to share submission histories, reviewer comments, manuscript revision and decision histories. This will enable us to track a submission, at least within the consortium.
We were surprised that editorial processes haven't been subject to the rigorous experimental design that we ourselves expect from our manuscripts. Thus, we decided to design one ourselves. In this experiment, the author is free to choose to which journal he or she submits. If an accept decision is eventually made (regardless of the number of revision rounds), then there is no further action on the consortium's part. However, if a reject decision is made (again regardless of the number of revision rounds), then the manuscript's meta-info are logged onto the consortium's database. If the author chooses to submit to a member of the consortium, then the manuscript's history is made available to the editorial team of the second journal. And so on.
There are flaws in this idea, of course. Journal coverage is incomplete, for instance. We will not have access to histories from journals outside the consortium. Some of the previous decisions may colour subsequent editorial decisions is another potential concern.
That's the general idea, at least. We're in the early stages of its development.
I do hope that this helps.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A version of your suggestion 1. is implemented in my academic field (mathematics).
In mathematics authors usually pay dearly to submit to any particular journal, not in money but in **time**. Namely, an unacknowledged but hard to dispute stage of the refereeing process in mathematics is the part where the referee lets the submission sit on their shelf for N months. It would be interesting to track the dependence of N on various factors, but based on my own experiences as an author (and okay, yes, as a referee!) I believe the median value of N to be about three months, with a higher mean. Especially, when I submit a paper to a large range of reputable journals in my field, I feel that I am incurring a risk -- small, but not negligible; let's say 3-5% -- that the referee will wait a year or so before rejecting the paper with a wholly superficial accompanying report (say, one paragraph that does not make specific reference to anything in the paper past the introduction).
This makes it rather impractical to shop a mathematics paper around to a large number of journals *at about the right level*. (If you send a less than excellent paper to a truly excellent mathematics journal, the chances are good that it gets bounced back to you quite quickly. I have heard stories of the absolute top journals in mathematics keeping a paper for a year or more and then responding negatively...but then I have also heard of them doing this and then accepting papers that I would have guessed they would reject.) This certainly works for me: I have submitted over 50 distinct math papers for publication. Most often I step down in quality after the first rejection and always after the second rejection. For me, having three or four journals consider the same paper feels like quite an ordeal....because it is likely spread out over several years!
Maybe this sounds sarcastic. It is not intended to be. If anything, it is a relief to think that there might be *some good effect* of the current endemic slowness of mathematical refereeing. Because we have a thriving preprint culture, it is hard to argue that slow publication has a significant effect on the intellectual progress of the field. If only the slowness were equidistributed, I think there would be little to complain about. (But it isn't, and I suspect that my suffering is as nothing compared to that of some of my junior colleagues...In fact, just now I realize that while for many years now my papers have been treated better by top journals whether they take them or not, at the beginning of my career I had several papers languish in top journals for a really long time. The rich should have to pay more, not less.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, the process user St. Inkbug suggest, might be illegal. According to EU, sharing info without the approval of users.
Somehow, I need to agree with number 5.
>
> Somehow publish rejected articles too, so that they cannot be published elsewhere. E.g., have a journal that accepts nearly 100% of submissions, but includes a review or rating with each article, so readers know which ones are the good articles.
> and it is now done by Sci, Sci — Open Access Journal
> <http://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/1/1/1/htm>
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: There are two important perspectives here.
**Author's point of view.** Journals have standards of various levels, and 'topics of interest' can change in important detail over time from one chief editor to the next.
I think it is entirely reasonable for an author to submit to the highest-level
journal that seems realistic.
In my field, rejection will usually be very quick if
the paper is far below standard for the journal.
If an associate editor feels the paper has some merit, then it will go to review. If reviews are positive it
may be accepted, provisionally accepted pending suggested/required revisions, or
rejected (due to the editor's taste or too high a backlog of 'worthy' papers).
If the paper is rejected, one can hope that useful suggestions for
improvement will be included. Also if reviews are unenthusiastic, the paper
will be rejected. Then it is up to the author to get another idea or to re-submit elsewhere, possibly with some modifications.
I have served on publications committees of a couple of societies publishing journals in my field. Serious efforts have been made to speed up the review process. Some major journals now make final decisions on 75% of papers within six months.
I detect no deliberate attempt to use delay as a penalty for successive submissions.
I see no reason an author should take one or two rejections as a sign to abandon
the essence of a paper. However, feedback should be used to prompt revisions,
and after a couple of strategic downgrades in the prestige of journals submitted to, perhaps it is best for an author to move on to other work. These days there are dozens of predatory 'journals' that will accept almost anything, and self-respecting authors will protect their reputations by avoiding them like the plague they are.
**Reviewer's point of view.** Reviewers should set reasonable, but generous, limits on the
number of papers they agree to review and try to respond quickly (the task will
not get easier if delayed).
My view is that the only proper response to a request to
review a paper for which one has previously recommended rejection is to refuse immediately to review it
again, saying why. That will take almost none of the reviewer's time.
Thus the reviewer can spend precious time giving a helpful review of the
the next relevant paper to come along.
The author deserves an unbiased, fresh review process. However tempting it may be to believe in one's preeminence, few reviewers are uniquely
qualified to pass judgment on any one paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: When a paper is rejected, there are two possible reasons:
1. The paper is bad
2. The review is bad
The majority is 1. (hopefully), but 2. is also very common. Some random examples:
* [8 Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to Win a Nobel Prize](https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize)
* [The Curious Case of <NAME>](http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/Keogh_SIGKDD09_tutorial.pdf): acidentally submitted two versions of the same paper to MobiCom. One version of the paper scored 1,2 and 3, and was rejected, the other version scored a 3,4 and 5, and was accepted!
* My postdoc advisor got a best paper award after 2 rejections
As there is no way to distinguish 1. and 2., if their authors resbumit, should we (i) punish both or (ii) ignore both?
>
> Require authors to disclose the submission history their article.
>
>
>
An example: see the **Reviews from Prior Submissions** section of the [CFP of Oakland](https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2019/cfpapers.html), one of the big 4 in security.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: I can’t help noticing some contradiction in your post. You observe a small minority of the authors shopping around and are concerned about the uneven communities’ waste of time.
Your main problem seems to be your personal annoyance, especially seeing a paper being published without your valuable comments (given while rejecting it) being addressed.
By now you probably have your list of this small minority of authors in your field which ‘shops around’. You are certainly not obliged ‘to help’ these authors’ papers to the pile reject. In addition I follow username_3 here. Just don’t review a paper you previously rejected. It will save you a lot of time.
Your suggestions (the legal ones) are interesting as a mind experiment. In addition: as bad reviewers are just as annoying as bad authors I (solely as a mind experience) would suggest the following: let each review be accompanied by statistics on the reviewer.
* the reviewer’s field of specialism, years of experience, number of publications published as first author and the journals published in.
* the reviever’s review history (number of review reports, their length, the journals reviewed for, duration of the reviews, reviewer’s decisions made in comparison with final editorial decisions).
* of course, as you propose for authors, these reviewers’ statistics are shared with the journal’s consortium.
In addition we could think of similar statistics for associate editors.
To continue:
* after an editorial decision, authors are requested to provide a review on the quality of the review reports (validity, coherence and structure) and editorial guidance and responsiveness. These scores will be added to the reviewers’ statistics mentionned above.
In this way we can more easily identify bad reviewers and bad editors.
This may certainly help authors, reviewers and editors to maintain the quality of the review process.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I find it very annoying as a reviewer when I get asked to review a paper several times as it gets submitted to different journals/conferences or, worse still, I help send it to the reject pile only to have it published elsewhere with my comments ignored.
>
>
>
I believe you are taking excess ownership in the outcome. It's not your job to set yourself up as the ultimate gatekeeper of the entire scientific literature. As a reviewer, you are an extra pair of eyes (perhaps with some especial subject matter familiarity) to help the editor make a decision. But he still has full ability to ignore your advice and accept a paper.
And authors have the right to not make changes they don't agree with, knowing full well that this may/not lead to rejection and movement to another venue. And to pull papers from journals pushing for changes they disagree with.
It's the author's paper, hence the byline. And the editor's magazine. Your position is much more limited and advisory than theirs.
Of course it's annoying to see the paper again, but in that case, I recommend you to just tell the new editor that you previously rejected the paper and won't review it again. Don't send them a copy of the old review or justify your reject recommendation. Just pull yourself from the process. No more cause for annoyance then. (This also gives the author a fair chance from different eyes.) Of course, the simple note that you saw it before and refuse to review it may influence the editor. But you should not worry about that pro/con (if he wants to give the paper a fresh chance or just gets rid of it).
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/10
| 1,056
| 4,307
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm going to apply for a PhD in Mathematics in Europe with my BSc and MSc in Mathematics and Applied Mathematics (respectively), from two top-tier (say, top 10-20) US universities with advanced courses, and good GPA. Neither of my BSc and MSc had a thesis component though, and a capstone project wasn't available to me.
I do have some research experience, but my research mostly involved computational programming and data analysis, not serious Mathematics. More importantly perhaps, none of my research experiences were independent research, meaning that I was working on a project defined by my supervisor and my work was pretty much directed by my supervisor.
I'm aware that the norm in Europe is that students write a substantial thesis for their Master's degree, and possibly for their undergrad too, and then they'll apply for PhD. I did want to do a 2-year Master with a substantial research project, but since funding was an issue, I went with the 1-year MSc program that would fund me, and that one didn't have any thesis.
Given this situation, I'm looking for a way to fill that gap in my resume to make myself competitive for a top-tier PhD in Mathematics (or Applied Mathematics) in Europe.
First - do you think I'd have any chance without doing some sort of independent research before applying to a PhD?
Second - do you have any suggestion on how I can fill that gap?! I thought of doing an MPhil or an MRes in the UK, but financing is an issue for those programs (I'll apply for scholarships, but chances are high that I won't get one). Is there any sort of program where I can just spend some time doing a self-directed, but supervised, research in Math and get paid for that?
Edit: As for the specific countries in Europe I'm looking for, my top choices are Germany, Switzerland, UK, and France, but I'm open to other options if I find a good opportunity.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> First - do you think I'd have any chance without doing some sort of independent research before applying to a PhD?
>
>
>
Possibly. However, it would likely involve you finding some "angle" on the basis of which you can strike up a relationship with a prospective supervisor, who could promote/sponsor your Ph.D. candidacy.
But there's a deeper issue here:
### Why do you want to enter a Ph.D. program?
Hopefully, you have some subject you are interested in studying. If that is not the case, and your motivation is to simply get the title and the piece of paper - then you should seriously reconsider. Working on a PhD without focused motivation is not just exceedingly difficult, but also exasperating. You may well find yourself in the middle of it, two or three years from now, grabbing your head by your hands and asking "What was I thinking? Why in blazes am I even doing this?" - and not having a good answer.
So, do consider some independent research, or even going into industry doing something you *are* interested in, but with a mind to sketch out relevant mathematical challenges to study more deeply in academia. These are my suggestions for filling the gap.
>
> my top choices are Germany, Switzerland, UK, and France
>
>
>
Once you find something relevant to research, locate relevant research groups in that field (in those countries or elsewhere), and talk to them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I can only speak for Germany, but maybe the answer is transferable to the other mentioned countries as well.
Usually, Bachelor and Master in Germany should sum up to 300 ECTS (10 Semester, 5 years) as a pre-requisite for a PhD (well, in fact "Dr." ;-) ). In most cases, universities are having specific rules if you don't have enough ECTS, and since you are not from the European Union, you will always have to ask how your specific case will be treated.
So I would suggest to
a) choose a research group which you would like to join (e.g. by looking for open positions)
b) If they are interested in you, ask the PI / supervisor about the regulations and for support
c) ask the administration about your specific case.
It will be much more important to convince the potential supervisor to believe in you even without a thesis (since they will pay you for your work in a project) then sorting out the formal stuff.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/10
| 1,508
| 5,948
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'd like to apply for a PhD in Mathematics/Applied Mathematics in Europe. I have a BSc in Math and a taught 1-year MSc in Applied Math (without thesis) both from top US universities. I have taken advanced courses during my undergrad, I do have research experience, but not in Mathematics (it was in Data Science, mostly involving computational programming) and have no independent research experience (all of it was directed research).
Now I'm looking for ways to make myself a more competitive applicant, for which I asked for suggestions in [this questions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115087/what-should-i-do-to-get-into-a-phd-in-mathematics-in-europe-without-a-thesis-in?noredirect=1#comment302436_115087). But here, I wanted to ask specifically about doing a second Master's in Mathematics.
I have seen [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109730/scope-of-doing-a-second-masters-degree-in-a-more-specialised-field), but this doesn't apply to my case, since I may actually pursue a Master's in a more general field (Mathematics instead of Applied Math). I've also seen [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19923/pursuing-a-second-masters-in-a-more-established-school) and [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27619/is-it-advisable-or-even-possible-to-get-a-second-masters-in-a-similar-field-fr), but these two don't apply to my case either, since I'm actually open to getting my second Master's from a "lower ranked" university (especially since I'd most probably need a scholarship, which would be hard to get from a university at a level of reputation comparable to that of my undergrad and MSc institutions).
Do you think a second Master's, most probably in pure Math (not Applied Math), and most definitely with a substantial thesis component, would help me to get into a competitive PhD program (in Math or Applied Math) in Europe? If yes, how do you think I can justify that in my SOP? My personal justification is the thesis, and the fact that most of my MSc courses were in Differential Equations and Numerics (and very applied stuff in general), and I definitely miss graduate-level knowledge in areas such as Algebra, Analysis (proof-based side of it), and Geometry. But would that be acceptable for the committee and would I have any chance for a scholarship with that justification?!
Edit: As for the specific countries in Europe I'm looking for, my top choices are Germany, Switzerland, UK, and France, but I'm open to other options if I find a good opportunity.<issue_comment>username_1: (Note that my perspective is US.) I think your first priority should be applying directly for the doctorate. You can simultaneously apply for an MS, of course, but I suspect that you are underestimating your chances for doctoral admission.
Yes, candidates are expected to have a pretty broad education in math on entry. Yours seems pretty broad if a bit non standard and you are missing a few things, but you won't know until you apply.
Doctoral studies are almost always about specialization, however. If you intend to work in an area in which you are already prepared, and say so in your application, then the missing bits might be overlooked. Not necessarily so, but you won't know unless you get into the process.
A second master's will broaden your education a bit. It may make a difference. Or not. Many places (US, at least) will treat the Bachelor's degree as enough. UK and EU may be more strict.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1, I think you're really selling short your current prospects as a PhD candidate, and I get the impression you have a huge anxiety over being rejected, which seems very unfounded. It sounds like what you already have is exactly the correct pre-requisite for any PhD in mathematics, so I'm a little confused as to why you feel doing another Masters would increase your chances any more.
Have you actually tried applying anywhere yet? Have you asked the admissions departments of your preferred universities what their requirements are? Many, you will find, ask for high undergraduate and Masters degrees in relavent areas, which it seems you already have. I can't help but feel doing superfluous degrees gives an impression of time wasting, and otherwise just seems a bit odd. You'd be going sideways in your progression instead of up. If you had been in an entirely different area and wanted to change, I could understand, but you have BSc Maths, MSc Maths, and want to do PhD Maths. Perhaps you had some specialisms in these areas, but this really shouldn't make much difference, as rarely do educational tracks perfectly feed into a PhD thesis.
A PhD is essentially an apprenticeship in your chosen area. If you already have an idea of what it is you want to research, write a research proposal and pitch that to institutions you like. If you're so scared of rejection, pitch it to some institutions you DON'T like to test the viability of your proposal. It's a bit of a sneaky tactic but you can gain some valuable experience this way if you can get feedback (or even make it to interview). One thing I *really* must stress, is that any shortcomings in experience you feel you may have can and must be made up for by drive and enthusiasm. Academics do not want to hire students who are not interested in the PhD they've applied for. You need to not only want this, but you need to love it, and that needs to shine through in an interview and application.
Honestly, I don't really know why you're so worried. Unless you have really awful grades, you almost certainly do not need another Masters.
Just for some context, I'm doing a fully funded PhD in CompSci a UK Russell Group uni and my undergraduate degree was in English from a university with a less than stellar reputation, so anything is possible! Good luck with your applications.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/10
| 723
| 2,928
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have come up with an innovation to obtain linear motion without using any external source of energy. The idea arose from a paper I wrote on an alternative model of magnetism. I have built and tested the innovation and have written a paper describing it, which I wish to submit for publication.
My worry is that considering the novelty of the idea, it may get stolen or plagiarized. How do I prevent this from happening?<issue_comment>username_1: If you have an invention, patent it. It's an expensive and long process though. But it may be dangerous to publish the paper first. Your patent could possibly be denied if the paper is deemed "prior art". This varies by jurisdiction, of course. Keep it as a trade secret until you file the patent.
You can't actually "prevent" plagiarism. You can only try to reveal it.
If you publish the paper without obtaining patent on the "invention", then people are free to use the idea. They just can't legally violate your copyright nor morally plagiarize the paper. But, ideas are free to use.
If the idea is valid and novel, you might be able to partner with some company to exploit it. Don't reveal it, however, without non-disclosure agreements in place first.
Much of this requires a lawyer, of course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have a truly new idea, it's very unlikely anyone will want to steal it. You will have to sell it, first. Think of [<NAME>'s reaction to the iPhone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U).
But to take your question a bit more seriously, you have basically four strategies for protecting your intellectual property:
1. Trade secret. You license your IP to licensees who promise to keep
it secret as well. Your protection is that your IP is so clever
that you don't think it's likely anyone can independently recreate
it without knowing how you did it. Works surprisingly well (think
formula for Coca-Cola). But if your idea is recreated, there's
nothing you can do about it, especially if they decide to patent
before you do.
2. Patent. This applies to inventions, like what you're describing.
You publish your idea by submitting it to the patent authority in
your country. If your patent is granted, you can prohibit others
from using your idea without licensing it. But it's expensive, both
to get the patent and to enforce it and whether you got the patent
or not, everyone can read your idea.
3. Copyright. This applies primarily to written, audio or video
material and would include, e.g., any computer source code in your
product. Copyrights exist from the moment of conception, though if you
want to sue someone for copyright infringement you must first
register your copyright (very cheap).
4. You can give it away. You can publish it with, e.g., a GNU or
similar open source license. This lets anyone use your IP but that
also ensures you can always use it as well.
Upvotes: -1
|
2018/08/10
| 702
| 3,187
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently in the 3rd year,studying BSc in Economics. This period I finished a project which ended up with statistical significant results, covering a topic which was not mentioned in the literature. I found a journal of Elsevier that matches the Field of Research. My question is whether I could try publishing my work since I am an undergraduate student. By searching their webpage, I did not find anything with reference to reasearchers not pursuing a PhD or being Professors etc.<issue_comment>username_1: I think that this will be good practical experience for you, regardless of whether you're proceeding to further study.
A few things to note:
1. Discuss your plan and involve your supervisor in your preparation of the manuscript. The reason for the first is that statistically significant results and a potential research gap aren't sufficient in and of themselves in guaranteeing acceptance. The reason for the second is because there's more to submission of a paper than simply writing it. Your supervisor will be able to provide you with guidance.
2. Read and dissect some papers from the journal to which you plan to submit. This will orient you about the style of writing, formatting, referencing, etc. Certainly, read the instructions to authors, but also be guided by good samples from the same journal.
3. Prepare emotionally for the review process and the decision. First time authors are often surprised by the delays, unhelpfulness or viciousness inherent in the peer review system.
Good luck to you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Most economics journals published by Elsevier are pretty high quality indeed. They are very competitive too, even the ones on the very bottom of the rating may publish only a fifth of the papers they receive. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that they will accept a paper without revision. Review + revision + review of revision + ... usually takes more than a year, sometimes several. I've seen so many economics papers that were publish 5 years after they were originally submitted. On top of that, each economic journal normally has a subscriber base that is interested in specific conclusions and implementability of results and editors prefer the papers to fit that scope, revised if necessary, trying not to compromise scientific rigor in the process, of course.
With that being said, I'd definitely give it a try, but don't expect it to be published until graduation. Even if it is rejected with some constructive feedback, you will learn a lot. Often times you can revise the paper and publish it in a lesser journal. If you can team up with someone senior to help you see it through, good. If not, you can go solo just as well. Economics is notorious for young individualistic researchers who made great contributions all by themselves. The drawback is that it does take a long time.
On a side note, economics is a field where you got to publish, regardless of whether you plan to work in academia or business. You will have to make that journey anyway. Starting early and setting an ambitious goal is not a bad strategy, especially if already have some good data ready.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/10
| 769
| 3,114
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing my bachelor thesis and want to cite the ISO C++ standard. However I am unable to get my hands on a copy of the standard, since the library does not have a physical or digital copy. I do get the information I need from the working drafts, and there isn’t much of a change in the chapters I need.
Citing ISO 14882:2014 would be my preferred solution, but since I don’t have the document, should I cite a late working draft of the 2014 standard or even the current working draft?<issue_comment>username_1: As people have said in the comments, you should ask your librarian if they can help you obtain the standard.
If they can't, then you should cite the version that you used.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It sounds like you're at a stage where it is somewhere between important and crucial for your project to have access to the actual standard: if the information you want to cite is in the standard, then that's the core document to cite, and if it didn't make it to the final version, then you may want to revise the text around the citation or even the research or code itself.
ISO standards are indeed not the easiest documents to get ahold of, but that's what libraries and librarians are for. Approach your institution's librarian and tell them that you need access to a document that's not in the library, and they will get it for you (that's their job!) either by purchasing the document for the library, if they consider it a good investment, or via inter-library loan. This can be a lengthy process, so you should approach them as soon as possible, but the upside is that if the standard's text does not change from the draft then all you need is a look at the full standard before you submit, to confirm that your provisional citation is appropriate.
In any case, even if you do get access to the full standard before you submit, I would encourage you to think of readers in your situation, who might have a hard time getting the standard, and I would thus recommend that you cite *both* the full standard and the working draft:
* give the full standard as the main citation, but also
* state that the same information is available in a working draft, and give it a separate citation that includes precise information on where it can be obtained.
As to *how* you actually cite it, that'll depend on the style guide you're following, but you can start with the format in [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/45217/820).
If you *can't* get a copy of the final standard, then it may or may not be appropriate to cite it as-is; for more on that, see [Is it unethical to cite a paper or book that you have never looked at?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45295/is-it-unethical-to-cite-a-paper-or-book-that-you-have-never-looked-at). In that situation, it basically becomes a judgement call between the chance that the information won't be in the document you're citing versus the awkwardness of citing a working draft of a document that's since been Published, and we can't make that call for you.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/10
| 1,200
| 5,040
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate lecturer. I have been bothered by this question lately.
I never and never want to claim that what I know, or even what I discover, is mine. Also, things that I discover, small or huge, more likely have been discovered before by someone, but of course I never claim that I am the first one to discover them, and I hope I will not in the future too, no matter how huge it is.
I really want to share what I know/discover to as many people as possible, especially my students, and I won't make them pay me for that, since I've been paid enough and they have paid more than how much I can imagine to the university.
What I know or discover usually is based on the books that I bought and read. The books are protected by the law of course, but then I know students can't afford them, a situation which may (usually) lead them to pirate stuffs. I make and share notes of the books, but what's the difference? Sure I put them in my own words, but still the notes are based on the books. This is just an example with books. Papers, products, etc are different, but the "sharing limit" works similar, perhaps?
The problem is, then, I am a bit afraid of this law about filesharing, copyright, IP, or something like that, which makes me think that we do have limits in order to freely educate students. I just feel that does not sound right.
What are your opinions about this situation of a teacher/lecturer? Will there always be people who "buy" knowledge/products and share them freely and in medium or slowly reaching larger scale, without claiming anything or making money of it? I feel like the limit of sharing exists and exists strongly and hard to break. :/<issue_comment>username_1: For actual legal advice, you should consult with your institution's legal department.
Having said that, in most countries, the legal concept of [Fair Use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) protects you from getting in any copyright trouble for normal educational activities. There are limits to fair use (you're not allowed to photocopy a textbook and pass out copies to all your students), but making lecture notes that are based on a copyrighted textbook should be fine, as long as they are tailored to the lectures you are actually giving, and not presented as "here's my summary of the textbook so you don't have to buy it." The exact line where fair use ends is hard to define, and would be up to a judge's discretion if it got that far, but in practice, as long as you don't do anything blatant, you should be fine.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There was a time, around 50 or so years ago, that there were fairly broad exceptions to copyright law for educators. Fair use was much broader then as well. But the invention of the Xerox(TM) machine changed that. Prior to that it was hard to make copies, especially in quantity. However, once it became easy and cheap, the copyright holders (Text book and other publishers) pressed legislators to tighten up the laws. In some places, the limits are quite wide, still, in others not so much and they are closing fast.
While in the US, Fair Use may seem to protect you, copyright holders can still sue, and often do, even though they are likely to use. The threat of a suit is, in their view, a deterrent to even legal copying. While the law may be on your side it doesn't help much if you have to face a lawsuit to have a judge rule in your favor.
However, as an educator, you have an additional responsibility around intellectual property. It isn't enough that you give them the facts. You also need to help them learn how to find the facts themselves.
For this reason alone, you should be very clear to cite anything you use whether you quote it or simply paraphrase it. Provide a citation. This lets the reader, your student, follow up and see the more complete context of what you have given them.
In general, you have to follow copyright law wherever you are and it varies. You can't, in most places, download copyrighted material unless a license is provided. Making multiple copies of even small amounts of text may be illegal or not.
The fact that you are unlikely to be "caught" and therefore it "seems" ok, isn't a good lesson to give your students.
On the other hand, if you properly own something or have permission to use it, you can loan it to others - books for example. You can even sell it - physical copies. But that isn't the same as making additional copies even to give away.
But don't forget that ideas are free to use. If you learn something from a book, you can share those ideas freely with anyone. It is best to use your own words (paraphrase) and provide a citation. If you don't cite the original you could possibly be accused of plagiarism. Even when it isn't true, the claim itself can be damaging.
Copyright protects words and similar things (images, music), not ideas. Patent law puts some restrictions on some sorts of ideas (inventions) but that is unlikely to concern you here.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/10
| 348
| 1,442
|
<issue_start>username_0: The paper is one I'm working on as part of my current role for which I'm not the PI. Is it safe/sensible to share this with my interviewer? I don't have any published articles at present, so I assume they are just interested in seeing writing samples and such. Should I offer them a copy of my PhD thesis instead?
The interview was for a job in academia I am applying for.<issue_comment>username_1: There's no concrete, objective answer to this. My opinion is that it's fairly safe to give unpublished manuscripts to an academic interviewer. You definitely need specific permission from all the co-authors on the manuscript, though. If the interviewer is directly in the same field as you, and might be working on the same topic, you might be more hesitant, but it's not a definite "no". Hopefully, if you're interviewing and considering working with this person, you've already decided that they are not a horrible human being, so you've already done a little of the due diligence.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I believe it is odd for an interviewer to ask for an unpublished paper. It is common for researchers to share partial results though...If your paper is already under review and you, and your co authors believe it is safe to share it, I do not see any problem. Just be aware that there are many awful people in academia, and it is not uncommon for ideas to be stolen.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/10
| 964
| 3,658
|
<issue_start>username_0: What does it mean that a journal is ranked Q1 according to Scimago Journal and Country Rank?<issue_comment>username_1: You can read all about their formula [here](https://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf).
Q1 presumably means "first quartile." Currently, if you mouse-over the icon for **best journal** it says "first quartile." This is presumably a bug though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I couldn't find documentation on the meaning of Q1, Q2, etc. but the guess that it means "first, second etc. quartile in the ranking" seems to be correct. When you look at one of the "widgets" they have for each journal, it says "quartile":
BTW, whether the journal is in the first, second, third, or fourth quartile, the widget will (erroneously) always say "best quartile". This doesn't change the conclusion that Q means quartile, however.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Q1 to Q4 refer to journal ranking quartiles within a subdiscipline using the SJR citation index.
Thus, a first quartile journal (i.e., Q1) has an SJR in the top 25% of journals for at least one of its classified subdisciplines.
**What is SJR?**
The SJR is an index of weighted citations per article over a period of three years ( <https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php> ). As far as citation based indicators of prestige go it is quite good.
Citations and documents applied in this formula are based on the Scopus database.
>
> SCImago Journal Rank is a measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from. [(Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_Rank)
>
>
>
**How is ranking done?** As noted, rankings are done at the subcategory/subdiscipline level. So for example, journals are not ranked at the level of "psychology" or "chemistry". Rather they are ranked at the level of "analytical chemistry" or "clinical psychology".
Note also that journals are often categorised in multiple subdisciplines, and the quartile can, and often does, vary based on the subdisscipline.
The badge shown on scimago seems to take the most favourable ranking. So, for example, if the journal is ranked in the top quartile for at least one, it will have a badge as a Q1 journal.
**Critical commentary**:
In general, I think subdiscipline ranking based on SJR is superior to impact factors. It overcomes several biases in impact factor:
* It uses a 3 year document window (impact factor uses 2): This is a better window across a broader range of disciplines.
* It weights citations by prestige which can reduce the capacity for gaming and aligns within common sense that not all citations are created equally. I believe this also incorporates the idea that each publication only has so much prestige to give, so a citation from a paper with 100 references is worth less than a citation with 20 references.
* It uses a more inclusive database of articles (i.e., Scopus) compared to Impact Factor which uses Web of Science.
* Even after controlling for many of the above factors, differences in citation practices exist between disciplines, so within sub-discipline rankings are often fairer. Furthermore, often researchers and evaluators are trying to make decisions like where to send their best work or how to evaluate the quality of work of a researcher who operates in a particular subdiscipline. In this case, SJR within subdiscipline can be particularly useful.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/10
| 1,146
| 4,506
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have 3 years of work experience in cloud computing and virtualization and am intending to illuminate this in my SOP. With what degree of credibility will the above mentioned work experience be accepted by admissions committees if I do not have any letter from my workplace at all? Also, since it is difficult for me to get a recommendation from my immediate manager at my workplace, if at all I do get one from my company, it may be from a colleague who was my mentor (no managerial role). How good will such a recommendation be? I already have two recommendations from my college professors, each of which highlight one of my two research publications. It is for the third recommendation that I have the choice between this letter from my mentor at my workplace and from an assistant professor at my college who had taught me in a number of courses and labs. Which recommendation should I go forward with? Please advise on these matters.<issue_comment>username_1: You can read all about their formula [here](https://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf).
Q1 presumably means "first quartile." Currently, if you mouse-over the icon for **best journal** it says "first quartile." This is presumably a bug though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I couldn't find documentation on the meaning of Q1, Q2, etc. but the guess that it means "first, second etc. quartile in the ranking" seems to be correct. When you look at one of the "widgets" they have for each journal, it says "quartile":
BTW, whether the journal is in the first, second, third, or fourth quartile, the widget will (erroneously) always say "best quartile". This doesn't change the conclusion that Q means quartile, however.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Q1 to Q4 refer to journal ranking quartiles within a subdiscipline using the SJR citation index.
Thus, a first quartile journal (i.e., Q1) has an SJR in the top 25% of journals for at least one of its classified subdisciplines.
**What is SJR?**
The SJR is an index of weighted citations per article over a period of three years ( <https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php> ). As far as citation based indicators of prestige go it is quite good.
Citations and documents applied in this formula are based on the Scopus database.
>
> SCImago Journal Rank is a measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from. [(Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_Rank)
>
>
>
**How is ranking done?** As noted, rankings are done at the subcategory/subdiscipline level. So for example, journals are not ranked at the level of "psychology" or "chemistry". Rather they are ranked at the level of "analytical chemistry" or "clinical psychology".
Note also that journals are often categorised in multiple subdisciplines, and the quartile can, and often does, vary based on the subdisscipline.
The badge shown on scimago seems to take the most favourable ranking. So, for example, if the journal is ranked in the top quartile for at least one, it will have a badge as a Q1 journal.
**Critical commentary**:
In general, I think subdiscipline ranking based on SJR is superior to impact factors. It overcomes several biases in impact factor:
* It uses a 3 year document window (impact factor uses 2): This is a better window across a broader range of disciplines.
* It weights citations by prestige which can reduce the capacity for gaming and aligns within common sense that not all citations are created equally. I believe this also incorporates the idea that each publication only has so much prestige to give, so a citation from a paper with 100 references is worth less than a citation with 20 references.
* It uses a more inclusive database of articles (i.e., Scopus) compared to Impact Factor which uses Web of Science.
* Even after controlling for many of the above factors, differences in citation practices exist between disciplines, so within sub-discipline rankings are often fairer. Furthermore, often researchers and evaluators are trying to make decisions like where to send their best work or how to evaluate the quality of work of a researcher who operates in a particular subdiscipline. In this case, SJR within subdiscipline can be particularly useful.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/10
| 374
| 1,689
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is transfer credit transitive? If B accepts credits from A, and C accepts credits from B, will C accept credits from A, provided a student transfers to B before coming to C?
I have transfer credits at my current, American, university. Some of them are from a previous American university, some of them are from a foreign high school, and some are from online classes. If I transfer, will the university I transfer *to* accept my current transfer credit just as it does any credit from my current university?
Something I'm looking at now is online classes from [Saylor](https://www.saylor.org/). I'm just afraid that even if my current university accepts ACE credit, if I transfer, these credits may not follow me.<issue_comment>username_1: The only valid answer you will get is from the institution you are applying to. They likely have policies about all sort of such things. As a pure guess it would depend on the individual institutions that granted the credits originally and their reputation.
A "receiving" institution might be fairly open to this if they have reason to want you for other considerations. But ask and you will learn.
In the US, at least, don't look for common policies. Within a State university system there may be rules about transferring from one such institution to another.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, in the US, universities generally transfer credit from where it was originally earned. The fact that school B transferred credit from school A is does not ensure that school C will accept the credit. Furthermore, school C will generally require a transcript from school A.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/10
| 926
| 4,105
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can a student with a bachelor's in engineering with very little chemistry take some courses in chemistry to get into a chemistry masters? How do US masters view courses taken from Open University, particularly in chemistry?<issue_comment>username_1: Some of this may be superfluous but the US system is very different from anything in UK or EU. In the first place there is no national system at all. Even within a single state, policies can differ widely, though the official state university system (so called public colleges, but not the same idea as UK public colleges) will usually share a set of policies within that state. But many schools, including some very highly rated ones (Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. i.e "Private colleges") aren't part of any system. Some "flagship" schools within a state may also have more rigorous admissions than the rest of the state system (UCBerkeley, UMichigan, etc.)
While Open University in general is highly regarded, each college (or system of colleges) will have its own admissions policies. These can even differ by discipline, so Chemistry might be different from Mathematics. Some admissions systems are more personalized, depending on interviews, and some have various requirements on grade averages, required courses, and other things.
The only real way to know if X is acceptable at a US university is to ask that institution or to apply formally. If your situation is non standard you might get asked for additional information. If an educational program is very popular and also highly regarded the unusual cases might be easier to simply reject as there are enough very highly qualified applicants who are easy to judge.
In general, however, a Masters degree application won't face extremely rigorous requirements. This may be different from European experience. It would be a different story for doctoral study, of course.
With all that said, I would guess that if you meet a particular school's requirements for prerequisite courses, roughly what an undergraduate would be expected to have in that discipline, and your grades were good, and you represent yourself well in the application, then I doubt that having studied at Open U would be an issue - most places. But the only way to know is to ask the institution in question and expect to get different answers from different institutions.
BTW, students in the US think of this "system" as perfectly normal.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I am a Chemistry graduate and I have been working in many engineering departments of my university for years. Especially in Turkey, engineering salaries are way higher than the ones for graduates of chemistry, physics, biology etc. if they can ever find a job. This mere fact makes everyone thinks that those pure science disciplines are just trash and an engineer, of course, can compensate the difference in a couple of months and get a degree from Chemistry, even an M.Sc.
Even normal 4 year curriculum of chemistry is not sufficient to comprehend the functioning of chemistry. You may get a degree still, as system allows it, but you will not make a contribution to neither pure nor applied science. Even though you may think that I am not answering your questions, you should still understand that unlike engineering courses, you can't just go listen the lecture, calculate the answers of the questions and submit the assignments in time than, boom, you are an expert in chemistry. I have taken both undergraduate and graduate courses from Civil Engineering, Geological Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Biology, Chemistry and even some others.
More properly, there are branches of Chemistry (even though not in real world) like analytical, bio, organic, inorganic, physical, quantum/computational and even industrial. Which one of them you will compensate with a couple of courses? You can never truly understand one branch without knowing sufficiently of others.
Don't take it personal, I, in general, don't suggest others to leisurely waltz into hard science and try to get a degree.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/11
| 708
| 2,758
|
<issue_start>username_0: People say that the impact factor and number citations somehow correlated. However; since 2012, I published 7 articles in well reputed top-10% journal, 5 papers in flagship conferences. Yet my total citations are just 51. On the other hand, one of my friends published his work during same time period (2011–2018) in predatory journals and he has 150 citations. We both work in almost same research area.
Is it a myth that number citations are correlated with impact factor. What if a journal has high impact factor due to some few cited articles published in that journal?<issue_comment>username_1: First, let's forget the number of citations in the predatory journals, since they are fraudulent trash and no conclusions can be drawn from them.
Let us instead focus on why some work gets well cited and others does not. In order to be cited, a paper needs to be:
1. noticed by other researchers, and
2. considered credible by other researchers, and
3. significant in its contributions, and
4. relevant enough to the citer’s own work that they have cause to cite it.
Publishing in a top venue helps with #1 and #2, but only sort of helps with #3 and doesn't do a thing for #4. Complementarily, if your work is useful to other researchers and they become aware of it somehow, then they'll happily cite it many times even if it's in an obscure workshop or even a non-peer-reviewed venue (e.g., arXiv), as long as they have reason to find it credible.
So let's get to the heart of the matter: are your low citations actually indicating a problem in your work? I would advise reflecting on whether your contributions matter to your field and the feedback that you get at conferences. If your contributions matter and you are gaining respect, but you happen to be working on something extremely specialized, it may be fine to not be getting many citations---as long as you're getting cited by the few people who matter in your niche. If you aren't getting citations because your work is correct but not very interesting or relevant to others, however, then you may wish to consider why that is and whether a shift of focus would be useful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I m not sure if MBK user is talking about open access, but if they are indexed it means they are reputable.
I think you should take a look at this question [How does PLOS ONE maintain its impact factor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/54105/how-does-plos-one-maintain-its-impact-factor?rq=1)
open-access journal,including predatory, have a highly visible presence on research engines.
Honestly, I think having 7 articles + 5 papers and 51 citations is good for young researchers. Your H-index is 4? That is not bad for start.
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/11
| 3,834
| 16,194
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a student with an MSc in Physics who is supposed to start a PhD next month. The reason I am writing is the bad psychological situation I ended up after a hard choice between grad programs. I will try to go straight to the point omitting details on how frustrating the whole application period was. After many rejections last year and the year before, I was in the initially pleasant position to receive four offers. After long thought I reduced them to two, which ended up turning the whole thing into a nightmare.
**Place A:** The school that I did my MSc. I would continue in similar topics with a different and very young supervisor in the same research group as my MSc (it's a bit more complicated than that but anyway...). I left and now I regret it.
**Place B:** The place that I accepted to do my PhD even though I haven't visited it yet. Not sure about the exact topic, but it is supposed to be similar to A. It is slightly more well known as a name and the supervisor is widely considered as one of the top researchers in his field.
None of the schools are top-10 super prestigious but the Prof. in B can be regarded at this level, if not better.
I admit I made mistakes in the decision process but that's not important since I cannot turn back time. I was never 100% confident with my choice and when I rejected A it felt bad. But I had the same buyer's remorse feeling when I rejected the rest of the schools too, so I thought it is going to pass in a week or so. Here I am, four months later, feeling MUCH worse! I lost all motivation to work, let my father make all the arrangements for B (accommodation etc.), and did not even help him, I am constantly procrastinating everything related and even started having bad habits, like wasting time in computer games, unhealthy eating and sleeping every day after 4am. Starting a PhD this way is probably not going to have the best outcome.
To be fair, the whole thing is indeed partly in my mind, but there are also some facts that changed recently and made A look better now. It has to do with location - I had personal reasons to prefer B's location which do not exist anymore (no, not girlfriend). Moreover, I would definitely prefer A's location for a job (after graduation), hence staying in A for PhD could help career-wise.
I should also note that the offer from A is not officially on the table anymore, so one might think the whole thing is pointless. On the other hand, I had good relations and they seemed satisfied with me during the MSc, so with a bit of luck I might be able to get an offer for next year, if I try. Of course the whole wrong decision/regret story could hurt my chances, so nothing is certain in this direction.
The way I see it, now there are a few options now:
**YOLO approach:**
Drop out from B prior starting and try to get an offer from A for next year (or as early as possible). This is going to piss off B but it is still better than starting, wasting their time and funding and not giving my 100% self because of my problems. It is also possible that A might stop being interested anymore, but I will get in touch with them and explain the situation before letting the other option. I also get an unexplainable gap year in my CV which might hurt in future job search.
**HONEST approach:**
Be honest with everyone. Tell A that I want to go to them but I am commited to B and discuss with B why I don't feel very excited starting there. This can have a bunch of different outcomes, from managing to go back to A with everyone happy, staying to B with everyone happy or even losing both options. In any case, it is probably morally correct to follow this route but also tough. Telling to my new supervisor "I chose you but I feel that I don't want to be here" is not the optimal way to start a relation.
**EVIL approach:**
Start normally at B and pretend everything is ok. Since I have never been to the place there is a possibility that I'll like it and get better with time. This sounds very unlikely now but things might change with time. On the other hand, things can get worse and depending on how bad, it might be possible to continue half hearted (hardly to do a PhD this way) or eventually drop out. In this case nobody knows whether it will be possible to get readmitted to A or anywhere else as dropping out of a program definitely raises questions.
Anyway, if you read everything and reached this line, thank you very much. Honestly, I don't expect the forum to solve my internet as I probably need professional assistance, but writing things down helps me in any case. Since, I spent the time to do it, I thought it would be great to share, for people who have been in a similar position, others that are just interested in such stories or even someone who might have a piece of advice, which is of course very welcome.
---
**UPDATE:**
First I would like to thank the people who read my message, particularly the people who answered for the effort they put without having anything to gain. I really appreciate that.
I am adding this update to give some more details related to Allure's great questions. I did not analyze the reasons for my choice because my message was already long and I tried to focus on my current problem.
To answer the first question: the truth is that I was never sure (even now), in the sense that even if I stayed at A it is likely that I would still be in a similar situation about not choosing B. Or it could be easier since there would be less uncertainty as I already have experience with A, nobody knows. So I admit that I did not have the courage to handle the situation properly, but I cannot erase the second thoughts I have now either.
I am not the most outgoing person but still asked people for advice, probably not as much as I should have done, though. Most of the answers were pretty much like Allure's comment, that both seem good choices. Even my A supervisor who would probably like me to stay there spoke highly for B, too.
I should also mention that my supervisor at A would be different from my MSc supervisor and I would be his first PhD student. I would also be in a different nearby institute but I would be possible to work closely with the old group too. For Buffy's thought, being supervisor's first student (A) vs super-star supervisor (B - 80k citations, more than 20 students in his group, etc) is another open question with many different answers, even in the current website. I searched a lot about that and nothing really convinced me.
I wouldn't say there is a material change like Brexit. Probably the most accurate answer is that I made the wrong choice with the info I had. However things happened during the summer too, which made me reconsider. To explain the timing, I accepted/rejected the offers in May, my second thoughts started end of June and they aggravated during summer. When I chose B, my project in A wasn't going very well - I had some good numerical results that my supervisor liked but I lacked deep understanding. Also, the supervisor did not spend much time on this. All this, combined with the fame of B supervisor, as well as the fact that B is geographically closer to my home were the reasons for the initial choice.
**What changed:** When I arrived back home, the feeling of being close to home (one of B's pros) became much less important. My ties with my parents don't feel as strong as before for personal and work reasons and I think it was very immature and remnant from my undergrad that I even considered distance for the PhD choice. Without the distance fact, I would prefer A's location because of the language (English). B is in Europe and I do not speak the country's language (not need for work, though). But more importantly than that there's research. I said it wasn't going well until early May, but the situation changed drastically in the last 1.5 month. The supervisor showed interest, the project went much better and I really enjoyed my final presentation. In fact we were even preparing a publication, something that was put on hold since I left. To sum up:
* When I decided I felt lost in A anyway, so I would have to start over no matter where I went. So I thought of trying in a new place closer to home (B).
* Now I know that if I stayed in A I would already have something to start working on and even get a paper out quickly. B seems like starting from scratch again and in a location (environment outside the institute) that might be not very friendly, considering the language problem. Of course, I will never know if I don't go, but I have trouble being positive about it and that's not good.<issue_comment>username_1: First, calm down. Your life is not going to end because you attended the "wrong" graduate school. Second, in life, we make lots of decisions in uncertain circumstances. You'll never know what might happen if you go to another university, but since you can only choose one option, you should make a decision and stick with it.
With that out of the way, a few things to think about before deciding what to do next:
**Which university do you actually want to go to?** By your description, you actually want to go to University A. What made you decide to accept B's offer then? Did something materially change that makes B the inferior choice? For example, if B is in the UK and you find you don't even want to set foot in the country after the Brexit referendum, then that's a real change in circumstances that should be taken into account. If nothing materially changed, then why are the reasons that made you choose university A no longer convincing? Did you just make the wrong choice? You must have the courage to make a decision and stick with it - you'll meet this situation again in life (e.g. buying a house, getting married ...), and cannot regret your decision forever.
I once talked to a dean about making grad school choices. He said that when he was doing his PhD, he also had two attractive options, and he discussed them with his advisor. His advisor said that whichever option he chose would be the right one. Sage advice.
**About the YOLO option**: there're two problems with this. First is that you'll have a year's worth of time to fill. What are you going to do in that year? If the answer is "nothing", then you'll just be a burden on your caregivers, which is not responsible behavior. If you're thinking of getting a job, then that's fair, but it's not easy to find a job for only one year. I suggest you discuss this with your parents first, see if they have any suggestions for what you can do in that year. If you can't find anything constructive, this option becomes very unattractive to me (don't forget that empty years in your CV also makes your application next year less competitive).
The other problem is that you're assuming you'll get admitted at university A next year. Unless you have some kind of reassurance from them, I would not take this for granted. Remember, you were rejected at many places two years in a row.
**About the honest option**: there's a chance that A will be able to admit you even though you rejected the offer before. It depends on the program. If they have a freestyle start date (i.e. you can begin whenever you want), then there's a good chance it'll work; on the other hand if they have an official start date in August like most universities in the US, it's unlikely they'll be able to admit you. Still, you won't know unless you ask.
As for university B, nobody wants an unhappy graduate student. If you genuinely believe you'll be miserable at university B, then you should have no qualms rejecting the offer. They'll simply call up someone from their wait list.
**tl; dr:**
* Think carefully about where you want to go, make a decision, and have the courage to stick with it.
* If you choose A, ask A if they can still admit you this year. If they can, you're gold. If not, figure out if you have something to do if you reject B's offer.
* If you have something to do, ask A if they will admit you next year. If they say yes, you're gold. If not, go to B.
* If you have nothing to do, go to B.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm going to leave the question of the psychological and subjective factors to others here. For example, the answer of [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/115147/75368) seems about right to me.
However, on an objective basis, I'd suggest that in choosing B, for whatever reasons and by whatever path, you have made the best decision for yourself. It is simply that working with a more experienced advisor, rather than a newcomer works in your favor, provided that you build a good relationship with him/her. The experienced professor will have more and better ideas. That professor will not need to be as mindful of their own advancement and can (though not all do, of course) help you with your academic advancement. I've had both kinds of advisors and I'd take the senior professor any day.
Some junior professors are an exception and have many ideas that they have no time for themselves, but they are also too involved in such things as tenure portfolios and such. The senior professor will have much less pressure to perform in the short term. Your association with a senior professor can also help you kick start your own advancement.
However, you have put yourself into a very stressful situation. You need to find ways to reduce that stress. Stress reduction has been discussed elsewhere in relation to different issues. For example: <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/114723/75368>
Also, making a clean break with your current institution may help you with your fairly obvious burn-out symptoms. If the world looks new you may not be as tempted to fall back on non-productive activities.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You're experiencing anxiety, which is a normal response to an upcoming major life change. If it's severe enough to be causing physical symptoms, e.g., panic attacks, please see a physician as there are medications like Valium and Xanax that work well to control them.
I think you're pretty much committed to doing your PhD at B and that there'd be a lot of breakage in your life trying to change that. But I also don't think you've given any reason to think this won't be a great new chapter in your life. And, frankly, if your real long term life objective is to be back at A, perhaps as faculty there, then you definitely should prefer doing your PhD at B. (Most schools won't hire their own PhDs into tenure-track positions.)
Here's what I think will happen to you. You will experience about a year of upheaval in your life, making your new home really home, finding new friends, figuring out where to buy groceries and how your new department and new supervisor work. It will be hard on you. But it will challenge and grow you in new and unexpected ways and a year from now, you will feel a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment at having made the change and made it a success.
When I've moved (and let me tell you, I hate moving and I experience all the anxiety you're describing every time) the good things that always seem to happen are that I discover new opportunities I had never dreamed of and I meet new people that change my life. Who knows. If you don't have a girlfriend now, perhaps you will meet her there. (If she was in your circle at A, wouldn't you have already met her?) Perhaps you will find your soulmate, create a family, and move back to A, where you'll both be tenure-track. Anything can happen.
Good luck.
**Added in response to OP's added remarks:** Okay, the language and family issues definitely complicate the question and help explain your anxiety. But if you don't follow through on what you'd expected was a move that would put you closer to family while doing your PhD because the relationship has cooled, this could be a decision you might later regret given that your parents won't be around forever. The language issue is a harder call but apparently you thought you were up to it, so I'm going to bet that way as well. Not having learned another language is a common regret.
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/08/11
| 1,222
| 4,752
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in computer science (theory). I am currently writing a research paper. It is a short paper consisting of about 7-8 pages. I have written it two time and have taken few advice from research supervisor. I am struggling with the part where we give the overview of our approach.
Problems I am facing :
1. I can not write much in this part as it is just an overview.
2. I have to be consistent with the symbol's I used in the main part of research paper.
3. How much should I give in the overview section?
4. Should I try to avoid symbols, proofs etc. in the overview section?
**Question:** How to convey your main idea in a research paper?<issue_comment>username_1: One of the important and difficult skills to learn in technical presentation is how to tell the same story at multiple levels of detail, from a single sentence to a multi-hour tutorial or long-form journal paper.
Moreover, any well-organized presentation (written or spoken) should typically present at multiple levels of resolution. As one of my grad school mentors used to say: "Tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell it to them, then tell them what you told them." This is not redundancy, but rather priming the reader to understand how the pieces fit together and summarizing to help them retain it.
In most good papers, I would thus expect to see the "main idea" presented either five or six times, at various levels of resolution:
1. As a few words in the title, naming the most important "keyword" ideas.
2. As a few sentences in the abstract, identifying a problem, giving an approach, and claiming evidence of progress.
3. As one or two paragraphs in the introduction, sketching the key ideas and how the rest of the paper is organized.
4. Optionally, as an overview section providing a sketch of the main sections and the grounding of the approach in prior work.
5. In full detail in the main sections.
6. In a few summarizing sentences in the final section, highlighting the most important things to remember from the main sections.
So how do you write at a "lower resolution"? I recommend thinking about the difference between *what* you are doing and *how* you are doing it. For example, the statement of a theorem is a "what" and the proof is a "how". In a lower resolution, however, the "what" can *become* a how, presented consistently but less formally. For example, that theorem may be one of several things that you prove as the "how" to get to the "what" of collectively proving a key result. One can then continue going to lower and lower resolutions. For example, all the work on proofs may be one "how" that combines with an implementation "how" and an experiment "how" to get to the "what" of demonstrating progress against the problem you are trying to address.
In short: remain consistent in your terminology, but drop as many levels of detail as you need to fit the space available for each telling of the main idea.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Many great researchers share their tips of writing papers, here are my favorites:
* [How to write a great research paper](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/academic-program/write-great-research-paper/) by [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Peyton_Jones)
* [Tips for Writing Technical Papers](https://cs.stanford.edu/people/widom/paper-writing.html) by [<NAME>](https://cs.stanford.edu/people/widom/)
All so read the papers that gets the awards, and papers of authors who are known to spend great effort on polishing their papers.
Back to your questions:
>
> 1. I can not write much in this part as it is just an overview.
>
>
>
It's difficult to say without knowing what kind of paper you are writing. In my field, even theoretical papers are often illustrated with a motivating example. This is [a paper with a very good Overview section](https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2462179) (best paper award in PLDI 2013).
>
> 2. I have to be consistent with the symbol's I used in the main part of research paper.
>
>
>
A trick that most Latex users know: don't use a symbol directly, e.g. `\Sigma`, instead define a new command, e.g. `\newcommand{\mySymbol}{\Sigma}`, and use `\mySymbol` everywhere to be consistent. It is also very easy if you decide later that you want to replace `\Sigma` with a different symbol.
>
> 3. How much should I give in the overview section?
>
>
>
Around 1 page for a papers with 7 - 8 pages.
>
> 4. Should I try to avoid symbols, proofs etc. in the overview section?
>
>
>
Yes, as much as you can. When this is not possible, explain them clearly and say something such as "*formal definition will be provided in subsequent section*", etc
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/11
| 2,509
| 11,034
|
<issue_start>username_0: I teach an introductory programming course at university where 99% of my students are 18-20 years old. They are used to the old and boring education system they know from high school, so they are not precisely "motivated" about learning. And since we have to have exams (I'm with a team of teachers where most of them tend to "keep things as they are and don't make me work extra") the kids' goal is usually to pass that exam with the least effort, regardless of whether they learn to code or not.
Our teaching materials are organized so that one teacher presents the theory to students and then I explain whatever they didn't understand and present them with exercises.
As they are just beginners, they don't know enough to create cool programs yet (I'm teaching the very basics of control flows, some data storage in memory and command line programming). So I'm trying to make them motivated and would like to try flipped classroom methodologies.
However, I'm not sure about how to implement it. Let's say I make videos explaining the topics so they can dedicate my whole class to practice their coding skills. I've tried making videos before (both short and longer ones) and about 5% of the students watch them, as they feel they don't have time to waste given that there are so many other exams they need to pass (other subjects). Also, since this is about programming, there isn't much to be discussed, it's like math: you sit down and get your hands onto code.
**How can I best bring in any new motivational tools like flipping my classroom?**<issue_comment>username_1: I took a flipped programming course in R last semester. We had only one class of three hours long per week. before the class, we were required to attend a certain DataCamp.com courses and finish an assignment based on the courses. During the class time, we were required to work **in teams** on solving much complicated projects.
Also using github to communicate between teams was really interning and engaging.
In summary, working in teams, having account on github and being able to see how much code you are producing everyday was really motivating.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The underlying idea of a flipped classroom is that you use face to face time for things that require it and nothing else. You don't "present" or "cover" material when face to face. This requires a number of things, but it will probably require buy-in from your colleagues as well.
I used to teach an entire degree program with these ideas. As you note, you need a way to keep the students engaged in the course when not face to face. There are a number of ideas for that, some of which require you to change work habits a bit.
It is possible to make the course "round the clock" so that a student can always get a question answered. One vehicle for this is a class wide email list to which everyone, teachers and students, is subscribed. People submit questions to the list and other people, including students, answer the questions. Teachers need to at least monitor to make sure that incorrect information isn't passed around. When I did it, no questions were off limits as long as they were course related. Code couldn't be submitted to the list under our rules, however. I've also used wiki software to the same end, with the advantage that wiki posts can be preserved for future offerings of the course.
To do the above, however, requires that you teach the students that their learning is a group and cooperative effort, not something done in isolation. The core of this idea is that the facts and skills don't flow from teacher to student, but all around the group.
For the content of the course, you can use readings (preferably short) and videos (also short). Don't rely on just video, however, as it has a down side that the audio quality can disadvantage certain students. And if the video is more than a couple of minutes it is easy to lose track an/or miss some things.
But you also need to assure, at least a bit, that students actually do what you expect when not face to face. For this you can include a few fairly easy questions that students must submit to you as their "admission ticket" to the next face to face. You don't need to have a "pop quiz" in the classroom for this, but just a hand in "homework."
You also need to run the course expecting that, at least at the beginning, students won't do the readings very faithfully. So expect a lot of questions, perhaps on the mailing list, to which the answer is "go watch video 83".
The face to face "classroom" sessions should also be cooperative. Teams are good. Pair programming is one of the best ways for beginners to learn to program, but you have to use it properly and faithfully. It isn't just one person programming and one watching. There are other questions on CSEducators that have resulted in detailed descriptions of Pairing. Two people participate in creating a program, but in slightly different ways, with roles switching frequently (minutes). Test first development also integrates well with pairing.
If you use a cooperative learning environment then grading is an issue that you can solve with peer assessment. There are ways to make this valid and non-threatening, largely by making it positive. Partners and team members detail both their own contributions and the positive contributions of peers. You can ask "who were the top contributors and why?" for example. You can ask for the main contribution of yourself and your partner to a pair project.
Note also that short quick questions can be answered on the mailing list. An advantage of this is that every student sees any student's question as well as the answer. During face to face sessions you can also have longer discussion, say about testing strategy or the difference between `for` and `while` if many are confused. But try to spend as little time as possible on such low level things, deferring them to the readings/videos and the mailing list. Use the face time for active, rather than passive endeavors.
---
Don't lose track of the fact that people learn by repetition and reinforcement. In a normal classroom that is usually provided via homework. With a flipped classroom that flips also. The little quizzes (tickets to play) are a minor part of the learning, though they should be a (small) part of grading. The repetition and reinforcement comes in the face session.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: My technique for getting students to watch the videos is to assign them to watch AND take notes on the videos. I then have a quick open-notes quiz on the video the next class period. I try to make quizzes be pretty close or sometimes identical to the video material so that the students who do watch and take notes get a good benefit.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: *Note: answering this from your question of first-year students, but this also works for graduate courses (just add complexity).*
From my own experience with this age/knowledge level (I'll focus on web here) the first thing I do is find out "**What do my students want to do with their knowledge?**"
I use a survey during the first class, so they are less influenced by their peers, then use their answer to determine the projects used in a flipped classroom. I learn best with templates and checklists, so:
---
### Before class (lesson)
Require all students to watch a video, stream, or other presentation and/or complete a reading.
* The reading can be a textbook or even the docs (Python docs are awesome so I try to introduce them early and often with this group).
* For videos, make it short (if it is too long try and split the videos)
* Make sure there is a formative assessment based on these lessons. I know one class I had used a weekly required, meaning graded, discussion board post and response (had to post code and review classmate) to assess so it doesn't have to be a quiz.
---
### In class (application)
Structure these based on what students answered either by separating them into groups based on their goals (this can be some extra work coming up with separate project and unlikely with beginner programmers but has a great engagement payoff so keep it in mind for advance groups) or using projects which mimic what they will want to do. Some examples of possible projects:
* Most students state they want to "*break into web development, social media, or the cloud*".
Since they're beginning students I would not recommend having them load up a JS framework, full Django, or a full ASP.Net website. The focus should be on introductory topics (with more advance students though...).
* Move through steps like this with student's goal of having a personal website ready to deploy by the end of the year (your's of covering all major topics). Start them off with a template for creating the website so they can get right to coding (unless HTML is part of course):
1. Build profile page using variables to store information
2. Build social game using loops and conditionals
3. Build survey to teach console based input/output then have other students take and store data in data structures, classes, &/or files
4. Build quiz game from or complete and display basic analysis (averages, means, most seen, least seen, etc) of data structures/classes/files
---
Other ideas include:
"*I want to be a data scientist*", have them work on challenges from [Project Euler](https://projecteuler.net/about) or ones you've developed from them (many of the older ones have answers/code online but still great way to learn and easy to set goal, like finish first 200) or build projects around "biodata" or "sound" (something where it is easy to generate data which requires text process & mathematical analysis). I've used both of these when tutoring math majors and peers who are just learning quantitative research methods and found they work well.
"*I want to get an internship*", use [github search](https://github.com/search?l=Python&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22beginner%22+&type=Issues) or other open source projects focused on beginners to build challenges (trouble tickets) that students have to solve. Remind them that this is great for a resume and will likely be what they have to work on during 1st internship or job. For advance students you can actually have them solve bugs on github.
---
Final thoughts: Doing a project which builds on itself, gives students a chance to work on computational and algorithmic thinking as they are actually building something (completing design and engineering processes). Have students reflect on their own code or progress throughout the course (improving some code, changing a design based on new knowledge, or just state what they have learned helps the student understand what they've learned and lets you look for gaps). Repetition is what builds knowledge and skill so reflecting makes students look back at (repeat) old skills and then use (repeating again) their new skills.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/11
| 1,481
| 6,384
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a paper to a good journal, it was refereed, and after a year it got accepted for publication.
But now that a year has passed, I no longer find the results or methods of that paper to be that great (novel?). And much of my more recent work, which has been submitted to other good journals but has not yet been published, is of greater quality and improves on the earlier methods.
Should I withdraw the paper, or just go ahead and publish it? To me it seems that there are negative consequences either way:
* If the paper is published, then the readers may perceive the author to be shallow or inferior in some ways. Also, if the more recent work is published then people may think I'm over-using a particular method, or "salami slicing". Of course, the latter would not be accurate, as the most recent work was begun several months after the first paper was submitted.
* If the paper is withdrawn, then the referee and editor (whom are very respected) may hold a grudge, or simply have a lesser opinion. That could impact future submissions and my reputation.
---
Although, if I formed a habit of submitting and withdrawing because of better and better results... my work would eventually be so wonderful that nobody would know about it!<issue_comment>username_1: I doubt that reviewers hold grudges. Many won't even know whether a paper they reviewed was ever published. Editors may be a different story, if they expect the paper for an upcoming publication.
On reason your older work seems "shallow" is that you have advanced in the art since you wrote it. You would feel the same if it had been published long ago. Celebrate your growth. Poets and other writers often feel the same way about early work, though that isn't universal.
But if you don't think your newer work is an improvement over the old, then you haven't grown much.
My advice is to publish it. One important reason, in my view, is that the ideas in it may inspire some future student to advance along similar lines. The journal editor will be happier, as you note.
I doubt that most academics are judged by their earliest work, or by the work they have grown beyond, but rather by their overall contribution to the field and by their best work.
---
Of course, if you find errors in a paper that were missed by the reviewers it is a different story. The editor should be informed, at least.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: No, this is not reasonable. It's up to you to determine that your paper meets an acceptable standard before you submit it, and stand by that determination unless you find a critical error in the work. Maybe it's not as good as what you're working on now, or maybe you're just overthinking things out of perfectionism, but it doesn't matter. Not every paper is a breakthrough, and that's alright.
Practically speaking, one less-than-exciting paper isn't going to give you a reputation as a salami slicer, and even if it did, this is much less bad (think several orders of magnitude less bad) than having a reputation for wasting editors' and referees' time because you won't stand behind your own work.
I'm not sure about the legal fine points, but you might not even be able to retract the paper at this stage without the editor's agreement (and why would the editor agree if there's nothing wrong with the paper?).
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: The work obviously will be less novel (particularly to its author) a year later, but that does not seem like a good reason to withdraw it. If the paper contains good and useful work, withdrawing it at that point is just wasting everyone's time: the authors', the editor's and the reviewers'. Unless there are substantial errors in the paper, or the journal demands too taxing changes before publication, I'd say go ahead and have it published.
>
> And much of your more recent work, which has been submitted to other good journals but has not yet been published, is of greater quality and improves on the earlier methods.
>
>
>
There is no guarantee that the more recent work will be published in good journals, so why risk the old work as well?
>
> Also, if the more recent work is published then people may think the author is over-using a particular method, or "salami slicing". Of course, the latter would not be accurate, as the most recent work was begun several months after the first paper was submitted.
>
>
>
Usually the submission date is included in the published version of the paper, so it should be easy to disprove this.
>
> Although, if I formed a habit of submitting and withdrawing because of better and better results... my work would eventually be so wonderful that nobody would know about it!
>
>
>
It would also be a good way to annoy editors (and possibly reviewers) making it harder to publish those eventual, wonderful results. Not to mention that never publishing is rather bad for future funding opportunities.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: It is completely normal for papers to describe work that's at least a year old by the time they're finally published. It is completely normal for the authors of papers to continue working on the topic and obtain new results. Of course your work today on this topic is better than the work you did a year ago.
No reasonable person is going to accuse you of salami slicing if you produce multiple papers on a topic over a period of years. Salami slicing is dividing a single piece of completed work into more papers than it needs to be. That's not what you did: you took a finished piece of work, published it and then extended it. If everybody waited until all possible consequences of their work had been fully determined before publishing then, for example, the entirety of physics would consist of a single (as-yet-unwritten) paper called "How the universe works. No, really, we figured it out." Meanwhile, you'll find it hard to get your next job if you never publish anything because there's always some way of extending the work.
It would be completely inappropriate to withdraw your paper, unless you've found that it's incorrect. The referees have spent considerable time reading it; they and the editor have decided that it is interesting and novel enough to publish. Good luck with your next paper; it sounds like you've already made a lot of progress on it.
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/08/11
| 569
| 2,597
|
<issue_start>username_0: A colleague of mine has notified me of an upcoming opening for a TT position in my field in the US. She told me to contact a colleague of hers in the department hiring to "ask for advice" regarding the position.
Being from Europe, this a bit unusual and I am at loss about what I should ask for since the position already comes with a job description? Is this just a way to informally establish contact? What types of question are appropriate/inappropriate to ask the person in this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: I assume your colleague knows something about the culture of the place she recommended. If so you should probably follow her advice. There are a lot of things you could ask other than "Would I get the job?". You could ask about things like local working groups (seminars) in your sub-field, for example or things about students if that is part of the position. You could even ask things about living in the city in which the place is located. Local ambiance, and such. It is likely a mistake, however to ask too many questions, but a conversation might develop.
In fact, if you hope to have a longer conversation, you might make the initial contact letter very short. "What should I know about your department?" or "Is there a lot of collaboration within the department?"
Some things you can learn with a bit of research, such as the names and research interests of the other members of the department. Others are harder to learn, but also important to know. One is the general collegiality of the place and how difficult it is to attain tenure. But some questions probably shouldn't be asked by a potential candidate until they express interest in you.
But you could also ask your colleague to write to this other person on your behalf with a simple introduction. She can also ask some of the questions that you can't really ask directly yourself.
---
Of course, if you write and get no answer back, you've learned at least a little something about the place.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would keep it simple. Typically at this stage I have asked questions like “Are there sub fields that the department is particularly interested in hiring for?” “What courses are you hoping this position would cover?” Or the fallback/generic options “Is there anything beyond what is in the job description that I need to keep in mind when applying?” And “What aspects of my CV do you recommend I stress in my application?”
The goal is to use the conversation to introduce yourself and to tailor your application.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/11
| 815
| 3,332
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a co-author on a mathematics paper, and we have submitted it to a journal. It will take a long while before we hear back from them, and I wanted to share my paper with friends and family.
If you share a paper before it has been submitted, it is theoretically possible that other people could steal your work, etc, before you submit it. What about after you have submitted your paper?
This might be similar to [Can I publish research as "working paper" after journal submission?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/96740/can-i-publish-research-as-working-paper-after-journal-submission) but I am curious about the mathematics world of academia. Also, what about other fields?<issue_comment>username_1: Friends and family should never be an issue. Presumably you trust them to honor a request not pass the paper on.
In general, you can't stop plagiarism. You can only watch for it to occur and object when it does. The evil-doers will evil-do.
But after you submit your paper others (editors and reviewers) have seen it and know that as of a certain date, the work came from you. There are other ways to establish priority, but that is pretty good.
The question you cite gives good advice. Publishers differ. But until you relinquish copyright the paper is yours, even if submitted. Some publishers will want to be the ones to give the first-views of a paper. But most will tolerate a small amount of sharing just to keep good relations with authors. But a separately published (even if informally) version will upset some of them if you do it after submission. It is hard to call it a work in progress at that time.
For mathematics, look at the editorial policies of the various publications of the AMS.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I strongly recommend that you share your paper, not only with your friends and family but also with the entire academic community. Upload your paper as a preprint to [arXiv](http://arxiv.org). This is the major way for papers to be shared before publication (and after), so that other researchers can learn about your results without waiting for the peer review process (which in mathematics is particularly slow).
(Of course, you'll need to make sure your co-authors agree before you do this.)
See [Why upload to academic preprint sites like arXiv?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16832/why-upload-to-academic-preprint-sites-like-arxiv/16833#16833)
You may want to double-check that your intended journal will still publish papers when their preprints are on arXiv, but I've never heard of any reputable publisher in mathematics having a problem with this.
>
> If you share a paper before it has been submitted, it is theoretically possible that other people could steal your work, etc, before you submit it. What about after you have submitted your paper?
>
>
>
I would not worry about it. The journal has a record that you submitted it, which would be powerful evidence in case of a priority dispute. Posting to arXiv is an even stronger form of evidence, since it's automatically visible to the public.
In most cases, "stealing work" is a minimal risk, compared to the much larger risk of not getting sufficient attention for your work. It's usually best to err to the side of sharing.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/11
| 2,237
| 9,190
|
<issue_start>username_0: A colleague has approached me with a tough situation. I'm unsure how to advise her.
She is a postdoc, and will soon take a month-long planned medical leave. Her adviser, a senior research scientist, has a history of reshuffling authorships of papers of his subordinates during leave, sometimes to make himself first author. She had previously hoped to have the paper in question in submission, but “serendipitously” some last minute data is unavailable. Adding to her suspicion, the adviser has asked her to deliver all drafts and all data analysis code before leaving.
Her question, which stumped me: how can she safeguard her present first-author position? I will meet with her at the end of the week (17th) and share this thread with her.
Some details:
* This advisor has reshuffled authorship on several previous occasions of which I am aware. He has suffered no disciplinary action from the department in these situations, and has a reputation for working to damage the careers of those that work against him. The unit has a history of turning a blind eye in these situations.
* There's very little accountability to be had within this unit. Pieces of proof like emails and widely witnessed public statements are unlikely to be actual safeguards.
* The advisor really does control all the inputs and outputs. This is true even after her return: he may switch authorship at that point over any real or perceived failure.
* My feeling is the successful path here will involve some clever way to move the power in the situation from his side to her side.
* Certainly, she is looking for a exit from the lab. A solution will substantially increase the chances she can take this first authorship with her.
* My sense from our discussion is that early drafts and data analysis already shared, but the most recent ones are not yet. That said, the entire situation seems to suggest a lack of trust on all sides.
* The distribution of work put into the paper is roughly: 95 % by my colleague, 4 % by another co-author, and 1 % by the supervisor.
EDIT: This has concluded. She used several of the strategies here, documenting extensively. Her adviser remover her from the paper and sent it for publication within 48 hours of her leaving. Upon her recovery, which took somewhat longer than expected, she appealed to the editor and the department. Her adviser ended her postdoc position, citing insufficient funding, and responded to the editor (how I'm unsure). She appealed to the university, which did not intervene. She has had no additional communication from the journal or her old lab. She has left, in some disgust, for an industry job.<issue_comment>username_1: It seems like the work dynamic in this place is rather perverse. Let's set that aside, though.
At all costs, this must be "resolved" prior to submission. You don't want the bun fight about authorship to leak onto the review process or, god forbid, post-acceptance or post-publication time frame.
She must protect herself. As an early career researcher, overt action may result in negative consequences in her field. If her senior is petty enough to do things like swap authorship, I shudder to think what the senior fellow can do in retaliation.
I'm not one to advocate a passive-aggressive approach to work, but if there are clear and systematic deficiencies in upholding the most basic of academic mores, what is a junior staff member left to do? There's a phrase in classics that applies here: "Festina lente" or "Make haste slowly".
In the end, she must realise that these options may not work at all. It might be that all her finessing is for naught because her senior has full control of the outputs. I would strongly suggest that she finish up and leave the lab and the institute as soon as she can.
Good luck to her.
Do let us know how this resolves.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Well, there's always the Gordian knot solution: Don't take the medical leave and continue working, to the detriment of her health. If she's not on medical leave, the senior researcher can't use her lack of presence to screw her over. Whether that's something she's willing to consider depends on what exactly she's taking the medical leave for, and whether she's willing to take the damage to her health to avoid the damage to her career.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I would send an email along the following lines to the supervisor and copied to the person doing the additional piece of work. While not complete protection, this approach provides evidence and also makes it clear that the supervisor should respond if he doesn't intend to wait.
The draft article attached to the email should have a version number and date.
>
> Dear ...
>
>
> As requested, I have attached the latest draft of our paper, TITLE.
> It is saved at LOCATION, together with the data and analysis code.
> Unfortunately, I was unable to submit the draft before taking leave as
> planned because the data concerning XYZ was not available.
>
>
> I understand that OTHER-RESEARCHER is intending to complete his/her part of the
> analysis while I am on leave. I will verify that analysis and
> integrate it with the existing paper as my first task on my return in
> a month. I understand that OTHER-RESEARCHER is willing to draft that section of
> the paper, but as lead author, I want to ensure that it is consistent
> with the existing message and style of the paper. I would therefore
> prefer that the analysis is prepared as a separate document and I will
> integrate it myself.
>
>
> Assuming that no additional questions are raised by this final
> analysis, I expect to be able to circulate the complete draft within a
> week of my return for submission shortly thereafter. As the analysis
> has already taken NN months, I don't expect this delay to create any
> difficulties, but please let me know if you are concerned about
> waiting until my return for the paper to be completed.
>
>
>
Depending on the reason for the medical leave, it may also be appropriate to add a final paragraph:
>
> If there are any questions about this work, I am contactable during my
> leave at EMAIL
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: My suggestion would be to make the paper available in some form now, to establish the existing authorship. How to do that without causing too much trouble (if that's possible) will depend on the details of the situation.
Some potential ideas:
* Give a talk about the work, with a copy of the draft to hand
* Send the paper to an interested colleague in the field (eg PhD supervisor, someone they're applying for a job with..)
* Provide the draft copy via a personal website
* Post the paper minus the final data on the arXiv (if in a suitable field), or on a personal website
* Send the paper with some query to the university research office
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: There’s not a whole lot you can do to protect against this happening. All you can do is document things in writing and prepare for war if it does happen.
JenB’s answer is a great suggestion for how to start on documenting things. I’d also suggest some language documenting previous discussions as to who is first author.
If it comes to war, you’ll need some allies and to apply for new jobs. Talk to your Ph.D. advisor, to any powerful allies you have, to the chair, and to the local Title IX and/or disability offices. See if anyone is willing to back you up. Try to nail down any documentation about the previous instances. Ultimately you probably have no real recourse, but you can at least see what allies you do have.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: How about *not* giving copies of all the drafts and data analyses...? Just "forget"?
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: ### The straightforward approach: say what you want.
One option would be for OP's colleague to **explicitly bring up the issue of authorship order** with her advisor: To tell him that she wants to make sure that it's agreed that she continues to be listed as the first author on the paper, and that since she's going to be on medical leave, she will not be around to discuss this issue if it comes up.
Now, the advisor might dodge, or may explain why he intends to not make her first author, but at least she'll know where she stands. She will just need to get past the timidity, or the fear of appearing greedy or presumptuous by bringing this up.
Notes:
* I also like @JessicaB's answer in case the direct approach turns sour and OP's colleague feels she's being cheated - but then things will get even more confrontational.
* I'd like to use this opportunity to advocate against naming authors by order of supposed contribution, and switching to alphabetic naming only. The assignment of credit for the work should not be part of the paper, and these ego battles or mis-/re-arrangements are completely spared in disciplines such as Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. If someone wants to know who did what - they can ask. If and when your colleague becomes more senior, suggest to her to insist on an alphabetic naming policy.
Upvotes: 4
|
2018/08/12
| 1,242
| 4,071
|
<issue_start>username_0: The screenshot beneath is from [Prof. <NAME>'s profile](https://7kbw.co.uk/barrister/james-goudkamp/). See the red arrow.
>
> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7SWhC.png)
>
>
>
1. What's meant "by resolution"?
2. Why was this MA obtained after all his other degrees?
I know that [the Oxbridge MA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_(Oxbridge_and_Dublin)) "is an academic rank, and not a postgraduate qualification", as
>
> Bachelors of Arts with Honours of these universities are promoted to the title of **Master of Arts** or **Master in Arts (MA)** on application after six or seven years' seniority as members of the university (including years as an undergraduate).
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Basically, it's a "free masters degree" to members who otherwise don't qualify for the masters degree, for various reasons.
Here it is, direct from Oxford:
>
> Conferment of Degrees
> 7.1. The procedures for the conferment, both at the Encaenia and on other occasions, of Degrees by Diploma, Honorary Degrees, Ordinary
> Degrees, and Degrees by Incorporation shall be determined by
> regulation, and the regulations concerned shall be published from time
> to time in a Handbook for the Conduct of University Ceremonies.
>
>
> 7.2. (1) In the case of a person in any of the categories set out in paragraph (2) below who does not hold, and is not qualified for, any
> of the Degrees (other than Honorary Degrees) of Doctor of Divinity,
> Doctor of Civil Law, Doctor of Medicine, Master of Arts, Master of
> Biochemistry, Master of Chemistry, Master of Earth Sciences, Master of
> Engineering, Master of Mathematics, or Master of Physics of the
> University, Council shall as soon as possible propose to Congregation
> that a Degree of Master of Arts by Resolution be conferred upon that
> person without fee, if (and only if) he or she holds both a bachelor’s
> and a doctor’s degree (other than an honorary degree) of any
> university or universities or of any such other institution or
> institutions as Council may determine by regulation from time to time,
> or that at least twenty terms have lapsed since he or she first became
> a member of a university or such other institution, or, in the case of
> a person who is not a member of any university, that he or she is at
> least 25 years of age.
>
>
> (2) The categories referred to in paragraph (1) above are:
>
>
> (a) the Chancellor;
>
>
> (b) the High Steward;
>
>
> (c) the Vice-Chancellor;
>
>
> (d) the Proctors;
>
>
> (e) the heads of all the colleges, societies, and Permanent Private
> Halls included in Statute V;
>
>
> (f) the members of the governing bodies of all the colleges and
> societies included in Statute V (but not of the Permanent Private
> Halls);
>
>
> (g) the principal bursar or treasurer of each of the colleges and
> societies included in Statute V (but not of the Permanent Private
> Halls), if he or she is not a member of its governing body.
>
>
> (3) In the case of a person excluded because none of the conditions in
> paragraphs (1) and (2) above is met, Council shall proceed as soon as
> possible after one of them has been met.
>
>
> (4) Nothing in this regulation shall restrict the power of Council to
> propose to Congregation that a Degree by Resolution be conferred
> without fee upon any person it considers appropriate.
>
>
> 7.3. A Degree by Resolution shall be deemed to have been conferred with effect from the approval of the resolution by Congregation.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It's ecactly as described in the wikipedia-article you were linking: He had to spend 6-7 years at Oxford to recieve the title. Since he was faster than this time span with his doctorate, he recieved the Master by Resolution after his Doctor.
The degree "Master of Arts by Resolution" indicates, that no further studies or exams were necessary, but is is given "by resolution".
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/12
| 1,049
| 3,565
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are several important journals out there that are not peer-reviewed, such as [Network Security](https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/network-security). Do such papers provide any value for the author(s), especially for whom want to apply for a PhD program.<issue_comment>username_1: Basically, it's a "free masters degree" to members who otherwise don't qualify for the masters degree, for various reasons.
Here it is, direct from Oxford:
>
> Conferment of Degrees
> 7.1. The procedures for the conferment, both at the Encaenia and on other occasions, of Degrees by Diploma, Honorary Degrees, Ordinary
> Degrees, and Degrees by Incorporation shall be determined by
> regulation, and the regulations concerned shall be published from time
> to time in a Handbook for the Conduct of University Ceremonies.
>
>
> 7.2. (1) In the case of a person in any of the categories set out in paragraph (2) below who does not hold, and is not qualified for, any
> of the Degrees (other than Honorary Degrees) of Doctor of Divinity,
> Doctor of Civil Law, Doctor of Medicine, Master of Arts, Master of
> Biochemistry, Master of Chemistry, Master of Earth Sciences, Master of
> Engineering, Master of Mathematics, or Master of Physics of the
> University, Council shall as soon as possible propose to Congregation
> that a Degree of Master of Arts by Resolution be conferred upon that
> person without fee, if (and only if) he or she holds both a bachelor’s
> and a doctor’s degree (other than an honorary degree) of any
> university or universities or of any such other institution or
> institutions as Council may determine by regulation from time to time,
> or that at least twenty terms have lapsed since he or she first became
> a member of a university or such other institution, or, in the case of
> a person who is not a member of any university, that he or she is at
> least 25 years of age.
>
>
> (2) The categories referred to in paragraph (1) above are:
>
>
> (a) the Chancellor;
>
>
> (b) the High Steward;
>
>
> (c) the Vice-Chancellor;
>
>
> (d) the Proctors;
>
>
> (e) the heads of all the colleges, societies, and Permanent Private
> Halls included in Statute V;
>
>
> (f) the members of the governing bodies of all the colleges and
> societies included in Statute V (but not of the Permanent Private
> Halls);
>
>
> (g) the principal bursar or treasurer of each of the colleges and
> societies included in Statute V (but not of the Permanent Private
> Halls), if he or she is not a member of its governing body.
>
>
> (3) In the case of a person excluded because none of the conditions in
> paragraphs (1) and (2) above is met, Council shall proceed as soon as
> possible after one of them has been met.
>
>
> (4) Nothing in this regulation shall restrict the power of Council to
> propose to Congregation that a Degree by Resolution be conferred
> without fee upon any person it considers appropriate.
>
>
> 7.3. A Degree by Resolution shall be deemed to have been conferred with effect from the approval of the resolution by Congregation.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It's ecactly as described in the wikipedia-article you were linking: He had to spend 6-7 years at Oxford to recieve the title. Since he was faster than this time span with his doctorate, he recieved the Master by Resolution after his Doctor.
The degree "Master of Arts by Resolution" indicates, that no further studies or exams were necessary, but is is given "by resolution".
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/12
| 445
| 1,998
|
<issue_start>username_0: Consider the scenario in which a PhD student of the subject X published good research papers on subject Y. X and Y are not related. Will those papers any way useful for getting PhD or any benefits related to PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't believe there can be a general answer to this other than *it depends*. Depends on university, on country, on field, etc. Generally, though, I would guess that in most cases the value would be pretty small *unless* the research methodologies in the two fields are similar.
If you want to pursue a doctorate in Mathematics, anyone considering you will want to know that you have the basis and background for research in mathematics. Having published in Chemistry isn't going to have much value since there is little either in the background or the methodology that will help you in maths. Medicine and Chemistry would be a different story, perhaps.
But if you have the required background in discipline, then such other work could have a small effect as it gives some evidence of deep thinking and hard work.
Such disparate interests can also raise questions about your commitment to the new field, of course. I doubt that would be disqualifying, but you should be prepared to discuss the issue.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It is unlikely that any papers in a different field will be used in assessing a PhD. However, as long as the papers are not too time consuming to generate, then the process (doing research, writing it up for publication, responding to reviews) will be useful for doing the work necessary to get your PhD. And more papers will always help in applying for postdocs.
Depending on the subject, a PhD can be more about learning to do research than obtaining subject matter knowledge. If you are in such a discipline, then research practice is useful. But it is counterproductive if doing the extra papers reduces your capacity to do research in your own field (particularly time).
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/12
| 618
| 2,679
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been accepted to a funded master’s program under an advisor. I already came up with a research proposal months ago with the advisor’s help as I needed one in order to apply. The last time I spoke to my advisor was about two months ago when we discussed courses to sign up for and anything that I should review over the summer. I have since signed up for the courses.
However, I have no idea where to begin with the research and how any of that works. I am thinking of emailing my advisor on Monday to ask her where to begin because I am so lost at the moment. So, in my email, what should I say to my advisor to help clarify my confusion about where to begin with the research?<issue_comment>username_1: For starters, I hope you took her advice over summer. presumably this would be your first research experience, or an early one at least. With no prior practice your lack of knowledge is understandable. Presumably, also, your advisor knows of your state of experience.
Given all that, just be honest. Where should I start? What should I read? I suspect, strongly, that she is experienced in getting people started. Otherwise you wouldn't have been accepted in the first place.
But better than an email, expecting a long reply, would be a request for a meeting, asking for guidance. Don't try to overstate your abilities, and don't think that your current lack is a flaw. Everyone needs to start somewhere and it is good to have some guidance.
But since she has already given you advice (which you took, of course), you want to ask her for "next steps" (rather than where to start) and mentioning your lack of experience in this whole process. It isn't a time for embarrassment. It isn't warranted.
---
The situations in which this might be contraindicated is where the advisor is extremely busy - too many students, for example. But if she has a lot of students, it might be possible for you to join/start a group of her advisees and see what others know of her expectations. Some professors have weekly seminars for their students if they are working on similar things. Those other students can help you ease in to the process as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You've done just what you should have done. You could probably just show up at school and find out then what to do next. If you want a little reassurance, send your advisor a short email telling her that you've followed her advice and reviewed the material she suggested. You can then ask if there's anything else you should do in the next three weeks before the semester starts. No need to say or even suggest that you've no idea what comes next.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/12
| 967
| 4,286
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently applying for masters in CS. My undergraduate main project, which was later made into an IEEE publication, was done under the guidance of an assistant professor, who is currently pursuing her PhD abroad. Being a student at present, she would be unable to obtain a letterhead from her university. With what degree of credibility would such a recommendation without a letterhead be viewed by admissions committees? Also, will the current credentials of my recommender (PhD student) cause the LOR to be reduced in value? My target universities are in the US, Canada and Europe.<issue_comment>username_1: In the days of email, etc. perhaps she can arrange for the letter to be printed at the original place and mailed from there.
On the other hand, I think that is shouldn't make much difference if she explains that she is no longer with the former university. It could even be sent on her local letterhead with an explanation.
The reviewers want to know a couple of things. Was she a legitimate entity in your background? Is the letter truly from her and not a forgery. That is not impossible to fulfill.
On the other hand, just being on university letterhead is no guarantee in itself that the letter isn't forged.
As to her current position, if she was an Assistant Professor when your guide, her letter should be evaluated in that light, not her later associations. I can't guarantee that, of course, but you could certainly point it out to the committee if questions are ever raised.
Perhaps her name appears in your publication, also, along with some indication of her position then.
Finally, though retired, I can still get letterhead stationery from my last university. The reason for it hasn't ever been questioned, but it is easy to answer for. She could write to the department secretary.
---
Of course, if the receiving school specifies 'on department letterhead' then you should seek an exemption first, giving the explanation for the need.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I am the Graduate Coordinator for my department (mathematics at the University of Georgia).
**In general** I absolutely do not care about the letterhead of recommendation letters. In fact, the electronic system at my institution gives writers the option to fill a(n unlimited in size) box with text, so a lot of our recommendation *text* does not come in letter format. Moreover, when I write letters for students, I usually do not trouble to use the university letterhead (having observed hundreds of others doing the same practice).
**However**, your current writer was an assistant professor and is now a PhD student. In my experience that is quite irregular, unless the recommender already had a PhD and is now pursuing a PhD in a different academic field. The status of the letter writer *does* play a role in how we evaluate the letter, and I think many faculty would devalue a letter for a graduate student that comes from another graduate student.
So I think this is case in which official letterhead would be helpful, if it can be honorably procured and used. Getting a letter from a *former* faculty member is not really any worse than getting a letter from a current faculty member -- after all, in many cases they are writing about a *former* student. If the letter writer was legitimately an assistant professor at the time they worked with you, then of course they can say that. They should also mention that they are not currently faculty at that institution and provide a means of being contacted (email should be fine). I am not completely confident about it, but at the moment it seems to me that the writer does not need to say that they are now a PhD student elsewhere -- it is not directly relevant to the evaluation and may cause the letter to be devalued in a way that is not necessarily fair to the student.
Another possibility is to get the requisite number of letters from "real faculty" and include this letter as an "extra one." If that is not technically possible with respect to the admissions system, you could arrange for this person to send the letter to the chair of the admissions committee, or you could ask for her to write a letter jointly with a "real faculty member" at your institution.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/12
| 952
| 4,199
|
<issue_start>username_0: As an example, let's say someone with 1/16 of African American heritage applies for a minority scholarship and claims themselves as African American. Would they be rejected, all other factors being equal? If so, do universities generally publish a guideline of what constitutes a particular race in the context of scholarship applications or college admissions?
Note that this question is of practical value as there are presumably millions of people of mixed heritage living in the US at the moment.<issue_comment>username_1: In the days of email, etc. perhaps she can arrange for the letter to be printed at the original place and mailed from there.
On the other hand, I think that is shouldn't make much difference if she explains that she is no longer with the former university. It could even be sent on her local letterhead with an explanation.
The reviewers want to know a couple of things. Was she a legitimate entity in your background? Is the letter truly from her and not a forgery. That is not impossible to fulfill.
On the other hand, just being on university letterhead is no guarantee in itself that the letter isn't forged.
As to her current position, if she was an Assistant Professor when your guide, her letter should be evaluated in that light, not her later associations. I can't guarantee that, of course, but you could certainly point it out to the committee if questions are ever raised.
Perhaps her name appears in your publication, also, along with some indication of her position then.
Finally, though retired, I can still get letterhead stationery from my last university. The reason for it hasn't ever been questioned, but it is easy to answer for. She could write to the department secretary.
---
Of course, if the receiving school specifies 'on department letterhead' then you should seek an exemption first, giving the explanation for the need.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I am the Graduate Coordinator for my department (mathematics at the University of Georgia).
**In general** I absolutely do not care about the letterhead of recommendation letters. In fact, the electronic system at my institution gives writers the option to fill a(n unlimited in size) box with text, so a lot of our recommendation *text* does not come in letter format. Moreover, when I write letters for students, I usually do not trouble to use the university letterhead (having observed hundreds of others doing the same practice).
**However**, your current writer was an assistant professor and is now a PhD student. In my experience that is quite irregular, unless the recommender already had a PhD and is now pursuing a PhD in a different academic field. The status of the letter writer *does* play a role in how we evaluate the letter, and I think many faculty would devalue a letter for a graduate student that comes from another graduate student.
So I think this is case in which official letterhead would be helpful, if it can be honorably procured and used. Getting a letter from a *former* faculty member is not really any worse than getting a letter from a current faculty member -- after all, in many cases they are writing about a *former* student. If the letter writer was legitimately an assistant professor at the time they worked with you, then of course they can say that. They should also mention that they are not currently faculty at that institution and provide a means of being contacted (email should be fine). I am not completely confident about it, but at the moment it seems to me that the writer does not need to say that they are now a PhD student elsewhere -- it is not directly relevant to the evaluation and may cause the letter to be devalued in a way that is not necessarily fair to the student.
Another possibility is to get the requisite number of letters from "real faculty" and include this letter as an "extra one." If that is not technically possible with respect to the admissions system, you could arrange for this person to send the letter to the chair of the admissions committee, or you could ask for her to write a letter jointly with a "real faculty member" at your institution.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/12
| 652
| 2,762
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my career as a researcher, I have attended many high-quality conferences in my research field and presented papers. In general there are some rules about the number of papers accepted which belong to a researcher as an author. I can take it normally one person can be an author for a paper, or two. What about **five** papers?
My question is;
Can I use the term **abuse** if someone (first author or not) submits five papers to a conference?<issue_comment>username_1: Why would you think of it as abuse? If the conference has rules that prohibit it then the author is breaking the rules, otherwise not. The more important question is whether the papers have merit. If they do, all is good. If not, they will be rejected in due course. In the latter case, the committee can admonish the author about a flood of junk.
The conference program committee doesn't need to accept a lot of papers from an individual and I think in most cases they would like a variety of authors to be represented, but that is their concern. It also seems a valid "policy."
The committee also needs to be prepared to review, according to their normal methods, all papers submitted. The selection, however, probably involves actually accepting fewer papers than the reviewers approve, just for time and space.
The "problem" if there is one, will resolve itself.
If the committee doesn't want this to happen in future, they can write rules into future submission criteria.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with you. I sometimes do think that people don't really care about conferences or what they are presenting. They just need that line on their CV, at least, this is what I sensed in my department. I don't even think it's appropriate to present the same research at different conferences, but that's what people do all the time. Frankly, I do it too. Why? because I need publications to get a job and scholarships. So it's largely determined by the market, or the reality.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: The appropriateness of submitting 5 papers to a conference depends on what the nature of the conference is and on how coauthorship is done. Is the conference competitive, or just a way for people to meet up and share ideas? If each paper has 5 authors, is it strange for one author to be on 5 submissions?
In my area of computer science, I've seen someone with 5 papers *accepted* to one conference. The only thing this made anyone think is that the individual is impressively productive.
In any case, I don't see how it rises to the level of "abuse", unless this person is genuinely spamming the conference (e.g. with computer-generated papers). Each paper should be judged on its merits.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/12
| 617
| 2,524
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a senior Ph.D. student in software security in Germany. I am looking for some grants for my postdoc. I have a proposal ready, but I do not know good enough about the grant opportunities. So, I think that I need to submit my proposal to many places to increase the chance of obtaining a good grant? What do you think? Is any neat database for finding the grants?<issue_comment>username_1: Since you are in Europe, [EURAXESS](https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/funding/search) (which belongs to the European Commission) may be a suitable platform to you. National funders from the EU (and beyond) regularly list their calls there.
There may also be national databases of research grants (provided by official bodies). For instance, as regards Germany, the DAAD offers this [Scholarship Database](https://www2.daad.de/deutschland/stipendium/datenbank/en/21148-scholarship-database/), while Austria offers a comprehensive and always up-to-date list at [grants.at](https://grants.at/).
The analogy for the U.S. seems to be [grants.gov](https://www.grants.gov/).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many grants that US researchers have will included salary or partial salary for postdoctoral researcher(s) that they want to include the work of. You might just checkout the websites of professors, centers, or labs that you'd like to work for and see if they are hiring a postdoc. Those are probably already funded for some period of time, and the position announcement may already describe that time-frame. In the US, at my institution, if you came to me and said that you had full funding for a postdoc lined up and just needed me to open slot for you and hire you, I wouldn't be allowed to do it even if you seemed to be the perfect candidate. I'd actually have to be awarded the funding by a funding agency and open an official position at my institution that was open for all qualified applicants to apply to. Then I'd have to follow official application and interview procedures to see who got the position. The fact that you had your own funding would weight towards you, but it wouldn't necessarily guarantee that you'd get it or that the funding agency would give my institution the money to then give to you to pay your salary. If someone more qualified applied, and I had another source of funds to pay them, I'd be required to hire them instead of you to do the job. I would not be allowed to even post the position without a more solid funding stream lined up.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/13
| 966
| 4,111
|
<issue_start>username_0: One school I know of, University of Pittsburgh, has an early admission program to its graduate schools (law, business, medicine, and others) for qualified juniors. That is, students can apply to the program in the second semester of their junior year, and if admitted, can use the first year of the graduate program as their "senior year," in terms of credits needed for their bachelor's degree.
More to the point, this school has "guaranteed" graduate admissions for outstanding high school students, to which one of my smartest high school classmates was admitted. She had outstanding grades (4.0) and board scores (1500), and was "guaranteed" a place [in the medical school](https://oafa.pitt.edu/explore/guaranteed-admissions-programs/medicine-gap/) upon matriculation. The minimum requirement was that she had to take a "general science" major (biology, chemistry, physics), and earn a 3.75 GPA, but given her high school achievements, this was not in doubt. (She now has a thriving practice.)
For someone that knows what they want, are there any meaningful downsides to "enrolling" in a graduate program (medicine, law, business), right out of high school?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are sure that you want to be in a particular profession, say law, then these programs can provide a bit of a short cut. However, if you change your mind along the way you may wind up with an "unusable" education as it may be missing critical elements needed elsewhere.
However, if you can change your mind and still have a good path forward, then there should be no real downside. In particular, if the intervening years include a real undergraduate degree in a meaningful field, then there is no reason to actually finish the professional program. There isn't a contract that you have to fulfill.
In some ways this is just a marketing stunt by a school who wants to increase applications of good students. There are no guarantees on either side, I'm sure, as the student has to fulfill the requirements stated to move on to the professional portion, and the student is free to leave at any time that they feel their needs aren't being met.
But a program that is so specialized that you don't get a good general education along the way would, in my view, be a mistake. A mistake for the individual as well as for society. A program that only makes technocrats can turn out people who are actively dangerous as their world view is too narrow.
Moreover, if you want to later extend your education beyond the professional training you get in such a program, you may find that you don't have the needed background. That would depend on the details, of course.
Actually, I also question the wisdom of encouraging people of that age to 'lock in' to a particular profession. A lot of changes happen in the lives of 17-18 years olds. As a parent I would discourage such things in favor of a more general education in which they could put off such decisions until they have more perspective. I recognize that not everyone feels that way, of course. If a kid wants to be a doctor simply because both mom and dad are doctors he/she should really look around first. (I feel the same way about academia as a profession, in fact.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Essentially, the guaranteed admissions program is an incentive for excellent students to choose to enroll in the university's undergraduate program. For the average student, admission to a medical school is very valuable. To an excellent student, admission to any medical school is easy to obtain, and therefore admission to a particular one is not worth much. In exchange for the incentive, the student gives up the opportunity to enroll in an undergraduate degree elsewhere. For an average student, that is a small sacrifice. For an excellent student, who could enroll anywhere for an undergraduate degree, it is a higher cost.
In short, the better the student, the worse the deal they are getting. The university is probably only offering this program to the best students it thinks might accept the offer.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/13
| 685
| 2,079
|
<issue_start>username_0: The report is called The Path Forward: Rethinking Federal Policy on Marijuana. I have no idea how to cite this online source. It seems confusing since it isn't a bill but rather just something he wrote to inform. Website: <https://blumenauer.house.gov/sites/blumenauer.house.gov/files/BlumenauerReport_ThePathForward.pdf><issue_comment>username_1: I searched google scholar to find your article [The path forward: rethinking federal marijuana policy](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=the%20path%20forward%20rethinking%20federal%20marijuana%20policy&btnG=) and from there you can cite it using several different formats including MLA by clicking the double quotation symbol as shown in the figures below:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zNjhB.png)
---
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TIuvm.png)
Also in the second figure you can click the BibTeX link.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two different ways I might cite it. I have included the examples from the page I link to.
First, you could cite it as a [webpage](https://columbiacollege-ca.libguides.com/mla/websites):
>
> <NAME>. "Mom Am I Fat?: Helping Your Teen Have a Positive Body Image." Verywell.com, About Inc., 20 Apr. 2016, www.verywell.com/mom-am-i-fat-3200843. Accessed 7 July 2016.
>
>
>
Second, you could cite it as a [Government Document](https://columbiacollege-ca.libguides.com/mla/govdocs)
>
> Highlights from the Competition Bureau’s Workshop on Emerging Competition Issues. Competition Bureau of Canada, 4 Mar. 2016, www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/vwapj/cb-Workshop-Summary-Report-e.pdf/$FILE/cb-Workshop-Summary-Report-e.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2016.
>
>
>
I would **not** use Google Scholar's suggested citation. In my own experience, the suggestions are often poorly formatted for "grey" literature and contain errors for scientific article citation details.
Upvotes: 1
|
2018/08/13
| 5,737
| 24,435
|
<issue_start>username_0: [8 Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to Win a Nobel Prize](https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize)
[Funding Analysis: Researchers Say NIH Grant Funding Allocation Seems No Better Than Lottery](https://scicasts.com/insights/2121-funding/10748-funding-analysis-researchers-say-nih-grant-funding-allocation-seems-no-better-than-lottery/)
[The same paper resubmitted to the same journal after several years often ends up rejected due to 'serious methodological errors'](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/peerreview-practices-of-psychological-journals-the-fate-of-published-articles-submitted-again/AFE650EB49A6B17992493DE5E49E4431)
For people whose profession revolves around making order out of seemingly-random observations, scientists sure are inconsistent at judging the work of other scientists. Why? It certainly doesn't seem to be like this at all levels. For example according to the [GRE's website](https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/scores/how/),
>
> For the Analytical Writing section, each essay receives a score from two trained raters, using a six-point holistic scale. In holistic scoring, raters are trained to assign scores on the basis of the overall quality of an essay in response to the assigned task. If the two assigned scores differ by more than one point on the scale, the discrepancy is adjudicated by a third GRE reader. Otherwise, the two scores on each essay are averaged.
>
>
>
This implies that it's uncommon for two assigned scores to differ by more than one point on the scale, i.e. GRE essay raters usually agree. Similarly, as far as I know, undergraduate thesis readers, MS thesis readers and even PhD thesis readers don't usually come to diametrically opposed judgments on the piece of work. Yet once it gets to research-level material, peer reviewers no longer seem to agree. Why?<issue_comment>username_1: Good question. Hard to answer. Some thoughts:
* reviewers are not trained
* reviewers are anonymous
* reviewers receive minor feedback on their performance
* reviewers are also authors, competing for the same funds/ prestige
* reviewers are specialized in a narrow discipline
* reviewers are volunteers
* reviewers are scarce
* the review system lacks an external (independent) control system (audit)
* reviewers are humans, with their own personal interests, emotions, capabilities
Considering these observations, it is unlikely to expect two review reports to be aligned. Then the difficult decision transfers to the associate editor who is also a volunteer and not specialized in the author’s field.
Leaves the question why it is accepted while outside science this wouldn’t be. Honestly, I don’t know. Just some guesses:
* Science is a powerful isolated sector with its own rules?
* The current system works for established research groups?
* Jourals do not have the funding to train and attract qualified professionals/scientists as reviewers?
* There is no easy solution or alternative?
Added based on comment:
- reviewers are busy scientists
- reviewers are career-wise not rewarded for conducting reviews
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: The biggest difference is that, up to PhD thesis level, the person doing the assessing is more of an expert than the person being assessed. In almost all these cases there is an agreed set of standard skills, techniques and knowledge that any assessor can be expected to possess and any assessee is being measured against.
This isn't so true of a PhD thesis, but in the end once a supervisor/thesis committee has green lit a student, almost all PhD theses are passed.
It's definitely not true higher up. In almost all cases the person being reviewed will be more of an expert in their work than anyone doing the reviewing. The only exceptions will be direct competitors, and they will be excluded. We are talking right at the edge of human knowledge, different people have different knowledge and skill sets.
I'm quite surprised that the GRE scores are so consistent. It’s long been known that essay marking is pretty arbitrary (see for example Diederich 1974[1]).
Mind you 1 mark on a 6 mark scale is 15% – a pretty big difference. In our degree a 70 and above is a 1st class degree – the best mark there is, whereas 55 is a 2:2, a degree that won't get you an interview for most graduate jobs. Losing 15% on a grant assessment will almost certainly lose you the grant.
But even to obtain this level of consistency, the graders must have been given a pretty prescriptive grading rubric. In research, no such rubric exists; there are not pre-defined criteria against which a piece of research is measured, and any attempt to lay one down would more or less break the whole point of research.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: **Different tasks, different results.**
All the GRE graders have to do is assign scores but they are doing so to dozens or hundreds of essays. They receive clear guidance and examples about what score given essays should probably receive. So it’s basically checking boxes to justify a small set of results.
A peer review analysis is fundamentally different since you’re asking for a much more technically difficult task. They have to evaluate if the analysis is accurate, not if it’s responsive to a prompt. There’s no set of examples to draw on either. So the focus of peer review can be very different for different reviewers who may have different sets of expertise and certainly will have their own points of view.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Submission overload
-------------------
We write more and more, and the typical submission quality seems to be going down. This has various reasons, including *bad incentives* in particular in China. If your salary directly on the papers accepted, quantity beats quality...
IMHO we are close to a tipping point now. Many of the expert reviewers refuse almost any reviewing request - because so many submissions are so sloppy, that it's quite annoying to review them. It should be different: most submissions should be so high quality that you enjoy reading that and can focus on the details. So more and more experts are just annoyed. They delegate more of the reviewing to students, or simply refuse. But that now means the remaining reviewers get more requests, and more bad papers. This can tip quickly, just like most ecosystems.
So the editors need to find other reviewers, and we get less and less expert reviewers. This also opens doors to scams and schemes. [Multimedia Tools and Applications for example seems to have fallen prey to editor and reviewer manipulation scheme.](https://retractionwatch.com/2018/08/02/a-journal-waited-13-months-to-reject-a-submission-days-later-it-published-a-plagiarized-version-by-different-authors/)
So what's the solution? I don't know.
* Make the handling editor and the reviewer names public and thus accountable on accepted papers - this used to be quite common; expert reviewers tend to stand publicly to their reviews if they accept the paper (this used to be an actual *endorsement* of the work in some fields). This makes corruption and scheming easier to discover with modern analysis. But this will likely just make it harder to find expert reviewers...
* Do the first review only with one reviewer (to reduce the load on the reviewers), possible outcomes "early reject" and "full review".
* Require authors to do 5 reviews per accepted publication (so the experts cannot just stop reviewing completely, unless they retire - first publication is "free", but you cannot keep on rejecting review requests)?
* Actually pay the expert reviewers! Once you are confident that a submission is worth it, that should be an option given Elseviers absurd profit margin. I believe the main problem here is the bureocracy involved here (who decides if a review is high quality) and the different wage costs in different countries. Nevertheless, combined with above pre-review, this will increase the "worth" of good reviews. But this, in turn, increases the risk of schemes to make money from this...
* Review reviews, and give out best reviewer awards.
* Punish repeated rejects with a delay to make spamming costly.
* Put a limit on the number of submissions per author and year (probably will just mean the submissions go elsewhere - so it may help a particular journal, but not the entire community)?
* Ban financial incentives - if your country/university has such a direct financial incentive, you aren't allowed to submit to certain top journals. Then these bad incentives will be quickly abolished because they tend to also ask for top journals. But it may just make the payments become delayed or hidden... I don't know. I am not an expert on policy. These are just some ideas.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: This won't really answer your question, I realize, but I'd like to address your first example - rejected papers that later led to Nobel prizes.
Sometimes a piece of work is *Frame Breaking* and it leads to a *Paradigm Shift* within a field. This has happened many times in history, since at least Copernicus and Galileo. Einstein's early work on relativity was rejected among the physics/astronomy hoi oligoi as it was too different from the belief in the Aether at the time. The most prominent members of the field reject a radically new idea and their students, who are pervasively represented usually go along.
It has been said that revolutions in physics require the death or retirement of the most respected researchers so that the ideas of the young can get a fair hearing and come to the fore.
That is in fact an explanation of at least some of the eight papers referenced in your first link.
I don't think that many of us write paradigm changing papers, but it occasionally happens. The truly brilliant (not guilty) among us often must labor in near silence and obscurity for most of a generation. The next generation may celebrate them, or it may take even longer.
When a reviewer is faced with a truly frame breaking paper they, by definition, have no frame of reference in which to evaluate it. It is orthogonal to their entire way of thinking. "This must be nonsense", is the too-natural response.
Read, for example, the short Wikipedia biography of [Ramanujan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: To compare academic peer review to GRE grading -- that makes apples and oranges look all but identical. Let's step a little closer:
>
> Similarly, as far as I know, undergraduate thesis readers, MS thesis readers and even PhD thesis readers don't usually come to diametrically opposed judgments on the piece of work.
>
>
>
That is certainly not always true and highly field dependent. In certain parts of academia it is a standard grad student horror story that Committee Member A insists that the thesis be cast in terms of Theoretical Perspective X, while Committee Member B insists that the thesis be cast in terms of Theoretical Perspective Y, where X and Y may be intellectually incompatible *or* sociologically incompatible: i.e., each theory has rejection of the other as a central tenet. This is more common in humanities where the nature of "theory" to the rest of the work is rather different, but it is not unheard of in the sciences either.
As a frequent committee member, I also happen to know that coming to a consensus judgment is a sociological phenomenon as well as an intellectual one -- i.e., some differences in judgment are limited only to the private discussion following the defense and other differences in judgment are never verbalized at all.
This is helpful in understanding the disparity in peer review: in peer review, the different referees are (in my experience, at least) never in direct communication with each other, and in fact may not be seeing each other's verdicts at all: as a referee, I believe that I have never been shown another referee report. In fact,
[Who watches the watchmen?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)
There is no aspect of the academic process that makes me feel like a lone masked vigilante more than being a referee. Surely people who do GRE grading go through some lengthy *training process* of repeated practice evaluating, feedback on those evaluations, discussion of the larger goals, and so forth. There is nothing like this for academic referees. We get no practice, and there is very little evaluation of our work. If I turn in what is (I guess!) an unusually comprehensive report unusually quickly, I will often get a "Hey, thanks!" email from the editor. In the (thankfully rather small) number of instances where my referee reports were months overdue, I either heard **nothing** from the editors (I am ashamed to say that once I figured out on my own that a paper I thought I had had for a few months had actually been an entire year) or got carefully polite pleas for me to turn in the report. I have never gotten any negative feedback after the fact. Unlike GRE graders, referees are **volunteers**.
I find (again, in my experience and in my academic field of mathematics) that referees are almost never given instructions that amount to any more than "1) Use your best judgment. 2) We are a really good journal and want you to impose high standards." I also notice that 2) is said for journals of wildly differing quality. What does it mean to "impose high standards"? I take that directive seriously and fire my shots into the dark as carefully as I can, but....of course that is ridiculously, maximally subjective.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Contributing a point beyond other answers:
**Different levels of effort going into the review leads to different outcomes.**
Papers are often written such that on a first pass read, it's supposed to read "pretty good" even if a more critical deep read and/or check of references would expose gaping holes, serious methodological issues, and alternative explanations for the results observed. Sometimes, an even more-effortful review can find that these issues don't actually matter in the particular case applicable to that specific paper (though the author should generally add this to the paper text itself).
While reviewers are incentivized to do a good job by the general knowledge that the system depends on that, specific instances are generally not incentivized and reviews sometimes get left to the last minute with a reviewer who's short on sleep and long on other tasks, who doesn't put in the effort for a good review. Thus, the result could be very different than even the **same paper** getting reviewed by the **same reviewer** at a different time. With no visibility into the factors affecting that outcome, it seems random.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: With respect to the *good papers being rejected* problem, a factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet is that the consequences of accepting a bogus paper are much worse than those of rejecting a good paper. If a good paper is rejected, it can always be resubmitted to a different journal. And if the authors first revise according to the reviewer comments, the version that ends up getting published may well be better written than the one that was rejected. All that's lost is time.
But if a bogus paper is *accepted*, other scientists may see it in the literature, assume its results to be valid, and build their own work upon it. This could result in significant lost time on *their* part, as experiments that depend on the bogus result don't work out as they should (which at least may lead to the bogus paper being retracted if the errors are bad enough). Or maybe they'll avoid researching along a line that *would* have worked, because the bogus paper implies it wouldn't, or worse, they'll end up with inaccurate results themselves and end up putting *another* paper with bad data into the literature. All of these are far worse outcomes than just needing to resubmit a paper, so false negatives are preferred to false positives when reviewing.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_9: To address the aspect of:
>
> The same paper resubmitted to the same journal after several years often ends up rejected due to 'serious methodological errors'
>
>
>
In about one third of the papers I reviewed, I identified fundamental flaws that could not be addressed by revising the paper (you would have to write a new paper instead). Some examples just to give you a taste:
* The entire analysis was a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., the result was an assumption.
* An proposed characteristics was a roundabout way of measuring some much more trivial property. (This happened twice already.)
* A proposed model ignores the dominant mechanism for what it is supposed to model.
* The entire study was about understanding an artefact of a well-known beginner’s mistake (without identifying that mistake).
While I may have been wrong about these things, the authors never addressed my concerns, be it in a rebuttal or version of the paper published in another journal (which never happened in most of these cases) – which is something they should do even if I am wrong.
Now these issues may seem like they should have been easy to spot, but evidently they weren’t: I spotted some of these flaws only when writing up the actual review, and I witnessed (and performed) quite a few jaw droppings when discussing papers with co-reviewing colleagues¹ whom I knew to be thorough. Also, in some cases I saw reports of other referees who were otherwise exhaustive but did not spot the issues.
So, to conclude: Even fundamental flaws are difficult to spot. A given reviewer only has a comparably small chance to spot a given flaw in a paper. Therefore there is a considerable chance that all of the reviewers fail.
---
¹ Yes, that’s a thing in my field and fully accepted by the journals.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: The fundamental difference between grading GRE essays and reviewing scientific papers submitted for publication has been has been cogently discussed in several previous answers. The fundamental difference between reviewing grant applications and papers for publication has not.
**Publications.** When a paper is submitted to a journal it is usually supposed to be a finished product, or at least one finished step toward a defined goal. It is truly difficult
to find reviewers who are able to assess the importance of a paper and to
find every gap in reasoning or every imperfection in technique, but at least
reviewers of journal articles have the *results* of a piece of research at hand.
A potential Nobel paper may cover material so new or so far off the beaten track that it will be especially difficult to review fairly. A paper resubmitted after several years may have been based on procedures or techniques that have
been considerably refined in the meantime. So maybe they were state
of the art at the time of original submission, but are now 'seriously flawed' in terms of currently
available methods. So it is hardly surprising that reviewers don't score 100% on
those tasks.
However, even though reviewers are unpaid, overworked volunteers, working with no specialized training or feedback on the details of reviewing, I think it is surprising how well journal reviewing works in practice.
**Grants.** By contrast, making judgments about research grants is an entirely different
kind of activity. Some years ago (when US federal funding was available at a much higher level than it is now), I spent several years at a federal agency with a reasonably large budget for supporting basic and applied research in a variety of scientific fields. So I will try to address this part of the picture briefly. I will begin by saying that I am not at all surprised that a panel of research scientists would find the funding of NIH (or any other US government agency) to
be 'no better than a lottery'.
Generally speaking, if you know exactly what you are doing,
how long it will take, and how much it will cost, you're not doing research. Reviewers can often be useful, in assessing a proposer's track record of success and providing a rough idea whether the proposer is competent to
undertake research in a particular area. (I should add that most program directors are well aware of the standards, biases, foibles, and strengths of the reviewers they use. I was seldom surprised by the contents of a requested review, but the few surprises were extremely valuable.) However, reviewer input is only a part of the picture.
Going beyond reviewer input, program directors in granting agencies have to take other factors into account. To some degree they must consider
financial, political, and infrastructural factors. 'Political' usually means that that money was appropriated or donated
specifically to support a particular scientific goal. Infrastructural concerns
may center on developing technologies that are agency goals, training graduate students in fields where there are not enough researchers, whether the institution requesting the grant has the sophistication for adequate stewardship, and so on.
In the
US, agencies such as NIH, NSF, DoE, EPA, various defense agencies, and various privately funded foundations may have very different goals. However clearly these agency
missions and objectives may be spelled out in 'requests for proposals', they are often ignored by grant applicants, who might make a better case for their work if the
appropriate connections were made clear.
In spite of these constraints on awarding of grants, program directors strive to
support nothing but the highest quality science, and I believe they usually succeed at that. In my experience, almost all of them view themselves as scientists first and agency bureaucrats second.
Often their success is with the considerable help of reviewers, but sometimes not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: When I was in grad school in computer science I noticed a few challenges in the paper review process. Most of these things I observed through the experiences of others:
1. Journals and conferences use the community of prior authors to review papers. The people who publish the most are working very hard. They may not be able to devote enough time to review a paper well. If the material in the paper is novel, unfamiliar, dull, highly technical, or lacking clarity then those factors make it less likely to be reviewed carefully.
2. The reviewer who was originally selected by the publication may hand the review task off to a graduate student. The student may just be learning to read and digest research papers in the field. If the material is difficult then the inexperienced reviewer may not be able to review it adequately and may not have learned to qualify their judgements according to their degree of understanding.
3. The most qualified reviewers often have strong viewpoints about the subject matter and may have a very different approach. The cognitive and emotional dissonance one feels when trying to understand the application of unfamiliar tools to familiar problems can be too much to overcome. Of course this hard work can lead to benefits for both parties when the process works.
4. A successful new approach can even be felt as threatening to other researchers or to the community as a whole. Real breakthroughs will disrupt the lines of research that others are pursuing. That is one reason that strong claims will be held to a higher standard of justification.
5. Authors compete for limited space in journals and conferences. I've heard authors say they feel a paper was rejected due to an unfair review by a self-interested rival. Of course they usually can't know this for sure.
6. Sometimes reviewers make valid comments but the strong emotional attachment the author feels to their work causes them to reject the feedback. This can deadlock the process, making it difficult to get work published due to uncorrected flaws, even when the work is strong. I have read about this happening even to some famous papers.
Publishing papers is an essential professional activity for most of the authors, but reviewing papers is an act of community service. That sums up a lot of the specific problems.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/13
| 585
| 2,584
|
<issue_start>username_0: (Within the standard review process) I received review comments on a paper, one of the reviewers, say A, waived his anonymity in the review submitted to the journal (I know A personally). Now, A made some suggestions (essentially about some way of using software developed by students of A) which do not work (suggested feature does not exist). Should I
* write an email to A directly asking about clarifications on how to use the software as he suggested, at the risk of the handling editor feeling like I went behind his back
* write this email, but include the handling editor as CC:, at the risk of A feeling like I would "belittle" him "in front of" the editor, or
* mention in the response that the feature was not implemented in the suggested software, citing documentation / error messages<issue_comment>username_1: It would not be appropriate for the reviewer to contact you before the review is submitted, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
I would send a note back to A, thanking him/her for the suggestions and saying I would look in to it as you revise. You don't need to make any commitment nor to actually take the advice. The paper is yours. The editor will have a say when you submit any future version.
But do take a hard look at the advice. Maybe there is a germ of truth in what is said and that caused the reviewer to reach out. Maybe not.
If it is later reviewed by the same person who then objects to your not taking the advice offered you can complain to the editors at that point. There is no need to raise any issue now.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: No matter what, I would suggest keeping all formal communications and responses within the journal system, even though the reviewer has waived anonymity. That way, you keep a clear record both for yourself and the editor but also for the other anonymous reviewers (if the journal shares reviews between reviewers as many do) and for any other journal staff who might later need to audit the interaction.
Now, given that the reviewer has revealed themselves, you may or may not find it appropriate to communicate *informally* about concerns that you may have. If the journal has approved the waver of anonymity (e.g., by the identity being revealed in the review that you were sent), then it's definitely OK. If it's come through a side-channel, however, then some might consider it fine (e.g., "anonymity is just to protect reviewers") and some might consider it unethical (e.g., "talking to your friend gives an unfair advantage").
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2018/08/13
| 1,234
| 5,480
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am waiting for my PhD viva and I would like to start applying for Post-docs or faculty positions. We all know that a CV is never too good, so I would like to ask some things about the elements of evaluation for Post-Doctoral/tenure-track faculty positions. I know each university has its own rules, so I am looking for a general answer here. My PhD is in the field of Mechanical Engineering from an European University.
How important are:
* TPC (Technical Program Committee) at conference?
* Reviewer at journals and/or conferences?
* Journal papers. What metrics are important? Impact factor, indexing (ISI, Scopus, Scimago quarter). Is quantity more important or less important than quality?
* Conference papers. Are they of significant importance compared to journal papers? What metrics are important here? Indexing? Proceedings resulting in publication are more valuable than those private (only on the proceedings book).
* Previous research grants as R&D engineer with a MS. degree. They seem to be really important. How should it be stated? Reference of the grant, name of the project, and length?
* Advanced studies diploma (1st year of some doctoral degrees). Is it very important?
* Recommendation letters. How many are usually needed? Should all of them be of University lecturers, or engineers working at industry are also appreciated, if they previously worked with me?
* Professional references. Are they needed if recommendation letters are sent out?
* Does any other metric seem to be important, like teaching experience?<issue_comment>username_1: Since postdoc funding is usually tied to a project, the most important criteria in evaluating them is generally how relevant their work experience is to the project at hand. If somebody has particularly suitable skills you might bypass someone with a stronger CV on “paper” but might require more training.
As for faculty positions, the goal is to find someone who will be able to establish and sustain high-quality research and teaching. The hiring committee may want particular research disciplines within the larger field or are just looking for the best available candidate. So activities that demonstrate your abilities to publish, bring in money, and earn the respect of your peers are all important. (If you’ve applied for and won a competitive researc( grant as a student, that’s something that should absolutely be highlighted.)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You seem to be most interested in a primarily research position so I'll say a few things about that and then give a broader answer.
Every candidate is different, with a different mix of positive and maybe negative factors. Every hiring committee is different with its own concerns. Every university is different, and usually they have a well-defined "mission."
But it is up to the candidate to make the case to the specific committee. Nothing positive that you do professionally is likely to hurt you unless your interests are wildly different from the "mission." So, for a research focused position at a university with a research focused mission all of the things you mention are good and any of them can be stressed in your application.
All universities love that sweet sweet grant money and some fundamentally depend on it, so be aware of that in seeking employment. It is hard to get tenure in some places without quite a lot of grant support. Other places it means little, but is still valued. Especially if the grant can support students.
However, you should try to match your own interests with the mission of the place. If you are very hot to do research you will be very frustrated at a place with little research synergy. Likewise there might be little future for a person interested primarily in teaching and advising at an R1 university.
Note that some small Liberal Arts colleges have a strong research reputation, others do not. In the US, some state universities stress a teaching mission over research. Others are just the opposite.
At one Ivy League college/university that I know of, faculty in Computer Science were (and maybe still are) given a choice of focus - teaching or research. They valued both and didn't require that every faculty be equally invested in both. But you had to excel in the one you focused on and be "acceptable" in the other. You couldn't ignore one aspect entirely. So, just as you need to make your own case for getting hired, you need to make your own case for tenure and the value of the various things isn't fixed in stone.
Note also that some R1 level universities in the US have a special category for teaching faculty. The criteria for hiring and retention are quite different from that of the research faculty. There can be a place for both.
If you want to do research today, but are at a small place that doesn't support it well, you will need to establish and maintain a wider group of contacts, possibly world-wide. This was impossible before the internet and relatively cheap travel, but is now a possibility. In my later years I collaborated with an international group, a few of whom I only met face to face a few times. But it takes extra effort if the coffee-room crowd can't help you explore your current interests.
---
Technical note. In some fields, such as CS, conference papers are extremely valuable. In other fields, not so much. Much of the intellectual life of the field can be carried on in good conferences.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/13
| 786
| 3,271
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently at the end of my PhD and will be defending my thesis in the next two weeks. I have been offered a postdoc position at a university in the USA that is set to begin in October 2018.
I have asked the HR department of my new employer in the USA for information about the visa application process but I have gotten very little response/information. Is it typically up to the postdoc to sort out their own visa or do universities in the USA usually guide you through the process?
Note: I am moving from Ireland to the USA, if this makes any difference.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, they should help you with the visa process, at least to some extent. In fact, they will likely have to sponsor your application. You will probably require a J1 (non-immigrant) visa for a postdoc in the US. More information on how to apply for such a visa is provided [here](https://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply).
In short, you will need a designated sponsor. Your university likely has this status. They have certain obligations to support and monitor your progress during the stay. If the university has an international office, they can likely provide you with more detail.
In any case, for you to apply for a J1 visa, you will need to have a copy of Form DS-2019 provided by the university. This is issued by the designated sponsor, confirming your eligibility for the J1 visa program, and contains some details about their exchange program (under which postdocs from abroad will typically fall, if my understanding is correct), start and end dates, and how your stay is funded. Without this DS-2019 form you cannot apply for the visa at the embassy. You will also need to bring it to the interview at the embassy, where the consular officer will evaluate your application.
One important thing to note is that if you will bring dependents with you (spouse or child), they will need their own DS-2019 forms to apply for a J2 visa.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Indeed, as mentioned in Pieter's answer, the university will have an office that is supposed to help you with this (often called International Scholars Office or something of the sort).
It does happen that administrative offices are not always as helpful or responsive as they ought to be. As a postdoc you presumably have a mentor or PI at the university whom you will be working with, and they have a vested interest in making sure you can start work on time. So I would reach out to your mentor and let them know you are having trouble getting what you need from the international office. If there are specific deadlines that have to be met, include that information, to give a sense of the urgency. They are likely to be able to prod the people in that office and help move the process along.
Keep in mind that this is usually the same office that handles visas and other matters for international students, and the school year is just about to start at most US universities, so the office may well be flooded with issues related to incoming students. As such, they may be able to be more responsive after the first couple weeks of the school year, once the flood eases. But it's not clear if you can afford to wait that long.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/13
| 2,050
| 8,802
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I did not publish any papers till now in reputed journals and I want to publish a paper with a novel idea. Colleagues are suggesting me to ask any expert to proofread the paper and then to include his name as one of the authors. But I don't want to involve any other person and want to do everything on my own and if any revisions are there, I revise my paper according to the comments by reviewers. In addition to that that are saying that there is a possibility of immediate rejection without seeing the content if authors are new and English is poor.
Some are emphasising that the author names with a good track record can influence the reviewers to fasten the process of reviewing and avoids immediate rejection.<issue_comment>username_1: One hopes that the process is more honest than your colleague fears, but no one can guarantee it. In general, I think it is a poor practice and dishonest to include someone as author if they didn't participate in the creation of the work.
The idea that you could get advice from a respected person is probably good, but not that they become an "author" for making suggestions for improvement. You could, however, in an acknowledgement section, thank other people who made some small contributions.
But your idea of doing it all yourself and relying only on official reviewers is also fine.
If you are submitting to a journal or are in a place where prior reputation is all important then the advice might be different even if not really the best. But in such a case it is very difficult for a newcomer to ever advance.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In what you have written, you are confusing together two things:
1. Is the author known to the reviewers? (e.g., "names with a good track record")
2. Is the paper well written? (e.g., "English is poor")
While some sub-fields may have "cliques" that exclude people who are not part of them, most reputable scientific publications have a basically honest review process. Reviewers are human, and so even honest reviewers will tend to look more favorably on a person whose work they already respect---and thus many publication venues have double-blind review to try to eliminate this possibility.
If you haven't published in a well-reputed journal before, however, there's a good chance that your paper will not be well-written. Writing scientific papers is a skill, and that skill takes practice. Moreover, writing well is often much harder if you aren't writing in your primary language. And even if you write well in general, writing effectively to a particular scientific community requires being conversant with the current state of that community, in order to understand how readers (and reviewers) are likely to think about what you write.
Thus, I would strongly agree with your colleagues that it is extremely useful to get an expert to look at your paper. I would strongly *disagree* that means that expert should become an author---merely reading and commenting on a draft is definitely not sufficient for authorship.
If the expert finds problems in what you have written and is interested to become involved, however, it might be very good to begin a collaboration in which they work with you to refine your work and connect it better to the community of interest. In that case, the expert would indeed become a co-author: not because their name is valuable, but because their expertise has helped to improve the paper into something much stronger than it was before.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The review process has multiple stages. The first is an administrative/editorial review making sure the paper meets formatting requirements and is vaguely related to the area of specialty for the journal. At this stage the author's names do not matter since the person looking at the paper generally does not know everyone in the field. Really poor language very well may result in the manuscript being returned to the authors. At the end of this stage the manuscript is typically handed to the Editor in Chief or an associate/handling editor.
The EiC may also halt the process. The decision to precede at this stage might depend on the authors. If the EiC is unsure of the topic area, but recognizes an author that may help them decide on which AE to pass the paper to. A failure to recognize any authors and if the EiC cannot determine which AE to hand the paper to, may result in the manuscript being returned to the author or rejected. At the end of this stage the manuscript typically proceeds to the AE.
The job of the AE, at this stage, is to determine if the manuscript is worth the time of reviewers and find suitable reviewers. If the AE is doubtful about the manuscript, but recognizes the authors, they might send it for review while if they do not recognize the authors (or recognize the authors for causing problems), and the manuscript is bad, they might (and should) desk reject the manuscript. Typically, the manuscript then proceeds to the reviewers.
At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed. Sometimes the review is double-blind which means the authors cannot influence the decision, since the reviewer does not know who the authors are. Even when a single-blind system is used, the hope is that the authors do not influence the decision. That said, there is concern that it does, since double-blind systems are gaining popularity.
At all stages a poorly written manuscript can result in rejection and will likely lessen the quality of the reviews.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Colleagues are suggesting me to ask any expert to proofread the paper...
>
>
>
That's a good suggestion, although I would start by asking such experts to listen to an "elevator pitch" of your idea before you ask them for a more serious review. Also, what about your advisor, if you're a graduate student? S/he should help you with that.
>
> ...and then to include his name as one of the authors.
>
>
>
This part of the suggestion is inappropriate. Don't add his name unless s/he has made a significant contribution to the paper.
>
> But I don't want to involve any other person and want to do everything on my own
>
>
>
That's the wrong attitude. Part of the experience you're missing is knowing you shouldn't, and should not want to, do "everything on your own".
>
> and if any revisions are there, I revise my paper according to the comments by reviewers.
>
>
>
Don't rely on journal / conference reviewers to do the work of a colleague examining your paper. The reviewers should only need to make sure you haven't missed anything, and that the work is significant enough.
>
> there is a possibility of immediate rejection without seeing the content if authors are new and English is poor.
>
>
>
You need to make sure and write your paper in proper English. Consider improving your writing using a short book on the matter such as [The Elements of Style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style), or taking a university course in academic writing. If that's not enough - pay or find someone to do literary editing in English for you, to improve your skills and not get auto-rejected.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Short answer: **having a big name helps, but in practice the names that are big enough to help are not in business of letting themselves being added to mediocre papers**.
I've been in your situation before. English is my 3rd language and at the time it was a bit hard to write a paper up so it would seem on par with other papers in ranked journals. I went the solo route and don't regret it. The bottom line is you need to learn to write well by yourself. Your future career and earnings depend on it. Taking a shortcut now will become a huge technical debt later on in your career. Also, writing is soooo much more than just English grammar and style. You are the creator and the only one in command of the content and the structure of your paper. You need to have that control through all the revisions/resubmissions/rewrites your work will go through.
Practical advise: learn to proofread well and make time (~100 hours to proofread your own first paper is about right).
On proofreading by yourself:
* read aloud. Your ears will hear what your eyes miss;
* google search every phrase you are not sure about, in quotation marks, e.g. "till now" 41m results vs "until now" 199m results. Therefore you should write "until now".
* a paper is finished not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Edit as you proofread. No proofreader can help you with this.
With that being said, its great when you can get someone to proofread your paper, but not at the cost of diluting your ownership.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/13
| 2,628
| 11,044
|
<issue_start>username_0: In [this recent academia.SE question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115212/how-credible-is-an-lor-without-a-letterhead-for-ms-in-cs/115214?noredirect=1#comment302906_115214), the questioner mentions that as an undergraduate they did research with an **assistant professor**. That faculty member had a master's degree (only) at the time and has since moved on to be a PhD student at another institution.
To my American eyes, it seems strange to have the positions of "graduate student" and "faculty member" intertwined like this. In a comment, the questioner wrote
>
> Just to shed some more light on this, I come from India and here it is part of official policy to allow people with graduate degrees to rise to posts as high as assistant professor. I am not sure why this difference in academic practice has not come to the notice of admissions committees in the US in spite of the fact that thousands of Indian students have gone there over the years.
>
>
>
Well, I am the chair of a graduate admissions committee, and indeed this difference in academic practice had not come to my notice until now. I would like to understand it better -- in particular:
1) What does this position entail?
2) Which Indian institutions and departments are (still) hiring assistant professors with masters degrees?
3) Can a master's degree assistant professor retain that position indefinitely? Do they?
4) What percentage of higher-rank Indian professors did an assistant professorship between a master's and a PhD degree?
---
[Here follows more information about why I am asking the question and context about how what I know so far makes it sound different from the US. It is not necessary to read this part or address it in an answer.]
In the United States there are so many PhDs looking for academic jobs that the days when someone without a PhD can teach advanced undergraduates *at a research university or nationally ranked liberal arts college* are almost completely past (more precisely: there are still some such people, but they were hired a long time ago). However there are other institutions of higher learning in which faculty can teach with master's degrees, and I have known some cases. (I suspect that the window for this is shrinking as well, as we continue to produce many more PhDs desiring academic positions than the market can bear.)
But I don't know of any American institution of higher learning in which a faculty member with a master's degree can be an assistant professor but have no higher rank. Moreover, the type of institution which has tenure track faculty with master's degrees is quite different from the type of institution in which (i) faculty do research with their undergraduates and (ii) send students to graduate school. (I tried to choose language to minimize the elitism / academic caste-ism in that last assertion, but that minimum is unfortunately positive, since American academia *is* elitist...)<issue_comment>username_1: One hopes that the process is more honest than your colleague fears, but no one can guarantee it. In general, I think it is a poor practice and dishonest to include someone as author if they didn't participate in the creation of the work.
The idea that you could get advice from a respected person is probably good, but not that they become an "author" for making suggestions for improvement. You could, however, in an acknowledgement section, thank other people who made some small contributions.
But your idea of doing it all yourself and relying only on official reviewers is also fine.
If you are submitting to a journal or are in a place where prior reputation is all important then the advice might be different even if not really the best. But in such a case it is very difficult for a newcomer to ever advance.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In what you have written, you are confusing together two things:
1. Is the author known to the reviewers? (e.g., "names with a good track record")
2. Is the paper well written? (e.g., "English is poor")
While some sub-fields may have "cliques" that exclude people who are not part of them, most reputable scientific publications have a basically honest review process. Reviewers are human, and so even honest reviewers will tend to look more favorably on a person whose work they already respect---and thus many publication venues have double-blind review to try to eliminate this possibility.
If you haven't published in a well-reputed journal before, however, there's a good chance that your paper will not be well-written. Writing scientific papers is a skill, and that skill takes practice. Moreover, writing well is often much harder if you aren't writing in your primary language. And even if you write well in general, writing effectively to a particular scientific community requires being conversant with the current state of that community, in order to understand how readers (and reviewers) are likely to think about what you write.
Thus, I would strongly agree with your colleagues that it is extremely useful to get an expert to look at your paper. I would strongly *disagree* that means that expert should become an author---merely reading and commenting on a draft is definitely not sufficient for authorship.
If the expert finds problems in what you have written and is interested to become involved, however, it might be very good to begin a collaboration in which they work with you to refine your work and connect it better to the community of interest. In that case, the expert would indeed become a co-author: not because their name is valuable, but because their expertise has helped to improve the paper into something much stronger than it was before.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The review process has multiple stages. The first is an administrative/editorial review making sure the paper meets formatting requirements and is vaguely related to the area of specialty for the journal. At this stage the author's names do not matter since the person looking at the paper generally does not know everyone in the field. Really poor language very well may result in the manuscript being returned to the authors. At the end of this stage the manuscript is typically handed to the Editor in Chief or an associate/handling editor.
The EiC may also halt the process. The decision to precede at this stage might depend on the authors. If the EiC is unsure of the topic area, but recognizes an author that may help them decide on which AE to pass the paper to. A failure to recognize any authors and if the EiC cannot determine which AE to hand the paper to, may result in the manuscript being returned to the author or rejected. At the end of this stage the manuscript typically proceeds to the AE.
The job of the AE, at this stage, is to determine if the manuscript is worth the time of reviewers and find suitable reviewers. If the AE is doubtful about the manuscript, but recognizes the authors, they might send it for review while if they do not recognize the authors (or recognize the authors for causing problems), and the manuscript is bad, they might (and should) desk reject the manuscript. Typically, the manuscript then proceeds to the reviewers.
At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed. Sometimes the review is double-blind which means the authors cannot influence the decision, since the reviewer does not know who the authors are. Even when a single-blind system is used, the hope is that the authors do not influence the decision. That said, there is concern that it does, since double-blind systems are gaining popularity.
At all stages a poorly written manuscript can result in rejection and will likely lessen the quality of the reviews.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Colleagues are suggesting me to ask any expert to proofread the paper...
>
>
>
That's a good suggestion, although I would start by asking such experts to listen to an "elevator pitch" of your idea before you ask them for a more serious review. Also, what about your advisor, if you're a graduate student? S/he should help you with that.
>
> ...and then to include his name as one of the authors.
>
>
>
This part of the suggestion is inappropriate. Don't add his name unless s/he has made a significant contribution to the paper.
>
> But I don't want to involve any other person and want to do everything on my own
>
>
>
That's the wrong attitude. Part of the experience you're missing is knowing you shouldn't, and should not want to, do "everything on your own".
>
> and if any revisions are there, I revise my paper according to the comments by reviewers.
>
>
>
Don't rely on journal / conference reviewers to do the work of a colleague examining your paper. The reviewers should only need to make sure you haven't missed anything, and that the work is significant enough.
>
> there is a possibility of immediate rejection without seeing the content if authors are new and English is poor.
>
>
>
You need to make sure and write your paper in proper English. Consider improving your writing using a short book on the matter such as [The Elements of Style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style), or taking a university course in academic writing. If that's not enough - pay or find someone to do literary editing in English for you, to improve your skills and not get auto-rejected.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Short answer: **having a big name helps, but in practice the names that are big enough to help are not in business of letting themselves being added to mediocre papers**.
I've been in your situation before. English is my 3rd language and at the time it was a bit hard to write a paper up so it would seem on par with other papers in ranked journals. I went the solo route and don't regret it. The bottom line is you need to learn to write well by yourself. Your future career and earnings depend on it. Taking a shortcut now will become a huge technical debt later on in your career. Also, writing is soooo much more than just English grammar and style. You are the creator and the only one in command of the content and the structure of your paper. You need to have that control through all the revisions/resubmissions/rewrites your work will go through.
Practical advise: learn to proofread well and make time (~100 hours to proofread your own first paper is about right).
On proofreading by yourself:
* read aloud. Your ears will hear what your eyes miss;
* google search every phrase you are not sure about, in quotation marks, e.g. "till now" 41m results vs "until now" 199m results. Therefore you should write "until now".
* a paper is finished not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Edit as you proofread. No proofreader can help you with this.
With that being said, its great when you can get someone to proofread your paper, but not at the cost of diluting your ownership.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/13
| 2,189
| 9,018
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my first post-doc one of the primary researchers just dropped all communications. The upshot is that I have 3 years worth of research that I can't publish without his consent. He was initially keen to publish but when pressed to do his side of the papers he kept pushing the deadline & eventually ceased communicating altogether.
OK, so that happened & I moved on, I had no choice.
Unfortunately I find myself in a similar situations yet again. This time though the lack of communication is with a professor who, after coming up to a year, has not responded to my emails or phone calls. This again after an initial work division & publication plan had been worked out & agreed upon.
This time I do know that the prof is still working at the same place & is still collaborating with the same people but just not responding to me.
What are my options here? What would you do in this situation? I am considering Union representation but is that just going to be toothless?
I have been a post doc now for 5 years & I have nothing published in 4.5 years due to this kind of behaviour.<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately, you can't make someone collaborate or communicate with you if they don't want to. I think your only option is to either abandon the project, or rewrite it to remove the parts that your collaborator contributed and then publish it as solo work. I don't see how union representation could help in any way.
I'm pretty surprised that this would happen twice, and would wonder if there's something about your interactions that might be causing it. People usually don't voluntarily drop all contact with a collaborator unless something has happened that makes them uncomfortable to continue working with them - ethical concerns, abusive behavior, severe inability to communicate, etc. If you have a colleague who works in the field, and you trust them to be honest with you, you might want to show them the history of your communications and see if they observe any red flags which you might not be aware of.
If you have any common acquaintances with this collaborator, they might also be able to give you some idea as to what is going on.
Normally I'd wonder if there is some involuntary reason for lack of communication - illness, personal problems, death, spam filters - but here it sounds like you've ruled those out.
Regardless of what initially caused the breakdown, I don't think your strategy of "weekly emails/calls for a year" was a good one. I would probably send a maximum of about three messages / calls, with longer periods in between each, and the last one being an ultimatum of sorts: "if I don't hear back from you by date X, then I am going to do Y" (where Y could be stopping work on the project, or removing their contributions and proceeding, or whatever). And then if they don't respond, you do Y, and move on with your life. Persistence can be a virtue, but in this case I'm reminded of the saying about how insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Another tip for the future is to have multiple projects going on with multiple different collaborators, so that if one of them falls apart (either for scientific or interpersonal reasons) you still have some publications.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I've seen this many times.
Some scientists, in particular senior scientists, can be outrageously busy. They might have to be on your co-author list because they are responsible for the data. They might insist on being in the loop for the data analysis, but when it's time for feedback on exactly that, they have no time. They may be completely drowning in emails. They might rarely pick up the phone because they're constantly travelling or in meetings. They certainly don't have time to read a paper draft related to some data they provided to someone junior months or even years ago; they may not even remember. Do not take it personally just because they're not communicable. I've found that some scientists are eager to take on a lot more work than they are able to do (because everything is awesome!), but underestimate the time it takes. See [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) and [Hofstadter's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law). Scientists are human, the expectation from a senior scientist may not be human, the result is what we observe. I've had situations where I thought a senior scientist had lost interest, but then spoke to him for 5 minutes at a conference and soon found out that he was still quite interested instead — just incapable of allocating time.
Some senior scientists are very good at time management, manage to reply to emails and even give detailed manuscript feedback even when they're no less busy than any other senior scientist. In my experience, they are a minority.
How to prevent this? If possible, seek out less senior co-authors. That will reduce the risk of this happening. I've had better responses from co-authors junior enough to desperately need papers to have a chance at graduating/staying in science/etc.
How to get out of this situation? Try to reach them in other ways: phone their office, phone or email a secretary to find out when the scientist may be in, or if you're lucky enough to both attend a conference any time soon, try to seek them out during a conference break. Prepare some clear questions: do they still want to be on the paper? Are they happy for publication to go ahead? In my experience, the result is usually one of either:
1. *Please go ahead and remove me as a co-author, I don't have time. I'm OK with the data being only acknowledged/cited, instead of full co-authorship.*
2. *Please go ahead, keeping me as a co-author. If other co-author X approves the draft, you can assume I'm fine with the draft as well.*
3. *Let me introduce my postdoc/PhD student who is happy to take over my role on this study (we will both be co-authors).*
4. *I will have time in X days/weeks/months, please wait for me then.*
I've seen all of the above, sometimes with an added apology. I would be very cautious of the last answer, because in my experience, it usually ends up being not true.
If you reach them and they say they don't have time, you could even suggest if they might have a PhD student or postdoc who they could introduce you to (see point 3). Personally, I think #3 is the most professional answer.
You may need to press them, or ask a senior colleague to press them, to get one of those answers at all.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: *Asssuming as always that we get a complete and accurate picture of the situation by the OP:*
Until physics or medicine do something that under today's standards is indistinguishable from magic, there is one individual natural resource that depletes non-stop: time.
And yes, you are a grown up and you take your chances and accept risks when collaborating, like the ones you saw materialized. But that should not mean "if it doesn't work out smoothly, well, let it die".
>
> *The upshot is that I have 3 years worth of research that I can't
> publish without his consent.*
>
>
>
Compare: We are equal partners and decision-makers in a company, and you go on and disappear. Does this mean the company is doomed to remain in limbo forever? Dragging my fortunes with it?
I would seek both legal *and* academic-ethics advise on this, and on your current situation, probably they are available in your institution for free?
Seek detailed expert advise on how you could go on and publish. And in the advice that you will receive, try to detect the most "peaceful" approaches and suggestions -the goal is not to attack or criticize or shame the partner-that-disappeared, just not to throw your time and work in the garbage bin.
And, for the long-run, plan also some work that you can do alone.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Having endured my fair share of douchebaggery from professors during my PhD and postdoc, I suggest you send a **polite but firm ultimatum** to that professor that, unless he responds, you will unilaterally go ahead with the publication and acknowledge him only (or if you feel in a more generous mood, mention him as a co-author). Use all means of communication necessary such as e-mail, fax, and telephone, and keep all traces of your attempts at contacting him. Get others involved as well, for example by CC:ing his secretary, the other co-authors involved, as well as any stakeholder or relevant "witnesses". Give a clear deadline.
You have invested your time and effort and the professor is manifestly being disrespectful and unprofessional by not following up. If he ever complains after the ultimatum has elapsed, you can bring up all the evidence that you tried to reach him and that he is the only one to blame for this obnoxious behavior. There is no reason why your time an effort should go down the drain because of some else's poor deontology.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/13
| 2,018
| 8,225
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently working in TCS as an Oracle analyst. I did my bachelor's of engineering in Mechanical Engineering in 2017. Now I want to pursue my Master's in the same field. I am planning to apply to universities in Germany. Will my two years of working experience in IT sector affect my admission?<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately, you can't make someone collaborate or communicate with you if they don't want to. I think your only option is to either abandon the project, or rewrite it to remove the parts that your collaborator contributed and then publish it as solo work. I don't see how union representation could help in any way.
I'm pretty surprised that this would happen twice, and would wonder if there's something about your interactions that might be causing it. People usually don't voluntarily drop all contact with a collaborator unless something has happened that makes them uncomfortable to continue working with them - ethical concerns, abusive behavior, severe inability to communicate, etc. If you have a colleague who works in the field, and you trust them to be honest with you, you might want to show them the history of your communications and see if they observe any red flags which you might not be aware of.
If you have any common acquaintances with this collaborator, they might also be able to give you some idea as to what is going on.
Normally I'd wonder if there is some involuntary reason for lack of communication - illness, personal problems, death, spam filters - but here it sounds like you've ruled those out.
Regardless of what initially caused the breakdown, I don't think your strategy of "weekly emails/calls for a year" was a good one. I would probably send a maximum of about three messages / calls, with longer periods in between each, and the last one being an ultimatum of sorts: "if I don't hear back from you by date X, then I am going to do Y" (where Y could be stopping work on the project, or removing their contributions and proceeding, or whatever). And then if they don't respond, you do Y, and move on with your life. Persistence can be a virtue, but in this case I'm reminded of the saying about how insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Another tip for the future is to have multiple projects going on with multiple different collaborators, so that if one of them falls apart (either for scientific or interpersonal reasons) you still have some publications.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I've seen this many times.
Some scientists, in particular senior scientists, can be outrageously busy. They might have to be on your co-author list because they are responsible for the data. They might insist on being in the loop for the data analysis, but when it's time for feedback on exactly that, they have no time. They may be completely drowning in emails. They might rarely pick up the phone because they're constantly travelling or in meetings. They certainly don't have time to read a paper draft related to some data they provided to someone junior months or even years ago; they may not even remember. Do not take it personally just because they're not communicable. I've found that some scientists are eager to take on a lot more work than they are able to do (because everything is awesome!), but underestimate the time it takes. See [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) and [Hofstadter's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law). Scientists are human, the expectation from a senior scientist may not be human, the result is what we observe. I've had situations where I thought a senior scientist had lost interest, but then spoke to him for 5 minutes at a conference and soon found out that he was still quite interested instead — just incapable of allocating time.
Some senior scientists are very good at time management, manage to reply to emails and even give detailed manuscript feedback even when they're no less busy than any other senior scientist. In my experience, they are a minority.
How to prevent this? If possible, seek out less senior co-authors. That will reduce the risk of this happening. I've had better responses from co-authors junior enough to desperately need papers to have a chance at graduating/staying in science/etc.
How to get out of this situation? Try to reach them in other ways: phone their office, phone or email a secretary to find out when the scientist may be in, or if you're lucky enough to both attend a conference any time soon, try to seek them out during a conference break. Prepare some clear questions: do they still want to be on the paper? Are they happy for publication to go ahead? In my experience, the result is usually one of either:
1. *Please go ahead and remove me as a co-author, I don't have time. I'm OK with the data being only acknowledged/cited, instead of full co-authorship.*
2. *Please go ahead, keeping me as a co-author. If other co-author X approves the draft, you can assume I'm fine with the draft as well.*
3. *Let me introduce my postdoc/PhD student who is happy to take over my role on this study (we will both be co-authors).*
4. *I will have time in X days/weeks/months, please wait for me then.*
I've seen all of the above, sometimes with an added apology. I would be very cautious of the last answer, because in my experience, it usually ends up being not true.
If you reach them and they say they don't have time, you could even suggest if they might have a PhD student or postdoc who they could introduce you to (see point 3). Personally, I think #3 is the most professional answer.
You may need to press them, or ask a senior colleague to press them, to get one of those answers at all.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: *Asssuming as always that we get a complete and accurate picture of the situation by the OP:*
Until physics or medicine do something that under today's standards is indistinguishable from magic, there is one individual natural resource that depletes non-stop: time.
And yes, you are a grown up and you take your chances and accept risks when collaborating, like the ones you saw materialized. But that should not mean "if it doesn't work out smoothly, well, let it die".
>
> *The upshot is that I have 3 years worth of research that I can't
> publish without his consent.*
>
>
>
Compare: We are equal partners and decision-makers in a company, and you go on and disappear. Does this mean the company is doomed to remain in limbo forever? Dragging my fortunes with it?
I would seek both legal *and* academic-ethics advise on this, and on your current situation, probably they are available in your institution for free?
Seek detailed expert advise on how you could go on and publish. And in the advice that you will receive, try to detect the most "peaceful" approaches and suggestions -the goal is not to attack or criticize or shame the partner-that-disappeared, just not to throw your time and work in the garbage bin.
And, for the long-run, plan also some work that you can do alone.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Having endured my fair share of douchebaggery from professors during my PhD and postdoc, I suggest you send a **polite but firm ultimatum** to that professor that, unless he responds, you will unilaterally go ahead with the publication and acknowledge him only (or if you feel in a more generous mood, mention him as a co-author). Use all means of communication necessary such as e-mail, fax, and telephone, and keep all traces of your attempts at contacting him. Get others involved as well, for example by CC:ing his secretary, the other co-authors involved, as well as any stakeholder or relevant "witnesses". Give a clear deadline.
You have invested your time and effort and the professor is manifestly being disrespectful and unprofessional by not following up. If he ever complains after the ultimatum has elapsed, you can bring up all the evidence that you tried to reach him and that he is the only one to blame for this obnoxious behavior. There is no reason why your time an effort should go down the drain because of some else's poor deontology.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/14
| 2,226
| 8,614
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have two citations of groups of authors (same lead author) from the same year. Thus, in-text I am using (Smith et al. 2001a) and (Smith et al. 2001b).
For the bibliography should I list these references in the order that there were cited (2001a followed by 2001b) even if this bucks the alphabetic ordering of the overall bibliography? For example
>
> <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>. 2001a. ...
>
> <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>. 2001b. ...
>
>
>
Or should I do the reverse?
>
> <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>. 2001b. ...
>
> <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>., <NAME>. 2001a. ...
>
>
>
I'm thinking it should be the second option.<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately, you can't make someone collaborate or communicate with you if they don't want to. I think your only option is to either abandon the project, or rewrite it to remove the parts that your collaborator contributed and then publish it as solo work. I don't see how union representation could help in any way.
I'm pretty surprised that this would happen twice, and would wonder if there's something about your interactions that might be causing it. People usually don't voluntarily drop all contact with a collaborator unless something has happened that makes them uncomfortable to continue working with them - ethical concerns, abusive behavior, severe inability to communicate, etc. If you have a colleague who works in the field, and you trust them to be honest with you, you might want to show them the history of your communications and see if they observe any red flags which you might not be aware of.
If you have any common acquaintances with this collaborator, they might also be able to give you some idea as to what is going on.
Normally I'd wonder if there is some involuntary reason for lack of communication - illness, personal problems, death, spam filters - but here it sounds like you've ruled those out.
Regardless of what initially caused the breakdown, I don't think your strategy of "weekly emails/calls for a year" was a good one. I would probably send a maximum of about three messages / calls, with longer periods in between each, and the last one being an ultimatum of sorts: "if I don't hear back from you by date X, then I am going to do Y" (where Y could be stopping work on the project, or removing their contributions and proceeding, or whatever). And then if they don't respond, you do Y, and move on with your life. Persistence can be a virtue, but in this case I'm reminded of the saying about how insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Another tip for the future is to have multiple projects going on with multiple different collaborators, so that if one of them falls apart (either for scientific or interpersonal reasons) you still have some publications.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I've seen this many times.
Some scientists, in particular senior scientists, can be outrageously busy. They might have to be on your co-author list because they are responsible for the data. They might insist on being in the loop for the data analysis, but when it's time for feedback on exactly that, they have no time. They may be completely drowning in emails. They might rarely pick up the phone because they're constantly travelling or in meetings. They certainly don't have time to read a paper draft related to some data they provided to someone junior months or even years ago; they may not even remember. Do not take it personally just because they're not communicable. I've found that some scientists are eager to take on a lot more work than they are able to do (because everything is awesome!), but underestimate the time it takes. See [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) and [Hofstadter's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law). Scientists are human, the expectation from a senior scientist may not be human, the result is what we observe. I've had situations where I thought a senior scientist had lost interest, but then spoke to him for 5 minutes at a conference and soon found out that he was still quite interested instead — just incapable of allocating time.
Some senior scientists are very good at time management, manage to reply to emails and even give detailed manuscript feedback even when they're no less busy than any other senior scientist. In my experience, they are a minority.
How to prevent this? If possible, seek out less senior co-authors. That will reduce the risk of this happening. I've had better responses from co-authors junior enough to desperately need papers to have a chance at graduating/staying in science/etc.
How to get out of this situation? Try to reach them in other ways: phone their office, phone or email a secretary to find out when the scientist may be in, or if you're lucky enough to both attend a conference any time soon, try to seek them out during a conference break. Prepare some clear questions: do they still want to be on the paper? Are they happy for publication to go ahead? In my experience, the result is usually one of either:
1. *Please go ahead and remove me as a co-author, I don't have time. I'm OK with the data being only acknowledged/cited, instead of full co-authorship.*
2. *Please go ahead, keeping me as a co-author. If other co-author X approves the draft, you can assume I'm fine with the draft as well.*
3. *Let me introduce my postdoc/PhD student who is happy to take over my role on this study (we will both be co-authors).*
4. *I will have time in X days/weeks/months, please wait for me then.*
I've seen all of the above, sometimes with an added apology. I would be very cautious of the last answer, because in my experience, it usually ends up being not true.
If you reach them and they say they don't have time, you could even suggest if they might have a PhD student or postdoc who they could introduce you to (see point 3). Personally, I think #3 is the most professional answer.
You may need to press them, or ask a senior colleague to press them, to get one of those answers at all.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: *Asssuming as always that we get a complete and accurate picture of the situation by the OP:*
Until physics or medicine do something that under today's standards is indistinguishable from magic, there is one individual natural resource that depletes non-stop: time.
And yes, you are a grown up and you take your chances and accept risks when collaborating, like the ones you saw materialized. But that should not mean "if it doesn't work out smoothly, well, let it die".
>
> *The upshot is that I have 3 years worth of research that I can't
> publish without his consent.*
>
>
>
Compare: We are equal partners and decision-makers in a company, and you go on and disappear. Does this mean the company is doomed to remain in limbo forever? Dragging my fortunes with it?
I would seek both legal *and* academic-ethics advise on this, and on your current situation, probably they are available in your institution for free?
Seek detailed expert advise on how you could go on and publish. And in the advice that you will receive, try to detect the most "peaceful" approaches and suggestions -the goal is not to attack or criticize or shame the partner-that-disappeared, just not to throw your time and work in the garbage bin.
And, for the long-run, plan also some work that you can do alone.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Having endured my fair share of douchebaggery from professors during my PhD and postdoc, I suggest you send a **polite but firm ultimatum** to that professor that, unless he responds, you will unilaterally go ahead with the publication and acknowledge him only (or if you feel in a more generous mood, mention him as a co-author). Use all means of communication necessary such as e-mail, fax, and telephone, and keep all traces of your attempts at contacting him. Get others involved as well, for example by CC:ing his secretary, the other co-authors involved, as well as any stakeholder or relevant "witnesses". Give a clear deadline.
You have invested your time and effort and the professor is manifestly being disrespectful and unprofessional by not following up. If he ever complains after the ultimatum has elapsed, you can bring up all the evidence that you tried to reach him and that he is the only one to blame for this obnoxious behavior. There is no reason why your time an effort should go down the drain because of some else's poor deontology.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/14
| 2,637
| 10,878
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are plenty of questions asking about how exactly to cite certain things in certain citation styles. I tend to find these puzzling, as for me this is not something the author needs to care of, but something to be done automatically by BibTeX.
Now I am vaguely aware that some disciplines are not using LaTeX for their writing. I also know that there are citation tools outside LaTeX, but not quite how much these automate. This question however is about actual practise, not about what is possible.
Are these tools as widely used as BibTeX in the TeX community or are the tools more a niche thing and people actually cite "by hand" on a regular basis?
Is there a de facto standard?<issue_comment>username_1: When working with non-LaTeX users, I've seen people use many different workflows for citation management. The answer mainly depends upon what workflow and software people use. Here's some things I saw:
* EndNote. The EndNote web version had some nice features for sharing libraries across users. I used this in Grad School to collaboratively do a review of the literature. A downside is that the program requires a subscription.
* Zotero. I use this when I am forced to write in Word. It has nice import features that can import citations based upon DOI or ISBN. As a plus, it is open source. I also think there is a web version, but we're not allowed to use at work due to security concerns.
* Google Docs now has reference managers add-ons(Thank you [<NAME>](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/348/konrad-rudolph) for catching this). I have not used this before. But, I have written many first drafts of papers.
More broadly, my non-LaTeX workflow current consists of drafting a document in Google Docs and including references as comments (e.g., Smith et al. 2018 would have a comment with the full citation details). Once the group has written the document, someone pulls it down to Word and then adds in the citations with Zotero. Zotero can then automatically format using the same `.cls` files as BibTeX.
In my own, limited, experience, non-LaTeX users often have the desire to automate their workflows using reference mangers.
**Other programs and workflows**:
* [SecretAgentMan](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94518/secretagentman) reports that RefWorks makes nice workflows as well.
* [Ian](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/56698/ian) suggested Citavi works well for him.
* [Formite](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118/fomite) suggested Papers.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It isn't exactly hard to do references by hand, in any word processing system, just boring and a bit fiddly at times. However, given the number of questions here on references it isn't like the citation managers aren't fiddly as well.
Having in the deep dark past written citation handling/numbering preprocessers/code for nroff, spinoff, and straight TeX (since LaTeX was too foofy for *real* scientists), those aren't that hard to do either with a modicum of programming skill. After the pain of writing the system in the first place, it is all gravy from there.
Even 30 years ago programs such as EndNote made it pretty easy to get a citation manager that integrated well with Word (plus or minus various perversions caused by Word itself). Nowadays there are more options, and it mostly comes down to finding a word processing system and citation manager that work together and that you will stick with for long enough to make it worthwhile.
That last part is key - after investing the time and energy to build up and learn a system that works for you, it is a pain to change. All of a sudden you move from grad school to a post-doc, and your advisor doesn't use the same tool set -- what now? Do you switch from LaTeX to Word (and the citation manager as well)? Or do you do all editing/revisions on paper? Once you have switched (for whatever reason) a few times, one might decide that doing it all by hand really isn't so bad.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Endnote is very good, I can not only use export citation option on the webpage of articles and directly import them to my library, but also I can import my previous list of references in a certain format after putting some effort for software recognition. This effort is simply coding "first word is author, after the comma read as year etc. Then, you can export this bibliography in any format you want, this is crucial to apply for journals with different citation formats.
I also used Mendeley and it is also similar in that sense. However, I never used extensions or add-ins as my Microsoft Word or Internet Browser, (actually my computer) is already way slower than can be endured. Also sometimes hand-writing the reference is really easier , especially for internet sources but at that time it is, of course, not included in your library so sharing it with advisor becomes redundant in the end.
Latex is getting more and more famous, but they generally state that it is useful when you have so many tables/figures etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Although I use LaTeX for nearly everything I write, I've used BibTeX only once, and that was more than 20 years ago. It was such a nuisance to use that I gave up on it and resumed doing bibliography entries by hand.
It is, of course, reasonable to conjecture that BibTeX has improved in the last 20 years and that I should therefore give it another chance. But I still see errors in other people's papers that look just like the errors that I had to fight BibTeX about long ago --- incorrect capitalization and garbled math symbols being the most common ones.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Are these tools as widely used as BibTeX in the TeX community? ... Is there a de facto standard?
>
>
>
Small convenience sample: In my field, which is political science, "everybody" uses Word + Endnote.
Personally, I prefer markdown with a BibTeX library managed in Zotero and pandoc-citeproc to convert into Word, LaTeX, or whatever is needed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: To answer the literal question of how non-X-users cope with the thing that X supposedly automates... :)
I do not use bib-tex or other pretended automations of bibliographic management dealies, mostly because many things (especially just a few decades older, in mathematics) do not necessarily fit into the one-size-fits-all mold.
Years before there was an internet, I did collect (on cards fitting on a Rolodex! Google it!) precise references to many important items.
Nowadays I have a flat file (that I edit in Emacs) with lightly-formatted versions of the details for a few thousand items.
True, my disregard for various officially-sanctioned citation styles allows me to "not care"... so I don't think at all about conversion to those styles.
More pointedly, I have a positive interest in certifying that the pointer to a reference is correct, especially in situations of historical issues. So I really don't care about *format*, but about *information*.
Format is not (high quality) information... Sure, format can help information, but not necessarily. :)
EDIT: manipulation of various flat files I usually do by Perl scripts, or for simpler things just bash. At least that way I have a better idea of "what I'm getting", as opposed to naively believing naive software megaliths. :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I (and many of my collegaues) use Mendeley as paper and citation manager. It has a plugin for Word, that makes it extremely easy to insert citations.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I use Mendeley. It works very well with Kubuntu and LibreOffice.I've been using it for three years now, and it has improved a lot since then. The interface is very user-friendly. As far as I'm concerned right now it works almost perfectly and helps you keep your bibliographical sources organized. The only issue I experience now and then is when I'm using it to read and search heavy PDFs, it gets stuck and/or crashes. But it's probably due to my laptop's limitations.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Based on my experience, in German-speaking countries, Citavi is very common. It supports reference management by being connected to a lot of library databases.
It has a plugin for word, but also plugins for browsers to automatically pick e.g. IBAN's on website or to reference Websites. You can also import BibTex-Files.
I never used the BibTex-Software so I cannot really tell you the difference.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: I used LaTeX (with biber and biblatex) myself for my dissertation. However, in Social Sciences and Sociology it is uncommon if you want to publish in journals, proceedings and so forth. Word formats are the standard (which is imho rather painful).
For reference management and knowledge management I use (and heartly recommend) Citavi, which is a powerful tool, if used the right way. I organize my literature, my reading, my excerpts and qutations in it and connect pdfs to the titles. So everything is at one place. With keywords and groups you can structure your library further (topics and projects for example).
The word plugin is where the real magic happens: I simply write my articles and can add/remove/edit references in the process. Even access quotations, excerpts and so on directly from word. The bibliography is created instantly and without any hassle.
Citavi comes with a vast number of citing styles which can be searched and added. If you need individual styles, Citavi provides an editor where you can adapt existing styles or create your own from scratch.
The only drawbacks so far: it costs; it is only available for Windows / MS Word.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: There are some programs that make reference management easy for the non Latex user (biologists, cough cough). Mendeley, Papers, EndNote, Zotero, RefWorks. Usually you import the PDFs, configure or check the metadata, then you can add citations directly while you are writing the document in Microsoft Word. Then it will do any types of styles or formatting that you need automatically!
Also I heard that the standard reference stuff in Word isn't that bad.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: I used EndNote extensively in academia. It's great for managing citations and allows you to store full pdfs, create tags, add notes. It also integrates well to Office suites like Word.
If you are a non-LaTex user, you are probably using Microsoft Word, as its pretty much the defacto standard in a lot of fields. If you are new to the field and are just writing a single/few papers, and don't plan to keep the citations around for future search, Word is going to be much simpler than using EndNote. Look under `References > Citations % Bibliography > Manage Sources`
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/14
| 2,825
| 11,620
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently an undergrad and while I am attracted by research and a career in academia, I am on scholarship with a government body in my country and am contractually obligated to complete a 6 year bond in the civil service. I am allowed to complete a Masters degree before then, but not a PhD.
While I have accepted the fact that I won't be able to take the time-tested Bachelors-Masters-PhD route, I still think that there might be a chance that I might want to apply for a PhD program 6 years later, long after I graduate from university.
However, I'm worried about my ability to produce strong academic references by then, especially since my professors would probably have forgotten about me. Would it be appropriate for me to ask my professors to write a reference for me now, while my abilities are still fresh in their minds, so that when I do decide to apply they would only need to make minor adjustments? (And if I do this, should I request to keep the letters myself, or should they be the ones safekeeping them for me?)
It seems a little weird to ask for a reference so far in advance, especially since I don't know for sure if I would be returning to academia. Would I be better off asking them for a references only when I do decide to apply, possibly years down the road? I might perhaps try to keep in contact with them over the years so they don't forget me, though I'm not too sure how this might be done.<issue_comment>username_1: When working with non-LaTeX users, I've seen people use many different workflows for citation management. The answer mainly depends upon what workflow and software people use. Here's some things I saw:
* EndNote. The EndNote web version had some nice features for sharing libraries across users. I used this in Grad School to collaboratively do a review of the literature. A downside is that the program requires a subscription.
* Zotero. I use this when I am forced to write in Word. It has nice import features that can import citations based upon DOI or ISBN. As a plus, it is open source. I also think there is a web version, but we're not allowed to use at work due to security concerns.
* Google Docs now has reference managers add-ons(Thank you [<NAME>](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/348/konrad-rudolph) for catching this). I have not used this before. But, I have written many first drafts of papers.
More broadly, my non-LaTeX workflow current consists of drafting a document in Google Docs and including references as comments (e.g., Smith et al. 2018 would have a comment with the full citation details). Once the group has written the document, someone pulls it down to Word and then adds in the citations with Zotero. Zotero can then automatically format using the same `.cls` files as BibTeX.
In my own, limited, experience, non-LaTeX users often have the desire to automate their workflows using reference mangers.
**Other programs and workflows**:
* [SecretAgentMan](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94518/secretagentman) reports that RefWorks makes nice workflows as well.
* [Ian](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/56698/ian) suggested Citavi works well for him.
* [Formite](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118/fomite) suggested Papers.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It isn't exactly hard to do references by hand, in any word processing system, just boring and a bit fiddly at times. However, given the number of questions here on references it isn't like the citation managers aren't fiddly as well.
Having in the deep dark past written citation handling/numbering preprocessers/code for nroff, spinoff, and straight TeX (since LaTeX was too foofy for *real* scientists), those aren't that hard to do either with a modicum of programming skill. After the pain of writing the system in the first place, it is all gravy from there.
Even 30 years ago programs such as EndNote made it pretty easy to get a citation manager that integrated well with Word (plus or minus various perversions caused by Word itself). Nowadays there are more options, and it mostly comes down to finding a word processing system and citation manager that work together and that you will stick with for long enough to make it worthwhile.
That last part is key - after investing the time and energy to build up and learn a system that works for you, it is a pain to change. All of a sudden you move from grad school to a post-doc, and your advisor doesn't use the same tool set -- what now? Do you switch from LaTeX to Word (and the citation manager as well)? Or do you do all editing/revisions on paper? Once you have switched (for whatever reason) a few times, one might decide that doing it all by hand really isn't so bad.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Endnote is very good, I can not only use export citation option on the webpage of articles and directly import them to my library, but also I can import my previous list of references in a certain format after putting some effort for software recognition. This effort is simply coding "first word is author, after the comma read as year etc. Then, you can export this bibliography in any format you want, this is crucial to apply for journals with different citation formats.
I also used Mendeley and it is also similar in that sense. However, I never used extensions or add-ins as my Microsoft Word or Internet Browser, (actually my computer) is already way slower than can be endured. Also sometimes hand-writing the reference is really easier , especially for internet sources but at that time it is, of course, not included in your library so sharing it with advisor becomes redundant in the end.
Latex is getting more and more famous, but they generally state that it is useful when you have so many tables/figures etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Although I use LaTeX for nearly everything I write, I've used BibTeX only once, and that was more than 20 years ago. It was such a nuisance to use that I gave up on it and resumed doing bibliography entries by hand.
It is, of course, reasonable to conjecture that BibTeX has improved in the last 20 years and that I should therefore give it another chance. But I still see errors in other people's papers that look just like the errors that I had to fight BibTeX about long ago --- incorrect capitalization and garbled math symbols being the most common ones.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Are these tools as widely used as BibTeX in the TeX community? ... Is there a de facto standard?
>
>
>
Small convenience sample: In my field, which is political science, "everybody" uses Word + Endnote.
Personally, I prefer markdown with a BibTeX library managed in Zotero and pandoc-citeproc to convert into Word, LaTeX, or whatever is needed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: To answer the literal question of how non-X-users cope with the thing that X supposedly automates... :)
I do not use bib-tex or other pretended automations of bibliographic management dealies, mostly because many things (especially just a few decades older, in mathematics) do not necessarily fit into the one-size-fits-all mold.
Years before there was an internet, I did collect (on cards fitting on a Rolodex! Google it!) precise references to many important items.
Nowadays I have a flat file (that I edit in Emacs) with lightly-formatted versions of the details for a few thousand items.
True, my disregard for various officially-sanctioned citation styles allows me to "not care"... so I don't think at all about conversion to those styles.
More pointedly, I have a positive interest in certifying that the pointer to a reference is correct, especially in situations of historical issues. So I really don't care about *format*, but about *information*.
Format is not (high quality) information... Sure, format can help information, but not necessarily. :)
EDIT: manipulation of various flat files I usually do by Perl scripts, or for simpler things just bash. At least that way I have a better idea of "what I'm getting", as opposed to naively believing naive software megaliths. :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I (and many of my collegaues) use Mendeley as paper and citation manager. It has a plugin for Word, that makes it extremely easy to insert citations.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I use Mendeley. It works very well with Kubuntu and LibreOffice.I've been using it for three years now, and it has improved a lot since then. The interface is very user-friendly. As far as I'm concerned right now it works almost perfectly and helps you keep your bibliographical sources organized. The only issue I experience now and then is when I'm using it to read and search heavy PDFs, it gets stuck and/or crashes. But it's probably due to my laptop's limitations.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Based on my experience, in German-speaking countries, Citavi is very common. It supports reference management by being connected to a lot of library databases.
It has a plugin for word, but also plugins for browsers to automatically pick e.g. IBAN's on website or to reference Websites. You can also import BibTex-Files.
I never used the BibTex-Software so I cannot really tell you the difference.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: I used LaTeX (with biber and biblatex) myself for my dissertation. However, in Social Sciences and Sociology it is uncommon if you want to publish in journals, proceedings and so forth. Word formats are the standard (which is imho rather painful).
For reference management and knowledge management I use (and heartly recommend) Citavi, which is a powerful tool, if used the right way. I organize my literature, my reading, my excerpts and qutations in it and connect pdfs to the titles. So everything is at one place. With keywords and groups you can structure your library further (topics and projects for example).
The word plugin is where the real magic happens: I simply write my articles and can add/remove/edit references in the process. Even access quotations, excerpts and so on directly from word. The bibliography is created instantly and without any hassle.
Citavi comes with a vast number of citing styles which can be searched and added. If you need individual styles, Citavi provides an editor where you can adapt existing styles or create your own from scratch.
The only drawbacks so far: it costs; it is only available for Windows / MS Word.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: There are some programs that make reference management easy for the non Latex user (biologists, cough cough). Mendeley, Papers, EndNote, Zotero, RefWorks. Usually you import the PDFs, configure or check the metadata, then you can add citations directly while you are writing the document in Microsoft Word. Then it will do any types of styles or formatting that you need automatically!
Also I heard that the standard reference stuff in Word isn't that bad.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: I used EndNote extensively in academia. It's great for managing citations and allows you to store full pdfs, create tags, add notes. It also integrates well to Office suites like Word.
If you are a non-LaTex user, you are probably using Microsoft Word, as its pretty much the defacto standard in a lot of fields. If you are new to the field and are just writing a single/few papers, and don't plan to keep the citations around for future search, Word is going to be much simpler than using EndNote. Look under `References > Citations % Bibliography > Manage Sources`
Upvotes: 0
|
2018/08/14
| 1,199
| 5,298
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently interviewed for a Postdoc position in a Scandinavian country, where the short-listed candidates have access to ranking and comments on how they were selected. I saw that the other person selected for the interview, already works there as a Researcher, probably on a temporary contract. Given the transparency of the process, I assume this would not matter much. However, it is human to be unconsciously biased and I have a fear that the professional intimacy shared by the candidate and members of the committee might not be in my favor.
The interview was really nice, a positive experience where I felt I connected with the committee, smiles were exchanged and my overall gut-feeling was that I could get the job. I can't help thinking, however, that I might lose over this detail.
Any thoughts and experiences?
EDIT: I do have another question, related to the selection process in Scandinavia: has anyone experienced a situation where 2 candidates are promising, and the PI or university opens another job or simply, they hire both? In my context, I know the PI has funding and could do this if they wanted. I wonder how common this is?<issue_comment>username_1: Nothing in life is certain, of course. Different places have different rules and different levels of actual adherence to the rules. Your concern that they may prefer a known quantity may well be balanced by their desire to bring in a fresh face. Different members of the search committee might have different preferences if they have any at all.
But it sounds from what you write that you are likely in a fair process even if that isn't a universal phenomenon.
But, in the end, they will choose the person who they feel is best for the position, based on whatever formal and informal criteria they have. You have no actual influence over that.
I'd suggest that you take a deep breath and also have a backup.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> **TL;DR:** That there are internal candidates shouldn't detract you from applying. After all, the only situation in which you're sure of the outcome is when you *don't* apply.
>
>
>
**What follows can be rather depressing to read. It was hard to write. It is, however, a description of the (my) reality as a senior staff member with international experience in graduate school and postdoc admissions.**
I've participated and chaired selection panels for postdoc positions in a number of universities. In Australia and the UK, I note that there is a requirement to advertise and interview suitably qualified candidates, even if there is *no intention* of hiring them. That is, the internal applicant is the preferred candidate but funders or the university requires that some hiring process be undertaken. These situations can be quite wasteful of time and is quite unjust for external applicants or even other internal applicants. There are no obvious policies around this practice; people are simply acculturated into the system of winks and nudges.
In East Asia, the situation is a little different. Here, the intention is to use the interview process to reward progress and encourage good behaviour. It was explained to me in three universities in two different countries that the application process is so tough that being invited to interview is an achievement in itself. Thus, even if there is every intention of hiring candidate A and absolutely no intention of hiring candidates B and C, the latter two candidates are interviewed nonetheless. The interviews for B and C are also conducted in a manner different from candidate A -- there is more encouragement and advice from panel members, more talk of empowerment and improvement through the use of words like "potential", "opportunity", "diligence", etc.
I've sat on panels where the internal candidate was so underqualified but had to be interviewed for HR reasons. In cases like this, the Department uses the hiring process to accomplish two things: (1) it gives political cover to terminate a contract and (2) the Department gains a new functioning member of its staff. Why is this done? Well, it is quite difficult to go through typical HR processes and this is one of the options open for them.
Finally, in some cases, the panel members and the internal candidate have established such a comfortable relationship that it becomes a case of wanting to infuse new life into the group. This is a case in which the lab decides "better the devil you *don't* know."
Despite all of the above, a great majority of the panels on which I've sat have tried their best to choose the most qualified candidate. Internal candidates are a disadvantage, in fact, because when they need to do a presentation, almost everyone's seen their work; when they introduce themselves, they're thrown off guard because they assume that the panel members already know them; when they are asked about their plans, they tend to parrot what they've heard from their work colleagues.
You should apply for the post if you feel you are the best suited for it. You should prepare for the selection process as you normally would. If the playing field is level, then the only time you are sure of the outcome is when you *don't* apply.
I wish you the best of luck.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/15
| 2,459
| 9,609
|
<issue_start>username_0: The New York Times [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html) reported a female professor at New York University was found to be responsible for sexual harassment of a male student.
There's a [letter of support](https://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/butler-letter-for-avital-ronell.doc) for this professor, sent to that university's president and provost, signed by many professors – and many of whom are professors at that university. This letter claims that the complaint is malicious, and objects to any judgement against her. The legal argument could be made that such a letter signed by many powerful academics constitutes retaliation and defamation, both of which are illegal.
Could such professors who signed the letter be at risk of losing their tenure, because the letter could now constitute a form of retaliation and defamation of the victim (the male student)?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Could such professors who signed the letter be at risk of losing their tenure, because the letter could now constitute a form of retaliation and defamation of the victim (the male student)?
>
>
>
Any answer to this question would be pure speculation at this stage.
Like most US universities, NYU's tenure policies are publicly available. Their [Statement in Regard to Academic Freedom and Tenure](https://www.nyu.edu/faculty/governance-policies-and-procedures/faculty-handbook/the-faculty/policies-applicable-to-tenured-and-tenure-track-faculty/academic-freedom-and-tenure/title-i.html) describes what is considered cause to revoke tenure, but as is common at most institutions, the language is very general:
>
> VI 2 a) [Adequate cause] Adequate cause includes (but is not limited to) one or more of the following: incompetent or inefficient service; neglect of duty; repeated and willful disregard of the rules of academic freedom as set forth in this statement; physical or mental incapacity; or any other conduct of a character seriously prejudicial to his or her teaching or research or to the welfare of the University. [Cf. University Bylaws, Section 92, Removal of Tenured Faculty and Tenured Librarians.]
>
>
>
There is no specific mention of "retaliation" or "defamation" as causes. So, the question would be whether signing this letter constitutes "conduct of a character seriously prejudicial to his or her teaching or research or to the welfare of the University" (or one of the other things listed). That decision would be up to the administration, the Faculty Tenure Committee, and very likely the Tenure Appeal Committee. I don't think we have any way of guessing what they will do. However, the sheer number of [layers of procedure](https://www.nyu.edu/faculty/governance-policies-and-procedures/faculty-handbook/the-faculty/policies-applicable-to-tenured-and-tenure-track-faculty/academic-freedom-and-tenure/title-iii.html) needed to revoke tenure would at least suggest that a lot of people would have to be awfully motivated to make it happen.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Could such professors who signed the letter be at risk of losing their tenure, because the letter could now constitute a form of retaliation and defamation of the victim (the male student)?
>
>
>
Most of the letter is not defamatory, and consists primarily of a character reference for Prof Ronell. However, there are a few parts in the first paragraph (the highlighted parts) which claim that the complaint is malicious, and this could definitely constitute a defamatory statement against the male complainant in the case. It would be open to the complainant to sue the professors who wrote the letter, and they would have standard defences available to them. This includes a "defence of truth" which means that they would be given an opportunity to prove their assertion that the claim was in fact malicious (and if they could prove this on the balance of probabilities it would constitute a successful defence). Given that the university has found that <NAME> did commit the conduct that was the subject of the complaint, it would be hard to prove that the complaint was malicious.
Note that in a defamation claim there would also be an issue about publication of the letter. The letter evidently was not intended as a public document, and was only sent to potential signatories and the two NYU staff to whom it was addressed. It was made public by people other than the signatories, due to its newsworthy character. If the signatories were sued for defamation they would probably try to defend the claim on the basis that they had not intended any publication of the letter. (Some of the signatories, such as Jizek, have made subsequent public remarks on the case.) In defamation actions you can still get in trouble for non-published speech that is sent only to a smaller group of people, so there would probably be some argument on this.
As to retaliation, that is a bit trickier. The NYU Policy on discrimination and harassment can be found [here](https://www.nyu.edu/about/policies-guidelines-compliance/policies-and-guidelines/anti-harassment-policy-and-complaint-procedures.html), and it states that it applies to all employees of the university. In regard to retaliation against a complainant, the policy states the following (emphasis added):
>
> VI. NON-RETALIATION
>
>
> The University will not in any way retaliate against an individual who reports a perceived violation of this Policy, participates in any investigation, or otherwise opposes perceived discrimination, harassment (including sexual/gender harassment), or retaliation, including as a witness. It will also not retaliate against anyone associated with the individual who engages in such protected conduct, such as a family member.
>
>
> **NYU further will not tolerate retaliation by any employee. Retaliation against anyone who complains of, testifies in, or assists in an investigation or proceeding involving discrimination, harassment (including sexual/gender harassment), sexual assault, or retaliation is a serious violation of this Policy, as well as federal, state, and local law.** Anyone who believes they have been subjected to retaliation should report the matter immediately according to the same procedure provided in this Policy for making complaints of discrimination, harassment (including sexual/gender harassment), or sexual assault. **Any person found to have retaliated against another individual will be subject to the same disciplinary action provided under this Policy for other violations.**
>
>
>
Based on this policy, it would seem to me that there is a strong *prima facie* case for retaliation proceedings against any of the NYU professors who signed the letter. It explicitly accuses the complainant of maliciousness, which would imply that the complaint is false.
Note that the complainant, <NAME>, has filed a lawsuit against Ronell and NYU in relation to this matter (see [here](https://campuscounselnewengland.com/2018/09/28/lawsuit-filed-following-nyu-title-ix-investigation-in-ronell-reitman-case/)). The article reporting the lawsuit does not mention any action for retaliation relating to the letter of support, but it would seem to me that this would be a possible cause-of-action that could be added.
---
---
#### The letter of support for Avital Ronell
The letter of support in this case can be found at the blog of Philosophy Professor <NAME>iter [here](https://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/butler-letter-for-avital-ronell.doc). Here is the first paragraph of the text with highlights of parts that are possibly defamatory to the victim in the case (emphasis added):
>
> We write as long-term colleagues of Professor <NAME> who has
> been under investigation by the Title IX offices at New York
> University. Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, we
> have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell
> and accumulated collectively years of experience to support our view
> of her capacity as teacher and a scholar, but also as someone who has
> served as Chair of both the Departments of German and Comparative
> Literature at New York University. **We have all seen her relationship
> with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this
> malicious campaign against her.** We wish to communicate first in the
> clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor
> Ronell whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable
> over many years. **We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding
> causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any
> judgment against her. We hold that the allegations against her do not
> constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious
> intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare.**
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It has potential for defamation, because the complainant(s) or their activities were twice labelled "malicious." The actual merits of the case would depend on too many facts that are not present in the post.
The letter *by itself* probably does not have potential for retaliation, because the authors do not seem to be in a position to effectuate any retaliatory conduct.
Anyone interested in pursuing or avoiding a legal claim should consult a lawyer, though. No post or comment, regardless of how knowledgeable, can convey sufficient information to be relied upon for something that consequential.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/15
| 1,370
| 5,496
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I am writing a Mathematics paper to a peer review reputed journal. I have to go from step 1 to step 2 in the paper which needs the knowledge of some well-established theorem X. Can I go from step 1 to step 2 without saying anything about X?
For example, [this](https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Properties_of_Fibonacci_Numbers) page contains some identities related to Fibonacci numbers, which (I assume that) may be well known to reviewers. So, instead of explicitly showing the identity, I want to use it implicitly from going one statement to another statement.
Does it give a poor impression on my paper? If I need to include all supporting identities, the paper may become too long!<issue_comment>username_1: You need to write your paper so that a reasonable reader is able to verify everything. (Here, "reasonable" reader depends on your audience. The level of detail is not the same if you write a course for high school, a paper for a top generalist journal, a specialized journal, a popularization magazine, slides for a talk, etc.)
You also need to keep in mind that the reader cannot read your mind, only what you have written. You are not writing for yourself; you are writing for your reader.
When you go from one step to the next in a computation, only *you* know what identity you have used if you do not write it. Even if the identity is well-known, it is not necessarily obvious for someone other than you which one it is. In some cases it's possible to determine easily what was used (e.g. if you write `\sum_{n\ge0} 1/2^n = 2` then hopefully everyone will be able to tell what's going on). But in other cases (especially if it's in the middle of a long computation), this may not be the case. So you need to seriously ask yourself whether someone who is not in your shoes can tell what's going on. If necessary, ask a colleague/friend to read it.
Because what will happen to your paper is even worse than giving a bad impression. It will be *unconvincing*. And an unconvincing math paper is basically worthless.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: What is obvious to you may not be obvious to others.
Let me repeat a story I told in [another answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/112121/75368) here. I'll just repeat it, but also note that user <NAME> commented that the story may be apocryphal and not from KU at all.
>
> Here is a story (real occurrence) from the University of Kansas about 50 or so years ago. A prof, quite well known and respected, was lecturing in Topology. This meant writing proofs on the board. Occasionally a step wouldn't be filled in with the statement "Of course it follows, trivially, that ...". On one such statement, a student didn't see the obvious connection and so asked. The prof looked at the board and the developing proof for a few minutes. Then walked over to the corner of the (chalk) board and started making notes to himself in a tiny script. He went into totally abstract thinking mode, ignoring the class. After a bit of writing and erasing, etc, he wandered out of the room toward his office. The students followed along, gathering outside the office. The prof started pulling books off of his shelf and consulting them - several books - several more minutes.
>
>
> Then he seemed to find enlightenment and returned to the classroom. When everyone was again seated he announced. "Yes, of course. It's trivial."
>
>
>
The conclusion is that you should make the connections yourself, and not rely on reviewers grokking it. If they don't make the connection they will comment on it and at least slow down acceptance. It is also possible, as the story above, indicates that you might actually be making too big a step or even an incorrect one.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Look at what level of detail other papers in the area use.
Ask your advisor for advice.
With journals moving more and more online, length isn't really a problem, these days. Most people would probably prefer to read a 40-page paper that spells everything out than read a 20-page paper where they have to scribble down 20 more pages of calculations and 20 pages of failed attempts at calculations.
Finally, if it's just a matter of replacing "Therefore, Z" with "Z now follows from Theorem X", why not just do it?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> If I need to include all supporting identities, the paper may become too long!
>
>
>
As others have noted, there's a middle ground here: you don't have to explain (let alone prove) every identity you use, but you can simply mention it ("by X, we have ...") to save the reader having to guess.
Looking at it from an economic perspective, there's a small cost to you in mentioning X (it takes you that little bit closer to the journal's word/page limit, so you might have to tighten your wording elsewhere), but a potentially *huge* cost to the reader who has to work out how you got from step 1 to step 2 if you don't mention X at all (I'm sure as students we've all cursed authors who stole hours from our lives in this manner). And there are many readers vs one of you so that multiplies the cost even further.
Thinking of this cost/benefit trade-off can help you determine the right level of detail. When you're wondering how explicit you need to be, you can ask yourself "what are the chances that a reader of this journal will know what I'm doing, and how much time will it cost them to work it out if they don't?"
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/15
| 805
| 3,626
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my field, computational condensed-matter physics, the last author name in a paper is regarded as having a supervisory role. I know this is common to many fields but not all (notably, math).
I am a postdoc associated to a professor's group. By "associated" I mean that I have my own project and funding, on which I am officially and practically the PI. However, I am also carrying out supervisory work of a student in the professor's group, paid from a project on which the professor is the PI. Incidentally, I designed and wrote a large portion (circa 50%) of the proposal for that project, but I have no official attachment to it. Since the project kicked off, I have been redesigning the scope and methods of the project as we progressed through it, and the student is working basically on testing my ideas under my guidance. The professor knows about the main features of what we do but is not familiar with any of the details nor is proposing/contributing significantly to either science or supervision.
Everybody is more or less happy with the arrangement, since the professor sees progress, with minimal cost of his time and effort, on this research area of interest in which he can contribute little due to his lack of background on computational physics. I get some extra manpower to extend my ability to test some of my ideas, and the student gets supervised by someone who can provide expert guidance on the topic of this PhD thesis. The professor is easy going and everybody is in good terms with each other.
However, I am starting to apply for senior positions. In one of my applications, I was rejected mainly on the basis of being too junior, and a piece of critical feedback was on my lack of "last author papers". It had been agreed with the professor that I would be last author in some of the student's first authored papers (actually, he suggested that). However, in a recent manuscript draft where the student put my name last the professor corrected the author list and put his name last instead. This could be because he forgot about the agreement or (I suspect this one) he realized the paper was much more significant than originally expected and wanted to get some "extra" credit for it. This credit is needed for him to increase his chances at future funding in this research direction. However, I feel that this undermines my contribution and does not accurately reflect the role that each author had on the study, since I designed the project, proposed the ideas, did the actual supervision, and even contributed to getting the funding (and thus, the convention in my field dictates that my name should go last). Further to this, I desperately need to get this credit to just stay "afloat" in academia (whereas the professor "only" needs it to increase his funding pool).
I think it is only fair to work out a list of authors that more accurately and fairly reflects my contribution to our upcoming papers. However, I want to avoid falling off with this professor or introducing undue strain into our working relationship. How should I approach a request for my name to appear as last author in subsequent papers?<issue_comment>username_1: Just knock on their door and ask.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Discussing authorships is a pretty common thing to do and you got a very good reason why having this last authorship would benefit you and I just assume it wouldn't really hurt the professor if he's already established in that field. I would just be very open about the whole situation and explain the problem and ask if that's fine with him.
Upvotes: 2
|
2018/08/15
| 577
| 2,457
|
<issue_start>username_0: Google Scholar wants me to add areas of interest, photo, and co-authors. I understand why I may want to add the first two, but why add co-authors? All the publications already list the actual co-authors. Is it an attempt to turn the site into more of a social network? Is it an excuse for Google to spam them ("X added you as a co-author!")? What is the benefit for the profile owner?
For example, I have some papers with dozens of authors. Should I "upgrade" them to "co-authors"? I have no idea who some of these people are, but maybe the goal is to get as many as possible. On the other hand, if I don't add someone I actually know, will they be offended?<issue_comment>username_1: In general, I find the Google Scholar profile pages to be elegant and useful.
Some people choose not to add co-authors to their profile pages. You might not see any benefit. You might not want to play favourites (i.e., who is enough of a co-author to be listed; what if I forget to add someone, would they be mildly offended).
In general, random people will google you and land on your google scholar profile page. Seeing who your main co-authors are might be useful to such people to give them an understanding of where your work is situated and who you are working with. They can then also more easily explore the academic work of your co-authors.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Because Google wants you to train its algorithms for free (in case they missed one of your coauthors for some reason, or they tripped up on some homonyms, etc). The goal is to have a more accurate graph of research collaborations. In some time, they will probably be able to know for sure who your coauthors are without you telling them anything.
Since they already invented yet another index (the "i10 index"), one can only speculate. Maybe they will publish rankings of researchers. Maybe they will also publish rankings of research groups, defined as groups of coauthors. Perhaps these rankings will be designed to nudge researchers into producing the kind of research that is useful for Google Inc. Who knows. It's a private company aiming for profit; they are not in the business of providing services for free with nothing in return. Your personal data is their product.
(More pragmatically, if you tell them that your coauthor works in a Brazilian university, maybe you will see more ads for plane tickets to Brazil.)
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/15
| 919
| 3,879
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a student in a bachelor program at a local university, while I'm also a teacher (professional school) of apprenticeship students within the same sphere of study.
A few days ago I received the participants list of a class which I going to teach next semester. I went briefly through the names and one quite unique name caught my interest. After a quick search on the web, I'm sure that one of the participants is the daughter of a lecturer who gives courses in which I'm enrolled at the university. He was grading my work and he will probably be grading my work in the future for one more course.
I had a few intense discussions with this lecturer about some topics of my studies. He also felt a bit insulted once because I missed some of his lectures, but we always stayed professional. I also feel that he graded my work and exams like the ones of any other student.
It's too late to find a replacement for me and this class? I'm wondering what should I do with this situation -- should I notify the school where I'm teaching about this?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you should notify the school. However, part of being a professional is just *being* professional. You don't indicate any issues that seem to imply anyone behaving badly, so I think you should go ahead. But not notifying the school (and probably the lecturer as well, if the daughter is a minor) would be a mistake. If something bad happens in the future, you don't want that incident to be the first indication that there might have been a conflict of interest from the start.
I would answer quite differently if you thought there was a likelihood of conflict with the lecturer.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I’ve had to teach colleagues children, nephews, and even the son & daughter of the Dean.
Be professional. Treat and grade them the same as any other student. They also think “oh sh\*t s/he knows my Dad / Mum so I had better be careful”... :). Don’t call them out in class, but don’t avoid them either. If you do random questions and it’s their turn, then fine.
Don’t worry, they don’t go back to your Dean talking about your teaching performance. They just want to benefit from your wisdom / experience / knowledge same as the other students...
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Personally, I think this is slightly more serious situation than just teaching colleagues children as the lecturer in your university will be grading your work. That means there is direct power and benefit structure existing. The angle I would be worried is that someone else will claim you are grading the daughter more positively to gain better grades from dad. I don't think that's too high of a risk, but still worth to note.
I agree that you can notify the school. In addition, if your course has assignments you are grading, I suggest that you ask colleague who has relevant enough knowledge about the topic to take a look at the student's work and give approximate grade for it (obviously without knowing what you gave). If you have TAs, one of them can do it. In case somebody brings up claims that you are unfarily grading, you have now something to show for your defence. Other possibility is to take blind grading as a policy on your courses, so that you never know who you are grading. But it might be harder to prove that you really did not know who you are grading.
In my opinion, one should disqualify themselves from grading preferably bit too easily than take changes. On the courses I have grading responsibilities, we generally try to assign the grading in such way that if you know a person (outside the role of them being your student), you won't grade their work. If everybody knows the person taking the class, then we try to have two opinions on the work. It does get difficult if you are only person working on the course without TAs.
Upvotes: 3
|
2018/08/15
| 1,301
| 5,300
|
<issue_start>username_0: I went to the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga where I got a BA in Philosophy and graduated with a 3.4 GPA. During my senior year, I discovered an incessant love of physics. However, I’ve had to start over practically from the beginning, such as learning pre-calc.
I am now attending UT Knox for an undergrad physics degree. UT Knox is a public school ranked #83 in physics. My question is, how well do I need to do to come from a school like UT Knox, at my age, to be accepted into a top 10 graduate school? I know the odds are stacked against me, but I plan on overcoming them.<issue_comment>username_1: Look at where your professors went to graduate school. They’re qualified to compare their students to their grad school peers. So an absolute best case scenario is that some of them are impressed enough to compare you to their grad school peers, which (if it’s backed up with the grades and GRE scores you’d expect with that comparison) has a good shot at getting someone into that caliber of school (or perhaps a little lower). It’s not going to happen often, but it can happen. Getting into anywhere better than where your profs went is implausible since they can’t credibly say whether you’d be successful there.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you are asking the wrong question. For the specific question, your chances of acceptance at a top ten graduate school are near zero. That has nothing to do with you or where you go to school. It is just numbers. The fraction of accepted candidates at such a small set of schools is minuscule.
A better question, that I think will leave you more satisfied, is what you need to do to get into a really good school that will help you meet your overall life goals. It would be sad if at the end of your life the only thing one could say about you is "he went to a top ten grad school."
The way to success to to work hard, learn a lot, read, write, emulate those you want to be like, be bold when necessary, ask for help, learn to work cooperatively, don't burn out, be flexible, practice, ....
You can do all of that anywhere. You can even do it while being a bit of a goofball.
For the record, lots of people are late starters. I never had a positive educational experience until the second or third year of HS. My HS doesn't even exist anymore. But I learned how to be better and wound up with a doctorate and a successful academic career.
But when it does come time to apply for grad school, apply to one or two top schools along with some others. There are a lot of good schools that will help you build a great career and life.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Top schools do not just look at the schools you graduated from and your GPA. They pride themselves in finding the diamond in the rough. They look for true ingenuity.
Suggestion:
If you do outstanding things outside of school that relate to physics, these can carry a lot of weight. Example - if you demonstrate ingenuity by setting up a DIY atom smasher in your garage and sharing it on youtube and get lots of views then you can graduate from knox, get a 2.0 GPA, but probably still get into MIT. Demonstrate your passion with real world activities. Don't depend on an institution to lend you credibility, stand on your own two feet and just do it - then regardless of whether you get into a top school you will have the skills to make it in the real world.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I went to a small southern university for my Bachelors in physics, and a different, medium sized southern university for my Masters in physics (both in the United States). And although I didn't, a few of my fellow classmates did end up at highly ranked physics programs such as Berkley, Chicago, and Cornell. These programs don't discriminate against applicants from 'low ranked' universities. It is just a fact that the criteria for acceptance into is much harder to acquire from a mid-tier program. Those requirements are:
1. A 3.8-4.0 GPA *in your physics courses*
2. A physics GRE score greater than 800
3. Research with an accompanying publication in a peer-reviewed journal
It is typically item-3 that is the largest handicap to students from smaller schools; the opportunities for undergraduates to assist in real research goes down dramatically with the size of the program. The best option for most physics undergraduates to get tangible research experience is to apply to an REU (Research for Undergraduates). These are high speed research sessions that are conducted over the summer semesters. If there was one thing I could go back and tell myself, it is to **never, ever** pass up a research opportunity, paid or unpaid. Doing research is by definition the thing most physicists (and all graduates) do, but is the last thing students think about for admission to graduate programs.
Lastly, as others have noted, going to a high-ranked school isn't necessary to have a successful career in physics; many university physics departments specialize in the research they publish. It is more important to have a field of physics (optics, plasma, solid state, etc) picked out and then apply to those programs that specialize in those areas of physics. Overall rankings may have nothing to do with that.
Upvotes: 2
|