date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2019/02/16
| 452
| 1,915
|
<issue_start>username_0: Unexpected results were attained in a simulation that point to a possible problem with the dataset. While writing about this in the discussion section, I'd like to elaborate on my explanation for this by presenting a simple calculation that reinforces my interpretation. Is it allowed to do this in a discussion section or should I lay the foundation for this in the method section and then include it in the results?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally yes. The purpose of a discussion section is to interpret your results, both in light of what was previously known (hopefully described in the introduction), and with new supporting arguments or hypotheses. A calculation (possibly short or rough) is a good way of providing a supporting argument, and it's quite common to see one in the discussion section of a scientific paper. However, theses are often subject to local rules, some of which may be silly, so make sure to check your institution's style or thesis guide, or check with your advisor whether they have any preferences.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think it is fine and preferable. This really more "analysis" than "method" at least in the context of the original study design. Also for a reader it makes more sense in that order.
In general, there is some looseness about the exact configuration of discussion and results. As long as you are organized and show an understandable narrative, I highly doubt you will get someone telling you "that doesn't go in that section". I can look at papers in my field and see differences in how discussion was organized in any issue of the major journals and it is fine, no heads turned.
See also pages 8-15 of the attached: <https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/media-arts-and-sciences/mas-111-introduction-to-doing-research-in-media-arts-and-sciences-spring-2011/readings/MITMAS_111S11_read_ses5.pdf>
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/16
| 804
| 3,517
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last week, I did a paper, and posted it on my school's online blackboard. Not even five minutes later, I realized I had misread the directions and took it down. Some of my points were still relevant, so I used them exactly as i had written them before. Is this self-plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: **It's not self-plagiarism.** Self-plagiarism involves trying to get double credit for the same work -- mostly in academic publishing, where the same author publishes old ideas as new ideas (without citing). In your case, you accidentally uploaded the paper somewhere and then deleted it -- this does not even come close to meeting the bar for "claiming a publication."
There is a possible concern that you might be wrongly accused of cheating -- either because your professor saw you post the work to blackboard and assumed you were trying to share it with someone else, or because blackboard automatically indexed the paper when you uploaded it, and will now flag it as a duplicate when you submit it. You didn't do anything wrong, so you should be fine - but if you are concerned, you could send a brief e-mail to the professor explaining what happened.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Simple answer, no. What you did is neither self-plagiarism nor any violation of any norm that I know of. Your acts seem honorable, in fact. Being "quick on the trigger" may not always be wise, but it isn't a violation *per se*.
There are two reasons that we avoid plagiarism. The first is that we don't ethically claim the work of others as our own. The second, just as important, is that for scientific discourse to proceed, people need to be able to examine not just individual 'facts', but the entire context in which those facts occurred. Self plagiarism doesn't involve the first of these, but does still involve the second.
If a person simply copies things from one of their own *published* works into another, rather than citing their own earlier work, this "completing the context" fails as someone finds one of your papers and sees only the context (including other citations) that are presented there. The other paper is lost to them and forms a break in the *chain of evidence* that good science requires.
However, since you removed the one version of your paper from view, and quickly enough that it wasn't cited, you are free to just modify it in any way you like and publish the results in any way that you can. Your removed version was nothing more than a "draft" of what you later produced.
Academic grading of assignments is a completely separate issue from self-plagiarism, though professors will frown on you if you do it. But that isn't why it is a concept and that concept will be with you throughout your life, not just in school. Even submitting the same work for two different assignments isn't really self-plagiarism, though it is academic misconduct.
I think there are two basic reasons that authors sometimes self-plagiarize. The first is that they were never taught that it is wrong and never considered the scientific consequences (loss of context) in doing so. This is changing as people become more aware. The second reason, however, is just academic laziness. It is easy, today, to simply copy from one document and paste into another. Probably easier for some people than to remember and then find the correct citation in their earlier paper. If you see plagiarism as *only* not taking credit for the work of others, you will be misled.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/17
| 1,376
| 5,525
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm considering the possibility of completing a degree from which I dropped out almost a decade ago. In part because I feel I should, in part because I think it could be useful for switching to industry.
**Context**
Started a degree in Engineering in a non-US university with traditional system of long degree programs(five to six years), roughly equivalent to B.Sc.+M.Sc.
I dropped out from the Engineering degree to pursue a career in Physics, which I did to some extent. I'll be finishing a Ph.D. this year with published work, good academic records, TA experience and all the usual academic stuff.
Even though I don't regret having switched from Engineering to Physics, I have decided that I want to pursue a career in the industry and not in the academy. However, I'd like to keep in contact with the academic world through a part time position as a professor.
I'm 29 years old. Almost no real world work experience, apart from a short internship some years ago.
**Questions**
Is it advisable to finish the degree in Engineering? I still have all the credits previously earned. I'd take me a year and a half studying full time or three years doing it part time.
Asuming I finish the degree in Engineering, how should I present it in a CV? Just the graduation date? The entire time span from starting date to finishing date like "from 2008 to 2020"? The time spans of the two phases like "from 2008 to 2011 and from 2019 to 2020"?
In the event of having a good postdoctoral opportunity with connections to the industry and real world applications, should I take it or should I start working in the private sector as soon as possible?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. If you want to be in industry, go to industry. Stop taking new degrees. At least stop for a while. Go work.
2. If you are in the US, take the FE/EIT, now. Start racking up time to get your PE.
3. "Engineering" is awfully vague. Mechanical, electrical or what?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Note, I am in the US, so my experience in both university and industry may be different than yours.
>
> Is it advisable to finish the degree in Engineering? I still have all the credits previously earned. I'd take me a year and a half studying full time or three years doing it part time.
>
>
>
**Definitely, absolutely not.**
**Only the highest degree matters.** Having an additional bachelor's or master's does absolutely nothing for you in terms of qualifications. This is for a good reason: undergraduate degrees teach you "enough to be useful" in a professional scientific setting; a PhD teaches you how to perform research without supervision. The actual subject matter within STEM is largely irrelevant (perhaps modulo life science vs. physical science), since your actual job will require specific skills that you'll have to learn on the job.
**Consider your opportunity cost.** Even if this degree were useful, you would be sacrificing a lot of time and possibly money to pursue this. There are more useful things you could do, like throwing yourself full-force into your job.
**Learn more about your 'real job' first.** After you have a couple years of work experience and have settled on a particular career path / industry, you'll be better suited to judge if any particular classes or certifications would be useful.
>
> Assuming I finish the degree in Engineering, how should I present it in a CV? Just the graduation date? The entire time span from starting date to finishing date like "from 2008 to 2020"? The time spans of the two phases like "from 2008 to 2011 and from 2019 to 2020"?
>
>
>
I would list just the year of completion. But this will raise eyebrows (people will wonder why in the world you have an undergraduate degree after a closely-related graduate one).
>
> In the event of having a good postdoctoral opportunity with connections to the industry and real world applications, should I take it or should I start working in the private sector as soon as possible?
>
>
>
**Don't do a post-doc if you're not aiming for a faculty job.**
You may think a post-doc in academia is useful and fun. But eventually, you will start your 'real career', and you'll (eventually) find something that you also think is useful and fun. The earlier you start your real career, the more time you'll have to progress further and further.
Also consider your opportunity cost: doing a post-doc gives you zero additional qualifications relative to someone who didn't do a post-doc, outside of the particular niche area in which you did your post-doc. In contrast, a post-doc is a temporary position with a lot of uncertainty, very high expectations, and uncompetitive salaries.
The only reason you should even consider a post-doc is if you want a faculty job. Even if you do want a faculty job, most post-docs do not convert, so you need to have an honest assessment of what your odds are and whether it is worth it.
**In short**: the transition from university to industry is really jarring, especially given that all our role models are successful professors. It can be tempting to take temporary positions in academia rather than taking the leap. But it's better to get this over with so you can land on the other side. It might be bumpy to get established on a career trajectory you like, but once you do it, it is very rewarding to have a permanent position, a clear trajectory, and enough certainty about your career to start moving forward on other aspects of your life.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/17
| 668
| 3,041
|
<issue_start>username_0: Say you are developing a new advanced course in Computer Science in a fast-developing area.
* You may look at equivalent courses given elsewhere that partially overlap with your new course, while structuring your slides and Syllabus.
* You may give reading assignments explicitly directing students at going through materials publicly available online from other courses.
At what levels should you give attribution and/or personally request permission from the prior authors of these materials?<issue_comment>username_1: This depends on your definition of a "course". Is it an online course? Do you earn money with it or is it available for free? Or do you actually mean an old-school course taught at a school somewhere to a small group of people?
If it is a free online course, you should *at least* mention somewhere where you got some of your ideas from, as a courtesy to the other authors. The course they made might be part of their portfolio with which they apply for jobs, if your course then raises doubts concerning the originality of their work because you did not reference them properly, that would be bad. (You should also double-check whether they have written something about this topic somewhere, maybe they released their course under a Creative Commons license, for example.)
If it is an online course that you earn money with (Udemy or some other e-learning portal comes to mind), the situation is probably more complicated and there would be some legal issues that I don't know anything about. In this case you probably *have to* mention your sources and also ask for permission.
Finally, if it is simply a course taught in a classroom, I think it does not really matter. Your students will not care where you got your ideas for the design of the course from as long as the course is good and helps them to understand the topic.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. If you look on the web and get ideas from different instructors on course (e.g. topics to cover, grading schemes, etc.) that is fine and I wouldn't even both citing that, especially if it is a synthesis along with your own ideas.
2. But you are talking about something different. Explicitly pushing students to identical homeworks, videos, etc from other instructors. If you copy that stuff, you need copy permission (not just a cite). I guess you could just give your students links and then not need copy permission (and the cite is implicit). But that's not really feasible as you don't know if the links will stay live (many course links decay). Now, sending students to links from government sources or big companies may be a bit more stable.
3. Finally, why do you need to copy so much? Can't you do as in para 1 and just use information for inspiration but make some contribution of your own? Even if it is a difficult topic in that there is no standard text to rely on as the "crutch", you can still make a series of journal readings. But just relying on other course websites seems too slack to me.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/17
| 1,022
| 4,315
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are so many posts regarding authorship disputes on this site. How can my friend, A, avoid such a drama in the following situation?
1. A and another graduate student, B, are in the same PhD program in the US.
2. Even though B has just started the program, he completed a MSc program in Europe with research experiences, and he has a de-facto advisor C, who also supervises A.
3. A while ago, C wrote to A suggesting that A work on a project P, adding that B would work on another project Q. P and Q are of the same nature but on different objects. Q builds on B's MSc thesis.
4. A wished that C assigned him Q instead because Q was about the same object about which A's other project R was. After working on P, A found that P has a rather trivial answer.
5. A realized that Q, if solved, gives some progress on R. Upon telling this to C, A gets a recommendation from C that A talk about Q with B.
6. After being told about the idea, B told A that he had not completed Q and that he was happy to talk about Q with A.
7. A realized that his previous idea about the relationship between Q and R was wrong, but instead he came up with an another idea, which would solve Q. A sent C an email explaining this idea.
8. While waiting an answer from C, A gets bored and wants to work on his idea.
Obviously, A does not want to be in the center of an authorship disputes. How should he proceed?<issue_comment>username_1: The explanation is quite convoluted but this looks like a rather common situation: A and B work on closely related topics, both supervised by C.
First an observation:
>
> While waiting an answer from C, A gets bored and wants to work on his idea.
>
>
>
If the waiting is a couple of days that's completely fine to start exploring the idea. But if it's more like a couple of months there's a communication problem that needs to be solved.
As long as there's no conflict between these three persons, there's no reason why this should lead to authorship dispute. The key is to maintain clear and regular communication, and apparently the three persons involved are aware of that. A is right to seek their supervisor's advice, ultimately the supervisor decides who works on what. But in general there's absolutely no problem for A and B to work on the same idea and write papers together, as long as roles are clearly defined beforehand. In particular the question of who is first author for a particular paper should be clarified from the start. If relevant, the authors could target two distinct papers, one focusing on A's part and the other on B's part.
Note: this might depend on the domain, but I think most academics would agree that an idea by itself doesn't belong to anybody. What matters is the effort put into developing the idea into a proper scientific contribution, usually in the form of a paper: that's authorship. Of course, the person who had the idea should normally be the one developing it, but it's more a matter of common courtesy than of intellectual property.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My best suggestion is that the three of them have a sit down and work out the best research focus of both students, leading to successful completion for both of them. I'm assuming, of course, that you are one of the three.
As students, I suggest that every student's primary goal should be to earn their degree, not necessarily, at this point, to seek primacy in any way over another student. There may be plenty of room for results of value for both of them and the advisor may be able to suggest that each of them work on a primary focus. When their interests touch, they could try to work cooperatively, giving hints/advice, rather than to try to overcome the other person.
Some departments in which I was a student had continuing advanced seminars in which people working on very similar topics would share ideas that would be further developed by one of the members, under the guidance of one of the (member) faculty members. It was something of a free for all in which even the faculty members of the seminar got advice on their own research from other members. This can work, but only if everyone agrees that the goal is to (a) produce good science (mathematics in my case) and (b) get all the students well situated.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/17
| 736
| 2,884
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a 2nd semester PhD student at **Y** university. My MS is from the same **Y** university and under the same supervisor. In last months of my MS, I told my supervisor that I want to change university after MS. He said that it's okay to look for better PhD positions but we should first finish the project that we have started. (We are working on a project which will be completed in next one or two months)
I was agree with him and decided to stay at **Y** university. Now, I have an interview call from **X** university.
My question is, what should I say when they ask me "Why do you want to leave your current PhD position?"<issue_comment>username_1: I don't see any reason not to just lay it out as you have here. "I think that the program here would better suit my needs and I think I'll get better research and career advice here."
People understand that other people want to change and move "up" when possible.
But I would also take some care that you fulfill your promise to your current advisor about finishing the research to the maximum level possible. You say it is a short-term commitment, so I think it wouldn't be overly burdensome to continue until it is done or until circumstances make it impossible to continue. In case you have to leave it, try to do what you can to leave it in a stable state in which others can, if necessary carry it on. That way your current advisor is more likely to remain a supporter in your future.
But your proposal and your actions seem perfectly normal and natural to me.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would play it a bit like username_1 said. In the grand scheme of things you are moving from MS at Y to Ph.D. at X (or X1, X2, etc.).
The fact that you did a little time in Y with advanced course work is not a big deal unless you really WANT to be seen as a transfer student. But this makes more sense for a year of Ph.D. post bachelors. Given you are post masters, they know you already have some of the initial direct to Ph.D. coursework done.
So if you can at all truthfully do so, I would just say your plan was always to apply to new schools for Ph.D. but the timing made it work out so you did a little Ph.D. work at the other place. And I wouldn't even bring it up unless needed.
P.s. It is extremely normal to move from a terminal masters at one school to a Ph.D. at another. So it's not like some special explanation is needed.
P.s.s. There is always some (minor, but some) movement of grad students in Ph.D. programs. I have seen it among my friends for two reasons: (1) spouse got job or school in new city, or (2) "trading up" (e.g. Ohio State to Harvard). I wouldn't want to be seen as a "hopper" (after all they want you to finish at the new school), but some movements are not unheard of. If you are a "good catch" it should not be a concern, even.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/17
| 1,700
| 6,929
|
<issue_start>username_0: She says, why do you want to hurry? Let's put the defense in December, then you can have several publications out till then.
I am thinking of asking directly, "What do you think about my PhD work? Are you not happy with my work and is that the reason you are delaying correcting my manuscripts? "
Will that be appropriate? What should I do and tell/ask her?<issue_comment>username_1: Normally, you both should have the interest to publish as soon as possible. If she doesn't hurry, she has other priorities. That your supervisor/professor has for weeks/months often no time to review your manusscripts is quite usual. But over a year sounds strange to alarming to me, you probably discussed the main statements/abstracts ot those manuscripts with her before writing them.
Other questions are the requirements of your faculty. Technically, you don't need in every country several articles published in peer-reviewed journals. It's your decision and responsibility to write and submit your thesis at some point to the faculty or wait for years for your supervisor. For instance, I didn't show my diploma thesis to my supervisor after writing it to review style and content, I know many students do this and some professors want it, but there are no standards and it had no negative outcome for me.
So, in your case, I would tell here what your timeline is, how much work is left, and when you want to submit your thesis. Making up stories in your mind she might not be happy with your research is a dead end...
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it is appropriate to ask her what is going on. This is your PhD and she has no right to delay it in the way that she is currently doing. As a supervisor, she is supposed to support you in finishing your thesis, and if she is not doing that, you have a good reason to complain about it.
I do not think that it is even important what she is thinking of your work. If she thinks that your work is bad, that would make it *even more important* to give you this kind of feedback. So that is not a good reason to not give you feedback, and I also think it's highly unlikely that this is the actual reason why.
I would simply argue with the facts. After 5 years of doing your PhD, you want to be finished soon. In order to do that, you need her to give feedback on the manuscripts. If she says "why the hurry" again, there are several things you can point out, for example:
1. Postdoc positions usually start in autumn, so in order to get one of
those it would be good to have the PhD rather sooner than later,
since there is a lot of work to do for applications etc. beforehand.
2. You feel that you cannot use the additional time productively, since
you have done all the work that you wanted to do and do not need to
delay any further.
But actually, the question is beside the point, because it is your decision, not hers, and that is not why you are talking to her. If she really tries to derail the conversation in this way, I would call her out on it. "I feel like you are avoiding the actual issue I am addressing here. I have waited for your feedback for 1.5 years now. I think this is clearly too long, and now that I am ready to finish my PhD, I really need that feedback. I can understand that you are busy, but I have the feeling that you are frequently giving my work a low priority. I do not know why you are doing this, but it is frustrating. I currently do not feel appropriately supervised by you."
Well okay, I might have a slightly confrontational nature, so take this with a grain of salt. But I think in such a case it is adequate to criticize her for the lack of supervision that you have experienced throughout your PhD.
A last tip would be to give her **deadlines**. Usually people prioritize things where they get a clear deadline, even if the deadline is arbitrary. In the best case scenario, you can tie the deadline to an actual milestone of your final phase of the PhD - like maybe you want to say that by the end of March, you want to be done with the actual research and only focus on structure and design of the thesis, so that the deadline for her would be somewhere in March.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know the personalities here nor the way your advisor thinks about things, but, while I'd probably agree that she is wrong, she may, in fact, be trying to place you in as strong a position for your future as possible. Presumably she knows some things about your field and how to be a success starting out. I hope so, anyway. So, I wouldn't just assume that she is trying to obstruct you as the first estimation of what is happening. It could but the opposite, but you are in a better position to judge that than I.
But, you have a legitimate need to finish and move on with an expeditious schedule. And you can express that to her and get a sense of what your path is to an early completion.
Schedule a sit-down meeting in which you (a) let her know you want to be done ASAP and why that is, and (b) what you need to do to accomplish that.
Try to learn, in such a meeting, *why* she thinks delay is best, if that is actually what is happening. Try to get an honest evaluation of your work.
You will almost certainly want your advisor to be a supporter you in your early career, so try not to jeopardize that. You seldom win by fighting with your advisor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You gotta fight for your interests. Mousing around will get you continue to being stepped on. The squeeky wheel gets the oil. Yeah username_3 is right, the little tinpots might walk on you if you fight them, but they walk on you a lot harder if you let them without squawking.
Personally I wouldn't ask for "feedback" but movement. Hand in papers that YOU THINK are ready to be submitted. That are how you would submit them as a PI. You should do this regardless, because why have your advisor review something that is not your best effort? So once they meet that bar, it's not hard to see just moving them right to the journals. Stat.
Same with the thesis defense. Just schedule it. What's the worst that can happen? You fail. So. It's a delay either way. So, just push the peanut. Make the cars crash.
As for the thesis, like <NAME>, below, I didn't get any edits from my advisor (or really give him an opportunity). Gave him the doc 10 days before the defense (as was required by the rules). He whined a little, but I said, you're a committee member like the rest. You can fail me if it's not good enough. He didn't fail me...it was a good thesis and good research record. It would have been silly for him to do otherwise. [Of course if your research is not above average, this kind of hardball may not be as feasible.]
P.s. Hanging onto grad students for an extra year to get more papers out of them is a known trait of some professors. Gotta push back on that.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/17
| 1,656
| 6,801
|
<issue_start>username_0: If someone has a associate's degree with relevant courses (math and physics) and more than 10 years of (verifiable) programming experience, is it generally possible to apply for graduate admission at a good international university?<issue_comment>username_1: Normally, you both should have the interest to publish as soon as possible. If she doesn't hurry, she has other priorities. That your supervisor/professor has for weeks/months often no time to review your manusscripts is quite usual. But over a year sounds strange to alarming to me, you probably discussed the main statements/abstracts ot those manuscripts with her before writing them.
Other questions are the requirements of your faculty. Technically, you don't need in every country several articles published in peer-reviewed journals. It's your decision and responsibility to write and submit your thesis at some point to the faculty or wait for years for your supervisor. For instance, I didn't show my diploma thesis to my supervisor after writing it to review style and content, I know many students do this and some professors want it, but there are no standards and it had no negative outcome for me.
So, in your case, I would tell here what your timeline is, how much work is left, and when you want to submit your thesis. Making up stories in your mind she might not be happy with your research is a dead end...
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it is appropriate to ask her what is going on. This is your PhD and she has no right to delay it in the way that she is currently doing. As a supervisor, she is supposed to support you in finishing your thesis, and if she is not doing that, you have a good reason to complain about it.
I do not think that it is even important what she is thinking of your work. If she thinks that your work is bad, that would make it *even more important* to give you this kind of feedback. So that is not a good reason to not give you feedback, and I also think it's highly unlikely that this is the actual reason why.
I would simply argue with the facts. After 5 years of doing your PhD, you want to be finished soon. In order to do that, you need her to give feedback on the manuscripts. If she says "why the hurry" again, there are several things you can point out, for example:
1. Postdoc positions usually start in autumn, so in order to get one of
those it would be good to have the PhD rather sooner than later,
since there is a lot of work to do for applications etc. beforehand.
2. You feel that you cannot use the additional time productively, since
you have done all the work that you wanted to do and do not need to
delay any further.
But actually, the question is beside the point, because it is your decision, not hers, and that is not why you are talking to her. If she really tries to derail the conversation in this way, I would call her out on it. "I feel like you are avoiding the actual issue I am addressing here. I have waited for your feedback for 1.5 years now. I think this is clearly too long, and now that I am ready to finish my PhD, I really need that feedback. I can understand that you are busy, but I have the feeling that you are frequently giving my work a low priority. I do not know why you are doing this, but it is frustrating. I currently do not feel appropriately supervised by you."
Well okay, I might have a slightly confrontational nature, so take this with a grain of salt. But I think in such a case it is adequate to criticize her for the lack of supervision that you have experienced throughout your PhD.
A last tip would be to give her **deadlines**. Usually people prioritize things where they get a clear deadline, even if the deadline is arbitrary. In the best case scenario, you can tie the deadline to an actual milestone of your final phase of the PhD - like maybe you want to say that by the end of March, you want to be done with the actual research and only focus on structure and design of the thesis, so that the deadline for her would be somewhere in March.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know the personalities here nor the way your advisor thinks about things, but, while I'd probably agree that she is wrong, she may, in fact, be trying to place you in as strong a position for your future as possible. Presumably she knows some things about your field and how to be a success starting out. I hope so, anyway. So, I wouldn't just assume that she is trying to obstruct you as the first estimation of what is happening. It could but the opposite, but you are in a better position to judge that than I.
But, you have a legitimate need to finish and move on with an expeditious schedule. And you can express that to her and get a sense of what your path is to an early completion.
Schedule a sit-down meeting in which you (a) let her know you want to be done ASAP and why that is, and (b) what you need to do to accomplish that.
Try to learn, in such a meeting, *why* she thinks delay is best, if that is actually what is happening. Try to get an honest evaluation of your work.
You will almost certainly want your advisor to be a supporter you in your early career, so try not to jeopardize that. You seldom win by fighting with your advisor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You gotta fight for your interests. Mousing around will get you continue to being stepped on. The squeeky wheel gets the oil. Yeah username_3 is right, the little tinpots might walk on you if you fight them, but they walk on you a lot harder if you let them without squawking.
Personally I wouldn't ask for "feedback" but movement. Hand in papers that YOU THINK are ready to be submitted. That are how you would submit them as a PI. You should do this regardless, because why have your advisor review something that is not your best effort? So once they meet that bar, it's not hard to see just moving them right to the journals. Stat.
Same with the thesis defense. Just schedule it. What's the worst that can happen? You fail. So. It's a delay either way. So, just push the peanut. Make the cars crash.
As for the thesis, like <NAME>, below, I didn't get any edits from my advisor (or really give him an opportunity). Gave him the doc 10 days before the defense (as was required by the rules). He whined a little, but I said, you're a committee member like the rest. You can fail me if it's not good enough. He didn't fail me...it was a good thesis and good research record. It would have been silly for him to do otherwise. [Of course if your research is not above average, this kind of hardball may not be as feasible.]
P.s. Hanging onto grad students for an extra year to get more papers out of them is a known trait of some professors. Gotta push back on that.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/17
| 816
| 3,581
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a manuscript submitted in a journal, and there is a newly-added reviewer after the first round of revision, which is surprising for me. The three other reviewers remain the same in the second round (this round) and agree with acceptance of the manuscript.
I don't know what reason is behind adding a new reviewer. Any thoughts?<issue_comment>username_1: It's definitely unusual. We could speculate all kinds of reasons (innocent or nefarious). But you should be capable of brainstorming the same.
You should send an email to the editor asking for an explanation.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two possibilities
1. a reviewer dropped and needed to be replaced.
2. the editor needed to get someone with specific content or methodological expertise.
Those are the two most common reasons on why you see a change of reviewers. Sometimes you use a method and all three reviewers say they are not comfortable reviewing it.
Jaret
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: While this is rare, it's not necessarily bad, and probably reflects more on the associate editor or the reviewers than you.
One of the jobs of an editor is to ensure that reviewers are sufficiently well qualified, objective, and thorough in their evaluation of a manuscript. Likewise, an editor-in-chief needs to ensure the handling editor is doing their job well as well.
It's hard to say without more details, but my guess on the most likely cause of this situation is that there was some issue with the original set of reviewers, such as:
* Too many were your recommended reviewers
* There was a critical missing perspective
* One or more of the reviewers turned in a low-quality review (which the editor might have forced them to improve before it got to you)
* The journal usually requires more than three reviews
This could be caused by bad choices by the handling editor or by having more than three reviewers originally assigned but some failing to return reviews.
Whatever the case may be, I would recommend not worrying about it too much. You can inquire with the editor if you wish, but don't be surprised if you don't get a particularly informative response (especially if the reason is a mistake they might feel embarrassed by).
Bottom line: it's not so strange, and your paper is probably still in good shape, though its fate is never certain until accepted.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: There're many possibilities. Here are some:
* One of the original reviewers declined to review the revision, and the editor decided he needed an expert to check your response.
* The editor received confidential comments from a reviewer saying he should invite a reviewer with [expertise], and decided to do that in the second round of review.
* Or possibly the editor had already invited reviewers with [expertise], but they declined. Since there are already three reviews, he opted to let you revise first and then invite reviewers with [expertise] after revision.
* The journal's standard policy is to require a certain (>3) number of reviewers. Again, since the editor already has three reviews, he opted to let you revise first and then invite the remaining reviewers after revision.
* The handling editor (not the editor-in-chief) invited three reviewers and was happy, but the editor-in-chief has a close friend who also works in your field and he thought, "I'm sure my friend will be interested in this, let's ask him".
Overall it's not something to worry about; just wait and let the process run its course.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/17
| 392
| 1,668
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have applied for a position last month and the deadline is on March. But by this time one of my work has been published in a good journal (which I wrote in my CV as under review). The position is competitive. Is it ok if I mail the professor and ask him to read my published work? (Though the published work is not so much similar to his work). Will it add extra value to my application? (I have talked with the professor regarding his work and admission several times through email)<issue_comment>username_1: I think it is fine to send the article, but not even necessary to ask him/her to read it. It is enough just to make it available, with a note about where it is published. It will be read or not, whether you ask or not. It is also good whether it is closely related to the professors area of research or not.
But making it available easily is a good thing to do and should enhance the application. It shows something about your ability, even if the sub-field is different and even if it isn't read.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: MAR is the deadline for applying or for the decision? (Action to take is similar with perhaps a minor different flavor.)
A. If for the application, just send an updated CV and a short note why (the paper accepted).
B. If for the decision, than send an email letting them know the paper was accepted and that you are still interested in the position. Short and sweet email. More of just a touch point since you have an excuse to do so.
P.s. In either case, do NOT bother attaching the paper--you didn't attach the in review papers, why attach the in press ones?
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/17
| 1,281
| 5,318
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am studying for a Master's in one of the top IIT in India and looking forward to apply for a PhD candidature. My institute follows relative grading. Faculty are allowed to assign grade themselves.
* Normally the student with the highest score in the class will be given S (10 points).
* The students with the next 3-4 high scores will be given A (9 points).
* This is followed by grade B (8 points) for next 5-6 student scores.
* The next 5-6 students will be given C (7 points).
* That is followed by the D (6 points) grade.
* All the remaining students will be given E grade (5 points).
For elective courses, the situation is even worse. For some elective courses I studied, there were less than 15 students and so it was only possible for 3-4 students in total to get an S or A grade. While applying for PhD, how should I have to deal with this? My Head of department agreed to provide me my position in her course.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> How can I explain my grades?
>
>
>
**Clearly, and with references:** You have done a reasonable job in this post of giving us a basic run-down of how the grading system at your university works. If you are trying to explain it to a university where you are an applicant, it would be useful to set out a document giving a brief but clear description of this system, and showing what rules correspond to the courses you did. Explain this as clearly and simply as you can, and try not to make it too long. Try to think like you are the person receiving this information, and ask what you would want to know to make it as clear as possible.
Also, remember that the university will not accept your word for this, so you should make proper references to the policies of the university where the grades were awarded. Your university in India should have policy or grading documents that set out this information, so the relevant sections of those document should be included as an annexure, and you should make reference to them whenever you make an assertion about the grading rules in your courses. Try to make it as easy as possible for the person reviewing your application.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Just a few quick notes on strategy based on having reviewed applications myself.
* First, IIT system is extremely well respected, and I think people understand that grades are assessed heterogeneously across the world. So, you may get more credit than you expect.
* Second, to my knowledge IIT admission is very competitive. So, I wouldn't hesitate to draw attention to that, even before discussing your grades (e.g. "I was one of the top 5% of students nationwide in the entrance exam", or something like that).
* Third, when assessing unfamiliar transcripts, I look for variation. So, I might note, "(s)he struggles in linear algebra but excelled at algorithms." If you are strong in the subjects you want to pursue, that will definitely count in your favor.
In any case, an explanation would definitely help. I'd say the key points are:
1. If you use a 0-10 point system and not an A-F system, **and** the university receiving the application does not require that you report grades on the US standard, I would not translate into A-F grades at all.
2. If you have to include them, then I would include information about the quota system as recommended above, noting that it is very competitive.
3. In particular, it would be good if you can translate your letter grades into rankings (e.g. B = rank 15/55) so people can put them into perspective.
For US institutions, there are a few places in your application where you can do this:
1. **Attach a supplementary explanation.** Many universities allow you to include a page to e.g. explain if you missed a semester because of a family emergency, or something like that. So, you can either write a small note, or just include another copy of your transcript with grades translated into ranks.
2. **Mention it in your personal statement.** "While the grading system is extremely competitive, I was able to graduate 23rd in my class of 100 students" or something like that.
3. **Ask your reccommenders to make a note as well.** I have read letters saying, "As you know, XX is the leading university in country XX, with an extremely selective admission rate of XX. My assessment is that candidate XX is one of the top students in the class, with a particular aptitude for XX."
Finally, you should check with other students and professors. I can't imagine you are the first IIT student to encounter this problem, and I am sure the school has strategies since many students are accepted in US institutions every year. Your transcript might even include a printed explanation page automatically.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Following username_1's answer - if the institution gets a lot of students from IITs that grade like this, there is a good chance that someone in the graduate office has a good understanding of how these gradings work.
When contacting potential supervisors - I would recommend it being helpful if you could say something like "in top x% of students in degree". If I got an application full of "S" with no explanation I would assume you are not a top student, as "S" = Satisfactory (min requirement met only) to me.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/18
| 1,168
| 4,992
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm the corresponding author of my accepted paper in a conference. I won't be able to attend the conference so one of the co-authors will attend and present the paper.
Now for the final paper submission, I have to make a full registration for the system to let me upload the final version.
Should I register and upload the final paper while I know I'm not going to attend? I know that only the corresponding author can submit the final version.
Is it possible to register and then somehow transfer my submission to my co-author who will be attending or he needs to make a separate registration?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> How can I explain my grades?
>
>
>
**Clearly, and with references:** You have done a reasonable job in this post of giving us a basic run-down of how the grading system at your university works. If you are trying to explain it to a university where you are an applicant, it would be useful to set out a document giving a brief but clear description of this system, and showing what rules correspond to the courses you did. Explain this as clearly and simply as you can, and try not to make it too long. Try to think like you are the person receiving this information, and ask what you would want to know to make it as clear as possible.
Also, remember that the university will not accept your word for this, so you should make proper references to the policies of the university where the grades were awarded. Your university in India should have policy or grading documents that set out this information, so the relevant sections of those document should be included as an annexure, and you should make reference to them whenever you make an assertion about the grading rules in your courses. Try to make it as easy as possible for the person reviewing your application.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Just a few quick notes on strategy based on having reviewed applications myself.
* First, IIT system is extremely well respected, and I think people understand that grades are assessed heterogeneously across the world. So, you may get more credit than you expect.
* Second, to my knowledge IIT admission is very competitive. So, I wouldn't hesitate to draw attention to that, even before discussing your grades (e.g. "I was one of the top 5% of students nationwide in the entrance exam", or something like that).
* Third, when assessing unfamiliar transcripts, I look for variation. So, I might note, "(s)he struggles in linear algebra but excelled at algorithms." If you are strong in the subjects you want to pursue, that will definitely count in your favor.
In any case, an explanation would definitely help. I'd say the key points are:
1. If you use a 0-10 point system and not an A-F system, **and** the university receiving the application does not require that you report grades on the US standard, I would not translate into A-F grades at all.
2. If you have to include them, then I would include information about the quota system as recommended above, noting that it is very competitive.
3. In particular, it would be good if you can translate your letter grades into rankings (e.g. B = rank 15/55) so people can put them into perspective.
For US institutions, there are a few places in your application where you can do this:
1. **Attach a supplementary explanation.** Many universities allow you to include a page to e.g. explain if you missed a semester because of a family emergency, or something like that. So, you can either write a small note, or just include another copy of your transcript with grades translated into ranks.
2. **Mention it in your personal statement.** "While the grading system is extremely competitive, I was able to graduate 23rd in my class of 100 students" or something like that.
3. **Ask your reccommenders to make a note as well.** I have read letters saying, "As you know, XX is the leading university in country XX, with an extremely selective admission rate of XX. My assessment is that candidate XX is one of the top students in the class, with a particular aptitude for XX."
Finally, you should check with other students and professors. I can't imagine you are the first IIT student to encounter this problem, and I am sure the school has strategies since many students are accepted in US institutions every year. Your transcript might even include a printed explanation page automatically.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Following username_1's answer - if the institution gets a lot of students from IITs that grade like this, there is a good chance that someone in the graduate office has a good understanding of how these gradings work.
When contacting potential supervisors - I would recommend it being helpful if you could say something like "in top x% of students in degree". If I got an application full of "S" with no explanation I would assume you are not a top student, as "S" = Satisfactory (min requirement met only) to me.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/18
| 826
| 3,699
|
<issue_start>username_0: We submitted to peer-review journal that has several Associate Editors. One of them is a lecturer in our department. Thus, the editor will not assign our paper review to him/her. Do we understand correctly?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes. An editor from the same institution as the authors has a clear conflict of interest, which is to be avoided.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I focus the following primarily on the *review* aspect, not on the editorial aspect.
I think the correct answer to this is that it is very unlikely, but not impossible. But background is needed. The main issue is conflict of interest. There are three parties and their interests partly align and partly not.
The journal, and the senior editor acting in its name, has an interest in publishing good papers (leaving out predatory journals here). The associate editor, under the senior editor, has the same interest.
The author has an interest in publishing papers, preferably good papers, but, for some, any paper will do. This is where the alignment of interest isn't perfect.
The reviewer has an interest in improving any paper *and* in providing good advice to the journal (editor).
However, in a case such as that presented by the OP, there is, possibly an additional interest of the reviewer, but we don't know what that is, since we don't know the nature of the relationship between the reviewer and author other than that they have the same employer. The relationship might be friendly/supportive, or it might be poisonous. Or, it might be anything in between.
But if we consider the situation of the senior editor and the associate, it is possible to know something of the nature of the relationship before any assignment is made, since, we hope, they work together and have a trust relationship.
Note, however, that reputations are involved, and, in fact, a reviewer's reputation (with the journal, at least) is harmed by giving improper reviews for any reason, including just laziness. So a reviewer has an additional interest in being fair and accurate. But this may not be their strongest motivation, of course. The editor's reputation, however, is much more affected by the outcome. I don't think an editor would last long by publishing bad papers or by making enemies of authors. An editor's academic reputation, in the current case, would certainly be harmed by improper actions if/when brought to light.
The editor, knowing all of this (we hope), but most likely not knowing anything of the relationship between reviewer and author, will be (should be) cautious. Hence, the unlikelihood that this reviewer will be assigned even in the face of the known alignment of interest otherwise. But the situation between senior and associate editors, involves more knowledge, at least in theory.
As an aside, the reason we have reviewers is that authors are often poor judges of their own recent work. If that were not true, review would be less necessary, though improvement is always good.
However, I can see situations in which an editor has a long term relationship with a reviewer and trusts the reviewer to *do the right thing* regardless of other circumstances. I've known of such situations in which an editor leans heavily on a certain trusted reviewer. This is, I think, unlikely in the case at hand, but cannot be ruled out entirely. Hence, I conclude that this reviewer *might* be assigned. Of course s/he might validly refuse. And, exactly the same situation applies between a senior editor and an associate.
Note that in a double blind review, none of the complications arise if only the senior editor knows the identity of all parties.
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/02/18
| 4,825
| 19,605
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a senior undergraduate about to publish my first academic paper, and have been thinking about taking an academic pseudonym to make myself easier to identify.
My full name is shared by **at least three famous people** (including one celebrity and one international athlete), and **at least two people inside academia** (one of whom works in my field). This is my major reason for wanting to change. In modern academia, it seems online identity/SEO is becoming increasingly important, and I don't want to have to compete for namespace with other people, who are:
1. more famous than I'll likely ever be; and
2. already have established careers and goodwill under that name.
Basically, it seems like it could be a real hindrance when trying to get my career off the ground.
I am quite attached to my first name, so I'm thinking about changing my last name only to an ancient variant of it. It's a similar name, but much less common, and it couldn't be mistaken as a misspelling of my real name (think Busher vs Bouchier, or Lombard vs Lambert). I can't find evidence of anyone online using that name, so it seems to solve all the problems mentioned above.
I hope to continue into academia and become a professor, in which case I would publish and be known professionally under the new name.
I'd rather not legally change my name, or have to change my name within my personal life, so it would be a situation of having separate professional and personal names. In the event I don't succeed/continue into academia, I could always just revert to my real name (unlikely that my published work will be relevant anyhow).
I'd like to get advice from you all, especially those of you that use a pseudonym in your academic work. A couple questions I have:
1. Does this seem like a worthwhile idea?
2. Could there be any issues with having different legal and professional names in a university IT system?
3. Should I change my undergrad enrolment to be under my new academic name? How about when applying to postgrad/PhD programs?
4. If I don't do (3), could/should I get degrees reprinted (once I have an established career) under my academic name, rather than my personal name?
5. Are there any hairy issues that could arise from this, which I might not have considered?
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: One option you may have is changing your name legally. This would avoid some of the complications you see. This is the time to do it, before you graduate and have a diploma under the current name.
As far as I know, the only reason to avoid using another name *legally* is that you can, in some circumstances be accused of fraud, but those circumstances are not the ones here since you don't have a *fraudulent purpose*.
I have something of a similar problem. I don't carry my birth name, for complicated reasons, but wish that I did. But once I graduated college it always seemed too late to change.
However, if you simply use a pseudonym, it will be learned sooner or later. That might complicate things or not, so think about that. If people start referring to you under both names interchangeably, others will be confused. You will eventually want a passport if you don't already have one. For this you need to use your legal name, and so, when you travel to international conferences, it will normally be under that name (a minor obstacle, of course).
And maybe some other famous athlete or academic will come along with your newly chosen name in any case. I share names with both famous athletes and academics, by the way. It has never been an issue, but in my case the fields of study are different. I've only ever gotten one email that should have gone to the other academic. A bit humorous, that.
Finally, your difficulty in starting out a career will be determined by far more fundamental things, I predict. As such, there is probably little downside in just leaving it as it is, using your current name.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have a middle name, then you could add a hyphen to derive a new name, e.g., *Alpha Bravo Charlie* could become *Alpha Bravo-Charlie*.
>
> Does this seem like a worthwhile idea?
>
>
>
Yes
>
> Could there be any issues with having different legal and professional names in a university IT system?
>
>
>
Yes, but this will vary university to university. An obvious problem might be the assignment of email addresses, e.g., *<EMAIL>*, but this can be resolved by a polite email.
>
> Should I change my undergrad enrolment to be under my new academic name?
>
>
>
This mightn't be possible, you'd need to justify (perhaps legally) a reason (which you cannot legally prove).
>
> How about when applying to postgrad/PhD programs?
>
>
>
You need to be careful: Don't commit fraud. Being employed under a non-legal name is possibly illegal, publishing under a non-legal name is not.
>
> could/should I get degrees reprinted (once I have an established career) under my academic name, rather than my personal name?
>
>
>
Some institutes may question a certificate in the "wrong" name, others won't, many won't check.
>
> Are there any hairy issues that could arise from this, which I might not have considered?
>
>
>
You might inadvertently commit fraud...
**EDIT**: I had assumed a full name clash (that's what the OP wrote). If there's merely a partial name clash, e.g., *<NAME>*, and the OP has a middle name, then I suggest that the OP simply uses their full name, e.g., *<NAME>*, as their name, that is, they always use their full name and they don't drop their middle name.
**EDIT II**: The comments suggest using an initial, e.g., *<NAME>* or *<NAME>. Charlie*, but I'm not sure whether this helps for SEO; a full name, e.g., *<NAME>*, seems more likely to succeed in terms of SEO.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Complementary to your own suggestions and the ones in the other answers, you could consider creating an ORCID (or of course any other unique researcher/author ID) and using it in all publications. The benefits here:
* By adding a unique identifier to your name, the name collisions can be resolved.
* If your change your name at a certain point (e.g., if you decide to change your name as you suggested in the question), the ID will remain the same. Therefore, you even might be able to postpone the decision whether to change your name.
* Since you mention online identity and SEO: At least ORCID comes with a profile web site (I am not familiar with other ID systems), where you can add your personal information and even maintain a list of your publications. Usually, a link to this profile is added to the publication, so readers can follow it. As to search engine optimization, I am not expert here but I would guess that the outcome of those algorithms improves if there is a unique ID that groups your contributions together.
Of course, all those ID systems are quite recent and might not be accepted (yet) by the journals and/or researchers in your field. Nevertheless, I would give it a try since it comes at no cost (which I presume won't be the case for changing legal documents).
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: Devil's advocate here.
I personally consider it a worthwhile idea, especially if you could add your middle name somewhere (as opposed to using a different last name). It would be a minor change in publications (just adding one letter), and it would still be easy to see how it refers to you.
However, this could be an issue for any publications you published before, and as you mentioned, degrees and enrollment, that you probably cannot change easily without legal proof (depending on your country).
Look at chinese researchers though, a lot of them have identical first name and last name, and they still end up publishing with these names. I see several reasons not to change the name: first, because they are identified usually by the academy they work in, which pretty much always goes with the author's name on a paper. Second, when you apply somewhere, or contact someone, if they are interested to look into you, they can make the effort to add one extra word and find you, for example by specifying your field of expertise, or again, your academy. For other people who happened to search for you on their own, the same answer is pretty much the same. If they look for you, they can make that extra effort (and if they work/look a lot into your field, their google history may be biased and will most likely already gets your result ahead).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: A former colleague has effectively swapped their middle and family names for publishing purposes (I believe their given middle name is also in some way inherited). The now surname is (for native English-speakers) simpler and more natural to spell and pronounce than the legal one, and they use the initial of the legal surname as a middle initial. The new name is simultaneously academically unique and intuitive for people from many cultures (working in English).
Applying this to [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Hodgkin) as an example would give *<NAME>*.
This is a slightly bigger change than the one you propose, and so far seems to work well.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: These kinds of variants are very common with first and middle names, but I've never seen it with a last name. For example someone with legal name <NAME> might easily publish under:
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* <NAME> (I don't know anyone who does this, but it would probably be fine)
* <NAME> (in the case where the person goes by Chase)
* Lutwidge Dodgeson (in the case where the person goes by their middle name)
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* ...
Maybe such a variant works for you. But normally, changes from First Middle Last are *toward* how one introduces oneself in conversation, not away.
As others have said, regardless of how you publish, IT systems and degrees will always contain your legal name. Having these be different is normal and fine as in the "<NAME>" example. The main sources of friction I see would be
1. When applying for jobs, it can confuse people or possibly someone will disbelieve these are your publications (although if they are listed on your website which contains both your legal name and pseudonym, hopefully it's okay).
2. People may be confused when meeting you in person or hearing about you third-hand, then they go to look for your publications. Every such interaction now needs some additional explanation, or maybe just a good explanatory sentence prominently on your website.
If you keep your last name unchanged, both of these are much easier or not existent at all. I think the difficulties are surmountable, but I'd definitely consider all your other options first. One is to legally change your middle name and use a variant with the middle initial or the full middle name.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Just passing through, I'm not an academic and can't speak to the specifics of academia. But I am someone with an interest in the legal use of pseudonyms.
The legalities of using a name other than the one on your birth certificate vary, obviously, by legal jurisdiction. In the USA, there are some Federal issues, but substantially it's up the the individual states, and their attitudes and procedures around this vary widely.
There are two populations that care very much about this issue: trans people and sole proprietors (people in business for themselves, who have not incorporated). This can be an excellent and informative lead for finding information specific to a jurisdiction: looking into how both those populations go about changing their names or working/functioning under something not (yet, or fully) their legal name.
For instance, I was recently surprised to learn that California has extremely liberal rules for name change, to the effect of, so long as you're not deceiving people as to your identity to commit crimes, you are whoever you say you are. Legally. This is called "name change by usage". Other states might consider that fraud.
Meanwhile, most(?) states have some way for people to officially register a name under which they do business. Sometimes this is called a "doing business as" or "DBA". This is what very small business owners do, when they are a "sole proprietor" (legal, IRS term, which means they *are* their business) and want to have a business name. Note, this is entirely different from incorporation. It merely creates a public record that, say, "<NAME>" is "dba" (doing business as) "<NAME>ing" or "<NAME>, Jr." I gather many states do this on the county level, but here in Massachusetts, it's handled by municipalities (and BOY did this confuse the computer at my new out-of-state bank), where it's called a "Business Certificate". You go to your city hall, fill out a form (which, note, makes your new business name, its connection to your old business name, and your home address all a public record together), and pay them some money (I paid I think $60 for a four year certificate) and, boom, you're good to go.
Why do this? So that you can, say, walk into a bank and open a bank account with that name, so that people who want to pay you by writing checks can write them to the name you prefer and you can still deposit them - something all the banks I talked to would not do without seeing the official embossed Business Certificate. I don't know to what extent payment processors like PayPal care about matching names on bank accounts and credit cards when they're being linked to the account, but that may also be an issue.
I found out that there are relatively recent Federal laws for renting mail boxes at mail box services (PO Boxes, only from commercial services) that require them to have your "real name" - again, my Business Certificate made it acceptable (and maybe legal?) for me to have my business name on my box (and receive mail for my business!) instead of just my personal legal name, but it also requires my legal name.
There are a whole bunch of places in life where we do business with our names, and it might be sticky or awkward for you to be functioning under a name not on your ID. Going out drinking with colleagues and getting carded. Getting your ID checked for a flight to a conference (being paged by the airline to come to the white courtesy phone). Reserving a hotel room at a conference, which has to be secured with a credit card. Splitting the cost of a pizza with Venmo.
On top of all that, there have been some huge controversies about social media giants – Facebook, Google – having "real name" policies which lead to users, including some quite famous ones, getting locked out of their accounts for using pen names, stage names, etc. instead of their "real" names. [Facebook kicked out *<NAME>*, of all people – one of the most famous novelists in the world – because his *legal* first name is "Ahmed".](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/salman-rushdie-battles-facebook-over-his-identity-flna119099) Basically, using any sort of pseudonym opens you up to the possibility of this kind of bureaucratic harassment. It helps to have some legal paperwork – but it might not be enough.
I would caution you that using a pseudonym – even a very open one (the connection between nym and legal name is not at all a secret) – is generally, slowly becoming more and more difficult in the US and treated more and more prejudicially. Fully-fledged legal name changes don't have that problem. But increasingly, systems – business, legal, social, technological – treat people who try to function under more than one name as suspicious and possibly criminal.
Some of that is ignorance, and hostility to the notion of people being "two-faced". But I also have been entertaining the hypothesis that having multiple names is a kind of class marker. The populations which have multiple personal names tend to be those with reputational management issues - which you, as an aspiring academic, can appreciate. Those issues can be lumped into two rough piles. For one, there are people managing stigmatized identities, such as immigrants who Anglicize their names when in the workplace, but continue to be known as their original, traditional names among friends and families. For another, there are people whose identities are "brands", such as in your case. Most of the individuals whose identities are brands they need to manage for the sake of their career success? Are usually in some line of work which is either intellectual or artistic or both.
There are plenty of people in the US who are hostile to immigrants and intellectuals, and I think some of them take finding someone has two names as indicative they are likely one of *them* – and that's not even erroneous – those outsiders and "elites" who do weird things like have two names.
Wherever it comes from, public policy and private attitudes in the US are slowly swinging towards insisting that people have one, official name, and use it for everything. Expect more obstacles to crop up, over time, if you try to function under a pseudonym that doesn't have some legal underpinning, and maybe even if it does.
This may not be a problem if you're comfortable treating your professional name as a kind of nickname, and always fall back on what's in your wallet. But it will be a thing that comes up. Possibly more than you imagine. Possibly more than *I* imagine.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: As mentioned in other answers, **yes**, this is a worthwhile idea1 for SEO purposes, since you correctly note that, at least in *some* domains, online identities are increasingly important. Not being able to easily find a researcher by googling their name *might* not be important but from my experience searchability is at least a minor convenience, and can occasionally be important.
I would simply like to add some weight by noting that this is actually done *extremely commonly*, in at least three situations:
* People (especially women) who get married in Western societies often continue publishing under their birth name.
* Due to Eurocentrism, most researchers whose name is in a non-Western script (such as Cyrillic or CJKV) transliterate their names (for which there are no fixed spelling rules, and thus different outcomes) or even take on Western nicknames (“<NAME>”, aka. 陳港生).
* People from cultures with double surnames (e.g. Spanish, Portuguese) tend to hyphenate their last names for publication purposes, such that Inês Gomes Figueira might publish under the name Inês Gomes-Figueira. This might not seem like a big change but it is in fact a completely different name, and at least as big a change as using an alternative spelling for your last name.
---
1 With the caveat that you can’t easily change past records, and may not be legally allowed to change your name on certificates (but this isn’t a problem!).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: So it seems like you are really just trying to distinguish yourself from other with the same name. The most likely approach at least to me would be to publish as yourself, but with a unique identifier i.e. a nickname.
<NAME>. (JR) Smith
While I can't remember specifics on where I've seen this, I have seen it multiple times, and as it doesn't change your name.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/18
| 4,296
| 17,458
|
<issue_start>username_0: When one finishes a degree or a research position, the boss asks to carry on sth unfinished (unpaid), does one need to agree to do so?<issue_comment>username_1: One option you may have is changing your name legally. This would avoid some of the complications you see. This is the time to do it, before you graduate and have a diploma under the current name.
As far as I know, the only reason to avoid using another name *legally* is that you can, in some circumstances be accused of fraud, but those circumstances are not the ones here since you don't have a *fraudulent purpose*.
I have something of a similar problem. I don't carry my birth name, for complicated reasons, but wish that I did. But once I graduated college it always seemed too late to change.
However, if you simply use a pseudonym, it will be learned sooner or later. That might complicate things or not, so think about that. If people start referring to you under both names interchangeably, others will be confused. You will eventually want a passport if you don't already have one. For this you need to use your legal name, and so, when you travel to international conferences, it will normally be under that name (a minor obstacle, of course).
And maybe some other famous athlete or academic will come along with your newly chosen name in any case. I share names with both famous athletes and academics, by the way. It has never been an issue, but in my case the fields of study are different. I've only ever gotten one email that should have gone to the other academic. A bit humorous, that.
Finally, your difficulty in starting out a career will be determined by far more fundamental things, I predict. As such, there is probably little downside in just leaving it as it is, using your current name.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have a middle name, then you could add a hyphen to derive a new name, e.g., *Alpha Bravo Charlie* could become *Alpha Bravo-Charlie*.
>
> Does this seem like a worthwhile idea?
>
>
>
Yes
>
> Could there be any issues with having different legal and professional names in a university IT system?
>
>
>
Yes, but this will vary university to university. An obvious problem might be the assignment of email addresses, e.g., *<EMAIL>*, but this can be resolved by a polite email.
>
> Should I change my undergrad enrolment to be under my new academic name?
>
>
>
This mightn't be possible, you'd need to justify (perhaps legally) a reason (which you cannot legally prove).
>
> How about when applying to postgrad/PhD programs?
>
>
>
You need to be careful: Don't commit fraud. Being employed under a non-legal name is possibly illegal, publishing under a non-legal name is not.
>
> could/should I get degrees reprinted (once I have an established career) under my academic name, rather than my personal name?
>
>
>
Some institutes may question a certificate in the "wrong" name, others won't, many won't check.
>
> Are there any hairy issues that could arise from this, which I might not have considered?
>
>
>
You might inadvertently commit fraud...
**EDIT**: I had assumed a full name clash (that's what the OP wrote). If there's merely a partial name clash, e.g., *<NAME>*, and the OP has a middle name, then I suggest that the OP simply uses their full name, e.g., *<NAME>*, as their name, that is, they always use their full name and they don't drop their middle name.
**EDIT II**: The comments suggest using an initial, e.g., *<NAME>* or *<NAME>. Charlie*, but I'm not sure whether this helps for SEO; a full name, e.g., *<NAME>*, seems more likely to succeed in terms of SEO.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Complementary to your own suggestions and the ones in the other answers, you could consider creating an ORCID (or of course any other unique researcher/author ID) and using it in all publications. The benefits here:
* By adding a unique identifier to your name, the name collisions can be resolved.
* If your change your name at a certain point (e.g., if you decide to change your name as you suggested in the question), the ID will remain the same. Therefore, you even might be able to postpone the decision whether to change your name.
* Since you mention online identity and SEO: At least ORCID comes with a profile web site (I am not familiar with other ID systems), where you can add your personal information and even maintain a list of your publications. Usually, a link to this profile is added to the publication, so readers can follow it. As to search engine optimization, I am not expert here but I would guess that the outcome of those algorithms improves if there is a unique ID that groups your contributions together.
Of course, all those ID systems are quite recent and might not be accepted (yet) by the journals and/or researchers in your field. Nevertheless, I would give it a try since it comes at no cost (which I presume won't be the case for changing legal documents).
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: Devil's advocate here.
I personally consider it a worthwhile idea, especially if you could add your middle name somewhere (as opposed to using a different last name). It would be a minor change in publications (just adding one letter), and it would still be easy to see how it refers to you.
However, this could be an issue for any publications you published before, and as you mentioned, degrees and enrollment, that you probably cannot change easily without legal proof (depending on your country).
Look at chinese researchers though, a lot of them have identical first name and last name, and they still end up publishing with these names. I see several reasons not to change the name: first, because they are identified usually by the academy they work in, which pretty much always goes with the author's name on a paper. Second, when you apply somewhere, or contact someone, if they are interested to look into you, they can make the effort to add one extra word and find you, for example by specifying your field of expertise, or again, your academy. For other people who happened to search for you on their own, the same answer is pretty much the same. If they look for you, they can make that extra effort (and if they work/look a lot into your field, their google history may be biased and will most likely already gets your result ahead).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: A former colleague has effectively swapped their middle and family names for publishing purposes (I believe their given middle name is also in some way inherited). The now surname is (for native English-speakers) simpler and more natural to spell and pronounce than the legal one, and they use the initial of the legal surname as a middle initial. The new name is simultaneously academically unique and intuitive for people from many cultures (working in English).
Applying this to [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Hodgkin) as an example would give *<NAME>*.
This is a slightly bigger change than the one you propose, and so far seems to work well.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: These kinds of variants are very common with first and middle names, but I've never seen it with a last name. For example someone with legal name <NAME> might easily publish under:
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* <NAME> (I don't know anyone who does this, but it would probably be fine)
* <NAME> (in the case where the person goes by Chase)
* <NAME> (in the case where the person goes by their middle name)
* <NAME>
* <NAME>
* ...
Maybe such a variant works for you. But normally, changes from First Middle Last are *toward* how one introduces oneself in conversation, not away.
As others have said, regardless of how you publish, IT systems and degrees will always contain your legal name. Having these be different is normal and fine as in the "Chase Dodgeson" example. The main sources of friction I see would be
1. When applying for jobs, it can confuse people or possibly someone will disbelieve these are your publications (although if they are listed on your website which contains both your legal name and pseudonym, hopefully it's okay).
2. People may be confused when meeting you in person or hearing about you third-hand, then they go to look for your publications. Every such interaction now needs some additional explanation, or maybe just a good explanatory sentence prominently on your website.
If you keep your last name unchanged, both of these are much easier or not existent at all. I think the difficulties are surmountable, but I'd definitely consider all your other options first. One is to legally change your middle name and use a variant with the middle initial or the full middle name.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Just passing through, I'm not an academic and can't speak to the specifics of academia. But I am someone with an interest in the legal use of pseudonyms.
The legalities of using a name other than the one on your birth certificate vary, obviously, by legal jurisdiction. In the USA, there are some Federal issues, but substantially it's up the the individual states, and their attitudes and procedures around this vary widely.
There are two populations that care very much about this issue: trans people and sole proprietors (people in business for themselves, who have not incorporated). This can be an excellent and informative lead for finding information specific to a jurisdiction: looking into how both those populations go about changing their names or working/functioning under something not (yet, or fully) their legal name.
For instance, I was recently surprised to learn that California has extremely liberal rules for name change, to the effect of, so long as you're not deceiving people as to your identity to commit crimes, you are whoever you say you are. Legally. This is called "name change by usage". Other states might consider that fraud.
Meanwhile, most(?) states have some way for people to officially register a name under which they do business. Sometimes this is called a "doing business as" or "DBA". This is what very small business owners do, when they are a "sole proprietor" (legal, IRS term, which means they *are* their business) and want to have a business name. Note, this is entirely different from incorporation. It merely creates a public record that, say, "<NAME>" is "dba" (doing business as) "Joe's Plumbing" or "<NAME>, Jr." I gather many states do this on the county level, but here in Massachusetts, it's handled by municipalities (and BOY did this confuse the computer at my new out-of-state bank), where it's called a "Business Certificate". You go to your city hall, fill out a form (which, note, makes your new business name, its connection to your old business name, and your home address all a public record together), and pay them some money (I paid I think $60 for a four year certificate) and, boom, you're good to go.
Why do this? So that you can, say, walk into a bank and open a bank account with that name, so that people who want to pay you by writing checks can write them to the name you prefer and you can still deposit them - something all the banks I talked to would not do without seeing the official embossed Business Certificate. I don't know to what extent payment processors like PayPal care about matching names on bank accounts and credit cards when they're being linked to the account, but that may also be an issue.
I found out that there are relatively recent Federal laws for renting mail boxes at mail box services (PO Boxes, only from commercial services) that require them to have your "real name" - again, my Business Certificate made it acceptable (and maybe legal?) for me to have my business name on my box (and receive mail for my business!) instead of just my personal legal name, but it also requires my legal name.
There are a whole bunch of places in life where we do business with our names, and it might be sticky or awkward for you to be functioning under a name not on your ID. Going out drinking with colleagues and getting carded. Getting your ID checked for a flight to a conference (being paged by the airline to come to the white courtesy phone). Reserving a hotel room at a conference, which has to be secured with a credit card. Splitting the cost of a pizza with Venmo.
On top of all that, there have been some huge controversies about social media giants – Facebook, Google – having "real name" policies which lead to users, including some quite famous ones, getting locked out of their accounts for using pen names, stage names, etc. instead of their "real" names. [Facebook kicked out *<NAME>*, of all people – one of the most famous novelists in the world – because his *legal* first name is "Ahmed".](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/salman-rushdie-battles-facebook-over-his-identity-flna119099) Basically, using any sort of pseudonym opens you up to the possibility of this kind of bureaucratic harassment. It helps to have some legal paperwork – but it might not be enough.
I would caution you that using a pseudonym – even a very open one (the connection between nym and legal name is not at all a secret) – is generally, slowly becoming more and more difficult in the US and treated more and more prejudicially. Fully-fledged legal name changes don't have that problem. But increasingly, systems – business, legal, social, technological – treat people who try to function under more than one name as suspicious and possibly criminal.
Some of that is ignorance, and hostility to the notion of people being "two-faced". But I also have been entertaining the hypothesis that having multiple names is a kind of class marker. The populations which have multiple personal names tend to be those with reputational management issues - which you, as an aspiring academic, can appreciate. Those issues can be lumped into two rough piles. For one, there are people managing stigmatized identities, such as immigrants who Anglicize their names when in the workplace, but continue to be known as their original, traditional names among friends and families. For another, there are people whose identities are "brands", such as in your case. Most of the individuals whose identities are brands they need to manage for the sake of their career success? Are usually in some line of work which is either intellectual or artistic or both.
There are plenty of people in the US who are hostile to immigrants and intellectuals, and I think some of them take finding someone has two names as indicative they are likely one of *them* – and that's not even erroneous – those outsiders and "elites" who do weird things like have two names.
Wherever it comes from, public policy and private attitudes in the US are slowly swinging towards insisting that people have one, official name, and use it for everything. Expect more obstacles to crop up, over time, if you try to function under a pseudonym that doesn't have some legal underpinning, and maybe even if it does.
This may not be a problem if you're comfortable treating your professional name as a kind of nickname, and always fall back on what's in your wallet. But it will be a thing that comes up. Possibly more than you imagine. Possibly more than *I* imagine.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: As mentioned in other answers, **yes**, this is a worthwhile idea1 for SEO purposes, since you correctly note that, at least in *some* domains, online identities are increasingly important. Not being able to easily find a researcher by googling their name *might* not be important but from my experience searchability is at least a minor convenience, and can occasionally be important.
I would simply like to add some weight by noting that this is actually done *extremely commonly*, in at least three situations:
* People (especially women) who get married in Western societies often continue publishing under their birth name.
* Due to Eurocentrism, most researchers whose name is in a non-Western script (such as Cyrillic or CJKV) transliterate their names (for which there are no fixed spelling rules, and thus different outcomes) or even take on Western nicknames (“<NAME>”, aka. 陳港生).
* People from cultures with double surnames (e.g. Spanish, Portuguese) tend to hyphenate their last names for publication purposes, such that <NAME> might publish under the name <NAME>. This might not seem like a big change but it is in fact a completely different name, and at least as big a change as using an alternative spelling for your last name.
---
1 With the caveat that you can’t easily change past records, and may not be legally allowed to change your name on certificates (but this isn’t a problem!).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: So it seems like you are really just trying to distinguish yourself from other with the same name. The most likely approach at least to me would be to publish as yourself, but with a unique identifier i.e. a nickname.
<NAME>. (JR) Smith
While I can't remember specifics on where I've seen this, I have seen it multiple times, and as it doesn't change your name.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/18
| 1,745
| 7,316
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my Ph.D. in condensed-matter physics, I published a paper together with two other students. The research group of the university that I am originally from (in Madrid, Spain) happened to work on the same subject and, later on, published another paper where they criticize our work, propose their own, and claim that theirs ‘works’ better. This group includes a famous and highly influential professor.
I could finally get around to study their results, reproduce every single bit of them, and found a major flaw, which invalidates their conclusions, including the superiority of their approach over ours.
I am now a permanent researcher in another country, but would like to go back to Madrid some day for personal reasons. It is a small world, and it is likely that I will have to interact/negotiate with that group if I ever want to go back.
On the one hand, I would like to publish this work where I found the flaw, in order to get things straightened out and properly settle the scientific issue. On the other hand, this may cause a strong embarrassment for them and be detrimental on a relational/political level, possibly implying a revenge from their side.
I could certainly write them a polite email before publishing, trying to be as delicate as possible and frame the whole thing in a positive way. However, I doubt that this will make a difference on the long term.
How can I deal with this? Have you ever been in a similar situation?<issue_comment>username_1: Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it *or* you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.
If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...
The science is the important thing.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: It's clear that you have your own interests in this special situation that you outlined. Other researchers have other interests. If you believe your work is better, as a physicist/reader I would expect you to publish your work/method or comment their critics in a new publication. Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general.
Don't put your personal interests over the scientific need to publish the flaw you found, especially when you are in a permanent position paid by taxes. You are in a permanent position.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm no physicist, but speaking from common sense: Depending on how "ground-breaking" your discovery of their mistake is, here are the options I would consider:
* Silly mistake that could have been avoided by being careful or by knowing a bit more math: Write up a correction, contact the group and offer to co-author the correction with them, so that way everyone "saves face" and you are likely to remain friends and future colegas.
* Fundamental mistake that some of their team members may not pick up even after lengthy communication: proceed as above initially, knowing that you may end up publishing alone (if you're correct about the mistake and manage to convince a journal). Friendships may or may not be damaged.
* Earth-shattering stuff that requires a gestalt shift: write up, contact them for the sake of politeness and to give them a chance for a rebuttal, but publish alone. Science wins, but friendships not so much.
In all cases, remain super polite and respectful, obviously.
A diplomatic way to title your write-up: "Corrigendum" or even "Comment" rather than "Rebuttal."
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: The first thing to do is to typeset your work and check it - if possible ask someone else to look over it if only superficially to make sure there is no obvious oversight on your part. Typesetting is a form of deep proofreading so this will also force you re-evaluate your own work with the mindset of explaining to others what you have done.
The next thing is to contact one of the persons involved (presumably the senior author if possible) in the erroneous paper, asking for clarifications and supplying your notes as evidence that you cannot duplicate or disagree with the original result. Statements like *I am quite puzzled as to how you got from here to here because...* or *Could you clarify why you make this approximation because it seems to me...* are useful for softly directing attention to the contentious issues.
Presumably this would be enough to get some sort of discussion going. The key point is to allow plenty of time for the other group to assess your own work and compare it to theirs.
Finally, you can eventually write your own rebuttal, including in the conclusion or acknowledgments discussions with authors of said papers if such a back-and-forth took place.
I have been on the *receiving end* of such papers, i.e. some groups have published results challenging work done with collaborators, whereas in fact we had never made the claims under challenge. I have also received advanced copies of manuscript citing my papers and found the authors to have overlooked a crucial details. I much prefer the second scenario, irrespective of where an error was to be found.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: There are four possibilities, for this moment:
1. They are wrong, you are right.
2. You are wrong, they are right.
3. Both you and them are wrong;
4. Both you and them are right.
It is also possible that future will cast new light on the situation - but that no one can predict.
Hence, publish as-is, reference the other study, say that your result is different and explain why it is different. There are nicer ways of putting forward why the other party is mistaken, ranging from:
>
> However, if the term is omitted, ...
>
>
>
all the way up/down to:
>
> ... which appears to be a typesetting error ...
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I have a differing opinion from some of the other answers. I have not been in a similar situation but I worked in the condensed matter field and I've seen how some of these criticizing papers go.
If it is your intention to one day return to Madrid I propose you follow the advice of [username_4](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/125190/87977) with one major difference: when you approach them suggesting there might be a problem in their approach, propose a collaboration with them. This costs you nothing (except maybe sharing authorship of a paper for which you've done most of the work), gains them a publication and a chance to be on the "correct" team, and sets up a favourable relationship for you in the future.
Should the collaboration fall through (or more likely, never actualize) they will still have been sufficiently warned, and should not take offense. (Of course, they may *still* take offense, but that might be true regardless of your approach to the situation.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/18
| 1,459
| 5,913
|
<issue_start>username_0: Apologies if this question is not entirely fitting for this Exchange, but I didn't know where else to ask.
I am currently working through my Masters, and while talking with one of my professors the question "Would you be interested in continuing with a PhD" came up. I have thought about this frequently over the last few months, but I can't seem to come to a proper answer. I believe the problem here lies in the fact that with a Bachelor or Masters you kind of know what you're getting into and what will be expected of you, while for a PhD it is kinda hard to find information (at least for me / in my country).
I have already gained some industry experience before coming back to University, and thus I know for certain that I would not like spending my life doing boring, repetitive office tasks; I plan on taking on as many extra-curricular activities during my Masters that can expose me to the 'department life', or at least give me a glimpse of what working in Academia is like.
However, despite all this, I keep coming back to the original question and not knowing what to think: Would a PhD hold my interest for however long it takes me to complete it? Would I enjoy working in Academia afterwards? What should I expect from a PhD in my field? Would I get one just to (possibly) be hired by a top-tier company doing cutting-edge/research work?
I don't know if I'm conveying my thought clearly here, but what I am trying to say is that there is virtually no information on what is expected of a PhD student, what Academia life is like and all this kind of stuff. How does one know if doing research would be a good fit for him/her if there's no prior exposure to this kind of work? Would I be good at teaching in case I decide to stay in Academia? How do I assess this?
I feel like there must be a way to clear my thoughts and get some answers *before* I decide to enroll in a multi-year PhD program and possibly waste years of my life leading up to nothing, having to fall back to an everyday industry job with less experience than someone of my age.
Again, I realise how general and convoluted this post is, and I won't mind deleting it if it is deemed unfit for this Exchange, but I'm honestly at a loss on where to go next and would like to hear opinions coming from people that are/have been in the field.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to read all of this!
As pointed out in guest's answer, I'm specifying that my field is STEM (Bachelors in CS, Masters in Data Science). You can read more details and my reply to his answer in the comment section, which might give a little bit of insight into what I initially wrote here.<issue_comment>username_1: 1. You will get a more helpful answer if you add the field you work in. Perhaps leaving the question general, but "sneaking in" some info on your field.
2. I have worked in several industries and never been bored. Certainly more routine jobs do exist. But I would not exaggerate the stereotype of industry boring or even of academic research being exciting (it is not, always). New products, initiatives, markets, etc give many private sector jobs plenty of excitement.
3. I urge you not to do the Ph.D. unless you see yourself as top 25-50% in your field (a higher percentage correlating to subjects with more industrial hiring of Ph.D.'s). It is very important to realize that there is a glut of Ph.D.'s on the market. At least in STEM, the number of doctoral slots is determined by the amount of (mostly federal) funding for research. It is NOT determined by the number of high paying jobs needing graduates. [I laugh at C&EN exhorting more kids to go into STEM in the same issue they talk about the intense competition at job fairs...and chemistry is actually better than math or physics.]
This is not to say don't do it. But go in with your eyes wide open. At a minimum talk to kids looking for jobs in their final year. (Or about advisor relations, thesis writing, etc.) I do think the experience can be OK but you really need to look out for number 1. Don't just do it because you don't know what you want to do, prof talked you into it, etc. At a minimum, do a job search in parallel (you don't need to let each "side" know you are doing this).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The academic life is mostly about research and teaching. The balance between the two depends on where you work. At large research institutions, mostly research and advising grad students (researchers). At (usually) small teaching institutions, mostly teaching.
The only way, I think, to learn if it is a life for you is not to think about it, balancing out the various factors, but to actually try it. You are in a good position to do so if you take a PhD in most fields. You will mostly be involved in research, of course, but you can probably TA for a professor and get a taste of teaching. Initially the taste of teaching is pretty small, but advanced students are often offered to teach a course completely.
But if you start a program you can end your commitment at any time that you learn it isn't right for you. It probably isn't good psychologically to be *too* tentative about it, but it is a process that plays out.
Your attitude as expressed in your post seems particularly good for making a good go of it, with evaluation along the way (trying lots of things). I'd suggest that you are a candidate for success.
Contrary to another answer/comment here, while there may be a glut of people in STEM fields at the moment there is also, currently a massive hiring push in CS. I get many announcements every day. And, as has been true in the past, today's glut can be tomorrow's dearth. Literally, tomorrow. And the reverse, of course.
Do what you want to do. Evaluate what you are doing. If it isn't right, do something different. Life is too short to leave opportunities unexplored.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/18
| 4,809
| 19,908
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm 3rd Physics & Mathematics student and I almost hate both taking and attending lectures; it is not because of the content, but rather the way how it is done; I don't like sitting in uncomfortable in a crowded room for 50 min. unstopped.
To explain what I mean, let me describe an "ideal" learning environment for me, which was what I had during this last winter break - it was like a paradise.
I was studying Quantum Mechanics from the video recordings of a graduate course taught by one of my professors and I was watching them in my home with my pyjamas. While watching the lectures, if I didn't understand something, I would stop and think on about it, make some research, check out the book that I was using etc. and (after all those tries) if I still couldn't find it, I would take notes and think on it for days while I was still making progress through the course material. With this way, in a single day, I was watching almost 4 hours of lectures and taking detailed notes of those lectures (which were actually taking much more time than watching the lectures). That experience was like a paradise for me; I was progressing at my own pace, taking breaks whenever I feel I need it. There was no worry of any grade; I was doing this in a "holiday" just because I wanted to learn quantum mechanics, not because I needed to pass an exam.
But if I were to learn QM by taking a course from the university, most of the time, I would be forced to take the course from a single professor with a curriculum s/he prepared - not I chose - and most probably I wouldn't like his/her teaching (let's say I am a bit picky). Moreover, even though I would be the active student in the class, at some point during the lecture I stop thinking on what is being taught and that would make me sleepy. Also, I would have to take good grades from that course, so there would also be the grade-anxiety. And the list goes on and on, but you get the point.
Now, considering the fact that even most of Phd/Master's programs have some course loads, and even as a professor one needs to give lectures, can I, being such a person, survive in academia? or should I just look for other alternative career options?
I mean I love Science, but just don't like some of "formal" practices, such described above.
Just a side note: I actually like teaching things, but not giving lectures to a whole lot of people; I mean I have a friend who asks me lots of questions, and I love answering & discussing those with, but giving lectures is totally a different experience, which I despise.
**Edit:** There is no requirement that forces me to attend the lectures, but when I take lectures, I have to "learn" the notation / the content of the materials the instructor is teaching. In terms of what I want to learn and when I want to learn, just not attending the lectures does not solve the problem.<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately you are responsible for your own learning. This is true whether you have lectures available or not. True whether the lectures are helpful or not.
If lectures are required or attendance is graded you will suffer from non attendance, but you know that, of course.
But the opinion that your professor has of you is also important. But attending lectures is only one way to affect that. If you really don't want to attend lectures, I'd suggest that you have a face to face conversation with the professor so that you can meet your goals without upsetting a person with some authority and who may be in a position to help you along the way.
My own opinion about lectures is that they are a poor way to teach. Student practice and reinforcement is much more important than listening to a speech. In the 17th century, lectures were an efficient way to reach more than a small number of students. Books were expensive and other learning aids non existent.
I'd suggest that if you have a way to learn that isn't like what the masses are comfortable with that you discuss it with the prof. who may be able to supplement your ideas on learning.
But you may also, just have to yield to the system to avoid getting penalized for things that shouldn't really matter.
I'll note that if you came to me, I might want to put you to work helping others, rather than attending lectures, and even giving you exams that were a bit different than the normal ones. Probably harder exams.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's definitely a negative factor. But of course one factor among several.
I personally enjoy lectures more when I pre-study the material (even doing some drill) so the lecture becomes more of a review or alternate viewpoint rather than initial learning. But if you tell me next, you don't like textbooks...
But then again I sort of enjoy lectures, feels like a performance I get to watch.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I can sympathize. I'm extremely susceptible to "Power Point" hypnosis: 10 slides in and my head is staring to nod, 30 slides and I'm in danger of snoring. This isn't limited to dull talks, or the amount of sleep I got the night before, it's apparently a quirk of my physiology.
However, part of your education is learning to exercise your skills in suboptimal conditions. [Schwarzschild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild) wrote three important papers on gravitation while serving on the Russian front in WWI. Attending lectures may not be optimal for you, but is it really such a huge hardship?
If you stay in academia you are probably going to need to listen to talks at conferences, listen to presentations by your students, and attend seemingly endless faculty meetings. There are equivalent obstacles in the non-academic world. By all means, arrange your days and your study environment as you find most effective. But learn to work with the fact that world is full of friction, and learn to cope with the minor inefficiencies it imposes on you.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm a physicist, and I felt essentially the same way when I was a student. Lectures are a ridiculous custom. For physics at the freshman level, there is a great deal of research showing that lecturing is an ineffective way to teach, even for professors who work hard at it and get wonderful teaching evaluations.
Just work around these issues. If there's no reason to go to class, don't go to class. Sit in a cafe and study instead. If there's a reason why you really need to go to class, you can always sit in the back of the room and study.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Lectures often suck, but they're pretty much unavoidable until candidacy. Same thing with using books you don't like or studying material you don't find well-motivated.
It's best not to waste energy fighting these inevitabilities. Of course you should take whatever chances you get for self-study and supplementary reading from sources of your choice, but you won't escape classes completely.
When it comes down to it, what you're really fighting against is most likely that you think the academic system should be better. It should be, but it isn't. Accept what you can't change, and try to make the best of what's there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I think you can survive in academia even if you hate lectures.
I hated them myself but I pushed through and did a PhD. What I would say is that there seems to be a much higher emphasis in the US on taking lectures than there is in Europe ! I've spent time in both academic systems. In my opinion, I think there is much less of a focus on attending lectures during postgraduate study in Europe!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: You might have another problem or two that needs addressing. It might be worth sitting and reflecting on what you "really" hate about the experience. It just dull and pointless and wasting your time? If so you might need to work on patience and process (learning to do the thing and be OK with the time it takes), because some of life is doing what your boss/professor/etc asks even if you don't want to and think there's a more productive use for your time. Otherwise, is it hard to sit there because you hate everything and everything is distracting and annoying, so you aren't learning anyways? That might indicate an underlying problem like ADHD or depression, where a combination of mental exercises (self soothing, calming, reducing the noise) and medical treatment (e.g. an SSRI for depression or stimulants for ADHD) can really help reduce the discomfort and annoyance. Or are you just physically uncomfortable the whole time? Is there anything you can do about that or request to accommodate that? Sit in the back and get up to stretch or even walk outside into the halls when things get achy / restless?
In today's world of online education and resources, you may be well placed to work around it, but the setting (sitting through boring meetings with people / things that make you want to burn it all down) will keep coming up throughout your adult life, so nailing down some of the causes and techniques for handling them can be beneficial throughout your life. Otherwise, nailing it down might help you figure out what type of work/study you might be cut out for and what sorts of things you want to avoid.
Source: PhD in a biomedical field and still struggling with some of these issues
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: There are few options to consider and not all of them will work on every kind of study nor with every teacher but it's always better to try it. One note though - you need to be really good in order to try most of them as you need your teachers to sympathise. Before I move on let me first challenge your approach a bit.
---
>
> There was no worry of grade
>
>
>
Well, the professor that teaches you has to measure you somehow. Also you have to be comparable against other students. One of the basic reasons is that someone needs to able to decide who's worth of going further so yes, you will be graded. Also grades should show if you make progress. On the other hand the way you are graded may depend on your agreement with a professor.
Let me give you an example. Where I studied each subject has two parts - lectures and exercises. For exercises you have tests, usually two in every semester. You need to pass both to graduate for the next semester or from the course.
Twice I managed to get the grade not by completing those tests but having instead a totally different task assigned. The task was outside of what was regularly taught. In general my solutions were often somewhat different from the "standard approach", leading to results that were considered as quite new by the professors that taught those topics. Once my end result was entirely different to everyone else in the group for the same task but no-one including the professor could find a flaw in my reasoning. I was told I'll get a max grade if I manage to prove that my result is actually consistent. Yes, it took me a month and I had to use some strange theorem suggested by one of fellow students (definitely not taught in the normal course on any subject, not to mention this specific) but eventually I managed to create a proof.
The second case it turned out my solution to the task (which I found obvious actually) was considered by my professor as an extraordinary result. The original task was just to present the solution but the professor told me that if I can provide the justification that my solution is correct (which he assumed he also considered intuitively to be correct) I'll be granted a max grade. So I did it (it was super-easy for me, the most difficult part was building the correct definition of the function I've created but I had it already well thought over).
>
> I'm force to take that lecture from a single professor (...)
>
>
>
Well, not really. A single professor is responsible for grading your progress. You may go to other professors or learn on-line or whatever. Actually most of professors I know will be happy to teach other students if they were only willing to learn.
>
> with a curriculum s/he prepared, not I chose, (...)
>
>
>
Well, this is something that you need to understand. The professor is responsible for teaching and they need to consider what's best to teach. You are not yet fully developed as a researcher so you may miss some important areas. Again, there are also other reasons, for example ability to compare your knowledge (in theory progress) to that of other students.
>
> (...) and most probably, I don't like his/her teaching.
>
>
>
That's something you don't really know.
>
> even as a professor, you need to give lectures
>
>
>
First of all, that's entirely different thing than attending lectures. But still, you may not like giving dull lectures that you never liked attending. That's great. So rather than giving simple dull lectures find more creative ways of showing the same knowledge. Think of TED talks. These are lectures but still you find yourself looking for them and listening on the YouTube even though no-one forces you to do so.
It's more challenging but it gives you far more joy and satisfaction when you see that your students are interested in your teaching. And I believe that's the only way to really achieve that.
---
Here are some options that come to my mind. Probably best might be mixing few of them depending on what works for you and for specific professor.
Note, the better you are (and you can actually prove it) the more likely those methods will work.
External/on-line studies.
-------------------------
Yes there are such things. Personally I've seen it for Computer Science (actually it was one of the options I was considering). You essentially do all the learning on-line and some 80% of it is own-paced. You have a set of things that you have to learn and that will be tested at the end of each course.
You'll have the courses/lectures recorded plus you'll get a set of additional resources lie books or web pages that can help you when you want to deepen your knowledge.
What t doesn't solve is that you still get the list of things to learn and that you are still graded in a uniform way.
Individual course of studies
----------------------------
I don't know details, I only know it's possible. Essentially you need to find a mentoring professor who will be leading you and you agree with them what to study. Then such study plan has to be accepted by some board (to my understanding it's on Department level).
You may still need to attend some traditional courses/lectures but you'll have much more impact on which ones will you attend. Also you may for example prove your skills by doing some research or other kind of work so at least part of your progress (grades) will not come from traditional means of teaching.
Pre-agreed conditions to pass the course
----------------------------------------
This is pretty much what I have already described above from my personal experience. You can go to the professor(s) responsible for particular course and agree what you need to learn and how will you prove to them that you did.
It will probably not work with everyone. On the other hand the better you actually are, the more chances you have to succeed.
In the end it's the grade given by the professor that counts, not how you get it. If you have a mutual agreement, you're good to study as agreed (in most cases as you want as long as you manage to develop the required skills - and prove it)
Pre-study
---------
Essentially you can find out what to expect on most of the studies. What you can do is actually prepare upfront. If you can learn the topic earlier it'll be easier to negotiate your attendance to the lectures. Of course that might mean delaying your studies and spending some of your time on learning that you could use otherwise. On the other hand if you manage to do that you may end up with more free time as you no longer have to attend the lectures.
---
I cannot guarantee if any of those options will work in your case, especially in the place you study. Actually I believe some of the best universities (Oxford comes to my mind) actually support some of those approaches. Others might see it as a problem. Yet it's worth trying. It costs you little to nothing but can really make studying much more enjoyable experience.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I barely attended any lectures during undergrad, got into Cambridge for my msc, again didn't go to any lectures, now doing a PhD. I am pretty average at maths maybe less than average (I got lucky with Cambridge) I often have moments when I am really silly and don't see things but that is more my doppy head than me not attending lectures. I am a deep thinker not a quick one... so it suits me a lot more not to go to lectures. In fact I have been like this my whole life, I regularly missed (or rather bunked off to go study by myself in the town library). I think provided you have the motivation to work at home not dick around with your favourite hobby then it is fine.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I hate lectures too and was a lecturer for 11+ years. I finally realised I could not stand them any longer.
Whenever I could I would convert lectures to task based ones where the students do something rather than listen to me drone.
Now I am in research which is one avenue available to you if you wish to stay in academia, it usually means no teaching, occasionally giving talks.
Just sit at the back with headphones, listening to the videos.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: Just showing up in lecture hall with proper clothes puts you in the proper mindset. In home all kinds of distractions will prevent you from keeping a schedule and maintaining attention on material at hand.
At home the wikipedia rabbithole and time sink is an ever present danger. Externally enforced schedules & limiting enviroments work. The same ideas also apply when working from home. You can do it couple of times, but you can't trust yourself to maintain schedule long term.
If you feel sleepy buy a cup of coffee or limit the classes you attend, leaving the more important or interesting lectures. Generally after 6hours of lectures i would find myself exhausted, wasting time and not paying attention at all.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Once you get out of academia, you will most likely be required to show up at an employers office, sit in a sometimes uncomfortable chair, stare at a computer and monitor for many hours, and not have PJs on. You will likely need to be dressed in business casual.
You may be able to get away with leaving the top button on your shirt undone and maybe even slip off your shoes while at your desk, but maybe not. Even worse, you job might require a suit and tie, or a dress.
You will not likely be able to snag a 100% remote position, unless you have many years of experience and are in one of a handful specific job positions.
Being in a class, listening to lectures, staying quiet, focused and on task, and all the other things that go with it are training for the job as well as what is being posted up on the white/chalk board or projector display. If you don't have those skills, you may not have all the necessary skills to survive in a regular 8-5 day job.
Sure, you might get into a startup that allows jeans and sneakers, but those are still fairly rare. They sometimes get a lot of press because they are still so rare. And I haven't heard of anyone that allows PJs on the job.
Unfortunately, you will have to learn those skills now or you will have to learn them later, probably at the expense of several jobs and a lot of uncomfortable "on the job" learning where you won't have hourly breaks to overcome the oftentimes uncomfortable nature of work that isn't even related to wearing uncomfortable clothes.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/18
| 4,256
| 17,610
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoctoral supported by 2 grants (say A and B) with 50/50. Those 2 grants are owned by different PIs.
I would happy to have suggestions for the followings:
1. When I finish a paper for grant A, am I expected to acknowledge both grant A and B, or A alone?
2. Am I expected to put the PI of grant B as a co-author? Contribution could be ignored here. I can always just send the paper to the PI and he/she could contribute to critically review the manuscript. So I am wondering am I expected to do that.
What is the obligation and common practices for these? Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately you are responsible for your own learning. This is true whether you have lectures available or not. True whether the lectures are helpful or not.
If lectures are required or attendance is graded you will suffer from non attendance, but you know that, of course.
But the opinion that your professor has of you is also important. But attending lectures is only one way to affect that. If you really don't want to attend lectures, I'd suggest that you have a face to face conversation with the professor so that you can meet your goals without upsetting a person with some authority and who may be in a position to help you along the way.
My own opinion about lectures is that they are a poor way to teach. Student practice and reinforcement is much more important than listening to a speech. In the 17th century, lectures were an efficient way to reach more than a small number of students. Books were expensive and other learning aids non existent.
I'd suggest that if you have a way to learn that isn't like what the masses are comfortable with that you discuss it with the prof. who may be able to supplement your ideas on learning.
But you may also, just have to yield to the system to avoid getting penalized for things that shouldn't really matter.
I'll note that if you came to me, I might want to put you to work helping others, rather than attending lectures, and even giving you exams that were a bit different than the normal ones. Probably harder exams.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's definitely a negative factor. But of course one factor among several.
I personally enjoy lectures more when I pre-study the material (even doing some drill) so the lecture becomes more of a review or alternate viewpoint rather than initial learning. But if you tell me next, you don't like textbooks...
But then again I sort of enjoy lectures, feels like a performance I get to watch.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I can sympathize. I'm extremely susceptible to "Power Point" hypnosis: 10 slides in and my head is staring to nod, 30 slides and I'm in danger of snoring. This isn't limited to dull talks, or the amount of sleep I got the night before, it's apparently a quirk of my physiology.
However, part of your education is learning to exercise your skills in suboptimal conditions. [Schwarzschild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild) wrote three important papers on gravitation while serving on the Russian front in WWI. Attending lectures may not be optimal for you, but is it really such a huge hardship?
If you stay in academia you are probably going to need to listen to talks at conferences, listen to presentations by your students, and attend seemingly endless faculty meetings. There are equivalent obstacles in the non-academic world. By all means, arrange your days and your study environment as you find most effective. But learn to work with the fact that world is full of friction, and learn to cope with the minor inefficiencies it imposes on you.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm a physicist, and I felt essentially the same way when I was a student. Lectures are a ridiculous custom. For physics at the freshman level, there is a great deal of research showing that lecturing is an ineffective way to teach, even for professors who work hard at it and get wonderful teaching evaluations.
Just work around these issues. If there's no reason to go to class, don't go to class. Sit in a cafe and study instead. If there's a reason why you really need to go to class, you can always sit in the back of the room and study.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Lectures often suck, but they're pretty much unavoidable until candidacy. Same thing with using books you don't like or studying material you don't find well-motivated.
It's best not to waste energy fighting these inevitabilities. Of course you should take whatever chances you get for self-study and supplementary reading from sources of your choice, but you won't escape classes completely.
When it comes down to it, what you're really fighting against is most likely that you think the academic system should be better. It should be, but it isn't. Accept what you can't change, and try to make the best of what's there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I think you can survive in academia even if you hate lectures.
I hated them myself but I pushed through and did a PhD. What I would say is that there seems to be a much higher emphasis in the US on taking lectures than there is in Europe ! I've spent time in both academic systems. In my opinion, I think there is much less of a focus on attending lectures during postgraduate study in Europe!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: You might have another problem or two that needs addressing. It might be worth sitting and reflecting on what you "really" hate about the experience. It just dull and pointless and wasting your time? If so you might need to work on patience and process (learning to do the thing and be OK with the time it takes), because some of life is doing what your boss/professor/etc asks even if you don't want to and think there's a more productive use for your time. Otherwise, is it hard to sit there because you hate everything and everything is distracting and annoying, so you aren't learning anyways? That might indicate an underlying problem like ADHD or depression, where a combination of mental exercises (self soothing, calming, reducing the noise) and medical treatment (e.g. an SSRI for depression or stimulants for ADHD) can really help reduce the discomfort and annoyance. Or are you just physically uncomfortable the whole time? Is there anything you can do about that or request to accommodate that? Sit in the back and get up to stretch or even walk outside into the halls when things get achy / restless?
In today's world of online education and resources, you may be well placed to work around it, but the setting (sitting through boring meetings with people / things that make you want to burn it all down) will keep coming up throughout your adult life, so nailing down some of the causes and techniques for handling them can be beneficial throughout your life. Otherwise, nailing it down might help you figure out what type of work/study you might be cut out for and what sorts of things you want to avoid.
Source: PhD in a biomedical field and still struggling with some of these issues
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: There are few options to consider and not all of them will work on every kind of study nor with every teacher but it's always better to try it. One note though - you need to be really good in order to try most of them as you need your teachers to sympathise. Before I move on let me first challenge your approach a bit.
---
>
> There was no worry of grade
>
>
>
Well, the professor that teaches you has to measure you somehow. Also you have to be comparable against other students. One of the basic reasons is that someone needs to able to decide who's worth of going further so yes, you will be graded. Also grades should show if you make progress. On the other hand the way you are graded may depend on your agreement with a professor.
Let me give you an example. Where I studied each subject has two parts - lectures and exercises. For exercises you have tests, usually two in every semester. You need to pass both to graduate for the next semester or from the course.
Twice I managed to get the grade not by completing those tests but having instead a totally different task assigned. The task was outside of what was regularly taught. In general my solutions were often somewhat different from the "standard approach", leading to results that were considered as quite new by the professors that taught those topics. Once my end result was entirely different to everyone else in the group for the same task but no-one including the professor could find a flaw in my reasoning. I was told I'll get a max grade if I manage to prove that my result is actually consistent. Yes, it took me a month and I had to use some strange theorem suggested by one of fellow students (definitely not taught in the normal course on any subject, not to mention this specific) but eventually I managed to create a proof.
The second case it turned out my solution to the task (which I found obvious actually) was considered by my professor as an extraordinary result. The original task was just to present the solution but the professor told me that if I can provide the justification that my solution is correct (which he assumed he also considered intuitively to be correct) I'll be granted a max grade. So I did it (it was super-easy for me, the most difficult part was building the correct definition of the function I've created but I had it already well thought over).
>
> I'm force to take that lecture from a single professor (...)
>
>
>
Well, not really. A single professor is responsible for grading your progress. You may go to other professors or learn on-line or whatever. Actually most of professors I know will be happy to teach other students if they were only willing to learn.
>
> with a curriculum s/he prepared, not I chose, (...)
>
>
>
Well, this is something that you need to understand. The professor is responsible for teaching and they need to consider what's best to teach. You are not yet fully developed as a researcher so you may miss some important areas. Again, there are also other reasons, for example ability to compare your knowledge (in theory progress) to that of other students.
>
> (...) and most probably, I don't like his/her teaching.
>
>
>
That's something you don't really know.
>
> even as a professor, you need to give lectures
>
>
>
First of all, that's entirely different thing than attending lectures. But still, you may not like giving dull lectures that you never liked attending. That's great. So rather than giving simple dull lectures find more creative ways of showing the same knowledge. Think of TED talks. These are lectures but still you find yourself looking for them and listening on the YouTube even though no-one forces you to do so.
It's more challenging but it gives you far more joy and satisfaction when you see that your students are interested in your teaching. And I believe that's the only way to really achieve that.
---
Here are some options that come to my mind. Probably best might be mixing few of them depending on what works for you and for specific professor.
Note, the better you are (and you can actually prove it) the more likely those methods will work.
External/on-line studies.
-------------------------
Yes there are such things. Personally I've seen it for Computer Science (actually it was one of the options I was considering). You essentially do all the learning on-line and some 80% of it is own-paced. You have a set of things that you have to learn and that will be tested at the end of each course.
You'll have the courses/lectures recorded plus you'll get a set of additional resources lie books or web pages that can help you when you want to deepen your knowledge.
What t doesn't solve is that you still get the list of things to learn and that you are still graded in a uniform way.
Individual course of studies
----------------------------
I don't know details, I only know it's possible. Essentially you need to find a mentoring professor who will be leading you and you agree with them what to study. Then such study plan has to be accepted by some board (to my understanding it's on Department level).
You may still need to attend some traditional courses/lectures but you'll have much more impact on which ones will you attend. Also you may for example prove your skills by doing some research or other kind of work so at least part of your progress (grades) will not come from traditional means of teaching.
Pre-agreed conditions to pass the course
----------------------------------------
This is pretty much what I have already described above from my personal experience. You can go to the professor(s) responsible for particular course and agree what you need to learn and how will you prove to them that you did.
It will probably not work with everyone. On the other hand the better you actually are, the more chances you have to succeed.
In the end it's the grade given by the professor that counts, not how you get it. If you have a mutual agreement, you're good to study as agreed (in most cases as you want as long as you manage to develop the required skills - and prove it)
Pre-study
---------
Essentially you can find out what to expect on most of the studies. What you can do is actually prepare upfront. If you can learn the topic earlier it'll be easier to negotiate your attendance to the lectures. Of course that might mean delaying your studies and spending some of your time on learning that you could use otherwise. On the other hand if you manage to do that you may end up with more free time as you no longer have to attend the lectures.
---
I cannot guarantee if any of those options will work in your case, especially in the place you study. Actually I believe some of the best universities (Oxford comes to my mind) actually support some of those approaches. Others might see it as a problem. Yet it's worth trying. It costs you little to nothing but can really make studying much more enjoyable experience.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I barely attended any lectures during undergrad, got into Cambridge for my msc, again didn't go to any lectures, now doing a PhD. I am pretty average at maths maybe less than average (I got lucky with Cambridge) I often have moments when I am really silly and don't see things but that is more my doppy head than me not attending lectures. I am a deep thinker not a quick one... so it suits me a lot more not to go to lectures. In fact I have been like this my whole life, I regularly missed (or rather bunked off to go study by myself in the town library). I think provided you have the motivation to work at home not dick around with your favourite hobby then it is fine.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I hate lectures too and was a lecturer for 11+ years. I finally realised I could not stand them any longer.
Whenever I could I would convert lectures to task based ones where the students do something rather than listen to me drone.
Now I am in research which is one avenue available to you if you wish to stay in academia, it usually means no teaching, occasionally giving talks.
Just sit at the back with headphones, listening to the videos.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: Just showing up in lecture hall with proper clothes puts you in the proper mindset. In home all kinds of distractions will prevent you from keeping a schedule and maintaining attention on material at hand.
At home the wikipedia rabbithole and time sink is an ever present danger. Externally enforced schedules & limiting enviroments work. The same ideas also apply when working from home. You can do it couple of times, but you can't trust yourself to maintain schedule long term.
If you feel sleepy buy a cup of coffee or limit the classes you attend, leaving the more important or interesting lectures. Generally after 6hours of lectures i would find myself exhausted, wasting time and not paying attention at all.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Once you get out of academia, you will most likely be required to show up at an employers office, sit in a sometimes uncomfortable chair, stare at a computer and monitor for many hours, and not have PJs on. You will likely need to be dressed in business casual.
You may be able to get away with leaving the top button on your shirt undone and maybe even slip off your shoes while at your desk, but maybe not. Even worse, you job might require a suit and tie, or a dress.
You will not likely be able to snag a 100% remote position, unless you have many years of experience and are in one of a handful specific job positions.
Being in a class, listening to lectures, staying quiet, focused and on task, and all the other things that go with it are training for the job as well as what is being posted up on the white/chalk board or projector display. If you don't have those skills, you may not have all the necessary skills to survive in a regular 8-5 day job.
Sure, you might get into a startup that allows jeans and sneakers, but those are still fairly rare. They sometimes get a lot of press because they are still so rare. And I haven't heard of anyone that allows PJs on the job.
Unfortunately, you will have to learn those skills now or you will have to learn them later, probably at the expense of several jobs and a lot of uncomfortable "on the job" learning where you won't have hourly breaks to overcome the oftentimes uncomfortable nature of work that isn't even related to wearing uncomfortable clothes.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/18
| 646
| 2,925
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in the middle of writing a funding proposal for a BMBF programme (BMBF = the German federal ministry of education and research). I'm part of a consortium with a company, a local city government, our university, and another university.
We've already submitted a combined proposal, which got accepted, and are now supposed to submit additional individual proposals from each project partner.
This being Germany, we've been asked to submit forms upon forms within forms, and it seems to me that there is a huge amount of redundancy - the individual proposals don't seem to request any information that wasn't already part of the combined proposal.
Since this is my first time writing a proposal for this particular funding programme, I'm now wondering if I can just copy parts from the joint proposal into my individual one? I honestly don't quite understand why the individual proposals are requested at all, except for adding a bit of details in some parts... any insights welcome :-)<issue_comment>username_1: Ask the Projektträger (preferrably via phone). They will help and tell you the rationale behind the approach (which I don't understand either).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is normal procedure that you have to submit again individual proposals as every project partner has a different financial account. The 2nd stage and individual proposals are also necessary as you have to show now exact quotes for materials, investments every project partner needs and why you need it. That's the bureaucratic side.
Also, be aware, you still DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY! It looks like you are in a two-stage process, if there are flaws in the 2nd stage, e.g. conflicting working plans and schedules in the individual proposals, you will not get the money! And the BMBF is asking for this to bypass a bad planning of the project by a single person as they often cannot judge if your approach is the best/cheapiest one. Proposals are often written by very few people also much more work for it finally, and they know this very well. You admitted you have done most of the writing.
BMBF projects are very often no pure research projects with a necessary industry partner and funded to have a possible positive outcome for the socienty when project goals are reached. This is not the case for fundamental research. And the scientific scrutinizing of your approach will be more important than for BMBF where they look also on economic measures/outcome.
That you got no new requests for the 2nd stage is a very good sign and the likelihood for funding is now very high, so be sure every project partner reads in the best case the individual proposal of the other ones, especially when there are common work points/collaboration.
But there should not be overlaps in the individual proposals and copy/paste is also not the best idea. I hope it is clear now why...
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/19
| 560
| 2,473
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a postdoc in the US, from Europe originally. I plan on applying for research scientist positions at big tech companies in Canada e.g. Google, uber, etc (I want a change from the US).
My problem is that my travel outside of the US is restricted on my current visa. Is it possible to get positions at these companies without doing an onsite interview? Alternatively can I interview for positions at their offices within the US for positions in Canada? Has anyone had a similar issue or have any knowledge that may be helpful.
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: Ask the Projektträger (preferrably via phone). They will help and tell you the rationale behind the approach (which I don't understand either).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is normal procedure that you have to submit again individual proposals as every project partner has a different financial account. The 2nd stage and individual proposals are also necessary as you have to show now exact quotes for materials, investments every project partner needs and why you need it. That's the bureaucratic side.
Also, be aware, you still DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY! It looks like you are in a two-stage process, if there are flaws in the 2nd stage, e.g. conflicting working plans and schedules in the individual proposals, you will not get the money! And the BMBF is asking for this to bypass a bad planning of the project by a single person as they often cannot judge if your approach is the best/cheapiest one. Proposals are often written by very few people also much more work for it finally, and they know this very well. You admitted you have done most of the writing.
BMBF projects are very often no pure research projects with a necessary industry partner and funded to have a possible positive outcome for the socienty when project goals are reached. This is not the case for fundamental research. And the scientific scrutinizing of your approach will be more important than for BMBF where they look also on economic measures/outcome.
That you got no new requests for the 2nd stage is a very good sign and the likelihood for funding is now very high, so be sure every project partner reads in the best case the individual proposal of the other ones, especially when there are common work points/collaboration.
But there should not be overlaps in the individual proposals and copy/paste is also not the best idea. I hope it is clear now why...
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/19
| 297
| 1,306
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my manuscript to a Springer journal and after viewing the submission, I approved it. But now I need to edit one of my references, but the Edit button is not available after approving the submission. How can I edit it? Should I submit a new manuscript?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that submitting a new manuscript will just confuse them. The version you submitted will be checked and reviewed. You will get back a report and, hopefully, a request to update and resubmit changes. Make your changes then.
If that isn't enough to satisfy you, then contact the editor of the journal and ask for advice on how to proceed. But what you have discovered is pretty common.
The journal needs, for now, a stable version that can be sent to reviewers. You are just at the beginning of the process and will have time to fix things.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Just wait for the revision cycle to complete and incorporate the change at that time. You are talking about a very small nitpicky change. No reason to disrupt the cycle now.
Note, if they accept the paper without revision, write in at that time to request the change and with an edited version (or a brief email explaining that you will make the change in camera review, if they have that).
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/19
| 433
| 1,887
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let's say I'm handling a paper which has been reviewed, but the reviews are incomplete. For example:
* The journal needs N reviews as a policy and I only have N-1 reviews.
* The journal needs at least one reviewer who isn't a suggested reviewer, and all the reviews so far have been by suggested reviewers.
* The reviewer said they weren't confident about [section] in the paper, and I need to invite another reviewer with expertise in [section].
However, I've yet to start looking for these missing reviews. If I do so, the timeline will be like handling a manuscript from scratch: I have to invite reviewers, wait for them to accept, invite others if they decline, and so on. Alternatively, I can make a revise decision now and get the missing reviews when the manuscript is resubmitted.
From the author's perspective, which is preferable?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that submitting a new manuscript will just confuse them. The version you submitted will be checked and reviewed. You will get back a report and, hopefully, a request to update and resubmit changes. Make your changes then.
If that isn't enough to satisfy you, then contact the editor of the journal and ask for advice on how to proceed. But what you have discovered is pretty common.
The journal needs, for now, a stable version that can be sent to reviewers. You are just at the beginning of the process and will have time to fix things.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Just wait for the revision cycle to complete and incorporate the change at that time. You are talking about a very small nitpicky change. No reason to disrupt the cycle now.
Note, if they accept the paper without revision, write in at that time to request the change and with an edited version (or a brief email explaining that you will make the change in camera review, if they have that).
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/19
| 820
| 3,354
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have an MTech in Industrial Drives and Control (Electrical Eng). After that could not go for any work... After giving some tuition, I came to the conclusion that I am genuinely interested in mathematics... be it to study or to teach. Is it possible for me to do a PhD in mathematics? Or, are there any PhD options in Electrical Eng that are related to mathematics? I am even ready to take time and get a bachelors and masters in mathematics by distance education.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is it possible for me to do a PhD in mathematics?
>
>
>
Yes it is possible - there is no rule that says you have to stick to your undergraduate discipline and engineering is sufficiently quantitative that you probably meet the admissions requirements. However, because you do not come from a pure math background, you might find it challenging to begin with. I did a masters in mathematics after a chemical engineering undergraduate and I had to work quite hard to bridge the gap - for example in functional analysis, which I knew nothing about. I would actually recommend you consider a masters (but not another bachelors!), as it gives you a chance to see if you really would enjoy spending +4 years working in pure mathematics and will likely strength your application to PhD programs.
>
> are there any PhD options in Electrical Eng that are related to mathematics?
>
>
>
[Control theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory) is pretty mathsy.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Sure, it is "possible".
I really question your stated rationale for it, though (couldn't get a job in engineering, thus staying in school and moving to a field that usually has harder time with job placement). I think you would be better served beating the bushes and getting a job.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The only real difficulty with joining a doctoral program in CS or mathematics is getting admitted to a graduate program. If you can get admitted you are on your way. In the US admissions committees generally expect that you will have the knowledge in a "typical" undergraduate degree program. The Mathematics Association of America (MAA) has made [curriculum recommendations](https://www.maa.org/node/272/) to colleges. You can read those to see whether you have the knowledge background that people will be looking for.
Those recommendations are a guideline, however, and most colleges will deviate from them somewhat. On the other hand, most colleges will teach other, somewhat more advanced, topics to undergraduates. Those get little mention in the recommendations. But each undergraduate program seeks to give a broad look at mathematics.
But if you have the knowledge in most of the recommended areas and can demonstrate it somehow, it will be easier to make your case for admission. Many students move from a BA/BS program directly to doctoral studies but initially there is (in the US) a lot of coursework for such students prior to specializing in a research area. So there is opportunity to make up for topics you aren't familiar with.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you are from India,All your questions will be answered here about going to mathematics after engineering
<https://mathsafterengineering.blogspot.com/2020/03/how-to-do-msc-mathematics-after-btech.html>
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/19
| 1,476
| 6,251
|
<issue_start>username_0: Me and my friend attend different colleges, both of which are part of the same university. My friend has done the project and as well as me too. Our projects are exactly the same - not a single word is different. Is this considered plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: I'll assume that you worked together on the project, rather than just completely independently coming to the same place. That seems to be what you mean.
If you work on the project together and acknowledge the joint work then it probably isn't technically plagiarism. But it will almost certainly be considered as academic misconduct if you submit the same work to two different courses unless you make the faculty aware and get permission.
Note that you (a) have to list both authors on it and (b) get specific permission.
Whether it is permitted by the faculty or not is up to them. If the work is significant enough (more than one person is expected to do) then you have a better chance of getting accepted.
But if you submit two papers, identical, but each listing only one author, then it would be plagiarism. And also, separately, academic misconduct, but of a higher order.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The fact of being at different/same colleges or different/same universities has **zero** bearing on whether it is considered plagiarism or not.
If you submit a project that includes someone else's work, without making it clear what is your own work and what is not (and crediting the other contributor/s properly), this is plagiarism. This is true whether the other contributor is at the same college, same university, someone not in college at all, etc...
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, it's still plagiarism.
===========================
If *Assignment 2* for your class *ABC321* at your college is the same as *Assignment 5* of class *DEF234* at a different one, submitting a copy of the solutions manual for *DEF234* to your professor at your college as being your own work is considered cheating even if it came from another college.
If your friend and you receive the same assignment for different classes and you decide to split the work and copy off each other it's not different than the scenario stated above: it's plagiarism.
It doesn't matter who you copied from (solutions manual from a previous year or directly from your friend) or what the thing you copied was originally (submission for ABC321 or DEF234). Plagiarism is plagiarism.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Publish the work first in both your names. Both of you would have co-copyright and original ownership of the text.
You may be breaking another rule in the class, but it's not plagiarism if you own the copyright - which you do already, but would solidify with publication.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: ### Plagiarism depends on copying, not similarity or location.
If one of you copied the other's work, then it's plagiarism. Doesn't matter where or when or how.
I suspect what you're actually asking is not whether it's considered to be plagiarism when you copy someone's work (because of course it is), but whether that plagiarism will be noticed by your respective colleges. If you're on separate campuses then the probability of this is likely quite low. Work submitted on paper will most likely be assessed by the teachers at each college, so the fact that there are two identical papers at different colleges is unlikely to be spotted. If the results are submitted electronically though, the fact of the two colleges being part of the same university may get you caught if there's a university-wide check on duplicate work being handed in. Or for bonus irony points, if the work is particularly good then it's possible that one teacher may show it to the other as a golden example, at which point of course the other teacher will remember they've just seen something remarkably similar.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I was a teaching assistant for computer science at the University of Kentucky (UK). I can almost guarantee you that at UK any kind of paper is always run through a plagiarism checker that is linked to many other universities and colleges that checks for (among other things) percent of difference, if another assignment has been found to have too low a percent of difference then it will flag the assignment as plagiarism and will give a report to the professor so that they can see the one that was already in the system and the one that you just submitted and compare for themselves.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: If you mean, you and this other person both created these project independently and by sheer coincidence they just happen to be word-for-word identical, that's not plagiarism, that's a miracle.
If you mean that you copied your friend's work and intend to submit it as your own, that's pretty much the definition of plagiarism. The fact that you're at a different school does not in any way make it not plagiarism. If you copy somebody else's work and say or imply that it is your own, that's plagiarism, and whether the work was created on a different continent by someone you never met, or by your room mate, is irrelevant.
If the two of you worked on this project together, and now you are each planning to hand it in at your own school, then if you acknowledge the other person's contribution it is not plagiarism. It may or may not satisfy the requirements of the assignment. If you were supposed to do the work yourself, then getting a friend to do part of the work does not meet the requirements of the assignment.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: Plagiarism is misrepresenting something as your own original work when it is not. If you are doing this, it is plagiarism. If you are not doing this, it is not plagiarism.
If two people miraculously independently writ precisely the same paper, even word for word, that is not plagiarism. Each person has the absolute right to represent the paper as their own original work because it is. However, if two people collaborate on a work and each submits it independently as their own work, that is plagiarism. Neither person can honestly represent that the paper is their own original work.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/19
| 1,354
| 5,775
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was accepted into a PhD in maths at a fairly highly ranked school in 2017. My supervisor was known for being quite demanding, but I wanted this because I wanted to push myself, and he is quite well known in the field I was interested in, which is algebraic geometry.
During the first year I was doing background work and developed my maths up to the point where I could start actually doing research. This involved going through textbooks and exercises and generally learning maths at a high level. Each week he was unhappy with my work, and would find holes in the proofs and logic, and holes in my understanding. After this happened over months, he began to suggest that maybe maths wasn't for me. Eventually he basically explicitly said this, and said that I wasn't understanding the material and wasn't able to think mathematically. He suggested that I drop out and "do something else with my life".
The other issue here is that I was suffering from depression, and was fairly burned out from my undergrad, and I blame that in large part for not being able to study efficiently and think clearly. I did end up leaving the program late 2018, and I got a medical certificate to document the depression.
The thing is, I am determined to succeed. I know for a fact that a PhD in maths is what I want to do, and I am not willing to give up on that. I am certain I have the ability, and am putting my failure down to the above mentioned issues. I am still doing maths every day to keep my skill level up and increase my understanding. At some point I want to reenter a PhD program. That is where my question comes in.
What is the best way to get back into a PhD? How much will my past dismissal (technically I left voluntarily) affect my chances? Given that my supervisor has said flat out that he doesn't think I am cut out for maths research, how would I go about getting an academic reference for any future application? Any other advice is appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: If you want to continue at the same school I'd start by going to talk to the administrators in your department, hopefully as a PhD student they will be familiar with you and your situation. Ask about your options to continue your studies, and possibly seek out a new supervisor.
I'd also make a list of other schools you'd be interested in attending, and find faculty there with similar research interests, ideally you could try setting up a meeting to discuss your shared interests and ask them if they might be willing to supervise you or if they have any projects that might be a good fit for you as a PhD student.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. I am generally in favor of finishing the Ph.D., once started, even for weaker students. At least it is a decent resume bullet, even if you are not top of the heap. If you're halfway through, you might as well get it done and cross it off.
2. But getting back into another program after not hacking it in a first one? Seems low reward/risk. Even in general, starting a Ph.D. should be looked at very skeptically (there is a lot of push to get students, but it is not always the right thing when you look at foregone earnings and issues with jobs after getting out). But once you have not made it in a first one? Sure there is the possibility that you hack a second one ore that it is a good use of your time. But I think you need to adjust your Bayesian prior even lower (after all you have data, the first attempt).
3. If you really want to just get the Ph.D., the best thing would be to talk to the department where you were. They may feel some responsibility for you and give you an easier, more agreeable, etc. advisor.
4. I'm not sure why you have to go for this Ph.D. You state it like it just makes sense to want one, but you don't clarify why or what will change after you get that particular certification. Do you think you are a research grade mathematician? A professor? I just would seriously consider other areas. There may well be something else satisfying and that you are good at (even have a differential advantage) versus top tier algebraic geometry. Note, even if this isn't for sure the answer (do something else), you should at least examine the possibility. Not just stay wedded to this initial dream. Just seriously investigate this.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Given that my supervisor has said flat out that he doesn't think I am cut out for maths research, how would I go about getting an academic reference for any future application?
>
>
>
Who gave you a reference in the first place? I'd suggest going back to them. You don't have to tell them the full details of what happened; you dropped out for health reasons, you're moving to a different supervisor because you didn't work well together, and your supervisor isn't in a position to give you a reference for that reason. It's not unusual for people to be asked for references even a few years after they last saw you.
A word of support, too. Stories of students not getting along with their supervisors *certainly* aren't unusual. When you say that your supervisor was known for being "demanding", well... sometimes "demanding" is a euphemism. I also suffer from long-term ongoing mental health issues, and they are enough of a barrier in their own right, but during the periods in my university career when it was made clear to me on a regular basis that I was a disappointment, the quality of my academic work plummeted and I completely lost my passion for the subject. In that respect, a patient, understanding supervisor can make *all* the difference, and I think most academics know that. (Maybe don't rant about this at interview with your new prospective supervisor, though...)
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/19
| 945
| 3,990
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are EU universities as of 2019 more dependent on external funding than 20 or 40 years ago? Is there any EU policy on increasing external private funds and reducing public funding?<issue_comment>username_1: If you want to continue at the same school I'd start by going to talk to the administrators in your department, hopefully as a PhD student they will be familiar with you and your situation. Ask about your options to continue your studies, and possibly seek out a new supervisor.
I'd also make a list of other schools you'd be interested in attending, and find faculty there with similar research interests, ideally you could try setting up a meeting to discuss your shared interests and ask them if they might be willing to supervise you or if they have any projects that might be a good fit for you as a PhD student.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. I am generally in favor of finishing the Ph.D., once started, even for weaker students. At least it is a decent resume bullet, even if you are not top of the heap. If you're halfway through, you might as well get it done and cross it off.
2. But getting back into another program after not hacking it in a first one? Seems low reward/risk. Even in general, starting a Ph.D. should be looked at very skeptically (there is a lot of push to get students, but it is not always the right thing when you look at foregone earnings and issues with jobs after getting out). But once you have not made it in a first one? Sure there is the possibility that you hack a second one ore that it is a good use of your time. But I think you need to adjust your Bayesian prior even lower (after all you have data, the first attempt).
3. If you really want to just get the Ph.D., the best thing would be to talk to the department where you were. They may feel some responsibility for you and give you an easier, more agreeable, etc. advisor.
4. I'm not sure why you have to go for this Ph.D. You state it like it just makes sense to want one, but you don't clarify why or what will change after you get that particular certification. Do you think you are a research grade mathematician? A professor? I just would seriously consider other areas. There may well be something else satisfying and that you are good at (even have a differential advantage) versus top tier algebraic geometry. Note, even if this isn't for sure the answer (do something else), you should at least examine the possibility. Not just stay wedded to this initial dream. Just seriously investigate this.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Given that my supervisor has said flat out that he doesn't think I am cut out for maths research, how would I go about getting an academic reference for any future application?
>
>
>
Who gave you a reference in the first place? I'd suggest going back to them. You don't have to tell them the full details of what happened; you dropped out for health reasons, you're moving to a different supervisor because you didn't work well together, and your supervisor isn't in a position to give you a reference for that reason. It's not unusual for people to be asked for references even a few years after they last saw you.
A word of support, too. Stories of students not getting along with their supervisors *certainly* aren't unusual. When you say that your supervisor was known for being "demanding", well... sometimes "demanding" is a euphemism. I also suffer from long-term ongoing mental health issues, and they are enough of a barrier in their own right, but during the periods in my university career when it was made clear to me on a regular basis that I was a disappointment, the quality of my academic work plummeted and I completely lost my passion for the subject. In that respect, a patient, understanding supervisor can make *all* the difference, and I think most academics know that. (Maybe don't rant about this at interview with your new prospective supervisor, though...)
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/20
| 6,286
| 26,805
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have read many PhDs have a feeling of failure during their studies. At the moment I am seeking a reflection, from someone who is/has been a PhD and maybe a similar situation.
I found myself in a group of around 10 PhDs under 1 supervisor. All of them are non-native speakers, struggling with English, and speak their native language (which I do not speak) amongst each other. Meetings with my supervisor deteriorated into short, few minutes long conversations, where he presents his ideas, that are unprecedented in literature, or his previous research.
I have decided to detach myself from his suggestions and try ideas that I can reference in previously published literature.
To give the full story, I have followed his advice and suggestions, but this lead me to a dead end, twice. After quite a hard time, realizing that I am fighting my supervisors advice and undoubtedly a fear of another failure, I have stood up and started again.
A new idea, new approach. I took all the relevant courses and read literature. After several tests, the idea seemed to work.
But as of yesterday, I found a flaw and a possible problem that discards my 4 months or work.
I am a PhD for more than 3 semesters already. Within the first two I followed every word of my supervisor, working 12 hours a day, to deliver on his suggestions. This failed, his ideas failed, I have failed. I think I can blame him for the ideas, but I am to blame for my naivness to blindly follow something, that he and I knew nothing about.
The last semester was all machine learning and AI and 12 hours a day in a lab to make my own testing setup. Now I am facing a failure, or at least a very intensive feeling of failure.
What to do? Please, notice the word "forward" in the title means I am opened to any point of view. Leaving PhD (temporarily/cancelling), starting new PhD in English speaking country or working. I really don't know.
P.S.
The lady at counselling is very nice, but far from offering real help/career advice. Other PhDs cooperate together, but since there is a language barrier, I am left out. My supervisor has little / no understanding of machine learning or data I am working with.
P.S. 2
I am temporarily in a bad mood. It is hard to admit, but in this and previous situations I had break downs. Crying in my room, in my office or anytime when I realized, what failures I had been through, and that there is probably no one that could help.<issue_comment>username_1: **Failing is part of research! We all fail; those that haven't are surely not trying hard enough.**
If you're failing too frequently, then
* Search for easier problems
* Discuss ideas with peers
* Find a mentor
* Collaborate with another student
* Work more closely with your supervisor
* Attend seminars and conferences
* Study textbooks on the research process at PhD level
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: It is a common misconception that the guide knows nothing. That being said what you need to know is what your lab seniors have done.
What I mean is scrutinize your supervisor and his past students. What is his publication rate? What was theirs? What is the average number of papers your seniors produced? When did they publish? What were you expecting to even achieve? Did you have a research plan? A topic? Phds last upto 7 years.
3 semesters is nothing. You cannot have even given your comprehensive exam or state of the art seminar. It is way too early to even consider failure or success.
Also all ideas are not in literature at first. That's what makes them new. In any case, coursework is never an indication of research acumen.
This may seem harsh but you must first figure out the answers to the questions I asked before and then determine your course of action. It is very common for PhD students to only produce papers in their 4th and 5th year.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, you have to bear in your consideration if your supervisor is giving you false ideas is pretty common among students and not a big issue, however, what is really important that you have started realizing that those ideas fail and that means you are in your way to be an independent researcher. For solving your problem, you have to know that you are going to be an expert on this topic, not your PI, so you have to wrap a plan to learn very well and practice more diligently , failure is a part of learning, I would be worried if everything sounds perfect to you, so you have to stress on learning and being more knowledgable and don't depend on your supervisor.
I don't know what is the type of your supervisor whether he is a micro-manager, hands-on or off, I do think he gave you some liberty and that is an advantage to test, but you have to set a deadline to make things work out.
One of the strategies is attending workshops, conference, submit late results to a conference and that will build up the knowledge step by step. Also, it is a good habit to have in regular basis weekly meeting and make sure how you a good communication and sharing your ideas. Also, I think you have to interact more with senior researcher and other senior students, I think this would be more helpful to get feedback about your work, you can also interact with remote-researchers.
According to the language barrier, I don't think that being in an anglophone country will make the situation different, the language is not the problem at all, however, you have to train yourself to embrace your supervisor, try to make effort to have a common conversation, it is an art how to understand them even if they struggle to speak like you.
Lastly, maybe we don't have a complete picture of your situation and you are the only person who really foresees your situation, however, if you think of leaving your position, I would tell you this will not solve an issue, however, I am still little bit concerned with your supervisor is lacking a rudimentary knowledge in machine learning.
Give yourself a couple of months and start applying to other positions with a good professor who has proven knowledge in that topic, and starts observing whether there is an improvement in your research, in that case, it would be good, you are an independent researcher, if not you can consider the second option.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: First of all, failing is normal and happens all the time in academia. We get our papers rejected, we get our grants rejected, or our awesome idea is later revealed to have a deep fatal flaw by a colleague. This is all a very normal part of academia.
Though this does not seem like it in the moment, you are in the safest possible place to fail in academia. You are a student. There is a strong expectation that you are learning and will make mistakes. Now, if you were an assistant professor at the 4th or 5th year of your tenure review period...thats a bad time for failure.
So as far as next steps, learn what you can from your failure, pick yourself up, and work on another problem. You are in an awesome field if you are working on machine learning. There is so much low hanging fruit. So many interesting applications of the technology.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Sorry that you feel like you're in a bad situation and are not going forward with your PhD. I will however echo what some other answers already said - 3 semesters is very short, PhD programmes last 5+ years in some places, it is quite common not to produce publications in the beginning of your PhD.
I will add that you have been doing exactly what you should have been for the first few semesters of it - getting really confident with the broader topic, related work, old and new literature in the field.
So, you really didn't lose as much, and even more, you started getting your own ideas (even if some of them fail, being able to formulate an idea already requires a deeper understanding of the material), which means you are progressing.
However, you say you feel like your supervisor has little understanding of Machine Learning and the data you are using. This is a very bold statement for a PhD student at the beginning of their research career. It takes a lot of courage, and can often seem like it's coming from frustration rather than a real place. I don't know all your details - I just made conclusions based on some things you wrote - but **I will assume your assessment of your supervisor is actually correct**.
As a Master student you expect to come to a PhD and work with leading experts in the field. Sometimes, it happens that they are not. Sometimes, it happens that a student and a supervisor are simply not a good fit with one another (clashing work styles, personalities, cultures...) It happened to a friend of mine, and it took her well over a semester to come to terms that it is not her research that is going badly, it is the unfitting supervision (in her case, also bad supervisor, but I am trying to allow for the case of simply "not suitable for me"). Some symptoms:
* supervisor struggling with basic concepts in the field (in my friends case, the supervisor was refusing to take a baseline measure. In machine learning, it could be basic concepts such as cross validation; or understanding accuracy is a bad measure for unbalanced data)
* you are repeatedly asked to perform experiments for which you can find no justification; i.e. they do not seem to produce any results worth reporting nor allow you to analyse any interesting properties of the methods you are using, and this does not change with time nor does the purpose become clear after performing experiments.
* you are asked to perform experiments which you can not concisely place within the current literature, i.e. they neither seem to build on, complement, replace, or fit in any way with the current body of literature, nor is there any importance given to placing ideas within the current state of the art. Of course, the ideas which we work on should be new, but they can not be created in a scientific vacuum. The appearance of said vacuum could be a red flag.
* the scientific output of your advisor in term of peer-reviewed publications is very low. A good researcher with only lateral knowledge of the field might still be a good advisor, if he is guiding you in quality writing, pointing you to good conferences and high-impact journals and in general imparting approaches to doing good, solid, repeatable science.
* communication problems. Your supervisor is supposed to be somewhat of your "scientific parent". If you can't communicate ideas between you, and moreover if you can't occasionally discuss your (professional) doubts, career plans, etc., you are simply not getting adequate supervision. I personally would expect even a minimal personal investment from my supervisor (the creative work we do, again, does not exist in a vacuum, so shocking personal circumstances like i.e. death in the family could easily impede our work, and I would expect to be comfortable sharing such a circumstance with my supervisor)
* they do not facilitate a collaborative environment in their lab. It is the supervisors responsibility to form their research groups. A lot of quality work is produced through discussions with your peers. If the environment is not supportive in that sense, be it because of the language, cultural or some other barrier, it is diminishing the quality of the PhD programme.
So, assuming you have taught carefully about all of the above, and decided you are being badly supervised, I am going to give a different suggestion from all other answers here. There is of course a way to try and increase the quality of your PhD by your own efforts alone, by networking with other people and attempting to attend conferences and workshops whenever the opportunity arises. **But, if you really thing you could do better research if you got more quality supervision, look for another PhD programme.** In the grand scheme of things, 3 semesters is pretty quick to come to terms with bad supervision - it's not something you expect, so it takes a while to diagnose. While doing that, learn from your current experience and try to asses some of the things that are currently lacking before you accept the offer:
* discuss the proposed topic. It doesn't have to be perfectly fleshed out, but it should be something you are interested in, and you should be able to gauge if the potential supervisor has plans on how to develop the topic and the ideas. If you strongly disagree on the approaches, it is not for you.
* look through the potential supervisors previous publications. Are they in good conferences/journals? Are they well written? Are they cited?
* look at the previous students of the same supervisor. Did some of them end up in career paths you want to take?
* if possible, talk to the some students from the lab. Can you establish a conversation easily or do you seem to be struggling to start chatting?
* if at all possible, have a face-to-face talk with the potential supervisor, even if it is just as a video chat. You need to be able to communicate well with your supervisor; if you can not you probably are not the best fit for each other.
* don't make English-speaking country a priority as such, rather let it be communication (this is true both for your lab environment and supervisor themselves); there is a lot of international labs everywhere. But being able to communicate is key.
Getting into a second PhD programme might be harder, and you'll need a compelling and tactful explanation of why you quit the first one (it is generally not recommended to hide such things during admissions), it is a hard decision and you need to consider this option well. But staying in a bad one might mean that you too put down by the end of it to finish at all, or that you finish with a publication record far below your capabilities, and invalidate some of your career plans.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I think part of Ph.D. education is to become independent from your supervisor. Truth is, the moment you can convince your supervisor that you are right and he is not, you are ready to defend. The process of getting there can be frustrating.
You say you are 3 semesters or 1.5y in the studies. That is nothing. It is completely acceptable to feel lost at least 3/4 of the time. Towards the end, you will gain confidence and skill.
Develop your own mind, learn how do present and defend your ideas to your supervisor. Instead of asking "What should I do?", notify him "I am working on X because of y and z, I also contemplated a,b, and c, however they do not seem to give better results". Learn to become a collaborator to your supervisor and not a nuisance that needs constant guidance.
UPDATE:
Relax, very few people have actually failed their PhD defense. If there any probability of that, you will not be allowed to defend. Most go insane, give up in the process, or are pushed out for administrative reasons.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: I advise to look for some easier problems. Get a couple "datapoint" type papers done to give yourself some wins. Need to boost your confidence and you can learn from those also. Heck you can even end up stringing enough of them into a thesis.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: Fellow former PhD student here (I left after my Master's and took a job in the private sector).
You have to remember a few things:
1. You are not alone in the feeling of being a failure. This is called **impostor syndrome** and it's extremely common. You should google it and read about it. It will make you feel much better. It is perfectly normal. On the contrary, people who claim to be doing so well in graduate school are typically the ones with real problems. The fact that you are worried about failing just means you're intelligent, sensitive, and concerned about your future. Those are good qualities of a PhD student.
2. Not all doctoral advisors are awesome. Some of them are terrible. I was lucky enough to have a great one, but many, many people switch advisors or drop out altogether because of bad advisors. Just remember, advisors are people, and not all people are great leaders (or even great academics, despite having a PhD). You should also google **doctoral advisor abandonment** and read The Guardian's article on "When your relationship with your PhD supervisor turns toxic."
3. Go to your advisor and express your feelings of failure to him/her. They will generally sympathize. Go to another professor you like/have a good relationship with them, and talk to them about this feeling too. You will soon discover that every single PhD on earth went through this, and they will definitely make you feel better.
4. Try to solve easier problems. Remember, in undergrad, you learned knowledge that already existed. In graduate school, you are trying to produce new research and make a unique contribution to human knowledge. You **will not always succeed** and that's fine. Failure is part of the plan here. Make failure your friend.
I wrote half my thesis on a particular principle, and then discovered some evidence that contradicted my research. I absolutely freaked out. I thought I'd wasted the last two years of my life. And then I realized that I could alter my arguments and realign my thesis with the evidence, and not all was lost. Just some of my arguments and conclusions evolved. This is not a bad thing. Follow the evidence.
5. **You are going to be okay.** Even if you ultimately decide you don't want to finish the PhD. A PhD will not make you any happier in life. It just adds three letters to your name and opens up a few job prospects. Hate grad school? Take your Master's and get a job in the private sector making $120k+ (I assume you're capable of coding since you're doing AI/machine learning).
6. You will eventually get into the swing of things. You'll find a groove. There is a pattern to graduate school, and once you figure it out, there will be no more surprises. You'll just be looping through the same challenges every year until like your third or fourth year (depending on where you are). Find the patterns, anticipate them, remind yourself that you've been here before, surmounted these obstacles before, and you are here to be challenged. You are here to sweat and cry and stay up late. You are an academic soldier. And you've already made it 2 years...so you can do it, and you **are** a graduate student.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: First disclaimer: I have not advised many grad students. Secondly, this is not generalized, but merely a personal view to share a perspective.
I have done research in industry and teamed with academia. I consider it always my responsibility to be able to determine the reasonableness of what I am trying to show. If it is unreasonable, and I cannot see a viable path to the end, then I consider it very high risk. Since I don't like to waste my time, many high risk pursuits get trimmed.
Furthermore, I do not blindly follow what anyone asks me to do. It is evaluated, cross-checked, and tested for reasonableness. In the end, if I fail, it is not the supervisor's responsibility, it is mine. And if it was a hard problem (the kind I like) and it was high risk, I pursued it knowing that.
So from my perspective, each student is responsible for their path. If their supervisor/adviser is not reasonable, hated by the other faculty, or simply comes up with un-viable ideas, then it is time to go looking for a different gig. But look first at one's self to make certain that you are doing all you can and making reasonable decisions.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: I am a postdoc working in AI. The situation you're describing is nowhere near close to "failing PhD".
During PhD you are doing research, which means that you are up against the unknown. Failure is expected. And not just the failure of understanding the system, you're up against yourself. You will make mistakes and they will come back to haunt you.
Things that happened to me include:
* Getting results that are neither positive nor negative.
* Spending a year studying a system just to realize that it is irrelevant to the issue I originally wanted to study and nothing interesting happens in it.
* Reinventing a subfield and learning that it is, in fact, not new from paper's peer reviews.
* Spending half a year working on a legacy code, only to realize that writing the same thing from scratch would take two months at most.
Things that happened to people around me include:
* Studying the same obscure problem for three years only to get a single publication out (graduated, went to industry).
* Trying to go after interdisciplinary research and being unable to meet requirements of *either* program as a result (graduated with MS).
* Doing research that is so unconventional that it is very hard to publish and impossible to use for a job application, yet that has a Nobel prize-level potential (graduated, went to industry).
Science is hard. In some fields you can get into the situation when you are steadily rewarded for your effort, but that's generally not the case. And it is definitely not the case in AI, since that's the field where general methodology hasn't been worked out yet. It is also an engineering field, meaning that people are not interested in failure that much, meaning that it is way harder to publish a negative result. While pure probabilistic machine learning is somewhat tractable, AI is considered by many to be harder than theoretical physics.
Regarding your advisor - out of all AI researchers I met maybe one person had all screws in his head properly tightened, and maybe that's because I don't know him well enough. I find this to be wonderful, but that also means that you have to take absolutely anyone's opinion with a grain of salt.
To stay, you have to accept that you are navigating a stormy sea and take risks.
Some practical advice:
* Do argue with your advisor when you disagree. Argue constructively, that is, with expressed intent of finding the truth. Stress-testing of all ideas is good and is usually appreciated. If you doubt something, say so. Your common goal is to figure out what is going on, so keeping doubts to yourself is not nice to anyone.
* Change your opinions if the other side's arguments are solid and yours are not.
* You will get into the situations when your and your advisor's professional interests are at odds. Negotiate a compromise.
* If you can't communicate to your advisor constructively, consider switching research groups. But be careful, starting from scratch takes a lot of time.
* Plan for failures. Make contingency plans upon contingency plans upon contingency plans. Keep in mind that failures may originate not only from within your system (non-publishable negative and inconclusive results), but also from outside (hardware failures, health problems, administrative issues). Keep in mind that you can't know or control everything and thus there are no guarantees. (N.Taleb wrote some good books on managing these kinds of situations.)
* Use tests in software development. Use sanity checks and benchmarks in research.
* Be very careful when using legacy code. If you can't get entirely comfortable with the codebase in a week it's usually better to rewrite the thing.
* Avoid overworking yourself. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Yet, in this marathon it pays off to be prepared to take occasional intense sprints. Work a lot, but keep yourself in shape.
* Allocate some time each week for exploring other people's work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: It's a good idea not to trust your supervisor too much.
A critical approach to new ideas will help you get your head around the idea, and may uncover a quick way to avoid a lot of work. Most of the time you will need to do the grind, but if you can argue why it was needed to prove it wrong, you have still succeeded at research. Negative results aren't as publish-able but that's in part a failing of the system.
Good luck btw, I have been at least close to where you are, and learned the hard way.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: I’ve spent more time in university than any human should (BSci MS PhD Mathematics, BA MA French Literature)
First: It is extraordinarily rare to find a topic on your first go unless you did it for your Master’s thesis. I went a long way into one area of math before switching and finding a truly I retesting dissertation topic.
Second: Every PhD candidate—all, I say—wants to put their notes and dissertation into the sink, in order to safely set them afire. It’s natural.
Third: I do not know what you want to do with your life, but the doctoral program and dissertation are a once-in-a-lifetime experience, which is both good and bad. I would easily go back and get another given the chance. Writing the dissertation was harrowing, and is unlike any research you’ll do afterward. It’s your first project, not your life. Many never do research again.
You are your own worst enemy at crisis points, since you don’t realize how common they are. Even throwing away a bunch of good (but invalidated) research. If you are in a life position to stick with it, pray do. It’s a unique experience that career and marriage and mortgage and children get in the way of later. Just be sure you like the subject you’re in, because a wonderful topic will send it’s way into your life and you’ll be happy again before you know it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_13: As others have suggested failing is normal in this area. I haven't done a Ph.D. but last year I completed my thesis work for M-Tech.
Initially, it was fun to get to know the subjects and everything but as soon as the research work started it was really bad. My mentor gave me some previous research works to get my research started but after struggling with it for several months as it was completely new to me I picked up another topic in which I worked in my major project but in that topic, most of the work was already done so I had to drop that too.
After this, it was really bad and I started having doubts as whether or not I would be able to complete my work with the given time if not my course would be extended to another semester. But finally I decided to start from scratch and started looking for potential work that's when I found something I was interested in and after 3-4 months I was able to submit my research work and it really felt so good.
So, I suggest you that instead of "Leaving Ph.D." give it another shot and look for work that you're interested in and it'll be plus if your mentor is able to help you if not then do it yourself look for similar courses online, Email people who are working on similar projects.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/20
| 1,196
| 5,253
|
<issue_start>username_0: After 3 weeks from submission, I recieved the below email from the editor in chief of an applied math journal, asking whether I would consider changing my manuscript from full length article to a letter/short article, giving primary reason that the article length is short, so it would suit a short article/letter, and mentioning that the journal publishes short articles of high quality along with full length articles in all regular issues. I was asked to give my decison. I had a look at the letters/short articles of that journal from previous issues and found that they are no different, except in length. So I am not understanding the difference.
I am not able to interpret, whether I have been strongly adviced by editor, and that I better go with it. The editor already had that article with him for 3 weeks, so he might have had a look at it and might be giving strong advice. I also don't fully understand the difference between both modes of publishing. Do these two have different academic values?
Email:
---
Dear Mr. XXXX,
I am writing to ask if you would consider to change your submission, XXXX, to a Letter from a Full Length Article. The reason for my request is based on the short length of you manuscript. XXXX Journal publishes short papers of high quality. Please let me know of your decision. The official review process will not proceed until we hear from you. Thank you.
Kind regards,
XXXX
Editor-in-Chief<issue_comment>username_1: I speculate that the editor wants to accept, but only as a letter/short article, rather than a full length article. I consider declining the editor's offer as a path to rejection. But, I might be wrong...
You could try to solicit more information, e.g., rather than responding, you could give the editor a call, which might result in them providing more details that will help you make a decision.
You could propose a counter-offer, e.g., suggest extending the article, since "[the editor's] request is based on the short length of you manuscript" (that might be calling the editor's bluff), which might also result in more information to make a decision.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, there is no real difference between "full" articles and "short" articles except for length.
Many journals, especially more recent online-only ones, do not bother with this distinction at all. An article is simply as short or as long as the article turns out to be. Even with journals that do make the distinction, it often has little impact of the de facto length of the material once supplementary material is included---all that is affected is the fraction of the published "iceberg" that is "above water" in the main text. The peer review process is generally the same, and the perceived value the same, just simply some are shorter than others.
In terms of visibility and citations, short articles are typically just as visible (as you have noticed). I have *never* seen a citation attempt to distinguish between short and full articles, and most citation formats have no way that one could do so. For those who are affected by publication statistics (e.g., impact factor), that's not affected either: these are calculated by journal, not by article category within a journal.
In short: some things are just shorter than others, and that has little effect on their significance. The editor thinks your article will work better in "short" than "long" format, so take their offer or risk rejection pointlessly.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: From the author's point of view there isn't much difference between short letters and full-length articles, aside from length. Some of the differences not mentioned yet are:
* The journal might group its letters together and its full-length articles together. For example its website might have a "letters" section and an "article" section; its print issues might have the letters first then the articles.
* Some small administrative changes that you'll never notice unless someone points them out to you, for example the article ID might change. One publisher I worked at had this code where articles with ID 20 are letters, ID 30 are reviews, ID 50 are research articles, etc. If I'm not mistaken this also changes the digits in the DOI.
* It's possible the production process is different, with letters being on a fast track since they're shorter and so quicker to process.
These are minor differences though. Since the practical differences are so few I'd just accept the editor-in-chief's suggestion - no reason not to.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If you don't have to do any extra work, I would say fine, call it whatever you want. (It's not like your CV or h-index or Google Scholar will have a purple brand on the letter articles.) If it requires extra work (like further cutting, reformatting, etc., I would tell the editor to pack sand...and be prepared to go elsewhere if he insists.)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: A letter is to a particular party/individual/group if you will.
A short article could be a continuation of a news report/release/update.
A long article would be a presentation, body, and closing from beginning to end.
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/02/20
| 836
| 3,373
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated from a masters degree half a year ago and I am been working at a private research institute. Today I received an email from a professor who is asking me to join him in August this year for an graduate position in the experimental sciences. If I accept, I would have to quit this job before the contract terminates, which I think may spark off some negative consequences in the industry, such as a marred reputation. I tried to make the best out of this situation by asking the professor whether I may defer admission for 6 months so that I finish my contract before I start. He said it won't be possible to defer, and advised me that I will have to apply again next academic year if this was the case.
I've previously had 2 years of resaerch experience as a research assistant, and the sole reason I think I need to do a PhD eventually if not now is because I want the rigorous technical training that only a PhD program can offer.
Pros for doing a PhD *now*:
* I want to do it now in my early 20s as I think it will be more difficult as I get older (physically, or even mentally.
* It is a rare opportunity that I get an offer since I had an egregriously low GPA when I was an undergraduate. I may not get this opportunity again.
Cons for doing a PhD *now*:
* I am doing well in the private research institute I am in now, and I am responsible for a project that is not yet finished.
* Quitting my job after just 10 months will not look good, and may raise issues with the HR in the future.
What do you guys thinks?<issue_comment>username_1: You did not mention how do you feel in your current job. Do you feel that you are learning a lot, are you enjoying it? If the answer to this is yes, and seeing as it is a private research institute, then maybe consider staying there. There has been a lot of articles around about how you do not need to have a PhD to be successful and satisfied in your career.
Another point to consider is, why did you get this offer despite your GPA being so low? And maybe your GPA being low is an indication to you being able to grow more in a job at a research institute, as the environment, different from academics, may suit you better and you would end up learning more here. Or maybe your GPA is low for other reasons, and it does not always reflect how you strive in a PhD program anyway.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It seems you have to choose between:
1. Sacrificing your professional opportunities (quitting now will look bad unless you decide to "just erase the experience" from the CV, which is morally questionable).
2. Sacrificing your academic opportunities by rejecting the PhD offer.
However, let me ask you a few questions: is your research experience in this private institution going to help you to get more PhD offers in the future? Do you like the professor's offer? Why did he offer you this?
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I wouldn't bail from the job right now, since you say it's going OK. It's not the "contract" per se, but that you haven't been there long enough to get reasonable resume credit for it, etc. Stick for another year at least. Ph.D option will always be out there (lots of schools, years...don't be wedded to one guy). You can do it later if you need a break, redirection, etc. But don't bail on a job after a few months.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/20
| 1,044
| 4,199
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have generally only heard people refer to professors as either "Dr. Smith" or "Prof. Smith". However, I received an email that referred to the keynote speakers at a conference as "Prof. Dr. Smith". Is this common? (It is for a conference in taking place in the EU and I am from the US if that helps).<issue_comment>username_1: German academia traditionally expects that one will use all relevant titles, so Prof. Dr. is pretty common there. Likewise other places with an academic system related to Germany in some way. As you note, in the US this would be very uncommon and the two titles you mention often used interchangeably there, even when it isn't clear that both apply.
And, if I remember correctly, it is always Prof. Dr. and never Dr. Prof. since the professorship was earned after the doctorate and is a "higher level" honorific. But "Herr Prof. Dr." doesn't fit that rule, I guess.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it is common to use both, and the reason is that these are two completely different categories. Doctorates are academic degrees that come in different flavors including "Dr. h.c." and "Dr. habil.". They indicate the academic level, just like Bachelor or Master degrees. For academic degrees, you typically use all degrees on the highest level, so you don't mention a Master degree when someone also holds a PhD, but you mention all doctorates. "Professor" on the other hand is (in almost all cases) an official title which you mention just like you would always refer to a judge as "Judge XXX", whether or not he/she's holds a PhD. That also explains the order: Titles come first, and you lose them when you lose the job. Degrees become part of the name (so to say, until recently, it was possible to have them on your ID card.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I have personally never seen Prof. Dr. X. At least from my experience Prof. is reserved for those who are teaching a course, but do not have a Ph.D. degree (graduate students teaching intro level undergrad courses) or faculty members who only have a MA/MS degree. Dr. in contrast is used for people who have a Ph.D. degree.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: All the other answers focus on the formal importance of titles and etiquette in German speaking countries. While refering to a person by his/her titles is normal, has not to be taken too far.
Still the level of formality isn't always the same. While the name and titles on a board can be meter long, normally an entitled person is approached by students as Herr/Frau followed by the most prestigious title and that suffices.
Professor will work well in your case. And this depends on situations, too. You might be for a beer after session and call American professors by name, it could be seen bizarre to switch to professor even, not to mention Mr or Sir professor :)
The language will often,if not always, be English, and somehow the level of formality goes along with.
I have worked in Austria and visited Germany. I never heard of herr Prof. Dr. or viceversa if not in pompous presentation as in special academic events. For sure students do not approach someone using two titles.
So there is nothing to worry about.
Edit: driven by other answers and comments I have focused on german speaking academia. I see the Q is more general. In a way the answer is still valid as Professor serves well the purpose of directly speaking to whom has that title (for foreigners, europeans or not, in Europe). Again printed material, official listing, ecc. might well detail all the titles. So Prof. Dr. might be encountered, but it will be always in the same fashion as the OP has already experienced, namely a third person or a third inanimate thing as a board introducing you an entitled person.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: *Background*.
In Italy, [Dottore](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dottore) (short version dr. or dott.) refers to those who hold either a bachelor's degree, or a graduate degree, or a Ph.D., or those who are physicians.
*Reply*.
Those who both serve as physicians and teach at medical school are commonly regarded as Prof. Dott. or Prof. Dr.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/02/20
| 1,045
| 4,249
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are handbooks on a particular field you are interested in, the fastest and most comprehensive way of learning about that field. For instance, if I were interested in cognitive science would a book like "Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science" be the best way to go. Also, if there are multiple handbooks from different publishers which one should I pick?<issue_comment>username_1: German academia traditionally expects that one will use all relevant titles, so Prof. Dr. is pretty common there. Likewise other places with an academic system related to Germany in some way. As you note, in the US this would be very uncommon and the two titles you mention often used interchangeably there, even when it isn't clear that both apply.
And, if I remember correctly, it is always Prof. Dr. and never Dr. Prof. since the professorship was earned after the doctorate and is a "higher level" honorific. But "Herr Prof. Dr." doesn't fit that rule, I guess.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it is common to use both, and the reason is that these are two completely different categories. Doctorates are academic degrees that come in different flavors including "Dr. h.c." and "Dr. habil.". They indicate the academic level, just like Bachelor or Master degrees. For academic degrees, you typically use all degrees on the highest level, so you don't mention a Master degree when someone also holds a PhD, but you mention all doctorates. "Professor" on the other hand is (in almost all cases) an official title which you mention just like you would always refer to a judge as "Judge XXX", whether or not he/she's holds a PhD. That also explains the order: Titles come first, and you lose them when you lose the job. Degrees become part of the name (so to say, until recently, it was possible to have them on your ID card.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I have personally never seen Prof. Dr. X. At least from my experience Prof. is reserved for those who are teaching a course, but do not have a Ph.D. degree (graduate students teaching intro level undergrad courses) or faculty members who only have a MA/MS degree. Dr. in contrast is used for people who have a Ph.D. degree.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: All the other answers focus on the formal importance of titles and etiquette in German speaking countries. While refering to a person by his/her titles is normal, has not to be taken too far.
Still the level of formality isn't always the same. While the name and titles on a board can be meter long, normally an entitled person is approached by students as Herr/Frau followed by the most prestigious title and that suffices.
Professor will work well in your case. And this depends on situations, too. You might be for a beer after session and call American professors by name, it could be seen bizarre to switch to professor even, not to mention Mr or Sir professor :)
The language will often,if not always, be English, and somehow the level of formality goes along with.
I have worked in Austria and visited Germany. I never heard of herr Prof. Dr. or viceversa if not in pompous presentation as in special academic events. For sure students do not approach someone using two titles.
So there is nothing to worry about.
Edit: driven by other answers and comments I have focused on german speaking academia. I see the Q is more general. In a way the answer is still valid as Professor serves well the purpose of directly speaking to whom has that title (for foreigners, europeans or not, in Europe). Again printed material, official listing, ecc. might well detail all the titles. So Prof. Dr. might be encountered, but it will be always in the same fashion as the OP has already experienced, namely a third person or a third inanimate thing as a board introducing you an entitled person.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: *Background*.
In Italy, [Dottore](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dottore) (short version dr. or dott.) refers to those who hold either a bachelor's degree, or a graduate degree, or a Ph.D., or those who are physicians.
*Reply*.
Those who both serve as physicians and teach at medical school are commonly regarded as Prof. Dott. or Prof. Dr.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/02/20
| 590
| 2,547
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated with my Master's degree in Computer Science a couple of years ago. For a graduate requirement, I had to take on a project of significant scope and write a paper about the project. I had continued my project after graduation in order to attempt to publish a paper. This unfortunately did not happen, as I entered the workforce and focused my time on my new employment.
I received an email from my professor a couple of days ago asking if I had a copy of the source code to my project, because he has a new student who he wants to take over the project. He noted that if he was able to publish a paper with the new student, that my name would be added to the paper.
The professor had asked if I wanted to participate in the project, I replied that I would be able to help work on it in hopes of upping the chances that we get the paper published.
***Since I am putting in hours post-graduation: should I expect to be compensated for my further work on the project, should I expect that this work is strictly voluntary in order to get my name on a paper, or is compensation up to the professor in charge of the project?***<issue_comment>username_1: You should ask the professor. However, in my experience, the default assumption is that you will be not paid (if not said otherwise). It is often hard (again, in my experience) for professors to obtain funds for short-term-positions.
Note, however, that you are under no obligation to finish the project without getting paid. So before working on this for free, think about if you have time for it and would profit from it in some way (e.g. if you like thinking about it or if a publication is good for your life/career).
So to make clear the answer to the question: Ask, but do not expect.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If I understand correctly the situation is that you're working elsewhere and doing research in your free time. In this case you will normally not get paid. The hypothetical way for you to get paid would be getting hired part-time as an intern or research assistant. You can ask your professor about this possibility (which would be better than asking to get paid for helping with the paper) but I don't think universities offer these positions part-time, and this may not be compatible with the contract at your main workplace. I saw some universities hire part-time teaching assistants though, so that may be an option for you if you want to use your university connection to get some extra income.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/20
| 1,599
| 4,966
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to reference a 19th century French journal paper, which appears in vingt-quatrieme cahier, tome XV, of the Journal de l’École polytechnique. The journal front page lists them in that order: cahier first, then tome.
I am using Word and tried to enter the citation data in the bibliography fields Word provides. In those fields there is Volume and Issue. Now, cahier translates to notebook and tome to volume, as far as I can understand. Furthermore, Word suggests a format of Latin numerals for Volume and a decimal number for Issue. So I put the tome data into Volume and the cahier data into Issue. The resulting citation was like "....., XV(24), .....", i.e. the tome first and inside brackets was the cahier number.
So then I started thinking whether this is correct, given that the journal lists them in the reverse order.
The question, then, is: does cahier correspond to Volume and tome to Issue, or is it the other way round? (Or is there another interpretation?)
(Just a thought: maybe their mindset was to treat this as a postal address, where the most inclusive part of the address (e.g. the country) goes last. So with them the tome goes last.)<issue_comment>username_1: In this case, I think the 'cahier' is the volume and 'Tome' is the issue, based on [this example](https://books.google.com/books?id=XGc_AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover) but also based on the definition of [tome](https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/tome/78351).
This Larousse's definition state that a tome is the division of a work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: According to the [webpage of the Journal de l’École Polytechnique](https://jep.centre-mersenne.org/?lang=en), each *cahier* corresponds to a one year *volume*, and *tome* corresponds to an *issue*.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Ok, after looking at the [Browse issues link](https://jep.centre-mersenne.org/journals/JEP/) from the Journal de l’École polytechnique (changing the site language to English turns tome into volume; thanks to username_2 for pointing me towards looking at their site - seems obvious but I didn't think of it), I am inclined to interpret *cahier as the issue* and *tome as the volume*. I think the logical conclusion is that the journal, for some obscure reason, lists the principal piece of volume numbering data second and the secondary piece first, i.e. it first mentions the cahier and then the tome. Maybe their mindset was to treat this in the logic of a postal address, where the most inclusive part of the address (e.g. the country) goes last. So with them the tome goes last.
If anyone provides justification for the contrary or actual proof for my "educated" guess, then I will choose that answer as the accepted one.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: If you look at the [1900 issue](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k433724q/f4.image) of the journal, you can find advertised for sale (for 3 fr.):
>
> Table de Matières contenues dans les 64 premiers Cahiers, formant 45 Volumes, suivie d'une Table analytique et d'une Table générale par noms d'auteurs.
>
>
>
Which I would think should be translated as
>
> Table of Contents of the first 64 Cahiers, forming 45 Volumes, followed by a subject index and a general index by authors' names.
>
>
>
So the first 64 issues were grouped into 45 volumes (presumably also known as *tomes*). These were numbered 1 through 64, and 1 through 45, respectively. The numbering of cahiers starts again with after the 64th cahier, with cahier 1, second series.
Thus, the smaller number would probably be translated as "volume" and the larger number as "issue". However, it's clear that the journal considers the "cahier" the primary number, and the "volume" secondary. In fact, in the second series, they seem to have dispensed with *tomes* or *volumes* altogether, and use only the cahier number.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In the article you linked, it says: "Tome XV, Vingt-quatrieme cahier, 1835", i.e.,
>
> Tome 15, Cahier 24, 1835
>
>
>
Then we find [two](https://books.google.com/books?id=XGc_AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PP5&dq=journal%20de%20l%27ecole%20polytechnique&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhpNTk_szgAhUCON8KHb-oCc8Q6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=journal%20de%20l%27ecole%20polytechnique&f=false) [more](https://books.google.com/books?id=G1E5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA2&dq=journal%20de%20l%27ecole%20polytechnique&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhpNTk_szgAhUCON8KHb-oCc8Q6AEIMzAB#v=onepage&q=journal%20de%20l%27ecole%20polytechnique&f=false), for;
>
> Tome 15, cahier 25, 1837, and
>
>
> Tome 18, cahier 30, 1845
>
>
>
So, **it seems like there are a few cahiers for each tome.**
Since this is a different system than modern Anglophone publishing, I would keep "tome" and "cahier" untranslated in the bibliography. If this is not possible, I would treat cahier as issue and tome as volume, since in English, there are several issues for each volume.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/20
| 1,168
| 4,997
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm curious to ways professors might support or resist efforts by gradate students to unionize. The only reason I can think of, is the concern that grant money could hire less students if they were paid more. Is this a valid concern?
What if the reasons for unionization aren't about pay? Are there any other reasons professors might not want a union forming? Are there any reasons why professors might *prefer* to work with a unionized student body?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, and this is just opinion, I think you should support the students in their effort, though perhaps not actively, as you choose. Professors should support their students in all things IMO.
Making it about "more research for less money" is predatory and I advise against that. It isn't even necessarily true. Happier grad students may actually perform better.
One reason for preferring a unionized student body is that some arguments that arise in academia might better be handled if the rules were more formalized as might happen under a contract. More important, you might wind up, in a conflict situation avoiding arguments directly with the students but with a union rep instead. This might make for better relationships.
I'm not a big fan of academic unions actually, as I've never seen the need in my life. But I'm willing to admit that there are situations in which they are needed and the people involved should have a say in whether they feel that a supportive organization is needed. Given the poor support given by State governments to most state universities, it may well be needed, not as a check against the university, but against abuse from higher powers.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't really have an opinion about this one way or another, but would like to point out the following:
As a professor with external funding, I run a small business. I bring in money from a customer (for example the Federal government) and spend it on salary for myself, postdocs, and graduate students. I get in trouble if I have contracts for which I have no employees ready to do the work. And I get in trouble if I have employees but don't bring in enough money.
If this was a regular business, it would be my choice to set and negotiate salaries. I would also have flexibility in hiring and laying off employees. I would budget as much money as I think it takes to complete the work.
But this is not how it works in academia: graduate student salaries, for example, are set by the university and not me as the employer. And at least in some disciplines, graduate students are hired by the department and only leave when they graduate. As the one who pays their salaries, I have little flexibility to set the terms.
This is occasionally an awkward position to be in. Unions would complicate this because it means that issues such as labor relations, salaries, etc. become even less predictable to me. I already have no real input into their salaries and terms, but at least I know that they are predictable because they are set by the university or department, and I can anticipate what they will be 2 years from now. I might not be able to do that any more to the same degree if there were unions. That matters because I may have a contract that runs 3 or 5 years, with a fixed amount of money and work to be done.
---
All of this is independent of the moral question of whether employees should be represented by a union. Having grown up in Europe, my take on that is that unions are good.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There is a study on the effects of graduate unions on faculty-student relationships:
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979391306600208>
As they state in their abstract, "Unionization does not have the presumed negative effect on student outcomes, and in some cases has a positive effect....These findings suggest that potential harm to faculty-student relationships and academic freedom should not continue to serve as bases for the denial of collective bargaining rights to graduate student employees."
One explanation for how a graduate union can improve faculty-grad student relations is because a union allows graduate students to offload certain bureaucratic issues that may typically be dumped on their advisor. Suppose, for instance, a graduate student has a labor-related issue of some kind (e.g. being assigned an unreasonably high number of students). In the case where the department or undergrad chair is unsympathetic, the grad student would typically ask their advisor to fight the issue on their behalf. In an ideal world, this isn't the sort of thing that advisors should have to deal with, but often advisors become a sort of catch-all advocate for their students in various respects. Were there a dedicated body such as a union for dealing with labor-related issues, the advisor's relationship with their graduate students becomes more solely academically focused.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/21
| 875
| 3,758
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am pursuing Masters of Human Resource Management and will complete it within a few months. But it always bugs me that I have not chosen the right field. I went with what everyone was doing. I also think that this seat could have been gone to a deserving candidate who actually wanted to do this course. Such thoughts bother me. Can you please help me out with this, both the issues? I just want peace related to it.<issue_comment>username_1: Over the course of a lifetime a person makes many thousands of decisions, most of them with incomplete information. "It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time". Many of those decisions will lead to less than optimal results, so we learn to change and adapt.
You need to give some thought, I guess, about what your goals are and your options. Use the information you now have to try to set a new path. It will take time and effort, of course, but there is little value in continuing on a path that no longer seems right or has value to you. Likely, finishing your current degree gives you more options than dropping out of it, but that is yours to judge. But you have various educational assets that you can employ to change directions. But you need to try to make the best decision you can, *knowing what you know now*.
As for the other question, of denying your current seat to someone *more deserving*, it would only be an ethical issue had you set out at the time with the intention of denying that seat to another. That seems pretty unlikely. You did what you thought best. Others concurred with your decision. Now you have more information, and perhaps have changed and grown. Anyone who *might* have had your seat also had their own options and have, by now, made their own choices. You can't change that, nor should you worry about it. Someone else might be thinking the same way about their choices denying *you* an option that you might have had. But there is no global, universal, optimization scheme that sees the future and makes the objectively best decision for everyone.
Do what you think best with the information you have at the time. If you choose a path, follow it faithfully, but not rigidly. Let change happen.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I am pursuing Masters of Human Resource Management and will complete it within a few months.
>
>
>
Congratulations! I would definitely finish your program. At this point, you are just a few months away, so there is very little opportunity cost to finishing it.
>
> But it always bugs me that I have not chosen the right field. I went with what everyone was doing.
>
>
>
There is a huge difference between studying human resource management and actually working in human resources. You may find that you enjoy the latter more than the former. At this point, I would give it a try before deciding that you choose the wrong field. You may find that you "got lucky" and actually enjoy the job, even if you didn't choose it in a very careful way.
There is no optimal way to choose a field, and many people do regret their educational choices. But, your field does have the advantage of being something useful that will lead to a job -- far better than many students who major in their favorite subject and are very surprised to find that there are no jobs in Celtic folklore. At a minimum, this may give you some stability while you reassess your options.
>
> I also think that this seat could have been gone to a deserving candidate who actually wanted to do this course. Such thoughts bother me.
>
>
>
So long as you were honest in your admission profile, you have nothing to worry about. We take into account that not every student is going to work in the field they trained for.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/21
| 1,895
| 8,246
|
<issue_start>username_0: We are asked in our group to send new publications for journals and conferences to our secretary, who told me she has to input this information also into a database of the university. Over the years of PhD/Postdoc my Professor also seems to favor publishing many small papers rather than leaving it to the first author to make a decision on splitting up research results. This sometimes leads to conflicts, as the goals of my professor, my university and researchers without permanent positions can be different as the strategies to realize them.
So, I'm wondering if this kind of quality management/evaluation of the publication output is used by the administration to reward very productive groups and if so, by which kind of number games and really in financial rewards (increasing budget etc.)? (Number of Articles) x (impact factor)...<issue_comment>username_1: I won't comment on the specific system, but professors, generally, have to justify their existence. In some places annual reviews are used. IMO, the best of these are initiated by the individual who writes a report giving accomplishments for the year (period) past and setting goals for the future. Normally one comments on how earlier goals were met, or not.
Whether these are tracked centrally, or only become part of an employment file may differ from institution to institution.
Tenured professors normally can't be fired for not meeting expectations, but it can affect compensation and other perks of the job.
Note that an important feature of the scheme I discussed is that the professors set their own goals, rather than having external expectations forced on them.
Also, my experience is in the US, not Germany.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would ask your professor, other professors, or people you know in the administration. Presumably, they know how these evaluations are done in your University.
My experience, in a research institute in Germany, is that faculty is evaluated on both output and grants obtained. Similarly, the institute as a whole is evaluated on these points. Typically, professors try to publish as high as possible here, with much less regard for number of papers published. This is reflected in tenure decisions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: From your question alone, it is hard to tell what the research database is being used for. However, at German universities any decision to implement such an instrument will be based on a *Beschluss* (committee decision) or an *Ordnung* (committee resolution) passed by a relevant committee (e.g. *Fakultätsrat*, the faculty board). These decisions are in general public and you should be able to find them in the internal web pages of your department/university.
You could of course simply ask your colleagues, your dean, or the secretary collecting the data. German universities are usually keen on transparency`*` and self-governance, so there should be no reason to be secretive about it.
`*` Maybe with the exception of hiring decisions/promotions
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I am employed at one of the German Fraunhofer institutes as PhD student. We are doing a lot of research and are partially publicly funded, but we are not a university. However, my answer might still provide some insight.
My research output is precisely measured and evaluated. Each time one of my papers is accepted I need to add it to an internal database. It stores the name(s) of the author(s), the paper's title, the conference/journal at which it will be presented/published, the date of publication, etc. The database is accessible for the entire institute. There is a Fraunhofer-wide database that publicly tracks most (but for some reason not all) of my publications, too.
This data is used in various ways.
* Internal publication tracking: I have seen many presentations which listed the number of publications in the last year and encouraged the institute's researchers to continue with their work. This is also about motivation. A few selected publications with high impact (e.g., at high-ranked conferences, papers presenting great results, ...) get explicitly mentioned at the institute's meetings in front of all other researchers. This can give you a little bit of (internal) fame but also some potential envy...
* You job may depend on your publications. If you have absolutely no scientific output your contract might not be renewed. The same is true for research projects. A list of papers helps you A LOT when it comes to defending the importance of your work and why the institute shall continue working on it.
* Having a complete(!) list of all own papers in one field of research is crucial when it comes to writing research proposals. Having a list of great publications that you can reference usually increases your chances. Thereby you show that the institute has the basic knowledge to work on such a project.
* The same is true for offers to potential customers in the industry. You can search the publication list for papers that are related to the customer's demands and underline your abilities thereby.
* When we have finished a publicly funded project we are asked to list all our publications that were funded by the project. Once, I talked to one of the external project organizers/funders and he emphasized the importance of publication lists. Thereby he can show that this money was well-invested and he will be allowed to fund future projects. He reports the scientific success to the sponsors.
* More motivation: If I have many and/or good publications, I get a monetary bonus. It is called "variable Vergütung", which means: You get your normal E13 TVöD payment and, depending on your performance, some bonus usually in the four-figure Euro range. (TVöD = collective agreement for jobs in the public sector in Germany).
More about the "variable Vergütung": <https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer/Personalpolitik/Variable%20Verg%C3%BCtung.pdf>
This bonus depends mostly on my publications. This gives an incentive to publish on high-ranked conferences and to publish many papers. The bonus is part of my salary, thus, I have to pay taxes on it, it ends up on my banking account, and I can do whatever I want. It is NOT intended to be spent on research.
* The entire institute is evaluated regarding its publications and many other performance parameters. If we have a lot of publications we can show our scientific abilities and there is also some ranking.
However, this is not as great as it sounds. This precise tracking causes a lot of pressure, emphasizing the culture of "publish or perish" even more. You are expected to publish, you should have papers at high-ranked conferences/journals, you should write many papers. So some people tend to favor quantity instead of quality, for example if your boss wants to see 2 or 3 papers this year to give you a bonus. So people sometimes tend to go for the low-hanging fruits.
Especially the bonus system often appears to be unfair. If you have several hundreds of researchers there has to be some ranking of who gets the most and who does not get anything at all. Some people will always tell you that paper X is better than paper Y but paper Y got the bigger bonus. There are some basic rules but it seems to be mostly up to your boss how much reward you get.
The reward/bonus system might not always help you. For example, if you have to work in industry-funded projects you spend a lot of time but might not be allowed to publish. So, that reduces your chances on a bonus. This might again create some envy since your coworkers might have more/less research time compared to you and therefore better/worse chances on a bonus. (NB: We actually have a few industry-funded projects or collaborations whose results we are allowed to publish. But that is rather an exception).
Additionally, the internal tracking is not well-designed in my opinion. A lot of low-quality conferences are on the list (because they are Scopus-listed) while others, small ones but with high reputation in our field, are left out.
IMHO, there is some room for improvement although I have to confess that I benefit from this concept.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/21
| 802
| 3,465
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work at a bootcamp where I teach programming. I have a student in my class who would ask 1 question every minute. This student would ask about every single thing like where to add this code and how I should do X and Y without even trying.
How do you deal with a student who asks 100's of questions a day?<issue_comment>username_1: There are a lot of tricks.
Ask to see the work in progress before you give a hint.
Learn to give minimal hints, not answers. One sort of hint is pointing to where the answer might be found.
More extreme is to ration your hints to each person. Even more extreme is to charge "points" for hints, though it is better if they have some mechanism to earn them back.
If there is only one (or two) students who do this, perhaps an office session would be appropriate to explore why they do this. Some students come with misinformation about the material or how they should deal with it. Some of these are deep seated and very hard to solve, but some can be handled by just giving a flash of insight. The hard cases may require extra tutorials to catch up.
In CS programming lab situations, the best mechanism is [Pair Programming](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0201745763) where students work in pairs on their lab exercises. It might be applicable to some other fields. This is especially useful if you have more than a few students who exhibit this sort of behavior.
Also ask yourself if there is something about the overall class structure that is lacking and see if you can't address that. Longer lectures probably isn't the right answer for that one though IMO. More sample problems might be.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: **Establish clear learning goals** that include problem solving and finding the answers as part of the task.
This essentially falls under the "teach someone to fish" adage. The most important skill to learn in a programming boot camp isn't going to be a repertoire of functions or a mastery of a certain language's syntax, but rather a piece of the programming process itself, which includes problem solving and the associated skills.
It sounds like you're getting broken down by complaints and feeling like you have to provide an answer to help with a given line of code, but I think if you instead frame it in your own mind (and make clear to the students as well) that you are teaching the entire process, it will be easier to refuse to answer those questions and refocus on *ways that the student can find their own answer*.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Teach a man to fish...
----------------------
If a student responds to you telling to work on some particular thing with "that they have no idea how to do that X thing" it's worth taking it at face value and figure out what would be the recommended action if they needed to do X, had no idea how to do that, and *had no access to you*. Don't tell them how to do X - tell them *where and how* they can find that out.
Assuming that X is in your study plan, you can point out where in your study materials is something on how to do X - give them something specific that they *can* do, i.e. reviewing particular slides or reading some documentation, or reviewing sample code, repeating some hands-on exercise. If it's not in your study materials, perhaps it should be? Not necessarily as something for *everybody* to go through, but as extra reference.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/21
| 1,836
| 7,795
|
<issue_start>username_0: For a bit of background, I'm a non-academic, so I'm not familiar with the process of submitting a paper for peer-review or anything technical (I have learned that [non-academics can submit papers but have a higher hurdle to overcome](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34202/who-can-submit-papers-to-peer-reviewed-journals)).
I've often been told by various people that when presenting informal arguments or research, that what I write seems to be 'well researched'. For me, citations are often a mixture of either appropriate news articles or references to abstracts from studies for appropriate claims within a given body of text, however I feel that a research paper for submission to a peer reviewed journal is likely expecting a higher quality, EG citations to studies only.
What are acceptable citations within a research paper for a peer-review journal? If it's variable, how can I determine if a citation is suitable enough quality for use in a research paper?<issue_comment>username_1: (This is a case where I don't know whether to add a comment or write an answer. My apologies if I made the wrong choice.)
I like @NateEldridge's comment but I'm not sure it goes far enough. As he said, never submit a paper to a journal you have not read papers in. More specifically to your question, the answer may be affected by the field and the journal. I think in STEM journals, the general expectation is that you cite peer-reviewed publications as much as possible. Some journals consider it acceptable to cite articles published in magazines regarded as high professional quality--ACM and IEEE magazines normally are in that category (although take care to see if the article is a popularization based on a paper in a journal). It is not uncommon to cite (i.e., quote) a written or perhaps even verbal statement by a highly regarded person, including a link to where it appeared. On this Academia Stack Exchange page you will find discussions about citing material from the Internet. I am not going to repeat any of that except to note that some journals permit it (and have rules) and others do not. Most of what you wish to cite seems to me not to fall into any of the normally acceptable categories for a scholarly journal. Maybe you should be considering a magazine published by a technical society in your field of interest.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The general rule is that the reference you cite must be authoritative and provide strong evidence for the claim that you are making based on it. Readers should be able to follow the citation and see for themselves the evidence supporting the claim.
For example, if the claim is "80% of [basket weavers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38571/what-is-the-origin-of-the-underwater-basket-weaving-meme-in-academia/38588) prefer to work with Australian reeds", then the citation should be to an article which describes a rigorous survey of basket weavers, including the details of the methodology and statistical analysis. Such a study would most likely be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Suppose you read an article in Basket Weaving Weekly Magazine that makes the same claim. Can you cite it as the source of the claim? Well, there are a few possibilities:
* The article got this claim from study in the peer-reviewed journal. In this case, you should cite the original study (not the magazine article), crediting the authors who actually did the study. (You should also read the study and make sure it actually makes that claim, and that it provides strong evidence for it!)
* Basket Weaving Weekly Magazine did a survey of its own readers, and the claim is based on the results of that survey. In this case, the article may or may not describe the methodology and details of the statistical analysis, and those may or may not be sound (up to the standards of rigorous scientific research). In this case, you'll have to determine whether the claim is even supported by strong evidence - but if it is, and the evidence and supporting details are in the magazine article, you can cite it.
* Basket Weaving Weekly Online makes the claim, but doesn't give any details about where it came from. In this case, you are lacking strong evidence for the claim and you should not state this claim as fact in your paper.
Citations are most often to peer-reviewed research articles, because most of the time, these are authoritative and include strong evidence to support whatever is being cited. But there are certainly occasions where it may be appropriate to cite something that isn't a peer-reviewed research article. (See for example [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/120458/11365), or [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/19838/11365).)
This is just a general rule - specific fields and specific publication venues may have written or unwritten conventions, which you should learn and follow.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: SSight:
"For me, citations are often a mixture of either appropriate news articles...I feel that a research paper for submission to a peer reviewed journal is likely expecting a higher quality. What are acceptable citations within a research paper for a peer-review journal? If it's variable, how can I determine if a citation is suitable enough quality for use in a research paper?"
Read some papers and see how things are done there. You are coming in from a different background. Fine. But go see what the normal practice is. I would do the same if I was figuring out how to practice religion with the Hottentots. Go observe. Analyze. Learn.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Go to the source
----------------
In general, you'll be citing a specific claim or a specific idea. In both these cases you'd need to cite the *source* of that claim. Using the examples you give ("news articles or references to abstracts from studies"):
* News articles will often contain original reporting about events in the world, or original opinion pieces - if your research (e.g. in political or social sciences) relies on claims contained in a particular article, then yes, citing news articles would be appropriate. Also, I've seen major news providers cited in the introductory section of more technical papers as justification for why the task is considered relevant (i.e. because here's a list of mass media that are saying that this is a social problem).
* There will also be news articles reporting on e.g. scientific discoveries. Those aren't the original sources of any claims - they're reporting about what someone else did. In this case, it's not acceptable to cite the news articles, you *must* cite the person who first published that claim, you need to go to the source of the claim, *read it* (often the actual claim will be slightly but meaningfully different than what's reported in the news article), and cite that source.
* Abstracts from studies *usually* aren't appropriate to cite. In general, you'd need to cite the original study; it's important to assign credit where it's due. In some cases you may want to cite metastudies - i.e. instead of saying "foo causes bar [Smith 2011, Weaver 2012, etc]" you might say "a meta-analysis of studies about the effects of foo [Summmarizer 2018] confirms that foo causes bar" without going to detail of each individual study.
Reliability of sources
----------------------
Your sources need to be convincing. In general, that'll mean peer-reviewed studies. In some fields (e.g. history) it may mean primary sources e.g. documental evidence that you've seen and used. Unreliable sources (including e.g. personal correspondence) are sometimes used, but that's generally an exception when there's no other reasonable option.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/22
| 858
| 3,519
|
<issue_start>username_0: Problem 1
---------
I have been struggling coming out an efficient way to take notes while reading papers, one commonly-used way is annotate the paper while reading, but some issues include
* These notes are hard to organize since they are distributed through the text.
* There notes usually could not include mathematical formula. However, it is the major part of my notes.
* When paper is lost in thousands of papers, it is impossible to recover them.
Therefore, I tried to use stand-alone notes written in markdown, but problem 2 arises.
Problem 2
=========
As mentioned in problem 1, there are so many papers (and notes) I need to keep and it is just not feasible to keep hierarchy of folders, which could have up to 5 or even 10 hierarchy. Even though problem 1 is resolved, an effective and easy way to search and retrieve previous papers and notes is still needed.
Finally, any input about your solutions is appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: I like taking notes separately in an infinitely zoomable online outliner and include hyperlinks there to the papers in question. Dynalist supports KaTeX and Markdown, and there's a MathJax Chrome extension for WorkFlowy called MathFlowy, although it's broken right now since WorkFlowy redesigned. WorkFlowy and Dynalist also have a lot of user-defined tweaks on Stylish. There's a zillion other outliner options, both online and offline, but I personally like these two.
Since you can hyperlink to other items in the outline and tag individual items, it's easier to keep stuff both organized and connected. It's also possible to export portions of the outline to plain text or RTF.
EDIT: I forgot to mention [Gingko](https://gingkoapp.com/), which supports both Markdown and MathJax and has a variety of export formats. I haven't used it in a while, but it's an interesting UI which is especially useful for organizing projects and long notes. The dev also recently released a desktop version if you prefer something that works offline.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I highly recommend OneNote for note-taking. I really can't figure out how my life would be without it. You can categorize pages in different levels: section group, section, and subpage. You can also categorize your ideas within a page in different headings. You can even collapse or expand the headings as you wish.
It doesn't support LaTeX, but you can add math formulas with pseudo-LaTeX code in it. See [Is there any way to get LaTeX in OneNote?](https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/13201/50146) in TeX SE.
It also seems that full LaTeX support is also available: <https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/murrays/2017/07/30/latex-math-in-office/>
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I am a huge fan of [Emacs org mode](https://orgmode.org) for note-taking. There is somewhat of a learning curve, however. To use org mode, one must first install and learn to use Emacs.
Among the many benefits of org mode are the abilities to export to many different formats, such as ascii, latex, or html.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I would say it is very complicated to find an approach that satisfies all your needs. Nevertheless, and if you can forget about LateX I would recommend you to use Papers3 or readcube, since they easily allow to organize all your notes and papers. Main drawback is perhaps the price, but you need to decide if you are willing to solve your problem or not, and what is the price you are willing to pay.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/22
| 309
| 1,286
|
<issue_start>username_0: Google Scholar may mark citation counts with an asterisk (\*), meaning:
>
> This "Cited by" count includes citations to the following articles in Scholar. The ones marked \* may be different from the article in the profile.
>
>
>
How can I validate citations in my Google Scholar account that are genuine but are marked with a \*?<issue_comment>username_1: I edited the question to explain the meaning of asterisks, but perhaps that's an answer in itself: Google doesn't know whether it has correctly counted citations, in particular, it is unsure about those marked with an asterisk.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Why not just open the different articles, search for your name and see the citations for yourself? Usually, this is quickly done. If some of the articles are not available at your institution, it may be harder.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: The asteriks appears after merging two (or more) articles in a Google Scholar profile.
The asterisk (\*) shows up on the profile next to the merged items because variations of the same publication are present in their database (this is because of an error in page numbers, misspelling of an author name and so on).
You can be pretty sure that it is a genuine citation.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/22
| 772
| 3,174
|
<issue_start>username_0: The professor I have been assigned to TA hasn't assigned any work and has stonewalled me. I have sent three emails to check in and he hasn't responded. How should I respond? Should I bother reporting this to my graduate advisor?
UPDATE!! - He finally responded. He did have some issues, but is doing much better and is going to be more responsive moving forward. Thank you for all the great advice on this forum!<issue_comment>username_1: First try some other methods of getting in touch with him. Call him on the phone, go to his office (during scheduled office hours if possible). It's possible that for some reason your emails are not reaching him, or he's just overwhelmed with other stuff and forgot to reply. Don't throw around words like "stonewall" unless you have proof that he received your emails and is willfully refusing to reply.
If you can't, then yes, you ought to report it. Your advisor may not be the right person; I would look to whichever faculty member supervises the TA program in your department. It could be the chair, or graduate vice chair, or some similar person.
It could be that this is a sign of bigger problems, and if so, it will reflect poorly on you when it is found out that you knew something was wrong and took no action.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: 1. As long as you are getting paid, this is a desirable state of affairs.
2. Send him an email or two to CYA ("please contact me with any instructions", "let me know if you need any help as the course goes on").
3. Go do your research and work on YOUR degree.
P.s. Please do not also complain about being bumped up to first class and forced to drink champagne and eat filet mignon. Act nonchalant and move ahead pleasantly.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: If you stay in academia, you will often end up in situations where you have the option to do nothing. (Usually, they do not look like this one; usually, they will involve you going home early because nobody checks if you are in your office/lab working on research.) You will not succeed if you always take the option to do nothing. One of the ways that staying silent about this situation may reflect poorly on you is that other people will conclude that you'll approach research the same way.
There are ways to take advantage of this situation that are not dishonest. If the professor isn't taking initiative to come up with things for you to do as the TA, then you can take that initiative yourself. (For example, if there is a recitation section or problem session, you can *ask* if you can pick your own topics to cover that are relevant to the material discussed in class.) However,
* don't do this without the professor's knowledge, and
* don't do this if you don't think you can do a good job.
With these two caveats in mind, it might be worth your while; you get to do more interesting things, you learn more from being a TA, and the students get more out of the class than they would if the TA did nothing.
Whether you do this or not, you need to talk to the professor (and to the department, if talking to the professor proves impossible).
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/22
| 1,266
| 5,242
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently writing my master's thesis in computer science. In my topic, I had a lot of papers to read and my main result relies also heavily on some theorems from especially one paper.
In the common literature there are some standard theorems for which the proofs are usually omitted bescause it is common knowledge or radically shortened as in "an easy application of the KKT theorem" and the authors do not want to waste any space for that.
In a master's thesis, however, I would assume that it is good practice to write down those proofs more extensively, since it also shows that you really understand your topic in-depth.
My question is: Would you agree on that and would a citation as in
**Proposition 3.14** (see [5])**.** A nice theorem.
*Proof.* My extended proof.
be sufficient?
I checked out [When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32902/when-should-one-include-the-proof-of-known-results-in-a-mathematical-phd-thesis) already where the answers suggest that my intuition is right here (for a PhD thesis). My thesis advisor also agrees (which is probably most important), however, I am unsure to what degree this is appropriate.<issue_comment>username_1: It would be a good idea to make it slightly more conspicuous that the theorem (and proof) are not original, e.g.:
>
> The following theorem is due to [5]; for the clarity of our exposition we give a more detailed version of the succinct proof in [5].
>
>
>
This leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that the work is not original, and also explains why you chose to include the proof.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not sure why you assume that the proofs are necessary. I would think that a citation to the theorem is enough, especially as you say, the proofs are "common knowledge" or easily derived. It seems like just padding.
However, there are exceptions. If the main ideas in your thesis would be made more understandable or otherwise enhanced by some proof technique of one of the cited theorems then certainly include such a proof. But if there are, then, fewer such proofs you can make a bigger deal of the citation as user [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/125390/75368) suggests. But note that I'm referring to something in the proof itself, not just the theorem.
This would make the thesis a bit tighter and put more of the focus of it on your own work rather than just explicating the work of others.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: There are three reasons to include a proof in your master's thesis - two of them good, and one of them bad.
1: As part of your background section
-------------------------------------
If your work relies on important results in your field, including those theorems' proofs in your introduction and background sections makes sense. This is true even if the proofs are well known. A thesis needs to show that you understand your field thoroughly to your committee, and as a bonus, including your field's well-known results will make your thesis a good introduction to your topic for someone coming in from another field. [Theses are actually read this way!](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/124705/6030)
When you cite proofs in this way, there's no need to give an expanded proof. Paraphrase or quote the standard proof (citing it clearly) without much commentary. You're just giving an overview of what others have already accomplished.
2: Because the details of the proofs are important for your own work
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sections describing your new contributions to the field, your work might depend on the specific details of a previous proof. Either the detail is directly relevant to your own proofs, or the intuition behind the proof you're citing is similar to your own approach. Calling out these specific details is helpful.
When you cite proofs in this way, it makes sense to expand them - but only by focusing on the specific details you want to discuss. Briefly describe the rest of the proof. And again, clearly cite the proof as it's not your proof, you're just commenting on it.
3. Because you want your thesis to be long and detailed
-------------------------------------------------------
Part of good writing is knowing which details are relevant and concisely sticking to those details. Don't include well-known proofs just for the sake of padding out your thesis or because you're including proofs by default.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: 1. If you leave the proof in the main text, make it obvious that your work is not original (or at least that A proof of the thereom was done earlier). Prominent caveat.
2. You could also put it in an appendix.
---
I am less negative and more positive than username_2 on the benefit of showing this explication. Theses can serve a lot of purposes. Just make it clear that you are not claiming some discovery, but showing an exercise. But I think there can be benefit in it, both to you and to following lab mates--they will have the same issues dealing with the sparse literature that you did.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/22
| 1,005
| 4,271
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a lecturer in a European university. A student from my department asked me to write a recommendation for a program somewhere in the US that he wants to attend.
I have read the [horror stories](http://people.csail.mit.edu/mernst/advice/write-recommendation.html) about American recommendation letters, where apparently "*He is not only quick at learning and good at solving complicated problems, but also with a logical and creative mind that enables him to raise some insightful views. I was also deeply impressed with his diligence and outstanding communication ability, compared with my other students.*" is considered lukewarm(!) and grounds for rejecting the applicant.
I have found a few sample recommendation letters and advice from different universities/people around the internet and I've used them as inspiration to spruce up what I had initially written. I have also asked colleagues, but understandably they mostly write letter for other European universities, where such superlative language would usually be reserved for sarcasm or toadying.
However, one thing that is rarely consistent is how formal the letter should be. More precisely:
* How should I start the letter? "Dear colleagues"? "To whom it may concern"? "Esteemed organizers"? Similarly, how to end it? "(Best) regards"? "Sincerely yours"?
* How to refer to the applicant in the letter? "Jane"? "<NAME>"? "<NAME>"?
I would rather not penalize the student because I do not understand foreign cultural norms.<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest that unless you have other information, such as a relationship with the recipient, that you write more formally than informally.
But if you want to write the sort of purple prose in your example, you should also back it up with facts and examples. "...has great insight. For example, ...". If it is all just superlative generalities it might be too easy to dismiss, though I wouldn't think it was sarcasm in a letter of recommendation.
If you know the recipient, or have a reputation that implies that they know you and your work, then less formality might be fine. Some people will simply be believed based on their reputation.
But, lean toward facts and formality, I think. And note that if you praise someone who shouldn't be praised it will come back to haunt you and your institution.
Note: This is personal opinion about how I would react.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: **Formality is the wrong parameter to worry about.** Write at whatever level of formality you are most comfortable writing to your target audience. (But err on the side of formality, unless you know your reader personally.)
**The parameter you should worry about is credibility.** Your readers don't just want to know *that* you think highly of the student; we want to know *why* you think highly of the student, and why we should trust your judgement.
>
> He is not only quick at learning and good at solving complicated problems, but also with a logical and creative mind that enables him to raise some insightful views. I was also deeply impressed with his diligence and outstanding communication ability, compared with my other students
>
>
>
This is not a terrible recommendation letter because the praise is insufficiently strong; it's a terrible recommendation letter because the praise is **vague**. Which complicated problems? How do you know he has a logical and creative mind? What insightful views? How did he show diligence? How and where did he demonstrate his outstanding communication ability? (And do you mean speaking, writing, or both?) And why should we trust your judgement at all? **Be specific.**
Without these details, this letter looks like flowery boilerplate that could be applied to anyone. The letter says *nothing* specific about the student, which makes me think the writer *knows* nothing specific about the student. Moreover, the letter says nothing about the *writer's* expertise, strongly suggesting that he expects to be trusted merely because he's old and tenured.
In short: **Show, don't tell.**
The ["horror stories" page](http://people.csail.mit.edu/mernst/advice/write-recommendation.html) you link to gives similar advice. (Did you actually read it?)
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/02/22
| 1,584
| 6,514
|
<issue_start>username_0: Long story short: I got my PhD a few years ago, and am currently in a temporary job. Anticipating future job applications, I found myself an experienced, senior local mentor. My time in this job is now almost at an end, and I've been submitting dozens of job applications, including to jobs far "below" the one I'm in now. These applications have so far all ended in rejection without interview. So I quietly reached out to some *other* experienced members of the faculty for their advice.
What I'm experiencing now is a case of too many mentors spoiling the broth. I have been told variously that, in order to get a job, my *main*, *most urgent* priority should be:
* writing higher-quality papers to publish in top journals
* polishing and publishing my older preprints, even if they're not so high-quality
* speaking at conferences/seminars on the wider international stage
* organising conferences / similar community admin
* applying for more grants
etc. etc. I've also been given a list as long as my arm of things that are not my *most* urgent priority, but are still *important*. They're all great pieces of advice individually, but I'm finding the lack of coherent *prioritisation* overwhelming given the few months I have remaining, and I'm struggling to imagine how I could achieve some of these things even if I had a year or more left.
1. How should I be prioritising my time in the remaining few months? (For the purpose of this question, my goal is to end up not being forced out of UK academia without another job lined up.)
2. How should I prioritise my time in my next temporary job, if I manage to find one? (For this question, my goal is to end up with a permanent research/teaching contract in the UK within the next few years.)
---
**Edited** to add extra background information on request:
* I'm in pure mathematics.
* I've written several papers that have been published in good-to-very-good, well-known journals, though nothing nearing e.g. Inventiones. The preprints that I haven't yet submitted are likely to be similar. Of course, I'm working on more and better, but I am worried that I'll be forced out of academia long before any of it is finalised, much less published.
* I have spoken at conferences and seminars internationally, a couple of times. I'm on the lookout for more opportunities.
* I have never organised a conference or done any big admin work like that: my living situation is far too precarious to allow it, because of the lack of stable job.
* The amount of smaller admin work (e.g. peer review, session chair) I've done is very limited. I'm on the lookout for opportunities, but not finding anything.
* I've applied for a couple of small awards, and I'm in the process of applying for my first grant. Most of them I'm not eligible for, because they don't replace your salary, and need to be co-signed by an employer willing to pay your salary (which I don't have).
* I'm aware that postdocs and fixed-term lectureships are different jobs. I include them because their job descriptions are almost identical and because I am applying for both. If you can only answer on one, or have to answer separately for each, please do.<issue_comment>username_1: All advice is good. All advice is bad. Every candidate is different. Nearly every post doc position is different, at least at the hiring stage.
The important lesson is that every candidate will have to make her/his own case for the job. You will need to extract from your background all of the things you have done, as well as your basic work ethic, that makes you the best candidate for the job.
The next most important lesson, perhaps, is that you will likely face a lot of competition. But everyone in the pool will represent trade-offs. You will be (seen as) better than some on some measures, and not as good on others.
Your past is your past. You can't change it. You probably can't add enough in the short term to make much of a difference. So, just make your best case and good luck.
One thing you can do, proactively, is to make your case on paper and then have a trusted colleague give you feedback on it. Not just advice on whether it is "good enough", but what specific things might be added/dropped/changed to strengthen it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: My advice would be:
* write more applications
Academic job hunt is a gamble. Boosting your CV does improve your chances, but it is still a gamble. There is no security in this game and no guaranteed strategies. Places which seem to be a 100% match can reject you without an interview, and places where you barely meet the role specification can shortlist you. There are often more criteria than are written in the job specification and there are often several competing agendas each Department wants to fulfil.
A few months is not enough to publish your best piece (review process may take years). Speaking at conferences may help, but realistically even if a professor will love your work and would like to hire you, they may not be able to do it immediately, unless they have funds to spare (very rare and unlikely situation in the UK). Organising a conference takes more than a year.
tl;dr: polish your CV and application pack, submit more job applications and (if you have time) prepare a Fellowship application, e.g. to [EPSRC](https://epsrc.ukri.org/skills/fellows/)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Priorities:
1. Tactical execution of the job search (lots of applications, beat the bushes).
2. Applying for grants (more work per contact than 1, thus lower priority).
3. Racking up more easy pub count by cleaning up and publishing preprints. Need to be able to take credit for that stuff. It is low work and decent return.
I would put doing serious new papers as the lowest priority. Not sure what you are doing now, but would probably decrease the time spent on this. Don't be obvious about this--people should still think you are toiling away--but shift your focus to job search. Postdocs are not very well paid anyways and it is expected postdocs will be looking for next gig. Just think it is a lot of work and likelihood of a result is low. Plus it's very unlikely to help you in time.
I would definitely use every chance you can to do a talk (and then line up some interviews in same location). Just give your standard thesis or current research overview talk. No extra work to prepare stuff. But make sure your travel is funded. Don't fly around on your own.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/22
| 1,355
| 5,685
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a US undergraduate in math and physics and I'm looking to ultimately do a PhD in either physics or math. It seems that a lot of the research I connect with the most is happening in Europe. I also like the focus on research rather than coursework in European PhD programs. However, I've found most of the process confusing for an outsider like me.
I would like to know the ins and outs of how graduate programs work over there. There's different lingo there, for example: Taught vs Research MSc. Which is better ultimately for a PhD program? I also get the feeling that Master's and PhD in Europe mean something totally different than what we mean in the US. Are there funded Master's programs in Europe (in math/physics) as there are in the US? How does funding compare?
For reference, I've been looking at schools in UK, Germany, and Switzerland (although not so much Switzerland due to the high cost of living).
Thanks!
Edit: I'm now aware of how broad my question is. Nevertheless, I found much of your advice helpful in gaining a general knowledge of how to pursue postgraduate degrees abroad and some additional considerations, so thanks! If/when I have more specific questions about this process I will ask them in a different thread.<issue_comment>username_1: I can give you some insight in Germany/Austria (phd in physics in Austria), not so much on the UK. Many countries in Europe now use the Bologna system
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process#Qualifications_framework>
It is normally a three step process for a phd: Bachelor programs is more or less equivalent to US undergrad, takes 3 years normally (all numbers with some variation depending on country and field) and ends with a bachelor degree BSc. Step two is a Master program, duration normally two years and mostly course orientated. Normally ends with a master's thesis, which involves independent research in a group under the supervision of a professor. This is a requirement for entering stage three, the phd. In general there is no funding for the master's years (maybe some for the half year during your thesis or if you TA), you are considered a student. Tuition fees depend on country/university and can be waived with stipends if you qualify (no fees in Austria though)
PhD is almost exclusively research in a specific research group and normally fully funded. Minimum duration is three years.
You see, that what you call graduate studies/phd in the US is separated into Masters and PhD in Europe, you obtain a Masters degree in the middle.
This also means that the application process is very different depending on stage. Let's say you want to start your masters in STEM in Europe. Setting visa considerations aside, for some universities you can just sign up for a Masters in Physics for instance, no entry exams. Some might require exams and charge you tuition fees.
One your done with you Masters, you can look for phd positions at either the same University or wherever you like. The availability of positions is tied to funding, which is normally under control of the leading professor of the group. So you apply to her/him and if they like you they can hire you. In most cases you don't have to get accepted by the university, you just enroll. A professor has to accept you. (Very different to the US). Often, you end up doing your phd within the group you wrote your master's thesis in.
On top of that there are graduate schools with extra funding where you apply to the program and the will assign you a supervisor.
So overall: Bacc-Master-Phd; 3-2-3 years
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: PhD as "apprentice researcher" job
----------------------------------
Many institutions here seem treat their PhD process as something close to "apprentice researcher" job positions. When they have a vacancy for such an "apprentice researcher" (e.g. some funded project needs extra junior researchers and has funding for them), they'll put an advertisement for a potential student and this will be treated essentially as generic hiring process - the ad stating what skills they want, what will be the expected duties, and what salary they offer ([Here's an example](https://www.jobbnorge.no/en/available-jobs/job/151808/phd-research-fellowship-in-natural-language-processing)); and the candidates submitting their CVs to apply for the job, followed by some interviews and the institution picking the most relevant candidate and hiring them.
During that project you'd be expected to get hands-on research experience and prove that you're "not an apprentice" anymore by defending a thesis based on the research results you obtained in that role.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One thing I haven't seen mentioned and is the case in most of Europe compared to the US is a much narrower focus during undergrad and corresponding assumption at the master/phd level. The usual amount of credits in math courses during a BSC in the Czech Republic is roughly 100-120 over the three years. We take almost no breadth courses with the exception of Phys. Ed. a Foreign language course and maybe one or two physics/programming courses.
This generally means you are expected to have a rather broad and deep understanding of the core subject (math, physics, CS, biology etc.). At the same time the breadth type courses are taken at the high school level.
It's also worth pointing out that as a general rule (there are exceptions obviously) up to roughly MS. level you will get a much better education in Europe, but it is very hard to beat US PHD. programs anywhere except at a very small number of extremely prestigious European Universities.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/23
| 1,469
| 6,753
|
<issue_start>username_0: If a university student is set coursework, this is generally a very uncontrolled method of assessment. Lots of different sources can be used to draw knowledge from and often if it's a technical exercise and not a research one citations are explicitly stated as not required.
My question is thus, where would the line be drawn regarding the amount of help that a student gets with their assignment before it becomes plagiarism?
A few examples:
* Asking for help solving a question online.
* Asking for help from an expert in their field.
* Collaborating with other students on the course.<issue_comment>username_1: It depends. Some teachers want all the work to be that of the student and disallow any assistance. Some allow assistance only from teacher or TA (to control amount of help). Some have liberal allowance for collaboration.
Just ask the teacher what is allowed.
I would just be rather strict with yourself. Like don't call it "help" when you are just copying.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Background
----------
For university course work, I approach this question not from the perspective of *where* the questions are directed. I approach it instead from the point of **when** the questions are asked and **how** they are phrased.
Problem Solving
---------------
The first stage of a solving a problem is to define the problem. The goal is to have a statement or statements, a picture, and all of the parameters to the problem in one place. The idea here is to be able to "put the book away", where "the book" is the defining source of the problem.
The second stage of solving a problem is to gather information. The goal is to collect values that are as yet undefined but otherwise anticipated to be part of the solution. This is the point where additional insights are added to the definition. Indeed, in some sense, the second step often runs in parallel with the first step.
The third stage of solving a problem is to propose solutions. This is the brainstorming step. The goal is to reach a point where the statement is made "I am convinced that I can solve this problem completely" or, alternatively, "I am convinced that this problem cannot be solved as stated". This step is where assumptions are stated. This is where equations are proposed. This is where guesses are made and leaps of insight are taken. Any proposed approach that does not violate laws or ethics or standards or rules or regulations is permitted. Approaches that are fundamentally incorrect or improper are to be avoided.
Sometimes, a problem statement is in itself so direct that we combine the first three steps. We have no need to reconsider the problem statement, gather any other information, or indeed brainstorm on potential assumptions. The solution to the problem is essentially that we are to do one thing and one thing only.
The final stage is to evaluate an answer. The goal is to take the best proposed approach and complete it. Here is where the calculators are finally allowed to come out. Here is where the format and layout requirements for the report are dusted off and put in to practice.
Asking Questions
----------------
The first two stages *should* be done with copious back-and-forth dialog and questions. The only way to solve the actual problem at hand is to be certain that you understand the problem at hand completely before you start to work on it. Whether you ask for help from the course instructor (preferred) or an expert on-line or your peers does not matter. Your goal when you ask questions is to fill in the gaps in your understanding to reach the point where you know that you understand the problem statement completely. The type of questions that you ask at this point are framed accordingly. Basically ... Do I really understand what this problem is saying and what information I have to try to address it?
The third step (proposing solutions) can be done within a team environment, especially when it involves brainstorming or debating the viability of different assumptions. What should **not** be done at this point is to ask questions about whether a proposed solution is or is not correct. Rather, questions should be framed about whether the proposed solution "makes sense" given the system at hand, the information at hand, and the assumptions made. Again, whether you ask the course instructor (preferred), an expert, or your peers is not relevant. However, understand at this point, the best answer to the question about whether a proposed solution "makes sense" generally comes first and foremost from the course instructor, it generally comes last if at all from your peers in the course.
The last step of problem solving is typically to be done straight up. This means, sit down and do what you are supposed to do to complete the proposed solution. Do not ask questions, just do it. As needed, consult additional references for the proper methods to just do it.
Team Work versus Group Work
---------------------------
I must conclude with a few comments about team work versus group work in a university environment. This is especially with regard to the question about plagiarism.
Team work is the effort taken by students together to do the first three steps in problem solving. Teams get together early, analyze the problem statement and the information given, debate the pros and cons of various approaches, and *ask questions of the instructor, experts, and their peers*. Then, all team members go home and do the work *on their own*. Because each student is fully responsible for their own efforts to "just do it", no one has plagiarized anyone in the case of team work.
Group work is the effort taken by students to collect "the right answers" to problems. Groups start with everyone going home to "do" the problem by themselves. Groups end by everyone getting together to compare answers and collect only the best answers to submit. Because all students put answers from the group in as their own effort, everyone has truly plagiarized everyone else in this case.
Team work is to be encouraged and applauded. Group work is to be shunned and duly penalized. I might give an extreme example of three students submitting an answer to the same problem from a course assignment. Each student in a team of three students deserves full credit for their *distinctly different* answers to the problem. By comparison, each student in a group of three students deserves to have their common grade cut by 1/3 for submitting *clearly identical* answers to the problem.
The other aspects of plagiarism involve lessons on how to cite sources of information adequately and properly. The lessons are an entire treatise to themselves.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/23
| 677
| 2,936
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am from Germany and about to finish my second bachelors degree (two different fields). And am now considering options for masters studies. Now i know that in Germany i can study two masters simultaneously and it generally does not matter too much if i need say three years to complete both instead of the two years advocated.
I would like to study at a good university in another country where tuition fees for EU citizens are rather small/zero.
Now is it possible to enroll in two master degrees simultaneously in France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or other countries fullfilling the criteria?<issue_comment>username_1: I will answer with respect to Sweden; as far as I know it can be technically possible but in practice, not really...
Let's expand on this a bit; again, AFAIK, it is not possible to be enrolled to two different masters programs in the same faculty. At least it was not possible when I was in the uni. They might have programs that overlap between different programs and allow you to have a broader portfolio/CV if that is what you desire, but you still get a single degree.
You could try and apply to two different programs at different faculties of the same university. This *may* work, I am not sure if there is a national regulation on that. I would guess that it's handled by individual university administrations.
The last option is of course applying to two different programs at two different universities, so different legal entities. You could try to get into University of Gothenburg and Chalmers for two different programs for example. I cannot imagine why that would not be allowed.
That being said, if you choose to pursue this, you will very likely have crashes on your schedule such that you will not be able to follow the lectures, and potentially miss some compulsory moments of these degrees. Universities typically don't assume the students do more than 100% studies so you will almost certainly have serious incompatibilities on your schedule.
If you are seriously considering getting two masters degrees in one go (and I would advise against it), my suggestion would be to offset them with 1 year, so that you start one program and half way into that start another. The motivation behind this is that Masters programs often tend to have lecture-heavy courses first, and project or assignment based courses later.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the Netherlands this is no problem. EU/EER students pay the same tuition fee as Dutch students. Additionally, you only pay once, no matter for how many programmes at how many institutions you enroll (unless you already have a master's degree, in which case you pay higher fees).
I share the concerns in [this other answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/134179/25112). Finishing two masters at the same time without delay is possible, but it is not a pleasant experience.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/23
| 709
| 2,936
|
<issue_start>username_0: I seem to have lost the focus that I once used to have. Few years back I was able to study for 4 hours straight but now its hardly possible for me to focus for 15 minutes. Any advice on how to regain lost focus in studying?<issue_comment>username_1: This situation is not that uncommon and there are several approaches you might try. Few month ago I couldn't barely manage to sit down and start to read or write for my master thesis. Therefore, I also tried several of the possible approaches until one worked. The short answer is: Change something.
* Plan to only study for 15 minutes straight, make a 5 minutes break and go back again to work for another 15 minutes and so on. If this works out, try to stretch the working time to 20 minutes and see how it goes.
* Turn on or off distractions, e.g. I usually need distraction and noise around me to study, so I gave the opossite a try. Turn background music on or off.
* Change the place where you study. Relocate yourself into a coffee shop or a park. Look for a shared workspace and try coworking.
* Play games or challange yourself by setting small achievable goals and honor yourself for achieving them with whatever you like, e.g. some time off or treats. I know that this one sounds kind of weird but give it a try.
* Take a longer break for several days, if you can afford this in terms of time.
* Turn the internet off, i.e. no smartphone, no browser.
* Try other working hours like in the morning or in the night.
* Mix the material you have to study or the methods you use, like watching videos, reading, writing, summarizing, structuring, collecting.
* Add physical exercises to your routine, e.g. short exercises of only a few minutes every hour (stand up, stretch, walk) and/or more challenging exercises once a day or every few days.
I'm pretty sure that there are much more options. These are only the ones I personally tried. Good luck.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Make sure you are having good sleep and rest periods, along with good nutrition, consult your phisician some times the mind could be reflecting some underlying medical condition. I also give big importance to exercise.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Compile a to-do list. You may already use such a list, but you can try to make such a list more detailed and also include some limited allowance for activities that are now taking the place of doing the work you should be doing. Simply writing down such a to-do list will force you to think about what you should be doing and why that isn't happening, which will go some way toward fixing the problem. This will then lead to a schedule for studying that will work for you.
Writing down notes at the end of the day about what you want to do the next day is also a good practice. This will make it more likely that the next day you'll stay on course working on the things you should be working on.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/23
| 1,505
| 6,385
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is actually specific to mathematics. In particular, in the sub field of category theory, differential geometry, algebraic geometry.
Question is as mentioned above.
>
> How much is too much when it comes to diagrams in a research article?
>
>
> Do more diagrams annoy a reader?
>
>
>
I did not expect this question to create so much confusion. May be some one who has experience (don’t ask how much) in reading research articles in mathematics (pure mathematics, if that makes some difference) can say something relevant as it differs from one field to another field.
By diagram, I do not mean graphs. I want to explain the setup in diagrams. I do not know if it reach correctly but, I want to add diagram of heart and **not** graph of case study how many times it beats in different persons of different age or something like that.<issue_comment>username_1: That entirely depends on the article itself. In some cases diagrams aid an explanation and make it clearer. In others they offer little insight. If an article depends on having many diagrams of the former kind, then I don't see that "too many" is an issue. But even a few of the latter kind may just get in the way of understanding.
Words and pictures can be complementary. It is a judgement call by the authors as to which is best in a given case. They may err a bit, but that is human nature.
In general, think about whether words or pictures/figures better convey your meaning and act accordingly. Sometimes both are needed. Examples illustrating (note the word) a concept are often best presented in figures. Imagine a Calculus textbook without figures. Now imagine one without formulae. Would either work?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I looked at 5 papers of mine in experimental science. The results:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OhrND.png)
As you can see, it's about ~1-2 figures per typeset page. I did count "panels" (a), (b), etc. as separate figures even though not numbered that way as they are separate on the page.
I never got any push back or even questions on figures from journals or reviewers. Had one co-author on D ask me to pull 3 modeled regressions (or number would have been higher). But the objection was not visual impact but just that he disagreed we needed to show a negative relationship.
In terms of what to show, they were almost all just data graphs and are in the results section. Maybe once or twice I showed a "cartoon" in discussion. Intro, methods, and conclusion tend to be figure free. So the figures are concentrated in the middle of the paper.
I really never wondered what to show--felt intuitive.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I suspect there will be a practical limit related to experimental/theoretical sciences. You should also consider how peers start to read an article. This will vary a lot, I will often read the abstract first and then take immediately a look on the figures, then, maybe, I switch to conclusion, then, maybe, I start from the introduction. If your results are important and understandable easily, your paper will become cited many times in any way and peers are more inclined to read it, if you present a new method as a unknown researcher, I would apply a poster strategy and think thoroughly about what the 1-2 key statements/messages are you want to present instead of bombarding the reader with redundant figures. The attention span you get is the unknown parameter. Basically, there should be not much redundancy in your paper, therefore the the data/figures IMO should be compressed as much as possible withoug looking cluttered. This is an art and science you have to practice and you should carefully analyse how it can be improved whenever reading other papers. **Asking how much figures are too much is leading away from the key problem here, which is attainable attention.**
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Personally, I like more diagrams in a paper with good captions.
More complex mental visualization can be aided greatly with diagrams.
If I am skimming through a paper, a diagram will catch my attention more easily, and if the caption does a good job of explaining by itself (with fewer prerequisites from the text of the paper), I am more likely to read other portions of paper in more detail. This is especially true for experimental results. Conversely, not having good captions defeats the purpose of the diagram. My opinion is based on computer science research papers in my small area, however, one of my favorite example is from [mathematics](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~quake-papers/painless-conjugate-gradient.pdf)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm assuming by "diagrams" you mean computations done in graphical rather than inline symbolic form. In this case the answer depends on the field and on the reader--some people find a multi-page diagrammatic calculation annoying if it could be expressed more succinctly (if also more opaquely) using standard symbolic notation. However, there has been a general trend towards diagrammatic calculations, so it's a bit more *au courant* even if it annoys the old guard.
If on the other hand you mean "illustrating pictures," I think it's safe to say everybody likes looking at those.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: There are fashions in these matters. When I was an undergraduate over 50 years ago, the presentation of pure mathematics was very strongly influenced by the Bourbaki school, which emphasised extreme abstraction. Diagrams were not allowed! If you wanted to study geometry in the two-dimensional Euclidean plane you first should master the geometries in n dimensions (no diagrams possible) and then set n=2.
The reasoning behind this idea, which I must say rendered some of my courses incomprehensible, was that diagrams can mislead.
The question to ask yourself is what you are trying to communicate and to whom. If you know your audience than you will know whether they like lots of pictures or, like the Bourbaki crowd, hate them. If, as is most likely, you do not know your audience, you can bet that what they most want from you is writing, with or without pictures, that is easy to understand.
In short, put in graphics to aid understanding amongst your readers not just to make the paper look pretty.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/23
| 1,454
| 6,093
|
<issue_start>username_0: I don't understand the following terms in a journal where I am going to publish.
This is in reference to [this series of journals](http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Word=*discrete%20mathematics).
What is the meaning of the terms *bimonthly*, *semimonthly* and *quarterly* as given in the above link?
Does it have anything with the time taken for peer-review process or anything?
Please help me to understand these terms and what they indicate?
Which one will be a better match to publish in if I have a time-constraint?<issue_comment>username_1: That entirely depends on the article itself. In some cases diagrams aid an explanation and make it clearer. In others they offer little insight. If an article depends on having many diagrams of the former kind, then I don't see that "too many" is an issue. But even a few of the latter kind may just get in the way of understanding.
Words and pictures can be complementary. It is a judgement call by the authors as to which is best in a given case. They may err a bit, but that is human nature.
In general, think about whether words or pictures/figures better convey your meaning and act accordingly. Sometimes both are needed. Examples illustrating (note the word) a concept are often best presented in figures. Imagine a Calculus textbook without figures. Now imagine one without formulae. Would either work?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I looked at 5 papers of mine in experimental science. The results:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OhrND.png)
As you can see, it's about ~1-2 figures per typeset page. I did count "panels" (a), (b), etc. as separate figures even though not numbered that way as they are separate on the page.
I never got any push back or even questions on figures from journals or reviewers. Had one co-author on D ask me to pull 3 modeled regressions (or number would have been higher). But the objection was not visual impact but just that he disagreed we needed to show a negative relationship.
In terms of what to show, they were almost all just data graphs and are in the results section. Maybe once or twice I showed a "cartoon" in discussion. Intro, methods, and conclusion tend to be figure free. So the figures are concentrated in the middle of the paper.
I really never wondered what to show--felt intuitive.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I suspect there will be a practical limit related to experimental/theoretical sciences. You should also consider how peers start to read an article. This will vary a lot, I will often read the abstract first and then take immediately a look on the figures, then, maybe, I switch to conclusion, then, maybe, I start from the introduction. If your results are important and understandable easily, your paper will become cited many times in any way and peers are more inclined to read it, if you present a new method as a unknown researcher, I would apply a poster strategy and think thoroughly about what the 1-2 key statements/messages are you want to present instead of bombarding the reader with redundant figures. The attention span you get is the unknown parameter. Basically, there should be not much redundancy in your paper, therefore the the data/figures IMO should be compressed as much as possible withoug looking cluttered. This is an art and science you have to practice and you should carefully analyse how it can be improved whenever reading other papers. **Asking how much figures are too much is leading away from the key problem here, which is attainable attention.**
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Personally, I like more diagrams in a paper with good captions.
More complex mental visualization can be aided greatly with diagrams.
If I am skimming through a paper, a diagram will catch my attention more easily, and if the caption does a good job of explaining by itself (with fewer prerequisites from the text of the paper), I am more likely to read other portions of paper in more detail. This is especially true for experimental results. Conversely, not having good captions defeats the purpose of the diagram. My opinion is based on computer science research papers in my small area, however, one of my favorite example is from [mathematics](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~quake-papers/painless-conjugate-gradient.pdf)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm assuming by "diagrams" you mean computations done in graphical rather than inline symbolic form. In this case the answer depends on the field and on the reader--some people find a multi-page diagrammatic calculation annoying if it could be expressed more succinctly (if also more opaquely) using standard symbolic notation. However, there has been a general trend towards diagrammatic calculations, so it's a bit more *au courant* even if it annoys the old guard.
If on the other hand you mean "illustrating pictures," I think it's safe to say everybody likes looking at those.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: There are fashions in these matters. When I was an undergraduate over 50 years ago, the presentation of pure mathematics was very strongly influenced by the Bourbaki school, which emphasised extreme abstraction. Diagrams were not allowed! If you wanted to study geometry in the two-dimensional Euclidean plane you first should master the geometries in n dimensions (no diagrams possible) and then set n=2.
The reasoning behind this idea, which I must say rendered some of my courses incomprehensible, was that diagrams can mislead.
The question to ask yourself is what you are trying to communicate and to whom. If you know your audience than you will know whether they like lots of pictures or, like the Bourbaki crowd, hate them. If, as is most likely, you do not know your audience, you can bet that what they most want from you is writing, with or without pictures, that is easy to understand.
In short, put in graphics to aid understanding amongst your readers not just to make the paper look pretty.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/23
| 1,920
| 8,022
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work in STEM, and in recent years I have been troubled by this trend in academia where certain individuals are elevated to the status of celebrities. Their appearances alone draw crowds in the hundreds and their "latest" interviews are almost taken as edicts directly from God and are debated endlessly. They are sometimes literally referred to as "Heroes" or "God (fathers)".
Sure, there has always been certain academicians (especially authors or professors) who are popular, and I think we should acknowledge them. But I don't understand the point of celebrating certain individual just because of what he or she is doing, or what this person has done or achieved in the past. The whole point of academia is cross-examination, and no person has absolute say in anything. I think people have lost sight of that. Plus, I don't believe in the "self-made" researcher.
What really prompted me to write this is when I discovered a serious error in a widely cited paper by a very prominent scientist (who has published books, been on TED talks, etc.). How can the paper be so widely cited given such a glaring and serious error? I am also troubled by some recent "non-sense" work from the same author. But this is just one example out of many (countless). I have seen people citing the work of a famous person despite the content or quality of the work, and then doubling it down by defending the indefensible. This also connects to the well-known debate over the meaningfulness of citation count.
But am I just imagining all of this? Perhaps the power in academia is more diffused as compared to what I have been exposed to and these so-called "Gods" of academia are more frequently challenged than what I know of. And ultimately, if this celebrity culture exists, then should we discourage it?<issue_comment>username_1: **Disclaimer:**
I am not against naming academicians in their fields, likely <NAME>, the Godfather of Machine Learning who was a pariah in his
research community until late of nineteens and his ideas come true.
Some of them deserve likely <NAME> when he said the future for
the students who are going to be suspicious of every word I said.
Cames to your statement which is questionable why do we name that academician as the celebrity, who do that, and what is the benefit behind?
Of course this a big question and there are many advantages to making someone's work is great, maybe for political reasons, getting reputations, grants, and many things and most importantly dominating a field and ideas which is turns to be a toxic academic life.
We are a human being and we can easily be affected by words and aurora created around a person, and that is the trick, you aggrandize a work of professor, institute, and being in the media all the time, it is kind of positive marketing, but it turned out to negative in the end.
*I am trying to answer your question, how we can discourage that habit of having a star and every work s(he) is like Holy book and no one can check the integrity of the work.*
I have to say that I am suffering mentally because I had been forced to leave from my first PhD year because I proposed a methodology against the proposed one from a star in my field who was cooperating with my ex-supervisor.
***I found their work had a flaw and cannot be applied for applicable applications, however, they managed to get published in top tier venues, and he here is another question about the integrity of journals and venues itself, I found serious mistakes from this star and badly written by his cooperators who were also working with me, so in the end I have been told, you cannot do something against his theories and blah blah, of course, I made a mistake I should not argue with them and follow the herd.***
So, I think discouraging the habit of having a star is quite impossible as in my humble opinion it is like a gang, everyone knows that these results are not reproducible, but no one speaks up.
I think the best incident is **Schön scandal**, where he was a star
and it turned out he was fabricating results.
My simple answer is if you found a serious mistake in the work of those celebs report it as it happened in school scandal. Of course, we still have those crown in the field who are hypocrite and I can say that being honest in academia would make you a pariah, sometimes you need to follow the path of celebs to be recognized and that what happened to me after being kicked out, everyone forget me and did not even look to the work that I proved and I am struggling to get in to the path again.
**To sum up, being honest and don't be fully blinded with those celebs and report about them if you see a serious mistake in their work, however, I would be afraid that you would be a pariah by your community, so in the end, it depends on the conscience of the researcher.**
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Academia is an extremely primitive and immature system in many ways, driven disproportionately by emotion and status over merit or egalitarianism. You will be reminded of a lot of academic social behavior if you read about the social behavior of the other primates.
However it is a unfair to suggest that people are simply acting as smitten teenagers swooning over big-shots because they have their own academic reality show. It is a social system which is behaving rationally in rewarding those who move it forward (or some new direction which at the time seems to be forward). Papers are almost a sideshow (written by underpaid postdocs), and citation count is merely a proxy metric for this. But *impact*, that which citation count tries to measure, is a very real and valuable thing; how well you can attract lots of funding to a research direction, as well as attract lots of other researchers into that direction, determines how important your career is to the system. And, in the absence of other sources of information, makes for a decent predictor for how important your work is currently and will be in the future.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: To add another perspective: Academia is evolving towards a more complex social system also much more than it has already been in the early and mid 20th century. This is partly caused by the social linking of researchers due to the internet, but also because ground-breaking discoveries single scholars like Einstein, Perelman.. made with less collaboration/help are not possible anymore, when the big problems to solve are cancer, AI,...
Here science becomes political, as you need some leaders to move into distinct directions and start approaches needing thousands of researchers to tackle the problem. In particle physics, as you can read in the book "Lost in Math" by <NAME>, many are helpless if the whole community moved into a dead end and nothing really new is anymore discovered but also no new approaches are developed or directions started among research groups. There, maybe a social group pressure is now at work and this is the apprehension she describes and supports with many notes and interviews in her community.
You can read about how schools of thinking/scholars and paradigms are build up and fade away studying philsophy of science (<NAME> wrote a lot on it).
The Schön scandal is a singular and small case on a lower level and time scale, but these social processes work also on much larger scales among thousands of researchers and over decades in a community. If the internet strenghtens the social binding in academia or increases independence of scholars I'm not able to judge. Likely both. The good thing is scholars like Mrs. Hossenfelder have a chance to reach other scholars with their concerns and decrease such scales. The internet makes everything evolving faster. When there are not two opinions/approaches to an unsolved complex problem in academia, something is going wrong, when so much people work in it and there is no progress over decades...
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/23
| 843
| 3,670
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in my last semester of Physics and Mathematics and, at the same time, my first semester in a MS in Applied Math (which I will finish in two more semesters) in one of the top universities for physics grad programs. I plan on pursuing a PhD in Physics by Fall 2020 and was wondering what was the best option to do this summer to increase my chances of being accepted in a program at a top university. I plan on applying somewhere else.
One option is looking for a research internship at another university or a national lab. On the other hand, I have been working in several projects at my home university and I am in a collaboration with another university. I have a publication done with a small group and a renowned professor in mathematics, and if I stay this summer I might be able to finish one or two more since I have been working in said projects for a year or more. The important thing is that I want to publish them before I send in my applications for PhD programs this fall. I think there is a considerably smaller chance of publishing if I go to an internship, and I might be able to apply to short programs like two week summer schools while I work here at my university. Furthermore, I already have participated in two summer internships at a Fermilab and Princeton, so I don't know if it makes any difference participating in a third internship, or if it would be better to potentially publish 1 or 2 publications more before I apply to a PhD program.
Summarizing, what do you think is more important: another internship or another (one or two) publication(s)?
Thank you for your opinions!<issue_comment>username_1: Stay where you are.
Normally, I would say, sure, do the summer trip. But you've got a lot of balls in the air, considering the masters.
Plus, you've already checked the summer trip box twice. Checking it a third time won't change the application.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the relavant question is which PhD (sub)field you want to persue. If you are able to publish in exactly this sub-field go for the publications but if you can do an internship in exactly the same sub-field as you plan to do your PhD go for this one.
As I read from your post you tick the boxes for publications as well as internships (and having just more is not giving you a significant boost anymore for a PhD application).
The more important thing is that you already know a lot about the potential PhD topic (and have developed own ideas what to do in detail) when you go for the PhD interview. The best applicants are those where I get the impression that they know what they want and they know what they are talking about.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: For your Ph.D. application you want to demonstrate a number of things. First, that you are excited about a research area within your field and that you have begun some good work there. Second, that you know a bit about what it takes to be a successful researcher in general, including the importance of high quality publications describing your results; if you've already generated and submitted important results for publication, that is obviously even better. And third, that you have strong aptitude in your field.
I think it might be best for you to stay where you are and continue to produce research and publications. I assume that this will lead to a very strong letter of reference from your research advisor there. If you have another strong letter of reference from a prior research internship, plus one from a course in your department where you excelled, your application for Ph.D. study is likely to be quite strong.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/24
| 469
| 1,997
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is including the manuscript of a rejected paper (without claiming that it has been published or mentioning any rejections) as a supporting document in my application ethical / would it in any way increase my chances of admission?<issue_comment>username_1: No. Don't include copies of papers (published, in press, or rejected). That's TMI.
Just list research done as a bullet point on your CV or discuss in your cover letter or essay.
And I would be a little more positive. Say publication TBD.\*
\*Maybe they figure out how to clean it up and get something published. [And don't get into a discussion of "it was rejected, but I done good". Don't meander into details like that.]
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If this is an application for an MS in the US, it's probably not expected that you will have published papers.
Depending on circumstances, it might be worth mentioning that you participated in research. (For example, if you did computer coding or statistical analysis for a project in biology and your application is for a CS or statistics MS. In that case, maybe briefly mention computer language/methods or statistical methods--without going into details about the work not being finished.)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I would recommend putting it in your cv as a *Manuscript in Preparation* section where you list authors, title only. If you don’t do that, it’s something to bring up very briefly as either a bullet point of writing a resume, or in the cover letter. You may wish to spin this as “motivated to disseminate research” rather than to prove your aptitude for research, since publishing and doing research aren’t synonymous. Good luck
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Make the manuscript publicly available (e.g., in a technical report repository or on your personal website) and list it on your CV. There's no need to *includ[e] the manuscript...as a supporting document*, since it'll be publicly available.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/24
| 685
| 2,669
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose now I am interested in University A and a Journal B. I want to know how many people from University A published a paper in Journal B, and what are these papers. How to do this?<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, affiliations are a mess. People in bibliometrics usually say that you have to know the institution and its various names, acronyms, institutes, and laboratories very well, to capture all publications from the institution. If you have this knowledge, set up a corresponding search query (advanced search) for Web of Science (you need to have access to this database via your institution) and add the journal as additional condition.
Another approach is to check whether the institution you look at has a publications database and you can search for specific journals in there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In mathematics, you should be able to do this in [MathSciNet](https://mathscinet.ams.org) (subscription required).
Here is an example I did.
Ohio State University Math department, published in Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society.
JOURNAL Proc Amer Math Soc
INSTITUTION 1-OHS
I get 102 results.
You have to look up the codes for the items you want. If I just put "Ohio State" for the institution I seem to get lots of things that are not matches.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I would suggest to use lens.org which is free, and where you can use many simultaneous conditions in order to perform the search you are talking about. It is really easy to use, so I would recommend you to give it a try.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> "I want to know how many people from University A published a paper in Journal B
>
>
>
I agree with the [answer by username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/125491/93303) which is that "affiliations are a mess". The one thing I can add is that some publishing companies have specific tools to allow you to see and track affiliation data, for example the Nature Publishing Group has "[nature index](https://www.natureindex.com/institution-outputs/generate/all/global/all)" which among other things, gives the list of "how many people from University A published with publishing company B":
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HSrVc.png)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: In Scopus search, you can do an "affiliations" search, and this often helps to know about the research achievements and research potential of an University..
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0tZyY.png)
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/24
| 2,405
| 9,865
|
<issue_start>username_0: How can an undergraduate student self-assess his/her PhD application prior to actually applying for PhD programs?
As prospective PhD students, we can generally compare ourselves to other students at our own school using our grades. We may also apply to internships or awards and, by acceptance rates of such programs, we may begin to understand how "good" we are as a possible Phd student candidate. In addition, we might try discussing our potential application with a professor, but even though we might be really good, the professor might be too busy or otherwise not give great feedback. In such a case, **how can one self-assess himself/herself on how good is his s/he perceived as a prospective Phd student, determine his/her weaknesses, and figure out what to do next ?**<issue_comment>username_1: Since students are admitted to such programs by people, and not by algorithms, you probably can't do it with any assurance. But note that the number of programs you target is very small and the number of potential applicants is very large. Thus, the competition is fierce. So, it doesn't depend on just you, but on the perceived quality of the others you compete with.
As Solar Mike suggests, the only way to know is to apply.
But one good way to get a fairly valid assessment without applying is to put together the materials needed for an application and ask one or two of your current professors to give you feedback on it. Do they see any missing parts? Can they suggest better ways to present yourself to a committee of their peers? ...
Some students with perfect GPAs get rejected from some programs because there just isn't room for everyone or they have other things in their record that makes them less of a "sure bet" for the committee.
On the other hand, there are plenty of other schools, not in your "top" category at which you can get a fine education and a firm foundation for a great academic career. Some schools have "niche" programs in certain sub fields that may be better suited to you and provide a better education that the top ten you suggest. You might also have a clearer path to completion at such schools.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Visit some programs and talk to the students. Figure out how strong they are versus how strong you are.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Look at how similar students from your school have done in previous years. Is it common for students in your major with similar classes and GPA to go on to PhD? If so, where do they typically go?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: The problem with this question is that it assumes that (1) there is a well-defined totally ordered way to rank applicants and (2) the first n applicants in this ranking are the ones who get offers. Thresholds for GPA, GREs (if applicable), coursework, and research experience only indicate whether your application is going to be seriously considered. Anyone asking this question probably already knows where they stand for any particular applicant pool, or they can easily find out by consulting with the program. The program doesn't want to waste time on non-competitive applications either.
Beyond that, whether you actually get an offer depends on whether the people making the decisions want what you have. And there's no way to predict that in advance.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Other users have offered great advice, and I would recommend you re-read the comments of username_1, Noah, and Elizabeth. I will provide you with my input as someone who spent the past year as (nervous) applicant and then (elated) offer-holder. I address the different parts of your question under each bolded italicized section below. Note this was somewhat stream-of-consciousness, so feel free to edit responses/structure.
**The TLDR before essay:**
From everything I have gathered across StackExchange, Friends, Colleagues, and Others, **the application process is a holistic assessment of your being as both a student AND a person (more on this in conclusion).** If you take the time to read application requirements, assess current students in your programs of interest, and connect with professors, you can accurately *guesstimate* your success in each application.
***How can an undergraduate student self-assess his/her PhD application prior to actually applying for PhD programs?***
There are a couple of tangible ways for an undergraduate to compare themselves. Firstly, look at the CVs of current PhD students in your programs of interest. Current PhD students will often have a website or LinkedIn. Because these often have time components (e.g. Research Assistant from X to Y), you can determine what a successful PhD student was doing when they were in undergrad. While a CV builds over time and is no way a comprehensive measure of a student's accomplishments, you can quickly do a side-by-side comparison with your CV and ask yourself, "have I done X, Y, or Z as it appears on this PhD student's CV?" Additionally, reach out to peers for their application essays. At the time they wrote those essays, **they were in undergrad!** Thus you can directly compare your own application statements/proposals/why-i-should-be-let-in-arguments.
***As prospective PhD students, we can generally compare ourselves to other students at our own school using our grades.***
This is absolutely correct and you should heed username_4's input that GPA/GRE/merit-based indices are important. Why? Because grades are a *general* indicator of a student's ability to learn and apply new material. Thus, while decent to high grades are a bit of a wash, low grades may be indicative of a problem to learn and apply new material. NB: GPA is not everything. In my own example, my GPA was much higher than the requirements for nearly all my application programs, although my GRE was actually a bit low. In this way, I was able to *guesstimate* that I would satiate the minimum requirements (as it is a balancing act). I was also able to *guesstimate* that I was not a top tier/first round pick in this area of my application, as there were certainly students who had perfect GPA and perfect GRE.
***We may also apply to internships or awards and, by acceptance rates of such programs, we may begin to understand how "good" we are as a possible Phd student candidate.***
Correct, this is another general 'area' of your application package. To what extent are you carrying out or accomplishing the hallmarks of academia? That is **participating in research** (either publishing or gaining research assistant ships of high notoriety) and **earning money/awards**. As PhD students and academics must continue these feats, the extent to which you do them compared to your peers in another direct way to *guesstimate* if you are a stronger or weaker applicant. NB: an applicant with several publications and awards is much more 'attractive' than an applicant with none. NB2: they are not necessarily 'required' or 'dealbreakers'.
***In addition, we might try discussing our potential application with a professor, but even though we might be really good, the professor might be too busy or otherwise not give great feedback.***
This is a two part sub-section (and then I promise to wrap it up).
1) In regards to 'discussing our potential application with a professor', I thoroughly believe professors are assessing an applicant *as a person and 3-5 year collaborator*. This does not mean they are just trying to figure out how smart you are, they seeing how they feel around you. Can you hold a conversation? Can you act politely at the right times? Are you open to new ideas? How much will you push back if I prod at your idea? In several official and unofficial skype/in-person interviews I could often sense that this was the whole point of talking live - they want to know if they **spend large quantities of time with you**.
2) In regards to 'the professor might be too busy or otherwise not give great feedback', this is because they have very difficult and demanding jobs. In my experience (so YMMV), only one professor I was interested in working with gave 'above and beyond feedback' (i.e. helped with the minute details of my application). After reaching out to a given professor, the average response was either 'Your application looks good! Looking forward to seeing it in the formal application process' or 'Thanks for reaching out and introducing yourself! Do you have time for a quick skype call?'. **Do not be discouraged if a professor does not give in-depth feedback, they are just very busy. This is what GOOD friends and colleagues are for. Be sure to compensate them accordingly (thank you notes, snacks, etc).**
**Other stack exchange questions that you may be interested in reading/relevant to your question**:
[How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly)
[How important are the grades compared to the cover letter when applying for a Ph.D?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9721/how-important-are-the-grades-compared-to-the-cover-letter-when-applying-for-a-ph)
[PhD Admissions Importance: Research vs. Grades](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/10314/phd-admissions-importance-research-vs-grades)
[Is getting a good grade enough to ask for a letter of recommendation for a grad school application?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114741/is-getting-a-good-grade-enough-to-ask-for-a-letter-of-recommendation-for-a-grad)
[Emailing professor: Is my profile good enough for this position?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111318/emailing-professor-is-my-profile-good-enough-for-this-position)
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/24
| 996
| 4,273
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student after the mid stage. I come to know a very strange thing about academia that acceptance is a bad thing. Let me define acceptance, many time i hear the statement of other collegues including my supervisor, research fellows etc. What happens that I always tried to accept their arguments even if they are wrong. If they are wrong, Instead of being harsh, I try to accept their argument then explain my argument. The problem arises due to this is that many times these people try to manuplate me. Like in TA work I listen to the person who comes to me (student) no as I am listening to him he starts thinking that I have not understood his statement, which is not always the case.
In short I accept others mistake, errors etc, but when it comes to me that if i am wrong other people show their very rude behaviour. I don't Is this common in academia? What kind of person I should become the one who point out others mistake and make them realise that they are wrong or the one who accept others wrong things in a positive way?<issue_comment>username_1: One "problem" with academia is that it is full of smart people. Those people have a lot of ideas. Those people become attached to their own ideas. They want to defend those ideas.
Over time, this works out and the good ideas become generally accepted and the bad ideas fall to the ground.
My advice is not to try to fight every fight. If by "accept" you only mean not to vocally oppose, then sure, accept them. What this means is that you accept their right to be wrong. Bluster doesn't make their ideas any better, nor your arguments any more acceptable to them. Just let it go. The volume with which an argument is carried out normally has little relationship to the validity of the argument. This applies to you as well as to others.
For your own part, work on your own ideas and make sure that they are good ideas. But if you are given arguments against your ideas, evaluate the arguments, and don't just push back at the other person as if they are an attacker. Certainly don't be pedantic in arguing every small point. And note that there is a difference between being "clear in presenting evidence" and being "pedantic".
However, if you are in a place in which people don't act in a collegial manner and generally fight with one another, or fall into factions, find a better environment. Life is short and stress can kill you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> If they are wrong, Instead of being harsh, I try to accept their argument then explain my argument.
>
>
>
I think the problem may be this false dichotomy.
Imagine a student comes to you and says "I think the Earth is flat because I went to the top of a tower in the midwest and everything looks flat."
* One option (what it sounds like you're doing) is saying okay, that makes sense, but there is evidence the Earth is round -- satellites, circum-navigation experiences, etc.
* Another option (what it sounds like you're complaining about) is saying no, that's not a good argument, the Earth is large enough that apparent flatness on the scale of ~50 miles does not imply that the entire 26,000 mile Earth is flat.
Of these, the second has a clear advantage, in that it actually addresses the actual reason the student is confused. Just telling the student how to do it properly is no more helpful than telling him to read the textbook; explaining where the student's thinking is incorrect is where you can be really helpful.
Of course, same goes for colleagues rather than students -- when dealing with a disagreement, you need to both defend your ideas *and* refute their ideas. Otherwise you're both just restating your positions and not actually resolving anything.
Now the reason I called this a false dichotomy is because there is no need to be harsh when refuting others' ideas. The best way is to ask leading questions so that the they realizes their mistake all on their own. Usually, doing this requires an excellent understanding of the subject matter. When dealing with colleagues on research topics, one may not have a strong enough understanding to do this gracefully, resulting in what seems like harshness (or one may just be a jerk).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/24
| 464
| 2,017
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have heard that it is impolite and improper to apply to a masters/PhD program and ask more than one professor at that university to be your supervisor. In other words, when you apply to a single program, you should have determine who you want your supervisor to be and apply upon the prospect that if that professor doesn't want you/need you, you will need to apply again at a later date with a different supervisor.
What about applying to different institutions at the same time however?
Would it be harmful in any way to apply to programs in different universities, either on the same country or internationally?<issue_comment>username_1: If you apply to a Master’s degree, you *shoud* apply to more than one program, as you cannot be sure to get accepted in the one you prefer the most. When I first applied to Master’s degrees, I applied to roughly 7.
When applying to PhD programs, that’s another story. I guess, if you are applying to graduate schools or structured degrees where you don’t have to find a supervisor immediately, then apply to as many as you can. If finding a supervisor is a requirement, then you should only apply to those programs you are most interested in. But I guess applying to just one program is not such a great idea, as things can unfortunately go bad!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Actually it is good to do that. You want to maximize the chances that you get in to a program that will work for you. Applying one at a time means that it could literally take years to get accepted if your top choices don't accept you.
Don't waste people's time with superfluous applications, but definitely apply to places that you find attractive and that you think might find you a good candidate.
Whether you need to pick a supervisor as part of your application depends on both place and field. Do that if you must or if there are attractive opportunities, but keeping your options open might be a better choice if it is possible to do that.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/24
| 555
| 2,448
|
<issue_start>username_0: We had a paper accepted in one of the top biology journals (IF=15). It is a work in which I participated in the part of computational biology, and was submitted by a colleague, she being the corresponding author since she is an expert on the field. We had a major revision and I had to do an outstanding work and a lot of calculations in order to have the paper accepted. I even developed a new approach. So now that we are at the proof stage, I would like to request her to appear in the paper as co-corresponding author since this is very important in my country. I do not know exactly how to do it. I will tell her to add me as co-corresponding with the text “to which all computational biology based correspondence should be addressed” since she is wet lab biologist. But I do not think this will be enough argument for her, i guess she will say initial ideas came from her side. What do you suggest for my “cover letter” to her?<issue_comment>username_1: While I don't really understand the value of this to you, not being in your immediate culture, the solution is clear as it is in most similar situations.
If you want something, *just ask for it*. Give her your reasons why it is important to you and why you need this at this time. If you ask it as a favor and not as a demand you might be more likely to prevail.
You may not be successful, but nothing you do can guarantee success. Asking keeps it collegial and preserves your relationship for the future.
Yes, you contributed, but so did she, I assume. In most places corresponding author is just a task, not an honor.
I'll suggest that whatever happens in the handling of a single publication it is unlikely to have much of an effect on your career. Working for long-term relationships is, to me, much more important than any check mark on a box or minor point on a CV.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: What you write to your colleague is very similar to what you're writing here. You've strongly contributed to the computational side of this paper, and those computations form a substantial part of the paper. You feel that sharing corresponding authorship would accurately reflect both of your contributions. That's basically it.
You could also ask for a shared last authorship, and you should definitely consider asking for a shared first for your student who's done the computations.
Congratulations on the paper!
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/24
| 1,411
| 5,669
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a non-academic report based on the research I did for my PhD thesis. The report is a condition of the funding that supported my research. It is non-academic and will be published publicly.
Much of the work in the thesis has also been published or is under review as journal articles or conference papers. This has been declared in the thesis in line with the guidelines of my institution. The thesis is awaiting a few final revisions so has not yet been submitted.
My questions are about reproducing the work in the report:
1) Where the public report includes results from the papers, the papers have been referenced in the normal way, and any direct quotations identified as such. Should I ALSO cite the thesis in these cases? (My initial view is that this would be unnecessary.)
2) There are sections of the report, particularly in the introduction and conclusion, that could be written by cutting and pasting paragraphs from the thesis, with some editing to maintain the flow, etc. Obviously, in an academic publication, this would be self-plagiarism, but is this an issue for a non-academic report? Would this be considered self-plagiarism? Could it be covered by a general citation ("Some of this report is reproduced from (Author, Thesis Title....)" or "Some passages have been quoted verbatim from the following source.....")? Or do I need to rewrite / paraphrase these paragraphs?
3) Neither the report nor thesis have yet been published. It is likely that the report will be published before the thesis is published, and *possible* that the report is published before the thesis is *submitted*. Would I therefore need to cite the report in the thesis, to avoid self-plagiarism in the thesis?<issue_comment>username_1: Always cite yourself in any published work. Since the work is yours, however, you can quote extensively from the thesis, but make sure you indicate it as a quote. Paraphrasing doesn't mean you don't need to cite.
However, in a case like this, as long as no confusion could result in who did what or where the original material can be found, you can probably use a general citation. However, I'd still "quote" it as appropriate if you copy from it. Even a footnote that says that quoted material is taken from ... would probably be fine.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> 1) Where the public report includes results from the papers, the papers have been referenced in the normal way, and any direct quotations identified as such. Should I ALSO cite the thesis in these cases? (My initial view is that this would be unnecessary.)
>
>
>
Cite both, especially when the thesis extends (as it most likely does) the paper.
>
> 2) There are sections of the report, particularly in the introduction and conclusion, that could be written by cutting and pasting paragraphs from the thesis, with some editing to maintain the flow, etc. Obviously, in an academic publication, this would be self-plagiarism, but is this an issue for a non-academic report? Would this be considered self-plagiarism? Could it be covered by a general citation ("Some of this report is reproduced from (Author, Thesis Title....)" or "Some passages have been quoted verbatim from the following source.....")? Or do I need to rewrite / paraphrase these paragraphs?
>
>
>
A thesis isn't considered as "published," so it can be treated similarly to a technical report or draft, hence, you can recycle material.
>
> 3) Neither the report nor thesis have yet been published. It is likely that the report will be published before the thesis is published, and possible that the report is published before the thesis is submitted. Would I therefor need to cite the report in the thesis, to avoid self-plagiarism in the thesis?
>
>
>
You can state in the latter document: *Parts of this thesis/report previously appeared in [X]* or *A preliminary version of this thesis/report previously appeared in [X]* or *Report [X] includes a summary of these results* or ...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Almost all questions about plagiarism come down to the question of what *expectation of originality* the documents carry.
In particular, a funding report *doesn’t* carry the same expectation of originality that either a journal paper or a thesis would. It’s very common, and legitimate, for a funding report to consist (partly or entirely) of material re-used from other presentations of the work. (At least, this is the norm in my experience in maths and theoretical CS; I can’t speak for all fields or all funding bodies, of course.)
So it should be absolutely fine to re-use material from the thesis or paper in the report; and I’d feel it’s fine to use a blanket attribution like “some parts of [or “much of”] this report are based on [or “taken from”] the corresponding thesis (Smith 2020) and paper (Smith and Jones 2019).”
>
> It is likely that the report will be published before the thesis is published, and possible that the report is published before the thesis is submitted. Would I therefor need to cite the report in the thesis, to avoid self-plagiarism in the thesis?
>
>
>
It certainly doesn’t hurt to do this. But it’s common, and understood, that the chronology of publication may not match the chronology of production, so there’s no need to make it sound like it detracts from the originality of the thesis. It can be given as an aside, and phrased as e.g. “The report (Smith 2019) contains material excerpted from this thesis”, or similar. Conversely, the report can and should still cite the thesis in this case, listing it as “(in preparation)”, “(to appear)”, or similar.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/02/25
| 2,264
| 9,239
|
<issue_start>username_0: To be brief, I am a PhD student in the UK, and I have recently had some disagreement with the way my advisor handled our collaboration on research. This was initially a fairly minor thing. Not in the sense of what has happened, but minor in the sense that I only wanted to move past it, and to continue productively, but unfortunately he appeared to be too preoccupied, or for whatever reason, unable or unwilling to work together on correcting our results. Frustrating and not good for me, but ok, fine. At the time, no harsh words were exchanged at all, and there was some degree of understanding, although I was not happy with the mistake.
This has escalated beyond belief as soon as I relayed this problem to an administrative person, to explain there was a mutual mistake and I needed more time to submit. I explained the situation briefly to the person responsible for these things, made it clear I held no animosity or any interest in dwelling on it, and just needed some recovery time to move forwards. This was made totally clear to him and he was fine to shift the submission date and funding termination back slightly and he had agreed with me that there should be no blame here.
This has resulted in my advisor going on a furious rant at me in public, saying he refuses to work with me anymore. In private, the advisors have said that my 'complaints' have made the group look bad (no complaint was ever made, only a request for further time), and that they have now lodged some files or something on me with people at the university marking me as problematic. I have also been told that my complaints will make it difficult for me to get a job even after graduation, if I get to that point, because my advisor has no intention of giving me a reference, much less a positive one, and that they can make finding a job very difficult.
What on earth can I do? It seems that my career is now in ruins before it even started.
This whole situation has made me disgusted since it appears to have come almost out of nowhere, based on one conversation with an admin person. But I cannot work elsewhere if they follow through on their threats. How can I salvage my potential career?
Edit: There are just too many details I left out to edit down to size, and I would like to simply close this question or delete it if possible, due to confusion. I would prefer this to editing a popular question with too many specifics.<issue_comment>username_1: You have not quite told us what happened with you, your advisor and your research group. But even your vague description betrays what I believe to be a lack of awareness to certain aspects of professional/interpersonal interaction which is now biting you in the ass.
>
> This was initially a fairly minor thing. I just needed to explain to others that there was some confusion which my advisor admitted to me privately
>
>
>
This was not a minor, thing - it was a major thing. A *huge* thing probably. Why?
* You repeated something told to you in confidence, to outsiders, and made it (somewhat) generally known.
* You assigned blame to your advisor while (seemingly) hinting he was incapable/unwilling to take on the blame, thus slighting his character as a person and as a manager.
... and this was even *before* any official complaints were lodged about anything and anyone.
Now, maybe that's not the only way to look at what happened, but it could very well be the way that your advisor and many others - in and out of your research group - see things. It's possible that, on the merit of the original matter, what you said was true - but that doesn't help with how you conducted yourself.
>
> This whole situation has made me disgusted.
>
>
>
You must realize that the feeling may be mutual. Try to look at things from the other person's perspective - what do they expect and believe - and be aware that they will judge you *from that perspective*, not on the basis of the facts, or what you consider to be the facts and circumstances.
>
> What on earth can I do?
>
>
>
Unless it jeopardizes the integrity of yours and others research - swallow your pride/disgust, stash your ego somewhat, and apologize to your advisor for your conduct. Be, or pretend to be, penitent.
Does this mean that he's not really to blame for anything? Not really. Maybe most of the blame is with him. But - that doesn't really matter. You have to be generous with taking blame and cutting people slack (whether they deserve it in your opinion or not), as long as others/society/science don't suffer as a consequence. That's an important salve to apply to situations of people being offended.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You went to the administrative person. That was your error and the core issue.
Allow me to give an example from the other side in which this happened:
While I was at another institute, I was asked to take over a lab for another person. The lab hosted a guest cohort from another country so the university needed someone with content knowledge and dual language fluency on short notice. So I was asked if I could take over the lab for a week.
Suffice to say, I did not know that there were particular rules for this lab. Some were obvious (like not leaving equipment plugged in) but I was a little overwhelmed with taking over a course last minute. Further, my work is primarily computational rather than lab focused so the reflex nature of lab rules was not there for me.
After a few nights, the lab manager came in and saw the lab after I had left it. Equipment was left out and plugged in. All a very big mistake on my part. The way she responded was where things got messy.
In hindsight, a more measured response would have been talking to me or even the lab's PI to find out what was going; even going to the department head. Instead she went to the Dean. She did not know the situation with the lab and the dean didnt, but as soon as it went to the dean, the situation became "administrative". Funds were threatened and it ended with me having to write a formal apology to the department head and the lab manager with everyone CCed on the email. Everyone was aware the situation and most parties were mainly pleased that I was willing to write the apology so the "administrative" side of the situation could go away and we could fix things in house. (I ended up just getting an assistant who was a little more lab savvy). The department head came by and gave me a sympathetic pat on the back.
Was I wrong, certainly. But it was likely an issue that could have been dealt with "in house".
So, what was the end result of going to the administration rather than keeping things in house? At one end, awkward elevator rides when the lab manager and I crossed paths. She found out the situation, and to find out, she didnt even know I was in the lab. I heard she thought it was an undergraduate group. On the other end, it did leave some lasting trust issues and undermined what had been before a very good working relationship between two labs. But I think that things have smoothed out since that happened.
In other words, once you go to the administration, the situation becomes administrative.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The damage has been made. The question is not who to blame, but how to reduce the damage.
Your best option is to do what @username_1 suggested:
>
> Unless it jeopardizes the integrity of yours and others research -
> swallow your pride/disgust, stash your ego somewhat, and apologize to
> your advisor for your conduct. Be, or pretend to be, penitent.
>
>
>
I would also suggest to read the book *"How to Win Friends and Influence People"*
by <NAME>. In summary, you need to ask yourself
* What do you want the other person to do?
* How can you influence them to do what you want?
Looking back:
>
> I have recently had some disagreement with the way my advisor handled
> our collaboration on research. This was initially a fairly minor
> thing. Not in the sense of what has happened, but minor in the sense
> that I only wanted to move past it, and to continue productively, but
> unfortunately he appeared to be too preoccupied, or for whatever
> reason, unable or unwilling to work together on correcting our
> results.
>
>
>
* You want your advisor to work with you to correct the results.
* What you did: you ignored him when he disagreed.
Does this action likely lead to the desired result? Is it a surprise that your advisor appeared not to have time to work with you?
Regardless of who to blame, whether you did was right or wrong, **your action did cause trouble to your advisor**, and you turned him into an enemy.
Having an enemy is never a good thing, in particular if you want to work in academia and they work in the same field.
* What you want your advisor to do: help with your research, or at least provide a strong reference for you to find another lab.
* How can you achieve this?
Hint: you can't force anybody to help you, they only do it when they really want.
Note: it is your advisor's best interest to have successful students. Failing a student affects his performance and reputation too.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/25
| 2,507
| 11,151
|
<issue_start>username_0: What are some factors that enable some papers to be published in top-tier journals while others (apparently similar) cannot?
For example, in the field of control theory, there are so many papers with complicated mathematics. Some paper is related to a very similar topic, but some get published in a top-tier journal while others not.
This question is important because knowing this, then I know which journal my paper might be submitted to that is possible to be accepted in the end.<issue_comment>username_1: This question should actually ask about something different. As it stands, the obvious answer is *good papers are accepted in good journals*.
The thing here is that knowing a good paper when seeing it comes with experience. There are lots of questions on this site asking "how to know in which journals publish?". This comes from knowing the field, so also comes from experience. At first a researcher has no idea if his research is good or bad – that's why advisors exist (ideally). Then one knows the scope and quality of the major journals in the relevant field. Ultimately, one also knows the **quality** of one's research, so the question "in which journals should I publish?"/"which journals are worth publishing in?" changes to "what research is worth publishing (at all)?" – and then one aims at the best journals.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: To be accepted and published it has to be submitted. Some papers that might be accepted just aren't ever submitted.
Some of it is just luck. The editor was looking for something. Even something as simple or stupid as s/he needed to fill an 8 page gap in an issue and yours was the best available candidate at the moment.
Some of it is just the writing itself. Good journals want, and try to get, well written, understandable, papers. If the reviewers have trouble understanding you, it will be hard to get accepted.
But most of it is that a paper answers a question (or two) that seems important at the time the paper arrives. It is the science/mathematics/whatever behind the paper that really matters. The members of a scientific community are fairly often on the lookout for an answer to a perplexing problem. If you can provide that, and submit a well written paper, you are more likely to get published.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Whenever I read through a paper in a top-tier journal, I will usually notice the paper has **top-tier results**. However, that is not enough. You also need **top-tier presentation**, including **top-tier figures** and **top-tier handling of data**. For example, if it's possible to use a statistical method and obtain useful results at a 99.9% confidence level, go for it!
To help you getting a paper published in top-tier journal, you can:
* Learn statistical methods.
* Illustrate the paper well with excellent figures. If you need to draw some of the figures, consider hiring a professional graphical artist. However, then you need to set exact criteria for the images (what should they show?) and also have a clear copyright status on the figures. You should also mention who the graphical artist was in your acknowledgements section, so that you don't claim the illustrations made by others as your own.
* Run a professional language check by a native speaker of the language, and you could also consider mentioning this in the acknowledgements section as well, although in this case I don't think omitting the mention would be claiming the work of others as your own work.
* Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite! I would get feedback from several peers, and be prepared to rewrite the entire thing based on their feedback! In fact, I typically start writing at a very early stage, even before I have useful results, and this means I often use content written before the direction of the research was clear. This has led to many rejections. Had I bothered to rewrite, some of those rejections could have been acceptance decisions.
* Be prepared to remove content. Usually, the first version of your paper may be a bit repetitive. Don't repeat, use concise language! If you're prepared to remove content, you can fit more useful content in.
* Be through. Explore all of the implications of your research. A paper that says everything that can be said about a certain idea will be far more successful than a paper that just introduces a concept and makes thoroughly exploring the concept a future research topic. You could also consider criticizing your research and subsequently defending it. For example, I recently submitted a very good paper, which identifies certain anomalies in my solution. I think I was very thorough in listing the anomalies. I also included proof that an anomaly-free solution to the problem I presented cannot exist.
* Underline the importance of your results. Sometimes, you might think the reader ought to know the importance, but better to mention in explicitly. All it takes is few sentences.
However, I would say that you should go through this list only if you have top-tier results in the first place. A paper having mediocre results, but top-tier presentation, top-tier figures and top-tier handling of data will get published only by sheer luck if you're targeting the very best of the journals.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Actually, my personal experience has been that top-tier journals tend to publish articles that are more like summaries of a certain field. Take *Nature*, the papers you will find in there are either groundbreaking discoveries from CERN or similar institutes, *or* papers that offer a kind of Big Picture of a certain field.
So I would partially disagree with some of the other answers - it's not all about writing high-quality papers. The content also needs to be what the journals are looking for, and what they want is often not a brilliant, but highly technical paper. Instead they want the paper that *summarizes/reviews* your brilliant technical paper, together with a dozen others, and offers some general/accessible insight.
And it feels wrong to omit that of course, your standing in the scientific community has some influence. There are exceptions to the rule, but I would imagine that even someone with Einstein-level brilliance would have trouble getting his groundbreaking theoretical paper published in *Nature* if he is only just starting his PhD. Such is the way of the world.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: A lot of it is about audience: this is obvious in places like Nature and Science, which are general science journals, and are therefore looking for papers that will appeal to a general science audience - for your example of control thoery: what is a paper in control theory that a biologist or materials scientists (for example) might think was cool. This also applies further down the pile:
Would a mathematician or engineer from a different, but related field find it interesting?
Step down again: Would anybody in control theory find it interesting, or only people studying that particular problem?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Top journals don't necessarily contain the best papers
------------------------------------------------------
For many fields, especially in the natural sciences, the "top-tier" are not just looking for well-done, well-written research reports. Instead, they have an explicit editorial goal of finding papers that are impactful and interesting to a wide, interdisciplinary audience. For example, *Nature* [wants](https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes) manuscripts that
* are of outstanding scientific importance, and
* reach a conclusion of interest to an interdisciplinary readership.
* technique reported will have significant impacts on communities of fellow researchers
* the therapeutic effect reported will provide significant impact on an important disease.
In practice, this means that they often select for 'hot' or controversial topics, the use of exciting new techniques, and surprising, counterintuitive results. As a result, **the zeitgeist of the field is probably the major determinant of whether your paper gets accepted in a 'glamorous' journal** like *Science*, *Nature*, or *PNAS*. Quality is obviously important too: even the trendiest paper won't get in if the experiments are obviously flawed or the writing is impenetrable (usually!). However, it is manifestly not true that the best quality papers are published in the best quality journals, or conversely, that everything published in a well-regarded journal is gold.
To add some specific examples, *Physical Reviws* rejected Theodore Maiman's description of the laser, *Physics Letters* didn't want the Higgs model, and *Nature* declined the first reports on MRI, the Krebs Cycle, and(!) the cell cycle. <NAME>, whose MRI paper was rejected from Nature--but nevertheless won him a Nobel Prize (2003)--has quipped that "You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature."
On the hand, these journals are also full of papers that seemed exciting at the time, but either went nowhere or turned out to be fatally flawed (e.g., arsenic-based DNA, water memory, and so on).
How do you decide where to publish?
-----------------------------------
If you already have a target venue in mind, you can often **submit a presubmission enquiry.** Each journal handles them slightly differently, but they almost always contain the manuscript title and abstract, and often include a short discussion of the results and why the journal's audience may care about them. The editor will reply, often in a few days, to tell you if the proposed article is a good fit for the journal. While you often don't get much feedback at this stage, it can help you avoid journal-specific scutwork, like reformatting the text or redrawing figures. Occasionally, editors will also mention concerns related to a specific topic: *Current Biology* told us, for example, that while they were interested in the topic generally, they also felt that much of the existing literature was not very good, and so they would be expecting very rigorous controls.
If you don't have a "target journal", you need to **think about the potential audience** for your paper. There are many journals which specialize in particular techniques (e.g., *J Neurophysiology*, for neurophysiological experiments), topics (*Attention and Perception* for studies of, well, attention and perception), and application (*J. Neural Engineering*). Browsing your own reference list may help: your paper is likely on-topic at the journal you cite most!
Finally, I would quickly **browse through a few complete issues** of your candidates. For example, while *Journal of Vision* and *Vision Research* are both nominally interested in anything pertaining to seeing, *Journal of Vision* skews very strongly towards human behavioral experiments. Although you could submit other kinds of work there--and people occasionally do--there are probably better venues for experiments with other techniques or animal subjects.
Upvotes: 5
|
2019/02/25
| 2,948
| 12,585
|
<issue_start>username_0: My colleagues and I have recently submitted an article in a biology-oriented journal about a new technological system. While describing the interaction between the different modules of the system, we used the terms "master" and "slave", as it describes the communication protocol in a very comprehensive manner.
One reviewer raised an issue that these terms were not suitable for publication in an academic journal, without proposing an alternative wording.
We understand that writing a text aimed at being read by a broad community of people imposes a high degree of decency, and that's of course what we always tried to do. Given the context it is extremely clear that these terms are used to describe an interaction between to electronical devices, and are in no way a reference to slavery. We are Europeans, and have never heard of any controversy on this. Also, the "master/slave" terms have been and are still widely used in engineering lingo.
So we have two questions regarding this situation:
* Is there an alternative wording that we could use, still expressing clearly the same idea?
* More generally, do authors have to write politically-correct articles, even though this not a very well-defined notion and can significantly vary from one region of the world to another?
We don't really want to enter into a long discussion with the reviewer on this particular point, so the latter question is more something of general interest about what one should have in mind when writing an article.
**Edit**
Thanks for the numerous answers and comments, this is really helpful. Since I can choose only one answer as the good one, it's the one that proposes a useful alternative. We believe that the most problematic word in this case is "slave" and not "master", so we'll propose the terms "master/worker" as a replacement for our article.
In addition, a thought I had in the meantime is that using these terms as adjectives instead of nouns may help a little bit. A "slave device" may be a slightly softened wording than simply a "slave" (though not resolving the issue). More importantly, I feel that "master device" and "worker device" are expressing the general relationship between the modules in a clearer way than simply "master" and "worker".
For the more general question about PC, it seems to be still an open question. As suggested in one answer, this certainly desserves some changes in our writing practices now and then.<issue_comment>username_1: In the absence of a compelling reason to not use politically correct language, authors should make reasonable attempts to minimize offending readers. Given the information you provided, there does not seem to be any reason not to use *master/slave*. The words, and even the context, do not seem inherently offensive and have an established usage in many fields. I suggest including in your response letter a statement that you do not see the established use of *master/slave* to describe communication systems as being offensive, but if the editor requires a change, you will be happy to comply (assuming you are).
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Do authors have to be politically correct in article-writing?
>
>
>
No, they can choose to use loaded words that might detract from the point of their article.
Alternatives used in computer science are [master/worker](https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//archive/mapreduce-osdi04.pdf) (in one of the most influential CS papers of this century) and [supervisor/worker](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.25.675&rep=rep1&type=pdf).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is there an alternative wording that we could use, still expressing clearly the same idea?
>
>
>
**Leader/follower**. I also like Ellen's suggestion of supervisor/worker; that is aligned with some modern tools (e.g., Tensorflow and Python's multiprocess module).
>
> Mode generally, do authors have to write politically-correct articles, even though this not a very well-defined notion and can significantly vary from one region of the world to another?
>
>
>
**You need to meet the standards of the journal you are applying to.**
* In US-based journals (and possibly elsewhere?), you may run into this specific concern again: people have been arguing over master/slave for [over 15 years](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/11/26/master.term.reut/). Thus, I think you are right to avoid wading into this argument with the editor.
* Fortunately, within computer science, I can't think of many similar examples -- the only one that comes to mind is perhaps gendered language (i.e., if you have examples involving people, there may be complaints if all your people are male, or if the competent ones are male and the incompetent ones are female). There is also the example of the NIPS conference being renamed NeurIPS for [politically-correct reasons](https://gizmodo.com/nips-ai-conference-changes-name-following-protests-ov-1830548185).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: OP is unlucky to have written a paper with such terms now. The terms were socially perfectly acceptable until not long ago, when the discussions about reframing problematic language started.
Now, while not generally a friend of overbearing language control, I have always felt that the master/slave terms were quite on the boundary of what's appropriate, long before #politicalcorrectness became an issue; these terms always made me slightly cringe, despite them being understood as perfectly technical terms, and me not being US-based.
Possible replacements might be: server/client (probably the wrong way round, though); command/execution; controller/execution.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: 1. This particular journal, and this particular reviewer for this journal, have every right to establish their own standards for language.
2. It's common for standards around language to change, by region, and over the course of time, for a variety of reasons.
Therefore, yes, **you should expect to occasionally need to change your word choice based on a publisher's preferences**. It doesn't sound like anyone is calling you a bad person, or penalizing you for this word choice. They are simply asking you to change it.
*Adding a personal note on this particular terminology: I'm well aware that it's common in technical environments. But, given that my own recent ancestors were held in a condition of slavery in the not too distant past, **I've always personally found it a jarring and unwelcome reminder of a painful period of history whenever I've encountered it**. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have to admit I count it only as progress if it is finally being phased out.*
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: As you may have noticed from the other answers, the particular question of whether the 'master/slave' terminology is appropriate has quite some history. Unlike the other answers, I will not tell you whether you should use this controversial terminology, but instead point out some aspects that should help you in forming a decision on your own in this and similar cases.
>
> Do authors have to write politically-correct articles, even though this not a very well-defined notion and can significantly vary from one region of the world to another?
>
>
>
A pitfall here is to make the decision primarily based on some ideological principle related to political correctness. If you agree with the reviewer, then there is no problem. But if you do not, you risk enlarging your problem to ideological warfare with a reviewer. Be professional, leave your ideological baggage behind and focus on the actual work in question.
I think an argument that you could make is something similar to "This terminology has an important place in the paper, as it enhances the clarity and links our work to existing literature, and the fact that some people might consider the terminology inappropriate is of secondary concern." Do double-check if you buy your own argument yourselves, if not, then perhaps you should listen to the reviewer after all.
You could reply to the reviewer with this argument in full form, or you might even try to reach a compromise, if that is an acceptable result to you. For example, you could suggest replacing the term in most parts of the paper, but include the controversial term in the introduction only, such that readers are more easily able to consult the standard literature for the term.
In the end, it is probably in your best interest to bend, rather than break. I do not think you should just accept the reviewers' judgement without question, but if the reviewer insists even after hearing your viewpoint, it is probably better to let go and just do what the reviewer wants.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: It depends on the publication that you're writing for.
In American academia, I think the answer is "Absolutely yes you must bend over backwards to be politically correct."
I'm not an academic but I once was approached by a publisher to write a textbook on building web sites. The project ultimately failed, and one factor was that the reviewers were obsessed with political correctness and found offense in things that it never even occurred to me where questionable. For example, at one point I was trying to describe how to show tables on a web page, and so for an example I grabbed a page of government statistics. The statistics broke the sample out by "white", "African-American", "Native American", "White Hispanic", "Non-white Hispanic", maybe a couple of others. Two separate reviewers independently said that the reference to "non-white Hispanic" was "inappropriate humor". I didn't see the joke. It's a category the government regularly uses when breaking out ethnicity. But apparently someone found the label offensive and I had to use a different example.
I don't know if it's more or less extreme in Europe.
But as for all writing, you have to accommodate your audience if you want to be published and read.
In this case, someone mentioned "supervisor/worker". I think that's a good alternative. Or "primary/secondary" if that's not misleading in context. If all else fails, you can always say "type 1" and "type 2" and then explain what you mean, which is cumbersome but I'd think should be completely safe.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: No.
If the paper is a technical paper and the techical terminology is clearly defined and widely accepted (as the terms 'master' and 'slave' are) then they should not be substituted for 'politically correct' terminology.
For those who are familiar with the existing terminology, having new terminology introduced would take additional effort to be continually mentally subtituting said words for the 'correct' terminology.
Similarly if you are writing a paper about 'brainfuck', you should not censor the word 'brainfuck' simply because a reader might complain about the paper containing the word 'fuck' many times over.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_9: This is not at all standard across academia. Either across countries, institutions, fields or journals. Usually because no-one feels comfortable challenging a request for political correctness, the strictest standards 'win'. It seems to me that keeping your head below that pulpit is a good idea. There are sometimes trade-offs: master/slave vs supervisor/worker seem to be doing the rounds, so lets use that as an example.
To my mind:
* master/slave implies both perform the task, but one additionally orchestrates and takes precedence over the others.
* supervisor/worker implies that only the workers perform the task and the supervisor orchestrates.
Both are valid models but being force to pick one over the other has consequences including readability. *However* these are tiny. I'd say the biggest risk in a similar vein: you are implying 'supervisors' (a huge fraction of your target audience) are not 'workers'. You are not wrong about the potential impact on readability, but I would caution that if you are relying on your reader inferring this from your wording you have bigger problems than which. In practice they only form labels, and either will work perfectly for that role.
However, falling foul of a reviewer by refusing to adhere to their language preferences will give them cause, and justification other won't question, to prevent you from publishing.
This seems like an easy choice to me; it doesn't matter how readable it is if it won't get read.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/25
| 699
| 3,052
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am unable to advance three papers written while I was a postdoc, even to submission. Two coauthors constantly stall. They send 'additional rounds' of edits, pre-submission, with minor changes, stall for months, and create nonexistant parts of the academic process (ex. asking me to send a document containing all relevant passages from all cited works and defending their inclusion). Recently, they have also begun harassing other coauthors who support moving the work forward. One has withdrawn from the paper, calling us 'dysfunctional'. He is correct. On the first paper alone, I have over 100 pages of email correspondence and no path to submission.
The reason is straightforward: they were my advisers. I left my postdoc against their wishes, but with eight months notice, and obtained a faculty position without their support. One explicitly told me he would keep me from publishing my work. He also funded the work, and created the dataset it was drawn from, which in my discipline means authorship.
So, how do I prevail? Publishing is consent based. My primary goal: publish these three works. Secondary goal: keep them from removing me and publishing my work themselves.<issue_comment>username_1: You could try to get consent on what is needed and then on a schedule. You could also try to get consent to publish in accordance with the schedule, if their deliverables are missed. You could bring in a colleague as an arbitrator, perhaps someone from their institute whom you trust. One further option might be to remove their contributions and move forwards alone (that might be difficult).
You mention that one of your co-authors *funded the work, and created the dataset it was drawn from* and go on to say *which in my discipline means authorship*. Funding certainly doesn't mean authorship. Creating the dataset mightn't, if it is public.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll provide a different perspective. You do say that they are engaged in the process, ask for things and make changes. That doesn't look to me like they're actively trying to prevent you from publishing. Why would they spend time on the paper at all if their goal is to not have it published?
So, to me it sounds like the problem might at least partially be with you. So be constructive:
* Draw up a list of things you still want to change on the manuscripts
* Ask them what they still want to change
* Create a timeline for this to happen
You're unlikely going to get anywhere by being antagonistic, and you need the papers for your career. So relax your stance, be pragmatic and flexible, and see whether you can elucidate what their concerns are and how they can be overcome through a concrete set of steps everyone can agree upon.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You could also wonder: if you already have a faculty position, how helpful will it be to have these papers published (you'd be first author, not last, I assume), and consequently, how much of your time should you invest in moving this forward?
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/25
| 540
| 2,000
|
<issue_start>username_0: I ran my data analysis and created my graphs in RStudio, but RStudio is just a platform for R. In my paper should I cite R or RStudio?<issue_comment>username_1: Cite what you use. RStudio has a collection of developers who have made your work possible. Cite them. R is a language so it is, perhaps, less important to cite it. But if it has features that are important to your work, cite it. If you had used Python to do data analysis it might not be necessary to name it if there was nothing special about Python, but R is specialized for statistics so more likely that it should be cited.
Cite what you use. It is a courtesy to those who enable your work if nothing else. [Citing RStudio](https://support.rstudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/206212048-Citing-RStudio)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: RStudio is an IDE for R — essentially an editor and debugger packed together. Your work is made possible by statisticians who developed the language R and graphical packages for it. If you want to cite R in your publication, [here](https://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Citing-R) is the explanation how to do it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Google Scholar is probably not doing a great job of tracking these software citations compared to journal articles that fit standard citation formatting better, but [RStudio has ~1,800 citations](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9661568437115644951) whereas [R has over 100,000](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13829712525405590461) using the most common citation aggregate for each.
Many people cite neither and instead cite particular packages that they use, but by far it is more common to cite R which includes all of the base libraries, etc. RStudio is only an IDE, and although it could be useful and you are free to cite it as having been helpful in your development, anyone can take your R code written with the help of RStudio and run it with only R and get the same result.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/02/25
| 1,017
| 4,523
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student in the US in the middle of my third year. We use a method for some simulations that is initially provided to me by my PhD adviser, despite the fact that all other research groups, that do the same simulation as us, use different method, which is a way more powerful than ours. Our method has really known limitation which makes it really difficult to get correct results comparable to other research groups that use other method. In fact, I should say nobody really used our method for these kind of simulations before.
I did a complete literature review and it turns out except a few research groups, that my adviser believes their works are bogus, nobody really used our method for this problem to get the correct results. In fact, those papers, which are bogus in my PhD adviser's opinion, are done behind the limitation of our method and that's the origin of his belief. But the problem is: professional research groups use other method, which does not have this limitation at all and as a result their works look more different in terms of final results.
In fact, my PhD adviser wants the results of other research groups but with our method, which looks impossible to me due to my three years experience on both of these methods and my comprehensive literature review. But still my PhD adviser believes it should be doable by our method. By the way my PhD adviser does not have any paper in the field of my PhD thesis and also did not know anything about this topic before I started my PhD.
In my opinion, if nobody use our method to do this research, it does not mean people are fool or idiot that does not know how to use our method. In fact, if there is not much literature about the application of our method in this particular problem, it means our method is awful for these kind of simulations (it's already known more or less in the literature but some people like my PhD adviser does not want to believe...). The problem is even by knowing that this method does not work and if even wants to work, takes 10 times more time and computational resource in comparison to other research groups, my PhD adviser still insists on to use this method and not to switch to the conventional method that other known researchers use to address our research questions.
I tried in several ways by bringing up the literature review and the work of other people and my works during these three years, but my PhD adviser keeps telling that: "I don't believe in those papers!".
I mean how someone could believe that we are the smartest people in the world that are trying to solve a problem with a wrong tool but so many other people who worked in this field more than two decades are fool that used other method to address this problem?! My question is: **How can I convince my PhD adviser that we are just using a wrong tool and that's it. If we want to get correct results similar to the literature we should use their method? I really appreciate any suggestion or recommendation.**<issue_comment>username_1: You are in your third PhD year and have done a thorough review of the state of the art. It seems your adviser cannot give you proper reasons for using the existing method and has no relevant papers in this field. This means you are the expert here. If you find the new method superior, then go ahead, implement it and use it. Of course, you have to invest time but eventually it will pay off as you can overcome certain limitations and your simulations will run faster. In the end it is your thesis and if you knowingly stick to a inferior method, you stay below what is possible.
Maybe you can even write a comparison of the two methods in terms of performance (if you are interested). If your adviser accepts the comparison result, then you can use your favourite method and get a first paper out of it.
If your adviser insists on using a method against all scientific proof, then it might be time for a change. Of course, a change of superviser or research group at this advanced stage of your PhD must be considered thoroughly and probably is the last resort.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Do it BOTH ways, and compare the results. Use your mentors methods unless results dictate otherwise. If you need to switch, have the full analyses ready to present to your mentor to explain why you find it necessary to switch. Even if your mentor's methods hold up, be ready to change the method you use if during the review process, referees demand it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/26
| 495
| 2,114
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have one accepted manuscript waiting to be published. During the proof, I changed the corresponding author from me to my postdoc adivsor. Editor now asked why I made such a change.
What happened was that when I submitted my manuscript, I am the corresponding author by default. I failed to find any option to change it. So I planed to change it later on.
What shall I respond in order not to be rejected during this stage?
I am major in the theoretical relativity physics.
---
Update:
After nearly one week, my request finally is approved. I do not even have to fill out a form.<issue_comment>username_1: Just say what you said here: you intended the corresponding author to be one person, but accidentally set it to the other. That's a fairly unexceptional reason to change and I wouldn't expect it to raise any major issues.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I suspect that there is no chance that you will then be rejected. Just say what happened and why. I'm pretty sure the editor want to know why rather than be looking for a reason to reject. If you are at the current stage they already have a lot of effort in your paper that they wouldn't want to waste. They would much rather publish such papers than not.
But you may have caused a minor difficulty in their record keeping.
An outside chance is that they are wondering if they need to improve their system or the information they give people.
Another wild guess is that they want a bit of assurance that all authors are on board with the change and that it isn't a case of closing someone out at the last minute.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Give them the honest reason. Modifying the list of authors is suspicious because incidents where [authorship was purchased](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigious-science-journal/) have happened before. You're only changing the corresponding author, but from the editor's point of view, better safe than sorry.
Since you weren't acting unethically, you shouldn't have to fear a rejection, either.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/02/26
| 2,821
| 11,588
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are a few sites which offer paid articles for free. It’s something unethical, especially for those who upload to that site, but for me, it’s good for expanding knowledge.
As a readers, can we cite those documents, and can the editorial board know that I’m using those articles?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> can we cite [(possibly) illegally obtained] documents[?]
>
>
>
Yes, but you might be incriminating yourself, if legal access isn't plausible.
>
> can editorial board know...if I'm using those articles?
>
>
>
No. At least, not without collaboration.
EDIT: I'm flabbergasted that a factual correct answer has four down votes. Especially as an answer that appeared afterwards, with essentially the same message is being up-voted. It makes be question why I bother helping people.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Would you incriminate yourself?
For some articles, the abstract is so clear and concise that it effectively says everything you need to know in order to cite it. I've previously been advised when writing abstracts for articles in paywall journals to make sure someone could cite the article without actually having it. Obviously, it's not an ideal situation, but it is very much possible to cite an article purely based on the abstract, which you would have access to without acquiring the article anyway.
In short, if I see someone cite an article and I somehow know that they have not paid for access to it, I'd assume they've cited it based on the abstract.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If you are at a reputable university you can probably get legal access to nearly everything you need for research just by visiting your university's library and asking for a copy of the article. This is nearly always available to you. If you are grant funded, then grant funds can probably be used to obtain the necessary papers if the university cannot get them. In the US, even my town library has been able to get me access to things just by asking and because they have developed relationships with other (university) libraries. Small universities can have formal relationships with large research universities to "borrow" books and articles.
Likewise, borrowing the resources of colleagues is permitted. If s/he has a legal copy s/he can print it. The printed copy can be loaned to you. There are no issues with this at all.
So, the situation you describe should be rare if you do a bit of legwork.
But if you cite something, cite a legal repository, not a website known to pirate academic work. You don't need to actually *own* a copy of a paper to cite it, but it is probably a mistake (for your reputation) to flaunt illegal or unethical access.
It probably isn't as difficult or as costly as you imagine to do the right thing.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: 1. Nobody will know how you have gained access to the article. Feel free to cite articles found via whatever sources.
2. It might not even be illegal to download content from the website; check your local laws and Berne convention (if your country is signed up) to be sure. In any case, this is unlikely to affect your reputation in any way.
3. Remember to cite the source appropriately; a journal or a book, not a pirate website or any other medium. The pirate website is usually not the publisher. You do not cite the university that has bought access to research (probably funded by public sources and peer reviewed by academicians funded by public sources), or the colleguage who shows you an article, or the library that contained a copy of the article; these all have the same role as pirate website.
4. You might not want to be vocal about using such a website. Some people still see it as ethically questionable. That said, using various pirate websites is increasingly common, and the status of many academic publishers among academians seems to have taken some hits, so many researchers will not care about how you get your articles.
5. You also have the ethics tag on the question. The ethics of pirating digital material are a polarized subject. You might want to do your own research here, or ask a new question for what the main arguments for both sides are, if it has not been asked already. Some people say that pirating material is analogous to physical theft, while others say that intellectual monopoly laws are bad and breaking them creates more good than ill. (I happen to think the laws are far too strong and harm humanity, and should be weakened substantially or entirely removed.) I strongly suggest reading on the matter until you have found strong statements of both points of view to come to an informed decision.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Isn't this the same thing as breaking into a house and stealing everything, then asking if it's ethical to watch Netflix using the victim's account?
You are asking the wrong question.
The unethicalness occurred long before the question of attribution arose. The publishers of the papers placed a value on them.. and you, for whatever reason, chose to obtain the document from a thief rather than the publisher. Just because "everyone else" is doing it and it's "wink wink" accepted practice in no way makes the act of theft ethical. Everything that follows from that act is then tainted by the original act of thievery.
So to recap...
* Pirate steals from publisher.
* You obtain copy of document from pirate, making you at best an accomplice and at worst a thief yourself.
* Question of ethics regarding attribution of stolen documents in your own paper is really not a valid question at this point.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: First, you have to cite if something is relevant for your work! It has nothing to do with how you acquired the article, and even if you do not have the article, just know the abstract or one particular result that is relevant, cite it! (big insight as I entered academia, seldom the articles cited are also read in entirety).
By the way, in academia authors get NO money from their articles, it is all done for reputation in the scientific community; so by not citing you actually do more harm to the individual who wrote the article then by the act of downloading (where maybe just the publisher loses money). And by the way, for scientific articles the system works a little bit different. It is seldom the case that an individual buys individual articles (and if they like to they are tremendously expensive). They are either acquired by your library through subscription, by interlibrary loan (many libraries are connected by networks), given to you by the authors themselves (once I just got a copy from an article that is hard to get in person from the authors send by post after asking him at a conference), or nowadays by the way you asked for... I will not judge what is unethical here but after reading this (or being in academia for yourself some time) you might view it a little bit different...
So, if nothing works you usually end up not getting the article at all!
On a side note, this is a little bit different for books as the authors get some money from them, not much in academia too. But for non-academic books, where the authors have to life from the money, it is definitely unethical. But this is an entirely different system. Do not judge and confuse it by that (which people might do here if they compare it to robbery, netflix etc...).
Also, if you do not cite something relevant, some reviewer of your article will probable notice and either point you to the literature, or if it is a well-known article might conclude that you have done a bad review of the literature yourself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: [<NAME>'s framing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/125570/citing-paywalled-articles-accessed-via-illegal-web-sharing#comment334170_125570) of the question:
>
> It seems that you are *not* asking about the ethics of downloading articles from questionable sites, but only the ethics afterwards - when the downloading is already a *fait accompli*, and the real question is whether citing said document counts as an *additional* unethical act above and beyond what you did when you downloaded it (e.g. "citing a document obtained through an unauthorized route").
>
>
>
For discussion purposes, I'm going to go contrary to the [accepted answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/125584/36320) and say **yes**.
First, if you're using ideas that are not your own, you definitely have to cite the source. Failure to do that is plagiarism. With respect to avoiding plagiarism, it doesn't matter where you got the ideas; credit is due.
However, **inaccurately** citing where you got the source makes it harder for others to trace that back to the source.
In some cases, the content posted to a pirate website *looks like* or maybe is *labeled as* a copy of the content from the original source, but in fact has different content.
I have wasted many hours trying to figure out why an author cites X for assertion Y, when in some cases they were actually citing a hidden X' which differed from X on, among other things, assertion Y. I would have much appreciated if the author had included a citation like:
>
> <NAME>, <NAME>, and <NAME>: "Methods for safely pipetting oxyflogated dexlahydrates at STP." *23rd Annual Conference on Unusual Chemistry (CUC '17)* London. Retrieved Jan. 18, 2019 from <https://authorsite.org/pdf/1234.56789>.
>
>
>
Then I have all the usual citation information about who published that and where, and in most cases I can go to that source and get it from them. In this case, the publisher gets an extra sale from the author having cited that work, regardless of how the author obtained it. However, if I can't find support for what's being asserted, I can then trace through to what the author actually looked at. If there's a difference, I can more quickly debug. I might see how the author was led astray and be able to resolve the issue another way. Without that link to what the author is *actually* citing, though, it's very hard to determine the basis for that assertion, and requiring that extra work is a negative impact caused by a difference between the source the author claimed and the source the author actually used.
Also, note that content differences are not all malicious, and the "authoritative" record is not always better from a content perspective. Sometimes, authors posting a file on their own website, with the publisher's permission, will update those files (e.g. correcting a mistake in a formula) and then the formula being used in the citing article looks different than the one it's being cited for. (To authors: If you do this, please explicitly call it out as a correction.)
Sometimes, the differences are honeypots intentionally inserted by publishers designed to get the message out that only official sites can be relied upon for accurate information.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: Just cite the paper properly (e.g. take into account where the article was originally published), obviously don't cite <NAME>. Seriously, nobody cares and nobody can find out anyway. And the people who care have a very bad case of boy scout/teacher's pet disease. The editorial houses are rent-seeking rackets that profit from publicly funded research and hard labour of academics. And they still have the nerve to paywall it. Anyone that feels bad about avoiding that needs to do a deep reflection on their moral priorities.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/26
| 1,562
| 6,581
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a 4th year PhD student at a top school in Canada studying chemical physics. For the past few years, I have been floating around the idea of leaving with a Masters and pursuing a PhD at a different institute due to many factors, such as:
* Poor supervision. My supervisor is primarily overseas, and provides little to no direction or motivation in work. When discussing with him, his focus is on himself and offers little advice in regards to research.
* The city I live in is not enjoyable and I find it hard to enjoy being here.
* The group, while great, is not very cohesive; no group meetings, no reports, no discussion of progress at all.
For the past 2 years, I have been working on a very complicated instrument. I've spent a lot of time fixing it, as many aspects of it have needed to be repaired or upgraded, but unfortunately, finding a sample to study is highly non-trivial and has been proven to be very difficult. As a result, I find that I'm quite burned out. I have also been diagnosed with depression and anxiety (but have been treating it with medication and therapy). I've been unable to publish (but I have one first author in review after revisions, one co-author in preparation) Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that, due to the lack of direction of care from my supervisor's end in regards to helping myself (and other students) focus on to a project that has a clear set of steps or even overall direction, that I should probably leave with a Masters, and apply for a PhD at a different school with a project that I find myself passionate about.
The dilemma I have is that my supervisor has quite the ego. I'm certain he won't be happy with me proposing to leave with a Masters to go pursue work elsewhere. I'm not sure how to handle that; I can ask other faculty of whom I'm well-acquainted with for a reference, but I feel that the new school I apply to may question why that is the case. Maybe it's the burn out speaking on my behalf, but I am no longer passionate about what I do, and the day to day grind of improving things, trying to find a sample, and repeating is getting to me. I see other students with somewhat cohesive research goals and I look back on my own and realize there is no direction and that, I think, scares me more than anything. I don't want to run the risk of not being able to graduate. Of course, the onus is on me to be able to procure my own project or motivation, but alas, I think due to poor supervision and general lack of interest, it is in my best interest to move on to something more along my skillset and passion.
My question is, has anybody dealt with a similar dilemma? Were you able to be accepted at a different school, even if your supervisor responded poorly? Is 4 years for a Masters a waste of time or a bad idea, and should I just tough it out and finish, even if I hate it all?<issue_comment>username_1: My dilemma was broadly similar: I was doing a PhD in a top-tier university I hated; my advisor was awful; and I was considering leaving for a different program. What stopped me from actually doing the latter was that even with explicit invitations and introductions from helpful professors who liked me, I didn't get anything more useful than a desultory suggestion to find the department's webpage and send an application there to start again as a first-year grad student. I was three rather than four years in at that point, but I thought that was enough time that I didn't want to restart from scratch.
In retrospect, that was a bad decision. In my case, I finished the PhD program but didn't get the contacts or publications that I needed to get an actual academic career out of it, so the five years I wound up spending at the university were a waste of time. Grad school can be miserable, advisors can be worse than worthless, and the academic market is terrible. It's just about the only way of getting the opportunity to do certain things, though, most notably serious research. If you're trying to just tough it out and finish, that may not actually get you what you want.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I know that it is probably too late to share my experience with you, but I was in the same place as you and I did it. I quit my PhD after 4 years and 2 months, and my reasons for doing that was 1) I wasn't happy about the place which was initially meant to be a temporary stay and 2) I was not receiving proper scientific supervision. As a last year PhD I was successful enough (4 research papers as the first author, 1 as the second) to get a degree, but I decided to change just because I was thinking that the quality of my experience and what I would gain afterwards could be better. So I interviewed with one of the leading guys in my field, who by the way knew my supervisor at the time, and he also asked me why I want to make this change. I could be convincing enough to get the offer by the end of the interview and I moved to the new place after 6 months and started the new career. Also to mention that my supervisor at the time wasn't happy about this at all, and we even had two VERY rough arguments about this decision. However, I did it and now the question is did it worth it?
No one can answer this question for you, as the motivations behind making such decisions are too much personal. There are some obvious facts like the lack of supervision etc. but still as long as you don't analyze your situation properly, you might regret it later. I regret making that decision, because I was too emotional at the moment that I accepted the offer. What I lost in this transition was 3 good years of my life and also being exploited as an experienced PhD in the field, and being paid far less than I deserve. A part of my regret at the moment is also due to the fact that I realized that what I pictured to be a different class of research and opportunities was simply not true, and in most of the times the quality and quantity of research in the leading groups are similar, and just the governing politics in academia push one or another on display.
If you haven't made this decision yet (which is unlikely) I suggest you to try to finish your PhD in the current place. I had an experienced colleague back then who was always telling me to not to do it after spending 4 years, but I didn't listen to him. I was seeing it as an adventure, but if i have the opportunity to go back in time and make that decision again, I would stay and finish my PhD and then look for other research opportunities to satisfy myself.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/26
| 927
| 3,970
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently about to enter my final semester of undergraduate life and plan on continuing graduate studies (master's) at the same institution.
Applications for the fall semester this year open in April. I recently (around a week ago) emailed a professor whose lab I want to enter and expressed my interest in his research and that if he would spare me a few minutes to meet in person or a phone call that would be great. I sent my resume as well. I had fairly high hopes because I have spoken to a former student in that lab and she happened to say he has a very nice reputation of communicating well and will reply to my email even if it's a rejection.
However, he hasn't. I'm wondering what I should do. I've confided with my parents who are also professors, and they told me that once semester starts next week to just visit the professor's office during his office hours. My question is, wouldn't showing up unannounced and bringing up the topic of my email come off as a bit rude? My parents say that professors get paid to deal with students and so I should think of it as my right, and also that "office hours" are meant for professors to keep their doors open and answer questions. I'm curious as to what other people believe, though.
It was either visit his office, email him again, call the student lab via phone and ask them what I should do.
Thank you.
**UPDATE**
I just thought I'd share the result of taking @Buffy and others' advice in case anyone's curious.
I was planning on visiting the professor in question's office today. I was planning to just visit, but yesterday I decided to send one last email out of courtesy saying that I'd love to visit his office during his scheduled office hours. If that didn't work then I would just show up "unannounced." He did reply to that and asked if tomorrow is okay.
I sent him my resume with the first email, but I wasn't sure if he had read it or not so I decided to print it out and bring a hard copy with me. Plus, I myself always prefer having a hard copy in my hands to flip through rather than looking at a computer screen. Sure enough, when I asked him if he would like a copy of my resume he said that it would be great and that "students normally send them by email but I prefer hard copies" and that likes my sense of preparation.
He was impressed at me taking the initiative and offered me an undergraduate research position on the spot - despite them lacking openings - and showed me around the lab introducing me to everyone and advising a PhD student who shares interests with me to give me a more in-depth explanation. He said that if I do decide to pursue graduate studies ("since people change their minds all the time" as he added) that it would be better if I naturally transitioned from an undergraduate research intern to a full time graduate student at the lab.
So yes, lesson learned. Also thanks for the advice from the community.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm with your parents on this. Go talk to him. The missed reply could be for a variety of reasons, including just needing time to think about it. But scheduled office hours are a perfect time for a conversation.
It isn't rude at all. Polite, actually, to go in person.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1, there are a number of factors that could account for the lack of communication. For example, the chair of my master's thesis committee would conducted research in rural Central America and be unreachable for months during winter/summer break. Simply due to the overall lack of internet service. That said, office hours are the perfect venue for introducing yourself and discussing your ambition to pursue graduate study.
While others may disagree I would wait at least a few weeks. In my experience most professors are inundated with student request during the first 1-2 weeks of the semester, but this is obviously situational.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/26
| 1,896
| 7,989
|
<issue_start>username_0: I used to think that for research postdocs, faculty evaluate things like research potential. Now I think they still do, but they look a lot at whether the research topic interests the faculty. For example I have had a senior faculty member in some field (call it field A) tell me directly: "Field B is much sexier now than field A. Field A was very popular when I was doing my postdoc. Look at this researcher who did outstanding work in field A! Universities wouldn't hire him. He ended up getting something, but if he had worked in field B he would have done much better on the job market."
The lesson I took from this was: to succeed in academia it is not sufficient to do amazing research. It has to be amazing research in an area that interests people on the faculty of the universities you're applying to. For example, if University X has no homotopy theorists, but two representation theorists, then good results in representation theory would trump outstanding results in homotopy theory.
When applying for postdocs, there is sometimes a question asking if applicants have "faculty contacts." I am also taking this as another piece of evidence. My impression is that a blank response looks worse than being able to say: "Professor Y is a potential collaborator." It seems pretty much necessary, to get any position at a given university, to do work in an area that interests some faculty members, so that they can be enthusiastic about an applicant.
A last example. When looking at MathJobs.org you can find postdocs in Europe for working in certain research groups. To get such a position, you need to fit your research into those areas. Suppose professor X is looking for a postdoc who works on problem 1. If two strong applicants apply, but another, *by chance,* does work more directly related to problem 1, then that applicant would be preferred.
Looking back at my time in grad school I think this is what I should have done: Make a list of all the academics in a given field and see what work they do. Look at who gets the big grants, and what topics the big conferences are in. Based on those criteria, determine who you want to do a postdoc under. *Then* decide who you want for a thesis adviser. Then steer your research to be interesting to those faculty members at the universities you would like to work in for your postdoc. In other words, direct your entire academic trajectory for a postdoc position. This way, five years later when it's time to apply for jobs, you'll find faculty members interested in your work, because your entire trajectory throughout grad school was towards that goal. This seems to be the best way to get postdoc offers.
In other words, I feel that there are many *traps* in academia that unsuspecting grad students or junior faculty can fall into and not get out of. Is my impression accurate?
On a more personal note: I have applied for a lot of postdocs and have gotten shortlisted a few times. But I have received zero offers. I suspect that other applicants *fit* the position better, not because my work wasn't *good work* (whatever that means), or any deficiencies in my application (though I could be wrong). I have no idea how to avoid these issues in the future besides the (admittedly rather extreme) plan I had proposed.<issue_comment>username_1: Let me give a contrary "strategy". Do the work that *you* are interested in rather than try to game out a *path to success*. Background:
There are two advantages of working in "trendy fields". One is that journals probably want to publish more in that area. The other is that, if students are also interested, then universities will probably want to hire *teaching* faculty in those areas. But, I suspect that universities are happy that you are productive in publication no matter what your research interest.
There is a downside to working in a "trendy field". There will be a lot of competition. There is likely to be more parallel research on the topic that interests you. You may well get "scooped" more often.
There is a risk factor in trying to game out your career: things change. What is trendy today might not be in a couple of years. The academic market may just fall apart when you enter it of course. But it will probably return in a few years and the "once trendy but no more" field may have a resurgence. There is no sure path.
Much better, IMO, is to find something that interests you and makes it possible for you to make a solid contribution and then follow that. You don't have to commit your entire life to it, and can change course as you go, but build a life, not just a career.
I'll make a wild arse guess that you are more likely to be a success in research if you focus more on the research and less on the success. You will probably be less angry at any setbacks, also. Work on interesting problems, collaborate with good people, bring along a lot of students. But make it satisfying.
Five years is a bit less than eternity in any job market, but not a lot less.
I'll also note, for completeness, that universities may specialize in some research areas that may be unrelated to trendiness, but only to history. It is hard to say whether they, at any given moment, want to add more faculty to that concentration or to, instead, hire someone who will bring a broader perspective to a department. Hard to game. There is an advantage, of course, for a young faculty member to join an established working group (easy collaboration) but also a disadvantage. The old codgers might just want all the credit. You don't need physical presence these days for collaboration in most fields.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: 1. At least focus on your interests versus your advisors. We get a lot of questions from weak reeds who just bend with the wind. But at the end of the day, there's a huge investment of years by junior researchers in these projects. Need to do something you want to do. Exercise choice during advisor and project selection, stick up for yourself, etc.
2. Obviously it's a multivariable function (not just x and y, but some z's and w's floating in there). So, you should look for something both marketable AND interesting. While, it is unlikely that optimizing for one variable will optimize for the other, there likely are several areas where you can be both interested/skillful AND that are marketable. Yes, absolutely you have to use your noggin when deciding this...and your advice to a younger you is relevant.
3. I would be wary of something that is trendy now if it has the seeds of changing soon. String theory, nanoscience, machine learning, etc. At least don't get involved in one of these rush areas if you aren't super interested in it (I don't believe the students who all come here and say they have a "passion" for machine learning--they have a passion for getting hired by Google.)
4. I think often there is a lot of opportunity at field boundaries (and has been for decades). "Material science" is the classic example. If you can collaborate, it opens up possibilities and often you find others can't really compete as well in the border areas (are only able to work in the core). Personally I find that a lot of fun (and also doing applied work)...so it's not even a sales BS job for grants, like with some researchers. I really like it.
5. It's probably good if you can package yourself as both a specialist and a fundamentalist. I.e. I'm the math expert in some bizarre shale oil krieging junk. But I also can find a home as a graph theory math person (I'm making this up...not sure if those are real things...but you get the idea). Have some sexy thing like that specialty...but also make a department feel comfortable that you can teach basic classes and fit in with the core math department.
6. This is not to say there is no demand for people drilling down the center of the field. But you better plan on being the best, then. Really top notch.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/26
| 1,772
| 7,357
|
<issue_start>username_0: A few weeks from now, I'll be traveling for a flyout interview to a SLAC (small liberal arts college) in the eastern United States. The college is very small, less than 1,500 students. If hired, I would be teaching philosophy and other topics in a traditional liberal arts and humanities curriculum.
In many ways this is a perfect job for me. The teaching load is 4/4 (that is, 4 courses per semester, no summer teaching required), but I have long wanted to be at a teaching-focused institution. The college is in a small, quiet town in a beautiful area of the country with affordable living. The colleagues I've spoken to so far have been friendly and helpful, and the students seem good. I foresee being able to get tenure fairly easily. For me, all of these features form a very attractive combination. I know it's impossible to predict the future, but at the very least I could see myself spending many years working at this college, assuming there were no major surprises.
My big concern--and I don't know any way other to frame this--is the long-term viability and stability of the college. It has a very small endowment, and as far as I can tell, does not regularly receive donations of any meaningful size. The college weathered the most recent economic challenges here in the US, and has more students enrolled now than at any other point in its history. But my worry is simply that, one day, in response to economic or other issues, it's just going to fold. Then I ask myself whether I could get a job applying out of there, what I would do if I had to leave academia, and so on.
I have no evidence to indicate that anything like this might happen in the near future; in fact, the little information I do have suggests that the college is doing well. But I still worry. I've thought about the possibility of taking a prospective offer with an exit plan: going in ready to publish all of my dissertation research to fill out my CV, in order to make myself competitive should I need to apply out down the road. But that's the best I have so far.
I'd like to ask for your help. My questions are:
1. **What questions can I tactfully and respectfully ask while on my visit to probe for information about my concern?** (Keep in mind that I won't have received an actual job offer while visiting; I assume I could ask more direct questions later, were they to make an offer.)
2. **What else should I be looking for on the visit that might help me better understand the college's long-term viability, if anything?**<issue_comment>username_1: While college failures are rare they do happen, especially in generally poor economic situations. But I think that mismanagement is more likely to be a factor when they do fail. But some advice, probably not complete.
I hope the place is *regionally accredited* with one of the major agencies. Otherwise, not a great bet.
I hope the place is *not for profit*. Otherwise...
I hope the place is a bit diversified in course offerings and student body and faculty and administration. A place traditionally founded and run by a single family is less of a sure bet.
I hope the place draws students from a wider, rather than a narrower, geographical area. A national or international student body is best, but a few places can make do with only a regional reputation. How wide is their reputation?
I hope they don't need to accept every applicant for financial reasons. Otherwise they have no cushion when times get bad.
It is good if they have *some endowment* that they manage wisely as a cushion and to enable opportunities.
I hope that they are open to new ideas, both in curriculum, and in management, but that is hard to judge. I hope that they *don't* need to chase every new trend to stay viable.
I hope that the faculty is collegial, both within and across disciplines, though that is more of an indicator of a good work environment than longevity.
I hope that a lot of decisions are made by the faculty and that the faculty is generally listened to in important discussions; curriculum and beyond. And that the administration respects those decisions.
I hope that the board of directors is also diversified, not just cronies of the college president.
I can probably think of more and will update as it occurs. I've worked at a couple of problematic places. None failed, but they did fail at being a satisfying place to work at times.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Over the forty year period of a faculty career, any kind of institution is likely to fail or change until it is unrecognizable.
If your goal is to get the job, during the interview, ask how they plan to change and evolve over decades. Then, tell them how you would help them achieve their long term goals.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would be a bit concerned in your place based on the news.
It's hard to manage a college well, and easy to screw up. And it can be caused by administrators, staff, and students as well. Moreover, liberal arts and humanities tend to attract trouble (more than natural science, engineering, CS).
There were two well-known cases that reached international news: Evergreen and Mizzou. (their fame reached Eastern Europe, where I live) Maybe there were more. Neither went bankrupt, but trouble means low enrollment, repeals donations (people donate to different institutions/causes), and makes downsizing inevitable in the long run. Read about them, figure out the common mistakes, and try to determine how probable similar events are at this college.
Philosophy is interesting as a hobby, and I respect it, but I'm not sure - apart from teaching it - what else can you do with that. Maybe this is still your best chance given your education. If you can, even if you accept this offer, look for a more "well-rounded" university to move to. Maybe focus on your language skills, the market values it more than philosophy.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: This is a tricky situation as you seem to be venturing for years long stability rather than your own development, which could offer you new opportunities in the future.
The experiences you get there, even if short lived, could be meaningful and help you grow professionally. Some institutions would only consider you if you've had such an amount of experiences for instance.
With that and your concerns in mind, I'd ask the following:
1. **How do the faculty members develop themselves here?**
Is there space for the staff at the institution to engage in interesting research, host events or anything else that helps them become better academics/professionals in the long run? If this doesn't tell you the long term goals of the institution, it could at least provide you with some networks to rely on afterwards if you get answered positively. Otherwise, if the economy doesn't crush them, stagnation will.
2. **Who and How are the long running academics in the institution?**
Ask this to know if the institution can retain talent. High rotation of staff is usually a red flag for many reasons. This is also a good question to ask because it shows you have an interest in staying.
Outside of that, I doubt you'll get much more out of them. No such thing as a crystal ball for this sort of thing. The fact they are open to hiring is a point in their favor, usually.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/26
| 461
| 1,931
|
<issue_start>username_0: After going through a quiz, I was surprised to see that we hadn't gone over half the material in class or in our reading. It was brought to the attention of the professor and she said she would take a look and consider the options. She saw that "most" did well regardless of the fact it was new material and decided to keep the quiz the way it was.
I personally got a 73% on this quiz (which is a failing grade in my strenuous program) and my friend got a 50%. After talking to her privately she is continuing to stand by her choice. Should I go above her?<issue_comment>username_1: People writing here have incomplete information, of course. But from what you say it sounds like she should have to give a justification for the decision.
One way is to make a collective appeal to her directly. The fact that "most" did well means that, almost by definition, some were disadvantaged by the quiz. That needs compensation of some sort.
One way is to make a collective appeal to her superior, laying out the facts.
But an individual appeal to her has failed, apparently, and may fail to her superior as well. This seems to me to be a situation in which you need to get a group together, formulate your arguments, and then present them.
It is probably less confrontational if you take it first to her, as a group. If you don't get a satisfactory answer then escalate it.
However, if it is a very small part of grading, then maybe just ignoring it to avoid hassle would be justified.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Find out how some of the students who did well on the test managed it. There may be some pattern. For example, there could be another course that many of them have taken that covered the missing material. That would strengthen your case for some adjustment. On the other hand, if it is just paying more attention and doing more reading, you are probably out of luck.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/02/27
| 2,194
| 8,972
|
<issue_start>username_0: This question is inspired by [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/125584/58912) recent answer that mentions that whether downloading articles from 'questionable' sites is *legal* (not ethical) may depend on local law. That is, law is *local*.
Are academic *ethics* global or local? Clearly, legal principles and conclusions vary from place to place, but does the same apply to academic ethics, or are academic ethics the same no matter where you go? That is, while there may be (and may continue to be) genuine debates on various ethical matters in academia, do these debates and disagreements apply fully to academics everywhere in the world, or are there "local" ethics?
At first, I figured that getting large numbers of people scattered throughout the world to agree on *anything* is so remotely implausible that there *must* be local ethics, but then I realized that I couldn't think of any rational set of circumstances where I would advise a colleague that they could solve their ethical issue not by changing their behavior, but by *crossing a border*, e.g.,
>
> Dude, while fooing the bar does not violate any specific statute in the Civil or Criminal Codes of Florin, it is near-universially considered academically unethical here! Have you considered a transfer to our branch campus in Guilder? You can foo the bar all you like there - they even have a Department of Fooing the Bar and award annual scholarships for the most bars fooed that year. Just take care that Guilderian ethics requires that you disclose your blood type to research subjects before you ask them to fill out a survey - people who don't are not charged in court per se, but their names get published in *Guilder's Most Annoying Unethical Jerkfaces Quarterly* and are rarely, if ever, allowed to return to academia there.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: The [Declaration of Helsinki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki) attempts to define medical research ethics. Over time debates, often local, have occurred leading to alternativesee like [Good Clinical Practice](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_clinical_practice) and the [Common Rule](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=83cd09e1c0f5c6937cd9d7513160fc3f&pitd=20180719&n=pt45.1.46&r=PART&ty=HTML). Each ethical guideline is slightly different and research that might not be allowed in one locale, could be permissible under a different set of guidelines.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It's difficult to draw a clear line between ethical and legal restrictions, since of course lawmakers are influenced by what is generally considered as ethical in a certain community. For instance,
according to Jewish law, the soul does not populate the body until 40 days after conception,
whereas Christian theologians will tell you that this happens immediately at conception.
This theological difference leads to very different laws concerning the use of human stem cells and embryonic tissue
in Israel compared to most of Europe.
(As a result, there are European stem cell researchers who move to Israeli research institutes because their research would be considered as unethical and illegal by the authorities of their home country.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would argue that, while agreeing on them to a certain extent is required for a functioning society, ethics are inherently *personal*, and depend in no small amount on what the individual researcher believes to be true. Due to their socialization as well as the necessity to get along with one another, people will tend to form localized groups with similar beliefs, and thus ethics. It follows that where a person learns and works is likely to influence their ethics, but just crossing a border will usually not. In other words, if your hypothetical colleague is themself unsure whether a certain behaviour is ethical, moving them around the globe shouldn't alter their (or your) perspective on the matter.
However, if they are in disagreement with the majority in their location, I could think of a few scenarios where, while impractical, moving from one place to another might resolve the issue. Others have pointed out religious differences, and closely related to that are (e.g. professional) codes of conduct, but for the sake of simplicity I'm going to point towards the issue of intellectual property and, by extension, plagiarism. I'd posit that, on average, Chinese researchers have a different outlook on that than US based ones. Perhaps not even in principle, but certainly in terms of relative priorities.\*
The relationship between law and ethics is an interesting one. Not only will a society's commonly held beliefs influence its legislation, there is also a certain pressure from authorities, via propaganda, law enforcement etc. in the opposite direction. While the academic community as a whole emphasizes communication and critical thinking, and might, one would hope, be less affected than the "average" citizen, I do not believe that we are entirely immune to this effect. At the very least, research ethics have changed with time, but they have not changed at the same pace in every culture.
\* No judgment intended either way.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Ideally, ethics are universal, based on fundamental principles that don't differ by place or time. Nor by profession, actually. Ethics may be *applied* a bit differently in different professions, but only in the sense that different issues arise there.
But there are two other considerations. One is what is *considered to be* ethical in a place might be considered differently somewhere else, but this is a mistaken judgement. There was a time, and certainly places, where slavery was *considered to be* ethical, even meritorious, and some still do (sadly) believe that. But such considerations are based on faulty analysis.
The other consideration isn't really about ethics. It is about what sort of behavior people in a place or time *expect* of other people. It is about regulations, whether formal or not and whether sanctioned officially or unofficially. Your example of barring foos is of this sort of thing. One place celebrates it and a neighboring place forbids it. This has nothing to do with ethics, nor with law. It is all about *social pressure* which can be intense. Such social pressures can lead to shunning or even killing. I think the other examples here also fall into the social pressure or community expectations framework, rather than being ethical considerations.
But this question is one for philosophers rather than for academics *per se*.
And note that my first word here was "Ideally". There are philosophers who believe differently about the very nature of ethics, leading to different conclusion.
You can, for example, study [*situational ethics*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics) which comes to a different conclusion.
However, I don't think that we have discovered all ethical principles and so are in a bit of a muddle.
---
Vaguely remembering Dr. Seuss: I do not like them Sam I Am. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them here nor there I do not like them anywhere. Etc.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Your ethics vs the ethics of your community
-------------------------------------------
It may well be that your personal ethics differs from the dominant ethics of the society where you happen to live, the society which is also setting the rules that influence your research.
While for many cases there's more or less a worldwide consensus about what's acceptable and not, there are genuine debates where multiple options are plausible, and in the case of such debates it's feasible that the IRB's of different countries would have contrary opinions. One such factor where it's obvious why there are differences (and also obvious why some people may not consider the other's arguments as binding or even relevant) is religious influence which has some impact on medical experiments (e.g. stem cell debate or certain aspects of sexuality in some parts of the world), other factors of medicine include things such as research on certain recreational substances and euthanasia. There are also topics (or findings of fact) that are highly unpopular for political reasons, which again are local.
It may well be that the IRB considers a particular type of research unethical and unacceptable (i.e. it wouldn't be minor adjustments to do that thing properly but "your goal is taboo"), it's not a fluke and *every* IRB around them would consider it unethical, but the researcher, taking all the arguments provided by the IRB into account, still finds that they personally believe this action to be ethical. In such situations, a reasonably valid option would be to move to a location where the locally dominant ethics matches your own - and which would likely not have objections to that research.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/27
| 2,675
| 10,771
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am quite surprised to find that a lecture slide for a course has 133 citations from highly reputable researchers across the world. The main contribution of the [lecture slides](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~tijmen/csc321/slides/lecture_slides_lec6.pdf) (which seems to be the reason for the citations) appears in 1 line on 1 page of the slide out of 30 slides. ([Citation count according to Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=15273267185225375255))
* Another set of random [course notes from lecture 12](http://cs229.stanford.edu/notes/cs229-notes12.pdf) of a course just happens to have over 100 citations, [Reinforcement Learning and Control - CS229](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=1020429487696996474)
* [This 8 page course note](http://cogprints.org/5869/1/cnn_tutorial.pdf) has 200 citations, which is more than many of actual research papers
* Also, another [summary of a blog post](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04747.pdf) (less than 14 pages) has over 700 citations (From the paper: *This paper originally appeared as a [blog post](http://ruder.io/optimizing-gradient-descent/index.html) on 19 January 2016.*)
[Citation count from Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=297994708731800772). This paper isn't even published anywhere aside from Arxiv.
What is the point of even publishing a paper and going through the painstaking process of peer review and editing if you can just write some blog post or a lecture slide on some hot topic and accumulate citation counts (which is crucial for securing funding, etc.)?<issue_comment>username_1: It's not fair to only look at the peak of the distribution. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to compare peaks to peaks and averages to averages.
The two sources you mention are both in the field of machine learning. If we assume that they correspond to the blog/lecture notes sources with the most number of citations (i.e. the peaks), then we can conclude that these venues can generate at most ~700 citations. If you compare to the most cited machine learning papers, these 700 citations are minute. For example putting "machine learning" into Google Scholar yields:
>
> Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python (journal article) -- 14919 citations
>
>
> Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (book) -- 34724 citations
>
>
>
What about averages? I don't know what the average number of citations a blog post or lecture slide gets, but I'd guess less than one, since many blog posts don't attract comments. The average number of citations for a journal article however is easy to find - just look at the impact factor. Putting in "machine learning journal" into Bing, I get journals such as [Machine Learning](https://www.springer.com/computer/ai/journal/10994) (IF = 1.855 as of time of writing) and [International Journal of Neural Systems](https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/ijns) (IF = 4.58). Clearly the average journal article gets a lot more citations than the average blog post or lecture slide.
**tl; dr:** What's the point of studying machine learning instead of playing soccer and earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a week? The answer to that question is similar to the answer to this one.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: 1. The instances you mention don't show that statistically blogs or slides get cited well. Just that you find some instances in the universe of events.
2. Papers tend to be abstracted (chemistry does this quite well). Blogs and slides not.
3. Science citation searches don't generally index blogs and slides (especially uncited ones). Thus they can be difficult to find during a lit search.
4. Journals exercise a function of review and editing that drives a superior work product in formatting. Blogs and slides are generally a mess in their referencing fro instance, compared to papers. It's not just that editors and reviewers drive this but that authors tend to "up their game" when sending work product for review.
5. There is some benefit in review scientifically (more so for weaker papers, but still).
6. Papers help your career.
7. Nothing prevents publicizing a paper by blogging or presenting it in addition. And usually the blogging or presenting will be superior because solid work has already been done previously.\*
8. Narrative technical reports ("Word documents" or the sort) are generally superior to slideware in information density and quality. [Read the Tufte contributions to the Space Shuttle disaster inquiry for some of this...Feynman had same issue with the previous disaster and the problems with slides versus sentence and paragraph reports.
\*Small aenecdote to explain. I took a course once where we had a true seminar (oval table discussion with small group) on foreign policy controversies. Every Tuesday, we handed in a 2 page written paper before the discussion (on a set of readings). Every Thursday, we just had discussion, on a new set of reading, but no paper was required. The Tuesday discussions were stunningly better than the Thursday discussions. Doesn't this make sense when you think how much better you understand something after writing it up properly? The same applies for doing a presentation or a blog on a piece of science (after writing it up formally).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The principal contemporary reason for formally publishing articles is that governments and institutional administrators demand of researchers proof of their productivity. Being unable to assess such productivity according to their own criteria (in general because they have none) they attach simple metrics to research activity which they use to rank researchers. The principal metrics are money secured in competitive grant programs and counts of papers indexed by some supposed authority. In the current moment, publishing in journals serves mainly to achieve the second goal.
Formal journal publishing generally adds little value from an intellectual point of view and generates obstacles (paywalls) to dissemination of ideas. Something like the ArXiv achieves wide, free, dissemination of knowledge in a rapid and easy way. The author can write an article according to the author's criteria and distribute it as the author sees fit. Sometimes the refereeing process adds value, when the referees and editors behave in a serious fashion, but more often they do not or the process simply delays dissemination.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: ### Slides and blog posts do *not* get more citations than journal papers.
You've given non-representative or invalid examples:
1. For the paper following a blog post: It's the ArXiv paper that has the citations, not the blog post.
2. For <NAME>'s course notes: Sometimes, professors arrange for a course-note-taking semesterial project which is intended to eventually produce a textbook. When this happens, notes are taken much more seriously, beefed up a lot of after class, go through round(s) of review by the professor or peer students, follow strict formatting guidelines etc. This is nothing like lecture slides. Also, textbooks != papers.
3. The "Notes on Convolutional Neural Networks" document is not a deck of lecture slides nor a blog post. The fact that it has "notes" in the title does not mean it is just some scribbles jotted down - it looks serious.
... so your premise is unsubstantiated. Actually, it's incorrect as far as a I know.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Apart from the overgeneralization in your premise, which was pointed out in other answers:
Blog posts and lecture slides don't carry the scientific authority of peer-reviewed and professionally edited publications like journals. Peer-review and the services of scientific editors serve as a vetting process to filter out publications that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. The vetting is performed by (usually two or three) qualified researchers on behalf of the scientific community. By contrast, the credibility of a blog post or lecture slide depends entirely on the reputation and trustworthiness of its author. Not only is this a less stringent criterion, it is also hard to assess for outsiders.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Is your primary goal really citations? Or is your primary goal to contribute in a substantive way to the research in your field?
In my fields (Physics & Engineering) journals articles are where the details of new research can be found, and are accessible for decades or centuries. It is not a rare to find important information in older published works. This is how the knowledge of human kind has been growing for centuries, and as a method of structuring academic information sharing, it works.
Even more, if you want to contribute something to this world, journal articles and the peer review structure have the permanence to allow your ideas and contribution to connect with others. It is true that newer media methods also can do this, but journal articles are a very concrete way to contribute for the long term.
However, if you do not want to contribute to the grand project of increasing human knowledge, and are instead interested only in increasing your citation count, why bother with peer review?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Journal publishing is about branding. There are three ways to create a successful mousetrap:
(a) Design the best mousetrap in the world and hope that the news spreads by word of mouth. If it's really outstanding, then you might succeed.
(b) Establish a reputation as the best designer of household gadgets in the world, so that people are actively looking out for your next idea.
(c) Advertise your mousetrap in a catalog produced by a well-known retailer, so that a proportion of people will buy it even it it's nothing special.
Exactly the same is true if you're a researcher peddling intellectual ideas. A very small number of people are capable of succeeding using approach (a) or (b). For the rest, the only way to get anywhere is approach (c) - where the retailer/brand in this case is the journal that you publish in.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: The "citation count" from Google Scholar is not a real citation count. It is automatically compiled, includes lots of false positives, duplicates, etc.
Also it counts citations from things like other lecture slides, blogs, etc. None of these will count for anything when you are applying for funding. Any sort of funding/hiring/promotion that wants to look at your citation count is only going to count:
1. Citations of your peer reviewed publications
2. from publications which are themselves peer reviewed.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/27
| 656
| 2,801
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had an on-campus interview for a tenure track assistant professor position in mathematics about 4 weeks ago. The interview seemed to go well, I felt I was well-received. I was told at the end of the interview that they had more interviews scheduled over "the next couple of weeks" and would then begin to make offers.
I interpreted this as two more weeks of interviews, meaning it's been two weeks since interviews have likely finished now. I have no idea how long it takes to prepare offers or when it is reasonable to ask for an update.
Not sure if it's relevant, but I am currently a Ph.D. student in mathematics, defending this semester, and have an unusually diverse teaching background (for a Ph.D. student anyway). This is a teaching-focused institution. I'm sure my competition is probably more experienced (not likely soon-to-be Ph.D.s like me, but rather people who have had post-doc experiences, etc.)
Is it reasonable to ask about the status of the search?<issue_comment>username_1: Yeah, sure. In addition to the info, it keeps your name top of mind and/or gives them a chance for additional discussion.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: It's possible that they simply haven't yet finalized their ranking, gotten approval, and made the first offer. It seems more likely or that they have done so and you weren't their first choice. You can certainly ask what the status of the search is, and they'll probably tell you whether or not an offer has been made, but don't expect to be told who has been made an offer or whether you're still in consideration.
If you are still under consideration and everyone ahead of you on the list turns down their offers, then you might get an offer later.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: While it is reasonable to ask, you should decide why you want to. If you have other options at the moment and are reaching the decision point you may need the information you might get. But if you are just wanting to calm your fears, then you really don't.
I doubt that you will get much information from a request unless one of a very small set of circumstances prevails. (Just got an acceptance, just about to make you an offer, ...). Otherwise you probably just get a form letter back: Thanks for your interest, process ongoing, ....
It is what it is. If they are at the stage of making offers, then they have probably prioritized the list of top choices. You won't learn whether you are on that list by asking, but if it goes on much longer you will learn one way or another. Most places will tell you soon after a final rejection, however, so you can assume, at least, that you still have a chance.
But if it is just to calm your nerves, I'd suggest patience and other calming exercises.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/27
| 1,068
| 4,809
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently reviewed an experimental molecular biology paper for a mid-tier journal. I found the work valuable but missing some important controls, and recommended a list of major and minor revisions. A few weeks after submitting my review, I received an e-mail from the journal notifying me that the manuscript has been accepted for publication without any details or explanation.
Given the very short time between submitting my revision and the acceptance, the manuscript was either accepted without any change or accepted with very minor changes. So essentially most or all of my review was ignored, and I did not get any information from the editor or authors.
I find this to be very annoying and will probably not review for this journal again. My feeling is that if I invest my time in reviewing for a journal, the editor can of course decide as they wish but if they decide to ignore my review they should offer some explanation. Otherwise I am just a "rubber stamp" used to say the manuscript was peer reviewed.
My question is whether this kind of behavior by the editor is reasonable in your view, and whether you would ask the editor for clarifications (I probably won't, as it seems a waste of time)?<issue_comment>username_1: While it is possible for reviewers to simply be ignored, I doubt that would be the case for a reputable journal. But, as you suggest, there may be a problem. But let me suggest that there are other explanations.
First, you don't know, really, that the "editor" is the actor here. And you don't know that your comments were ignored "without explanation". You might want to ask the editor about that, of course. But it may be that things just happened very fast - a few weeks. You don't mention that you have seen the paper, for example.
On the other hand my advice to authors is that (a) they should *consider every reviewer comment* for revision and (b) they maintain *ownership of the work* and all judgement about how to modify it. For those that take the advice, the implication is clear: you don't need to modify the paper based on any specific comment. But it is risky for that author to ignore too much that reviewers suggest and editors may not be amused by such behavior.
This can be a delicate dance, of course. A reviewer doesn't become a co-author. A reviewer just points out flaws and improvements from their own standpoint. An editor can, validly, choose to not include some reviewer comments to the author, though I suspect this is pretty rare.
But in addition to the author maintaining ownership of the paper, the editor maintains *ownership* (of a sort) over the journal contents. The editor can choose to accept (or reject) a paper at any stage to meet their own criteria.
So, a reviewer has ownership only over their own comments, not the paper, and not the journal.
Of course, you can choose not to work for them again, as there is little reward for it, but I'd suggest, at least, that you read the final version before deciding that you have a complaint.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Remember, your view of the process is incomplete. Don't jump to conclusions. For example, this could've happened: the editor sent the manuscript for revision, which the authors took a few weeks to perform. The editor was able to check the revision without needing your help, so they made a decision without inviting you to review the revision. You mention that given the "very short time" between you submitting the review and the decision, the paper must've been accepted without revisions, but "a few weeks" is not a short time.
Another, more drastic possibility is, during the review period the lead author died, and the none of the remaining authors were sufficiently motivated to perform the necessary controls. The paper then became a "either you publish this or it'll go unpublished" paper and the editor made the judgment call to publish it (you did say the work is valuable!).
I suggest saving your anger until after the paper is published. You can read it then and compare against the version you have. If you indeed find that the editor ignored your review, you can write to the editor then asking why they ignored your review.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think it can be reasonable. It is possible that the authors just rejected your criticisms (for example, because they did not have time to act on them), whereas the editor decided to accept the article because, according to you, it was valuable. I am not sure editors owe reviewers explanations of their decisions, as the rationale behind their decisions may be confidential. For example, their reasoning may be along the following lines: "Yes, the article is lousy, but not as lousy as my mid-tier journal":-)
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/27
| 350
| 1,499
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a status for my paper " a review is overdue" after 20 days of reviewing my paper, however it is mentioned in the web site that review takes 1 month. What does this means?<issue_comment>username_1: Normally there are several reviews that an editor will request and then gather so that a decision can be made. The decision itself will take some time. Most likely, the editor asked for a review, setting a deadline, and the reviewer didn't meet the deadline and so this is the response. The deadline set by the editor would be some days, at least, before the expected end of the review period.
On the other hand, stating that review takes a month is, for most journals, just a guess rather than a hard limit.
In effect, it is an internal thing, not something you need to take action on.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: This means a review is overdue: the editor invited a reviewer with a given deadline, which has passed. It seems the editor's deadline was only ~20 days. That's pretty fast, but since the website is claiming that review takes one month, it might be necessary.
The good news is the journal treats its authors well; many journals simply report your paper is "under review" and leave it at that until the decision is made. The bad news is, if the reviewer doesn't submit a review, your paper might take another month (or more) to process if the editor elects to invite more reviewers.
In any case there's nothing to do except wait.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/27
| 529
| 2,366
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have seen many professors also hold positions in industry, say Data Scientist at Uber or Machine Learning Manager at Google. How does this work? Do professors apply for these positions or do the companies reach out to them? Also, I know some of these professors take a break from being at the university and go work full time for a while before coming back, while others split their time between both. I am just curious if anyone knows/experienced how this process works.<issue_comment>username_1: Many possibilities:
Sabbaticals,
leaves of absence,
some Universities have "close" contacts with industry and some faculty have combined teaching / research roles...
Some engineering Universities really value faculty who have actually **done** real work and students appreciate that as well. Nothing like having someone talk about sensors and issues with sensors like getting temperature readings from a brake disc that is glowing red while spinning at 10K rpm... Compared to those "academics" that only ever push paper...
Some Universities even "use" final year engineering students to do funded research (their final year project) for particular issues using University machines as they have helped purchase said machines etc
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Many professors work on 'project-basis' anyway
----------------------------------------------
My experience is that many professors work on a 'project-basis' in any case. If you're a "research professor" then you often do *some* teaching, but that takes up the minority of your time. For everything else, you don't often have "hard employment" as in a full-time commitment to pay for arbitrary research, many universities don't really do that, but you have specific grants, specific projects that fund you (or some part-time of you - there often are multiple grant projects running at the same time) and a team to do some research.
In that context, there's little practical difference between a professor obtaining a grant that'll pay for half of their time for the next three years, a post-doc and two grad student research assistants, versus an industry contract that takes half of their time and allows them to lead a bunch of research assistants employed in that company (and some of them might defend a PhD thesis based on that work).
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/02/28
| 1,438
| 5,993
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently an Economics MA student doing a referee report on a paper that employs a dated empirical method. This particular method was originally created in 1980 but then improved upon in 1998 by other researchers, after they had discovered certain issues with it.
This got me thinking about how exactly those on the cutting edge of research seem to lag behind by over a decade (or more) in method and still manage to get published.
This is concerning because it shows that published researchers make mistakes and don't review all relevant research before publishing. I can imagine that in the hard sciences and medicine this would happen also, which is especially concerning knowing that those on the cutting edge could be decades behind in knowledge which has been around for a while.
Is this acceptable? If so, why?<issue_comment>username_1: What you are describing is not uncommon. In my field people still use methods developed 50 years ago. Some of these methods are still valid and have proven to be robust, some of these are flawed with known improvement, and some of these are down right logically inconsistent but people still use them because of inertia.
Whether using an outdated method is a critical flaw in a paper depends on many factors. But it eventually comes down to whether the flaw in the method invalidates the main conclusion. For example, if the main result is qualitative, and the improvement from the new method is incremental, then it's not a big deal. If the result is supported by multiple lines of evidence, then the fact that one of them is flawed is then less severe of a problem. If the method is known to fail in special cases and it is clear that the data do not fall into such cases, then it is also not a big concern.
Overall, for better or worse, people are going to be more forgiving if the newer method is not well known or the improvement is marginal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: What you call "an outdated method" another may call "the well-understood method".
In neuroscience, this is a very common occurrence. There are new techniques for analyzing different types of neural recordings coming out each month in a number of journals, and each one aims to improve on a specific aspect of a predecessor. Unfortunately, the new techniques are exactly that—new—and therefore untested against lots of data with different initial conditions. There are a good number of researchers who will simply ignore all the new techniques until people have developed them to a place of comfort. Even for those that do gain acceptance, they may not be appropriate for every type of analysis1.
I'm unfamiliar with your specific case, but I have seen similar concepts elsewhere in Econ, where older published techniques remain highly popular because (1) they're well-understood and (2) the new techniques were created to fix problems that not present in all databases, or not relevant for a given analysis. The old fogies sometimes do have something to offer.
---
1 In one case, a technique called DCM became widely popular in a very short period of time, and consequently was very quickly becoming widely misused. It got so bad that the authors actually published a paper titled "[Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2825373/)" with the goal of educating researchers how to use the technique. (Biomed researchers in general [don't have a great track record of performing world-class data analysis](https://www.h2mw.eu/redactionmedicale/2010/10/CMJ%2020%20stat%20errors_T%20Lang_2004.pdf), but thats a separate story...)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> I'm currently ... doing a referee report on a paper... [Author did X] Is this acceptable?
>
>
>
*You're the referee, so you tell us!*
As a referee you have the authority to use your discretion here and decide what kind of recommendation you want to give to the editor. You have identified that the authors use an outdated method of analysis that has some problems highlighted in later literature. You should point this out in your review, and you will then need to decide how big of an issue this is. Is the old method sufficiently poor that the method should be revised to the improved method from 1998? If so then perhaps a revise and resubmit might be appropriate (assuming other aspects of the paper are okay).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I would say that in it's own right, that a better method exists does not, and should not, invalidate research.
It might be worth noting that if: a better method exists, has been used, and provides strictly better results that an outdated method does little or nothing to improve upon, then that's a different story.
To reiterate, I would be very uncomfortable citing "could have done better", on it's own, as a rebuttal.
For what its worth, my field mostly involves computational modelling and new methods are a frequent occurrence. The entire field only ever publishing with the latest and greatest methods would be almost inconceivable, and perhaps that effects my opinion more than it should in other fields.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> This got me thinking about how exactly those on the cutting edge of
> research seem to lag behind by over a decade (or more) in method and
> still manage to get published.
>
>
>
This is not at all uncommon. It happens to many well-known techniques too.
Symbolic execution was invented in 1976. But it had been dead for decades until being resurrected around 2005 (thanks to significant advances in constraint solving). Now, it is popular, used in Google, Microsoft, NASA etc. All winning teams in DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge used it, the top team was bought by the Pentagon. What a comeback.
Similar story about neural network, it was crashed to dead by SVM (with kernel methods) years ago. It is now resurrected with a new fancy name: deep learning.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/28
| 1,057
| 4,769
|
<issue_start>username_0: The faculty interview is based on the context of a department stressing on industry interaction. When asked about how to buy lab equipments and find funding, may a theorist answer the search committee that he/she does theory work mostly and therefore doesn't need much money or experiment facilities to start up? Anyway, these questions are hard for the present graduate students and postdoc applicants to answer, as they have no chance to be exposed to these things.<issue_comment>username_1: My response would be that:
I am a theoretician and don't require external funding for my own work so the question has never come up before. Likewise I've never had to support students so that need has never arisen. Likewise a lab. However, I recognize that external funding is important and need to learn how to do that well.
Some of the people will have a hard time with this as their situation is different. Some places need to support students with external grants, so it can't be neglected. But new faculty are, by definition, inexperienced and people can understand that, even if it needs explaining.
But ask your advisor or other faculty members for pointers for at least the most likely sources of funds in your area.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you don't need lab equipment or space to do your research then just say so and explain what, if any, support you do need to conduct your research (e.g. travel funds, a desktop computer, a chalkboard, coffee, etc.)
If there is an expectation that you will bring in external funding to support graduate students, then you need to be prepared to respond to questions about possible sources of funding and how you will involve graduate student research assistants in your research in a way that will be considered appropriate by both the funding agency and your future institution. Not being prepared to answer this question could very well cost you the position.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I currently work with CS faculty of various subfields and used to work with Chemists. It's a super hard bridge between faculty and staff regardless of field. Staff may have a form to fill out, which seems not to apply to you, but the reason the form exists is because of a simple problem... if equipment is part of your lab.... then... a new set of questioning and forms may ensue, likely as a result of federal regulations (uniform guidance in the US).
There is nothing wrong with having no other direct costs. It's simply hard for some people (not used to your field) to envision, particularly if they normally support physical sciences. So the question for you is why are they asking the question? Is it in regards to capital equipment policies? Are they anticipating space issues?
Think of it this way, when you apply to the NSF (or other federal agency) for funding, they require a facilities page. If you don't have a fancy lab, you don't need to call it out. They read your science and then predict what facilities or resources may be required. For natural sciences, you need a lot. If you state that you have an office space, access to a research administrator, general administrator, and if needs are met, the reviewers should know if that is enough to complete the work. They are looking for mismatches. Don't say you are going to perform chemistry and not describe your lab.
For what it's worth, as a research administrator at a very prominent research university, I see theory folks given a million dollars at tenure. They have a much harder time spending the money than those in the natural sciences. I personally think that senior leadership does not truly understand the field (that's a multi-layered analysis). However, across the board, the theory faculty are getting the point across regarding value. They are our top paid, top startup faculty. I don't know how they negotiate, but they communicate their value.
Don't stress over the question of capital equipment. Think about what your needs are, what your expectations are. Our theory folks want small labs (contrary to wet labs). Think about how to explain the difference to administrators and deans alike. Think about how to explain your funding strategy. Which sponsors apply to you? What is an ideal lab size? What is the ideal postdoc:student ratio?
My best faculty are thoughtful, deliberate, organized, and prepared in everything they do, and that includes paperwork. Google your institution and read up on policies from the Office of Vice Provost. Demonstrate that you know what the playing field looks like and that your field is different. If you are confident in how to describe your field and its needs, more people will trust you know what you are asking for.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/02/28
| 1,389
| 6,101
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was recently appointed to the editorial board of an academic math journal. I'm excited about this position, and I want to do the best job I can. I have no experience with the role however, other than my interactions with journal editors as an author and reviewer.
What makes a good editor? Those of you who are academic journal editors, what do you wish you knew when you were just starting out?<issue_comment>username_1: Here's my advice to you, as a long-time member of editorial boards and, more recently, (co-)Editor-in-Chief: *Ask*!
Many of us get thrown into this role at one point or other in our lives, and think that we can figure things out, but the reality is that there will be many cases where you simply don't know for sure what to do. In that case, ask around. Ask your older colleagues who've had this role for a while. Ask your editor-in-chief. (In fact, you should have probably asked the questions in your post to your EiC to begin with!) Ask the other members of the editorial board. Don't try to muddle through by yourself, but use the resources you have and assume that the people around you are there to help you figure out what to do.
In addition to this, here are a couple of guidelines you should also follow:
* Act ethical: If it is conceivable that a reviewer you have in mind might have a conflict of interest on the paper, don't assign them. If you could possibly be conceived as having a conflict of interest yourself, ask the Editor-in-Chief to assign the paper to someone else.
* More than anything else, the reputation of the journal (and, by extension, *your* reputation as an editor) rests on whether you turn around papers within the timeline the journal strives for. You will frequently assign papers to reviewers who don't respond to your invitation; or who say that they will do the review, but then don't end up doing in a timely manner or at all. Don't let things drag on. Email them again. If they don't respond, call them. If you can't get a commitment from them, unassign them and assign the paper to another reviewer with the request to turn around the review in a shorter timeline (whatever time you have left after the delay). That will occasionally involve calling in a favor from a friend, and sometimes doing the review yourself. In any case, don't let things sit forever -- problems with timeliness don't tend to work themselves out magically.
* If you disagree with a reviewer when you make a decision (say, because the reviewer writes a rather short review and recommends publication; but you feel that the review is not of sufficient quality and want to discard it and instead go with the other reviewer who was more critical), then explain your decision. In fact, explain any of your decisions to both the authors and the Editor-in-Chief. People sometimes think of editorial boards as composed of these inscrutable people who nefariously make decisions in smoke-filled rooms based on their current mood; but in reality, editors just do the best they can with the information they have, and then forget to explain their thinking. In other words, whatever it is that's on your mind, *communicate* it to the people who might want to know, rather than letting them guess.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'd say the thing that I wished I knew most when I started handling journals is, **reviewers are fickle**.
* Don't expect that if you invite a reviewer, they will accept or decline. Some never respond. My personal guideline is to wait 7 days before concluding they won't respond and therefore invite new reviewers. You might need a different timeline, depending on your field.
* If reviewers accept, it's not a guarantee they will submit a review. My personal guideline is to wait 7 days after the deadline before giving up on the review ever being submitted.
* Per the above, if you want to be confident that a decision can be made on a paper, you'll need multiple reviewers who have agreed to review the manuscript.
* If a paper is taking a long time to process, the most likely person to remind you about it is the author (sadly).
I'd also recommend **getting familiar with the journal office**. After all, the journal staff is there to help. If you're lucky, you'll have a motivated desk editor who'll do everything possible to make your task easy, e.g. by configuring the editorial management system to suit you (e.g. what is the default time to give reviewers to submit reviews? What is the default reviewer invitation email supposed to look like? etc), reminding you about late papers, answer questions about processing time, potential special issues, and so on. Unfortunately there are some desk editors who'll simply do nothing unless explicitly instructed ... fingers crossed.
* Check your editorial management system to see if it sends automated reminders at a reasonable pace; if it doesn't, configure it to do so because it's a great help.
* If you have trouble using the editorial management system, ask the journal office. If you want to know statistics like "how long is our average time to first decision?", ask the journal office. There's a good chance the required data is stored by the editorial management system.
* Odds are, as an editorial board member, the publisher will be willing to do you small favours. So for example if you invite a review article or publish an article in the journal, the publisher might be willing to offer free open access or at least discount the price. However, you'll have to ask.
Finally, I suggest **making some personal guidelines** (similar to the two I mentioned above). Because I was handling so many papers, I found it difficult to remain unbiased. Guidelines helped me treat every paper on an equal footing so I didn't find myself waiting optimistically for a late review because I don't have any other reviewers, for example. I know one editor who waited six months for a late review. Poor authors - they continuously asked, and the editor continuously responded with "it's under review, be patient".
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/02/28
| 2,346
| 10,300
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently, my university has expressed that it wishes to enforce compliance with [Plan S](https://www.coalition-s.org/), an European-wide initiative to 'transition' towards open access publications, for all researchers employed by the university.
I think that while the plan has good intentions, the execution seems to ignore important features of the publication process in my field, and could be actively harmful for the development of my scientific career (I have a more detailed description of my concerns at the end of this post).
While I don't think I am the only one who would oppose this plan, nor that this concerns only phd students, I would like to have my objections to this plan heard or considered. It seems the university board would like to treat this as a 'done deal' (only shortly after announcement, in spite of initial resistance), and does not see keeping the status quo as an option.
How can I, as a (relatively new) phd student, most effectively lobby against this decision?
---
I have thought about the following methods, which I can easily do (and will do). However, I am unaware of their effectiveness.
* Contact the phd council of my department. These people are easily approachable, and should have more experience with influencing university policy than I have.
* Discuss the matter with my advisor. I'm sure my advisor would have an opinion here, and I think he would share some of my concerns, as this also affects senior researchers.
---
The main concern I have with this plan is that it seems to ignore the primary publication venue in my field (computer science): conferences. The workflow for publishing in my field is roughly as follows:
1. Submit to a conference.
2. Simultaneously to 1, publish a freely accessible pre-print on the arXiv.
3. If the conference paper was accepted and generally well-received, publish an extended version of the conference paper in a journal.
Many conference proceedings of top conferences in my field are not in open access and do not appear to be pressured by plan S to do so. (the entities that control these conferences include ACM, SIAM, and IEEE, who have quite a stake in closed-access proceedings and where the influence of European researchers does not seem to be particularly big.)
Plan S explicitly states that releasing freely available pre-prints is not enough to be compliant. This may make sense when publishing to non-open access *journals*, as it means the 'official' and hence mostly cited version of the publication is still not open access. However, publishing in *conferences* without open access proceeding does not have the same problem: For almost all important work, there will be a journal publication later, which can be open access. The journal version is the version that will usually get cited, rather than the conference version. In the mean time, any researcher can freely access the pre-print on the arXiv.
Note that disallowing publication at these venues also has the secondary effect that it hinders my option of *attending* these conferences. They are often held in North-America, and costs for travel+attendance are not cheap. It is therefore not easy to get sufficient funding to attend one of these conferences if you are not presenting or at least publishing something at the conference.<issue_comment>username_1: Plan S is explicitly meant to change the publishing practices of researchers, and the business model of publishers. This comes after decades of half-measures that did relatively little towards open access, and nothing to prevent subscription costs from increasing. Therefore, it will be difficult to convince your university and/or Coalition S to accommodate the existing practices in your field.
Some large American universities are committed to open access, irrespective of the field: for example [Harvard](https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies/), or the [University of California](https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/open-access-policy/). And the situation is evolving relatively fast. In this context, it may actually not be impossible to convince conferences to offer Plan S-compliant options. Lobbying for that would still be quite an effort: the first thing to do might be to contact well-known open access advocates in the field.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I have to admit that I am biased on this topic and that my opinion may not be the most popular, but I honestly think you are asking the wrong question.
Those who threaten science are not the research funders who signed Plan S or the institutions that take up these ideas, but the publishers who have been using science for commercial purposes for decades. Publicly funded scientists do most of the work in scientific publishing: they produce the scientific results and write the publications, they are the reviewers of the publications, they are often the editors and, in LaTeX times, they are usually also the typesetters. In addition, they are even the ones who consume the content in the end, whereby this is usually only possible because the libraries of their scientific institutions buy access to it at a high price, again with public money. Publishers have thus made enormous profits over decades out of science and public money, while scientists have lost most of their rights to their own publications through the signing of copyright transfer agreements.
With this knowledge in mind, your question might be rewritten:
>
> How can a PhD student lobby against **publishers** wide publication restrictions?
>
>
>
The answer to this question is a list of different approaches. There might be more approches than the ones I'm listing below.
* Ask the publisher for a Plan S compatible alternative before signing the copyright transfer agreement.
* Contact your library to see if any agreements are planned with the publisher that include Plan S compatibility for the conference(s) you want to attend.
+ If yes, ask when and how you can help.
+ If not, ask why not and what you can do to change that.
* Contact the organizers of the conferences you want or will attend with a request for a Plan S compatible publishing agreement.
Regarding your argument that
>
> Many conference proceedings of top conferences in my field are not in open access and do not appear to be pressured by plan S to do so.
>
>
>
you should keep in mind that the Open Access movement is progessing around the globe. Plan S is only a tiny bit of the whole story. Even US institutions are picking up these ideas. All bits together will in the end hopefully switsch scientific publishing to Open Access. Plan S is an approach to Open Access that tries to give scientist a more important standing while they are requesting fair publishing agreements.
I also want to address the following side note you made.
>
> For almost all important work, there will be a journal publication later, which can be open access. The journal version is the version that will usually get cited, rather than the conference version.
>
>
>
This highly depends on your very specific discipline. Most Computer Science disciplines I know are usually not publishing most conference publications later in a journal, in fact, it's vice-versa in these disciplines. Plan S covers all disciplines and their peer-reviewd publication which, in fact, makes it difficult to match perfect to each discipline but if the goal is to make all publicly funded research publicly available, also conference publications should be included.
If you think this is not an answer to your question, feel free to request deletion.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I've been to a European Plan S consultation, and the prime message they keep repeating is: they are looking for input on how best to achieve their goal of a full transition to immediate, copyright-preserving open access.
A lot of the input people gave their somewhat ignored that point, and therefore unfortunately in turn also gets ignored.
So, if you want to lobby against potential career impact, keep that in mind: the goal is paramount. That means that the most effective way would be to offer alternatives that do not impact your career as much, but will still allow them to achieve those goals in the same timelines.
That said, you are not the first to voice this concern, and wouldn't be the first to think of other ways (more specific than "do this slowly"). Hence, I think the realistic thing to do is to realise that these concerns have been weighed against the upsides, and that you adding a `+1` isn't going to change that.
However, I'd *also* realise that you're not the only one who might no longer publish at certain places, and not to underestimate how unwilling the publishers are to lose all of you. Plan S also hasn't come into effect yet, and publishers will have several years to transition, so I wouldn't worry too much about immediate impact now.
And otherwise, I'm afraid you'll have to look for other sources of funding, as the one who pays calls the shots...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I think you have very little ability to influence the university, as a new student. Even a very senior PI would just be one voice amongst many. Yeah, you could write articles or talk to the PIs or administration (who actually vote in departments and such). But the return on investment will be miniscule.
You have much more important things to work on (like your research) than the issue of what fads your university is getting involved in. New students are not usually swimming in completed research. This needs to be your focus.
Note this answer is irrespective of if Plan S is good or bad. I actually understand your position quite well and don't have a problem with it--you will get a lot of pushback here though since "open access is good" for the Internet oriented crowds, like you will find on a Q&A site. But again, my advice is irrelevant of if I think Plan S is good or not.
What you can do is "vote with your actions". The requirements have not been installed yet. So publish where you choose. (Of course this requires doing some research, not agitating on policies.) Even when/if it gets installed, you may find ways to get around it and publish where you like.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/02/28
| 913
| 2,620
|
<issue_start>username_0: I saw a strange sign on a door to a geophysics lab in a museum in Switzerland. I was really curious about what it means and wanted to know if anyone is familiar with this sign.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/usUNw.png)
Here's the full image of the door so you can see the context/type of work going on in the lab.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4UWsM.jpg)<issue_comment>username_1: I notice that the sign:
* Doesn't quite match the other signs for scale or style
* Isn't obvious in what it's communicating (unlike normal warning signs)
* Looks like a monster (apparently "We Must All Stop [ManBearPig](https://www.amazon.ca/CafePress-Stop-ManBearPig-Sticker-Bumper/dp/B00FOMU7N4)" from South Park):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OUqrK.png).
I conclude that it's a joke by the museum staff, much like this "[velociraptor-free workplace](https://peripatetic-life.blogspot.com/2017/01/velociraptor-safety-field-museum-chicago.html)" sign at the Field Museum in Chicago.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: ***tl;dr*-** It's [ManBearPig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig) from [*South Park*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park). In the future, you can look up stuff like this with a [reverse image search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_image_search), like [this one](https://www.tineye.com/search/3d9e0956af00af27cf41859cf3e593d5b1641825/).
---
If you find a strange indicator on a lab door, it may be easiest to do a [reverse image search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_image_search). It's sorta like Google'ing something, just you're querying with an image rather than words.
In this case, I tried [TinEye](https://www.tineye.com/), searching with the image you provided in the question,
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/usUNw.png),
by referring to its URL, `https://i.stack.imgur.com/usUNw.png`. The [search results page](https://www.tineye.com/search/3d9e0956af00af27cf41859cf3e593d5b1641825/) reveals that this is a warning about the infamous [ManBearPig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig), as previously documented in the series [*South Park*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park).
Obviously, this serves as not just a warning about the horrors of the existing monster, but to remind researchers about the potential hazards of their reckless tinkering in what man was not meant to meddle with.
Upvotes: 5
|
2019/03/01
| 1,574
| 6,797
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a master student, working for X lab of Y university as a research assistant.
3 months ago, a post-doc(my direct supervisor) recruited me into a project when he wanted to submit his paper within a month, telling me "You can coauthor if you join." Since then I worked overtime to finish exactly what he told me to do, implementing all his new ideas (but none of them worked).
Later he gave up previous submission, had the project updated a bit and now preparing submission to another conference in a month. Last week I asked "Am I on your author list?", only to get "Let me think about that." Project is almost finished currently, in terms of both experiments and writing.
Now I have no idea what to do, his reply sounds like a NO to me. To fight for that, I don't have any strong argument other than his vocal promise. My contribution is not direct, but a part of code he used was written by me (for another project), and I successfully implemented his new ideas.
Given such situation, should I ask him again for this authorship?
Or should I explain everything to PI? If then, how to?<issue_comment>username_1: This is an unfortunate situation. If your results invalidate the post-doc's idea, then most likely they will not be included in the paper, unless one can put a positive spin on it (e.g., "an obvious explanation for the observation is Z, but here we show that Z cannot be right and instead we propose that W is the true underlying mechanism"). In this case you have no claim to authorship, despite the work you've put in. In other words, the promise of authorship was implicitly contingent on the experiments yielding positive results supporting the hypotheses advanced in the paper.
If the current manuscript is based in part on the code you wrote, then there is a case to be made that you should be an author. But I'm always of the opinion that writing some code is a weak argument for being an author, unless there is some novelty or substantial effort on your part.
Note that the post-doc said that they will consider your authorship request. You interpreted that as a no, but that seems to me an unwarranted and premature conclusion. You should have a constructive conversation with them to try to resolve the issue collegially. This kind of situations will pop up in the future, and it is a good skill to learn how to address them. Even if you get nothing out of it in the end, just remember that in the grand scheme of things it's not really a big deal and you'll forget it in (hopefully) a couple of months.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you have a pretty strong case to be on the author's list. First of all, this postdoc actually promised you you could be on the author's list if you helped him out and he should keep his word. Also, helping him implement his ideas, whether this leads to showing the ideas are correct or not, is something that can be credited with co-authorship.
Talk to him and if he's hesitant or negative, use the above arguments to make your case. You can also go to the PI directly and ask whether this situation, in their eyes, would warrant co-authorship.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Why should you be included as an author when you, by your own admission, have not made a direct contribution?
Yes, you helped him with the previous version of the paper, but that won't make it into the current version, so naturally, you are not to be listed as an author. How is this not obvious? It is also unfair of you to hold him to his past promise of including you as a co-author: obviously that promise was made under the assumption that your contributions would actually make it into the paper. Since that is not the case, you are, by definition, not an author.
However, you *have* contributed still, in the sense that your work was helpful and important to the authors. Therefore, you might (and should) be honorably mentioned in the acknowledgement section of the paper.
However, I stress that if you have not directly contributed to the content of a paper, you are not an author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I think he should try to get you onto the paper. And you should push for it. First by telling him how you feel (you think you made a contribution and should be on there). Second by threatening to escalate things. Third by actually escalating things (make a stink: complaining to his boss, file a grievance with department and university, write to journal he submits to, etc.)
[Note that the third case, can reverberate against you, but there is a game theoretical aspect to this...people need to realize they can't step on a bee or they will get stung...you need to show you are not a pushover. Plus it will eat at you if you don't fight. Possibly the tangible threat is enough to avert these cars crashing and you get your satisfaction before needing to "go nuclear". But if you threaten something, do it.]
1. First, let's be honest and admit that the VAST majority (well over 90% in my experience) of experimental science papers are carrying professor advisors who did not make a significant scientific contribution (would not have been included if this were a work supervisor situation or if the amount of work had been another student). Yes, the culture requires and expects this (even for grants and faculty bonuses). But let's not ignore them not making contributions and being on the articles.
2. Second, there are ways the author can take care of you. Even just a few sentences on scenarios ruled out, with or without details, means that he has included your work into the paper (and you now have a contribution justifying your byline). A science report is not an organic baby being birthed with an inherent DNA/structure. There is often some reasonable choice about including or excluding different measurements or experiments into a given report. As an author who has gotten some work out of a collaborator, I would feel an obligation to try to (if at all feasible) shoehorn some of collaborator work into a general study (even if it did not end up being super important after done) in order to "take care of them", if I had asked them to help me.
P.s. We hear these sad stories a lot. You need to try to avoid these situations by nailing down expectations better (ask three times, be very direct). If you get a brushoff or a "we'll see", DON'T DO THE WORK. This becomes most important at the start of a collaboration. Of course you should also use your judgment of who to work with (and while academics are not generally snakes, they're also not generally saints either.) Penultimately, try to lead collaborations and be the first author, if possible. Finally, you should make sure to take care of your collaborators when you are the project lead.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/03/01
| 687
| 2,857
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been working for one of the big tech companies for the last year, but I plan on leaving in August to start a Ph.D. The company I work for has a reputation for not always treating all of its employees well under all circumstances (e.g. making people they don't like miserable until they quit), so I am very wary about letting anyone know of my plans to leave until two weeks beforehand. On the other hand, I have a manager and mentor that have done a lot to help me in my current job, and I have good relationships with them that I would like to keep. Leaving with only two weeks notice will certainly have a negative impact on both of them, and I would like to avoid that if possible.
other relevant details:
* I don't think any of the coworkers in question would support my decision to do a Ph.D., as the way to get higher up in this company is to stay in it, not to leave to get a Ph.D.
* I don't ever plan on returning to industry, but it still seems like a bad idea to burn bridges
Can I ensure no negative impact on my coworkers while also ensuring no negative impact on myself?<issue_comment>username_1: Be sure to consult your employment contract.
The professional thing to do is to give two weeks notice. It is your manager's job to be prepared for the departure of employees. You are not responsible for that job beyond giving the two weeks notice.
If the company treats you poorly during the two week notice period, all you can do is offer to leave immediately. In that case you may loose two weeks pay.
Thank your manager for mentoring.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Just give them the two weeks, given what you say about the company.\* People get hired away by competitors in tech all the time for more money and leave with 2 weeks (or often zero) notice. Your managers won't be happy to lose you. But it's not even as annoying as going to a competitor.
Really, companies have people leave all the time. Just be pleasant and professional. But don't overthink it.
\*I gave three months but I worked for a much cozier company and had savings, etc. so that I was happy with leaving immediately if they had reacted badly. [Instead they just forgot I was leaving until 2 days before my exit!]
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: You have worded this such that it is impossible to guarantee everything you want. However it does seems rather one-sided to me; if you give short notice, their difficulties are assured. While if you give long notice, you only have rumors and worries about a potential for some spiteful behavior.
Either way though, I disagree with other posters. The danger here is hardly worth mentioning. If you care about your co-workers, just suck it up and give them the notice they need (a few months perhaps). Doing others a favor can expose you to risks sometimes.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/03/01
| 3,860
| 16,599
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work in a lab where we conduct research on data acquire from human subjects. As we investigate the effects of different diseases and the related treatments, the data is highly sensitive in regards to data protection.
Most of the lab members work with Windows 10 and I am supposed to set up additional Windows 10 PCs. I have serious concerns about this as Windows 10 is known for sharing much data with Microsoft, e.g. every file which is related to a software crash may or may not be send to Microsoft and thereby unintentionally sharing sensitive health related information with Microsoft.
When mentioning these issues, they are usually waved aside with arguments like "nobody else cares about that" or "this would slow down our work". In general is there very little interest in data protection and the associated risks.
I know the risk of a data leak actually having a effect is rather small, yet I'd like to know how to back myself up in this situation. Should things for whatever reason go sour, I'd like to be on the safe side.
I am in a PhD position actually hired for doing research. Yet due to my background in computer science, I am 'officially' responsible for everything related in our lab to electronic data processing.<issue_comment>username_1: The way I read your question is that you are not responsible for data protection but responsible for setting up Windows PCs. In that case I would share your concerns in an email to your group leader so that you have a (virtual) paper trail, and ask them whether they'd like you to set up the Windows PCs nevertheless or whether they'd like you to look for another solution.
Of course, if your actual responsibility is data protection and they are ignoring the very thing they've hired you for, you should probably start looking for another place to work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Make sure your advice is actually based on solid facts, and consider which are the most likely ways the data could leak out. Find out exactly what Windows 10 could report to Microsoft, and whether that is a real issue in your case.
Find out the actual regulations and laws about this in your country and maybe also university rules, if they exist. Being able to point to specific regulation is useful for such arguments.
In a typical academic settings, you probably don't have the means to really lock down stuff. I would focus on the most dangerous and common ways the computers could be compromised, Microsoft is far, far at the end of those worries in my opinion. I would mostly worry about the following cases:
* people taking the data home or on their private computers
* computers being compromised by malware
* computers, hard drives or USB drives being stolen or lost
You're focusing on a very remote and unlikely threat, that makes it much easier to dismiss your arguments. Focus on realistic and plausible threats, and be prepared to still fight an uphill battle.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Should things for whatever reason go sour, I'd like to be on the safe side.
>
>
>
The question is what you want to protect against - a lawsuit directed at you, or being let go?
My suspicion (but I'm not a lawyer, obviously) is that there is very little danger of the former and close to no real protection against the latter.
The uncomfortable reality is that many people (in academia and outside) are not so much hiring an employee rather than buying insurance when filling roles such as for a data protection responsible (same with certain certifications in industry). They know (or at least strongly suspect) that what they do is not legal, don't want to change, and look for somebody who they can point to when things go south.
If any real legal trouble ever arises from the data protection issue, I fully suspect that it will be targeted at the university rather than individuals working there - and even if it is targeted at specific persons, it will be the managers in charge, not a lab technician with no authority to change the behavior of other employees. *However*, there is a very good chance that internally you will still be made the scapegoat (up to and including being let go), if for no other reason than that sh\*t tends to roll downhill. In my experience with university management structures, no amount of paper trail can really protect you from this.
Of course you still *should* try as hard as you can to inform your lab on any relevant issues that you see, but given that you have no authority over them it will have to take the form of advise rather than strict rules. Being on good terms with the team (and having great soft skills) is probably your best bet of actually making a difference. It may also pay to be pragmatic here, and address big threats that don't require too much sacrifice from your team - the InfoSec Stack Exchange may be a very good resource to get information on what these might be (I suspect the usage of Windows is *not* one of these cases).
**Note:** there are jobs were you end up *personally responsible* for certain kinds of problems (functional safety in automotive is an example that comes to mind). However, these are typically characterized in that you need explicit qualifications to even be legally allowed to carry out this job. A company cannot just appoint a random engineer to now be legally responsible for safety certification. Part of the mandatory training for such jobs is also explicit information on what you end up responsible for, and what the expected course of action in case of non-compliance is.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: There is a trove of documents *from Microsoft* with advice on GDPR compliance, such as "[Windows and the GDPR: Information for IT Administrators and Decision Makers](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy/gdpr-it-guidance)" and has a pretty thorough explanation of what data moves where.
According to the document itself, it takes 17 minutes to read. I think you'll feel better after you've done so.
There's a lot of paranoia about Microsoft, some of it possibly justified, but the hard fact is that MS cannot afford to ignore the GDPR or, in the U.S., HIPAA.
I did read the answer in Information Security SE, and did not find it helpful; the quotation from MS has to do with disclosure of data *as required by law or legal process.*
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Edit: I think I should add a little more background. I am in a PhD position actually hired for doing research. Yet due to my background in computer science, I am 'officially' responsible for everything related in our lab to electronic data processing.
>
>
>
First, I think there is a serious management issue in your lab: leaving the responsibility of data protection to a PhD student is completely unprofessional. As a PhD student you could certainly have a technical advisory role, but it must be a permanent member of the institution who has the official responsibility. If a problem arises, whoever put you in charge of this will certainly have to explain why they thought it was appropriate. The good news for you is that it's very unlikely you would be considered legally responsible anyway (usual disclaimer: IANAL).
Second, skills in computer science [edited] might be useful but are certainly not sufficient when it comes to the legal and ethical concerns of data protection, especially with sensitive data on human subjects. Even with the best intention, you simply don't have the legal background. Whose job it is then? There are several options, probably not in your lab but at the level of your university/institution:
* The IT department: that's the ones you ask about software vulnerabilities and recommendations regarding data protection.
* The ethics committee: you can ask them for guidelines about the appropriate level of protection required for specific human subjects data. Btw normally whoever in your lab who works with this kind of data should get ethics approval before they start their project.
* The data protection office or if not present the legal office: they can inform you and your colleagues about their legal duties regarding the human subjects data.
These departments in your institution have the professional skills and legal responsibility. You protect yourself by asking their advice and following it: if they say that Windows 10 is fine, you are off the hook. If they say it's not safe, your only job is to convey their recommendation to your colleagues, mentioning where it comes from.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: Your university should have some sort of data privacy compliance office. You absolutely need to talk to them. Well-meaning advice from strangers on the internet is great for giving you an idea of what the issues are but there is potential legal liability for the university here and you *must* talk to the people whose job it is to manage these issues.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: You have stated in the comments that you are in Europe, and are thus subject to the GDPR.
Since you are collecting sensitive information, there should be a formal process for the collection and management of that information, including what information is collected, for what purposes, how long it's kept, how it's protected, etc. All of this is required to be shared with anyone whose data you collect, before you do so.
There should also be a person who is actually officially responsible for this (the DPO), which should be listed in that statement.
Refer to that person. They are the person who is actually responsible, not you.
If you do not have those policies and procedures in place, then you should alert your manager to this fact and to the consequences it may have. Put it in writing, so your a\*\* is covered.
If you think your institution is in breach of its obligations and won't do anything to address them, there's of course the option of reporting it to the relevant authorities, with all the consequences this may have for all parties involved (including you, of course — one cannot ignore how whistleblowers often end up).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: To answer your question, explicitly asking "*What to do when your advice is ignored*", I highly suggest the **CYA-acronym**: **C**over **Y**our **A**ss.
As you are (I suppose) not in a management-role you most likely have limited means to actually enforce the advice you provide, but to prevent the blame rolling down you should take means to document your activities. Maybe the most important measure here is to leave a paper trail.
For example you could write an email to your supervisor:
>
> Dear XY,
>
>
> After some research on the matter I advice our Lab not to use Windows 10 because of concerns regarding Windows telemetry data. (...) Instead I advice to use XYZ by ABC.
>
>
> With best regards, ...
>
>
>
This will not only serve as a proof for you, but might also make your manager consider this proposal more. If he/she realizes, that he now is responsible if things go down the drain - he might be less inclined to just ignore you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: >
> What to do when being responsible for data protection in your lab, yet advice is ignored?
>
>
>
If you are really *responsible*, and if you live in a jurisdiction where data protection has "teeth" (i.e., EU/GDPR), then you have the power to shut down whatever uncompliant behaviour there is. You can basically do whatever (shut down PCs, turn off routers, etc.) - obviously this is the last ressort, not the first reaction, and before you do that, there are some other things you need to do: for example, inform your colleagues; write down guidelines; get the backing of your stakeholders, do informational/teaching sessions etc.
If you do not do all of that (or your colleagues deny any conformance), starting with the easy stuff, but eventually escalating, then you should really drop that role of "being responsible".
The GDPR actually defines [specific roles](https://advisera.com/eugdpracademy/knowledgebase/key-roles-defined-in-eu-gdpr/) related to data protection. Depending on where you live, your country might have other such definitions (or maybe none at all, but then you would probably not be asking this question). So if you happen to fulfill the role of Data Protection Officer, then you have the power and responsibility to *act*.
If all of this is not true, and you are simply a normal worker bee, then your actual responsibility is to a) do whatever your DPO says and requires and b) flag violations of law to your DPO or other stakeholders - if your DPO does not care, you might go further up the ladder, but frankly, whether to do that is your personal choice; if you make any transgressions visible to the persons actually in charge (keep a paper trail, maybe put your own supervisor in Cc etc.), then you personally should be fine.
EDIT: I was confused from the question's title which contains the word "responsible". In OP's specific case, only my last paragraph applies. I'll let the rest stand in case someone needs this who is *actually* "R" responsible (in the sense of RACI). *OP*, your best bet is to work on not being viewed responsible for something which you have no influence over. Talk with your superiour, and get their advice how to do that without burning bridges ("Hey coach, it seems like everybody thinks I'm our data security guy, but they have to get their stuff together themselves, I cannot babysit them..." etc.).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: Talk to the advisor. If he won't back you up, step out of the position.
It is very common that university lab groups don't really follow proper policies in safety, data security, confidentiality, software copyrights, etc. Industry is not perfect either but usually a lot more compliant than university lab groups.
I was safety "officer" for my lab group. Checking on standards, inspecting the eyewash periodically, etc. Found clear things we were doing wrong but advisor was not interested in backing me up (thought I was being too strict...but I came from an industry background and had seen people get hurt and was used to more attention.) We ended up having a fire in an area that I had already identified as deficient but with people who didn't want to fix stuff. I told the PI after that, that it was his lab and he needed to be responsible and I refused to be associated with lab safety given his attitude. (He said fine and someone else went and checked the eyewashes.)
Maybe you don't need to be as confrontational, but I would give very serious consideration to just refusing to perform the collateral duty when people don't take it seriously and the PI doesn't back you up.
I don't know about data protection but from what I have seen in safety, I suspect it is same problem. Safety has had extensive studies and writeups and academic labs have ~10 times the incidents of industrial research labs. I personally knew two people with grievous time lost incidents from solvent fires in uni lab (faces burned off and months in hospital) and never saw this in a large company CRD. Professors will occasionally blame the students but bottom line is PIs are not held accountable the way managers are in a company. Students are valued less than employees are, etc. And it's not going to change and hasn't for decades. So really you are better off just disassociating yourself. And keeping your own gear safe and compliant.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: If you're highly concerned about telemetry and information leakage, and you have the necessary rights to perform administrative tasks on the equipment your lab uses, I'd suggest a telemetry-blocking app, though I urge you to test and scrutinize it before any sort of deployment. Personally, I'm a fan of [BlackBird](https://www.getblackbird.net), but be wary of its functionality-canceling effects (Location awareness, LAN etc.). Again, study and test such software beforehand.
But I want to mention another aspect of data protection, not in the sense of *privacy*, but of *data integrity*.
I would not in a million years be caught using Windows for data-sensitive work because I and many others have been the victims of Windows and its apps' (e.g. OneDrive) tendency to delete user files without notice (permanently, bypassing the Recycle Bin). See the [1809 update](https://www.extremetech.com/computing/279368-windows-10-1809-may-have-another-file-deleting-bug-problem) for a more recent example; there are plenty others.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/03/01
| 425
| 1,795
|
<issue_start>username_0: For an article that I want to publish, I would like to report the results from a survey in a table format but I do not know if I should put Zero or just a blank space/dash (-) whenever the score/percentage is zero. I cannot find any requirements from the journal concerning this issue. I cannot find any articles from that journal that would help me with this issue. How should I proceed? Any ideas?<issue_comment>username_1: If there is no guidance from the journal, use your own judgement. Look at several versions. A table showing insignificant (i.e. zero) results could be "busy" if there are a lot, but otherwise just fine.
Choose a version that makes it as easy as possible for the reader to grasp the important results.
Among other things, consider what happens if the table gets split over multiple printed pages. Make sure that it is easy to see which result in the body matches with labels and such in the margins.
If you break any of the journal's rules accidentally, I'm pretty sure you will be asked for an alternate version. Reviewers may comment as well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Use a zero. A dash or blank space could be misinterpreted as 'not applicable' or 'missing data'.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Use a zero if that is just the numerical answer. (E.g. Number of Nobel Prizes won by poster username_3.) Use a dash or preferably something like "not applicable" or "not measured" (abbreviated) if that is more the case.
Note, I do use - in some PPT tables in a business setting. But, I don't think they are optimal in a technical report. Try to be more precise (but still terse). You are writing for archived technical literature and you want people to understand if the answer was zero or just not measured.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/03/01
| 983
| 3,949
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. I have already completed my 5 years, am writing my thesis and will be submitting my thesis in 4 months. I have published 1 paper till now. That was 2 years ago. Till then, I have completed 3 more manuscripts, but my supervisor does not have the time to go through them and approve them. As a result, I have manuscripts around 2 years old waiting to get submitted and published.
My supervisor is great with meetings, guidance and advice, but she is frustrating me with her lethargy in correcting my manuscripts. This has made me very anxious about my future. My work is quite different than what is being published at the moment in my field. So, I think my manuscripts would still find a place in a reputed journal in my area of research. However, I can't be very sure of that until I actually submit the drafts. Also, I can't just go behind her back and submit the manuscripts as I don't want to sour my relationship with her.
I am not able to apply for a postdoc position as I am sure that I won't get any response without having any published works. I will be submitting my thesis by end of June. I will defend this fall. But, I don't know what I will do next.
I have applied to various industry positions and have got rejections. I don't think that I will land any position soon.
My question is, what are my career prospects at the moment? And what would the best course of action for me at the moment?
I am almost 30, been in school for Masters and PhD for the past decade. I am feeling quite hopeless. Ideally, I would like to stay in academia as I love doing research and teaching. But, I find that future dissolving away in uncertainty.<issue_comment>username_1: Except for the difficulties in getting your advisor to respond to you, nothing you say seems unusual. Even that is too common, though. But your age, etc. is pretty typical, or at least not far outside the norm.
But I think that if you can unblock the block that you will be in good shape career wise. Your difficulties with industry could be a lot of unrelated things, and you haven't really tested yourself yet in the academic marketplace.
If you want a career in academia, I suggest you start a search, either as a post-doc or a regular position. You have a lot of work-in-progress to point to which is a point in your favor. I wouldn't wait until you get the block cleared and then something submitted and accepted. It will take to long, but, I suspect, not be judged fundamentally differently than work in progress.
The only issue I see is your "out of the mainstream" research interests. You will need to find a way to present that as an advantage, not a disadvantage. As Apple used to say, *Think Different*.
There is, I think, no reason to do the two things sequentially: advisor, job-search. Work on both in parallel.
On the advisor front, however, you might want to make it more incremental. Rather than "all these papers", focus on getting just one out the door and then repeat as needed.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You can list the papers as "in preparation" on a pub list. Not perfect but something.
You need to get those other two papers out.
One, write the version you would submit without any editorial input from your professor. You should do this regardless. Always do your best job first, before someone else. You need to become independent. Do not just make some graphs and some junky text and expect the professor to rewrite it. Do the paper you would submit directly to the journal if you were the PI. Proof the heck out of it. Read the notice to authors and make a checklist from it. Etc.
Two, provide the papers are "good to go" (in your estimation), than bust them out. Tell the advisor you think they are good to go (as is) and you want to submit them. Argue. Beat on the table. If needed, get other people involved (but have a tete a tete first).
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/03/01
| 487
| 2,101
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an assistant professor of mathematics (and pursuing in service Ph.D in mathematics ) a non native English speaker. I was not bad at English during my school days. Gradually, my effeciancy in speaking English seems to have gone down badly through years of pursuing mathematics (a dry subject without language). How do i improve myself now with minimum time and effort?<issue_comment>username_1: I think minimum time and effort as a goal will defeat you. They are also somewhat inconsistent. To reduce the time (a bit) take a course in speaking that forces you to actually do it. But that takes effort. To reduce effort, just practice as you go along, increasing time.
But the way to learn to do pretty much anything is to practice it and get feedback. In the case of teaching, if you are doing so in small classes, you can just inform students that you aren't a native speaker and are open to being corrected. But that takes a bit of courage and isn't without risk.
If you are in a situation in which you can speak your native language, then try to resist doing so as much as is possible (and polite). Force yourself to speak English in all possible situations.
You can ask colleagues to correct you if you trust them, of course. Again, it takes some courage and patience both from you and them.
If you asked how can I become an Olympic Swimmer with minimal time and effort, the answer would be "You can't". It is similar here.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is an organization called [Toastmasters](https://www.toastmasters.org), which aims to help people improve their public speaking through practice. It's organized in local clubs, which have membership fees (they're usually not very costly). You could consider [finding](https://www.toastmasters.org/find-a-club) a local Toastmasters club and joining it (note that different clubs may have membership restrictions). The activities usually center around people delivering short speeches and responding to impromptu questions. Toastmasters appears to be international.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/03/01
| 888
| 3,928
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am soon submitting my first paper to a journal (in the humanities) and am unsure of the proper etiquette/practices of doing this. Some questions I have are:
1. Do I include the acknowledgements in the initial manuscript I submit, or should these be added after review and acceptance?
2. Is it appropriate to thank professors who have given general good writing and research advice (during office hours and emails instigated by me) when they did not specifically relate to the content of my paper (but have been helpful in the writing and research of it)?
3. Do I need to notify people I am planning to thank in advance? For example, if I received constructive feedback from a noteworthy person in my field, could it be potentially damaging to their high reputation if someone (new) like me thanks them?
4. Do I need to thank my home university when most of the research has been conducted during time off between BA graduation and MA program acceptance?<issue_comment>username_1: You should probably include the acknowledgements in the original article so as to get a little feedback on that from the journal in case you overdo it.
The most important thing is to thank anyone or any organization that contributed directly to your work. That might include your university. I wouldn't, personally, have any objection to general thanks to your professors, but a journal might.
It isn't really necessary to inform people that you will ack them but you might want to send a copy of your submission (or the final version) to them with your personal thanks. I think that specifically thanking a superstar is a good thing, actually, and may someday come back to your benefit. It can strengthen your circle of contacts in any case. So, not necessary, but fine to do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. Include it in the submitted draft.
2. I have included people who made supporting technical discussions (when I was working out of a field). I never got any writing help because I like to control the text. But if there was substantial writing help, I would definitely thank the people. Perhaps in time, this will be overdone, but in general I find very few papers with these types of personal acknowledgements so I don't think editors need to prune much, yet.
3. Yes. Just tell them you plan to acknowledge. I would not bother sending a preprint unless they request it. 99% of the time, they will just say "thanks". You do have a responsibility here to not surprise them, though.
4. Probably not, but it depends on the details. Sounds like you weren't funded by them or using their equipment. But if in doubt (e.g. some funding, some equipment use), better to acknowledge them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think [JAMA](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/pages/instructions-for-authors#SecAcknowledgmentSection) sets out some really nice guidelines of who, when and how to acknowledge people:
>
> All other persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (eg, data collection, analysis, and writing or editing assistance) but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria should be named with their specific contributions in an Acknowledgment in the manuscript.
>
>
> Authors must obtain written permission to include the names of all individuals included in the Acknowledgment section, and the corresponding author must confirm that such permission has been obtained in the Authorship Form.
>
>
>
I personally like the idea that people being acknowledged need to be contacted as it gives them the chance to make a case for authorship. It also prevents attaching someone's name to something that they do not agree with.
If the journal uses double-blind reviewing, I would omit the names from the acknowledgement section during the review process, but leave the content intact. Otherwise, just leave it in there.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/03/01
| 788
| 3,456
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working on two projects now and both of them have similar methods. What if I write the same text in the method part? Will it be count as plagiarism? I am almost finished working on them and both of them will be submitted in a different journal(one already accepted; under review, another one will be submitted soon)<issue_comment>username_1: I have repeated the experimental method text a lot.
Sometimes you can just cite another paper (samples prepared as described in X) but that can be inconvenient for various reasons. The method may not be very long so it is inconvenient to send reader to another paper. Or sometimes both papers are simultaneous submissions. I don't mind a citation to an "in press" or "in review" paper when you really need to--but in this case, you could and maybe should just share the details. Another case is when only small details are different. And, yes, sometimes you can say "as described in X with variations Y" but this can also become a real dog's breakfast and mystery hunt, requiring a lot of back and forth to the X paper while reading current paper.
If you want to really CYA, you could do something like, "the chemical synthesis is similar to that used in other study(ies) [citation]. And then go ahead and give the whole method.
But really, I don't think anyone will question same author recycling method text or even some intro background text. For the people who follow the area well, they are going to concentrate more on the results, regardless, and be able to skim past stuff they have seen before. For others who haven't read the whole set of papers, it can be convenient to have the methods there instead of some dog's breakfast of back forth citations.
Really...I would emphasize what you think serves the reader best. If a cite to another paper works better use that. If having the info there works better use that. I think you generally can have a hunch on this.
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Reusing the text from a previous paper in a new paper is a form of "self-plagiarism" that publishers are increasingly unwilling to accept. It's true that this was a relatively common practice in the past, but the advent of plagiarism detection software has made this practice visible and publishers are starting to crack down on it.
One reason for this is that publishers want to publish "original" content and not repeat previously published material. Another reason for this is that publishers want to avoid violating copyrights owned by other publishers- the publisher of the first paper could easily sue the publisher of the second paper for copyright violation.
The way things now, chances are that when you submit the later paper you'll have it sent back to you with instructions to remove the self-plagiarism before the journal will review the paper.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Whenever "Self-Plagiarism" is a concern, you need to ask yourself
>
> What is the main contribution to the community of this paper?
>
>
>
Recycling background and methodology text are probably ok. Hopefully, your methodology isn't changing that much from experiment to experiment. Academics spend years repeating the same experiments, usually only changing a few things.
From your question, it sounds like you will have a different data set per paper, which is almost certain to mean each paper can stand on its own contributions.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/03/01
| 2,636
| 10,913
|
<issue_start>username_0: Probably this concern has been addressed several times here but I will give a try to get other people's perspective from my situation. I am feeling sort of hopeless these times.
I am in my last year of my PhD in mathematics and doing my dissertation soon, my research was mainly devoted to algebraic topology and I made some progress in my advisor's particular area. However, I faced some problems during my studies (personal issues) and I never built a strong relationship with my advisor; so I could not finish all the initial research proposal intended for my PhD thesis.
I recently had a sincere talk with my advisor about my future, and he said that my progress is worth for a PhD thesis but it is not anything very surprising that is worth publishing, so I will be graduating with zero publications. He said that my chances of getting a PostDoc positions are really low and that I can not expect a strong recommendation letter from him. My advisor has a few collaborators (from overseas mainly) and none in the local department. He also never supervised another Master or PhD student while I was under his supervision, then I never got a chance to network or engage properly with other classmates. My advisor kindly suggested to explore other options in the job-market besides academia.
I like to explore new things, and in my free time during my studies I attended several teaching workshops, seminars and courses (I got a small degree in "university teaching"), and I am also familiar with Python, R, Matlab and Sage; however, I learn those things for fun and I have never really worked in
a big project using any of that.
*I do not know what to focus on and what kind of job should I look for after I finish my PhD*
I would like to keep doing research in Math, but my area is not very popular lately and I feel that I have no chances of succeed getting a PostDoc; I also feel that I do not have (demonstrable) skills to perform a job with "real-life" applications so probably my chances getting there are also low. And I do not really know the Teaching job-market, I think that those positions are temporary and it would be hard to find a place that is willing to sponsor a work visa (I am not a US-citizen, and the job market in the third-world country that I am from is nonexistent for PhD's in this area)<issue_comment>username_1: While a position at a top research institution may not be in your immediate future there are things you can do, up to and including proving that your advisor is wrong.
You don't actually need a faculty position to do research or publish in math but, in my experience, you do need a circle of collaborators. You indicate that you don't have that, but it would be good to start to develop it. Attendance at conferences is a good way in computer science, at least. Meet people, speak with them about ideas, and such.
There are also many teaching colleges around the world that value good math teaching over research. Almost all will require some, but many emphasize teaching the next generation over serious research. The MAA, for example, is full of people who, while doing research, focus much of their efforts on teaching.
And, of course, teaching at pre-college level is also open to you. You may find yourself overqualified for this, but it can make a satisfying life if you value teaching.
But, you can put it together if you have the willingness to do so. A lower level position, while developing mathematical ideas within a circle of collaborators can put you on a path to a better position, proving your advisor wrong in the long term if not immediately.
If your advisor is actually inexperienced at this he may be making a mistake in his analysis and also in his general advising. In particular, his assessment that you can't publish what you've done might just be wrong. You won't know unless you try.
Your life is what you make it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your supervisor is honest, blunt, and very helpful because by ruling out the academic path he's saving you a lot of time.
The bad news is it sounds like you screwed up your PhD. Not getting strong research results, not having diversified your PhD experience (e.g. lack of teaching experience makes it harder for you to get a teaching job), and not having a firm idea of what you want to do after the PhD means you sound lost right now. The good news is, chances are you learned more than you think you did, and those things are applicable to the job market.
**First**: don't think you have to do research. It is what you've been doing for the PhD, but it's not what you *have* to do in the future. Just consider this: if you like research + are good at it, why didn't you do better in the PhD? Why weren't you able to complete the initial research proposals, why weren't you able to get publishable results, why weren't you able to impress your supervisor such that he can write a strong letter of recommendation? You might have good reasons for these, and it's up to you to convince yourself that yes, you still want to do research, and yes, you are talented + motivated enough to succeed in it.
If I were you, I'd start examining the possibility that I am not actually good at research and / or it is not what I want to do. Do some serious soul-searching here. You are making a life-altering decision. If it makes you feel bad that by leaving academia you are "failing", don't worry too much about it: there's a good chance that by leaving academia you'll have a more successful life (in terms of material possessions).
**Second**: go to your local jobs portal (use Google if you don't know what these are) and search for jobs that require a PhD in mathematics. Do you find anything that catches your fancy? For example searching on indeed.com for "phd math", I get [this job](https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=a597f4b9bebeb15e&tk=1d4tmdnla1c0p003&from=serp&vjs=3) among many others. Note the requirements:
>
> Preferred qualifications:
> MBA, Master's or **PhD degree in a quantitative field**.
>
>
> Experience with stakeholder management and ability to influence senior stakeholders.
> **Demonstrated knowledge of statistics and data analysis including R programming or other statistical software packages.**
>
>
>
I highlighted the most relevant parts. You say you are familiar with R. That means you are in business! You can potentially do this job! If you further have experience with statistics and data analysis (do you?) you're in an even better position.
It's up to you to search the jobs portal for jobs you can do, and then it's up to you to apply. It's true that visa issues might sink your candidacy, but it's also true that because PhDs are relatively rare, you might have skills nobody else will have and therefore the employer is willing to sponsor you. You will not know unless you try.
Do remember that even if you can't find a US employer, you can still work elsewhere. It's a big world out there, and it's not true that third-world countries don't need your skills. [Example of such a job in India](https://www.monsterindia.com/job-vacancy-data-analytics-artificial-intelligence-machine-language-software-engineer-valeurhr-e-solutions-private-limited-chandigarh-2-6-years-23067157.html) (admittedly they're not looking for PhD-level candidates, but you could still apply).
**Third**: once you have an idea about what the options in industry are like, then you can start thinking about what you want to do. Are you sure you still want to do math research? If so I'd talk to your supervisor again about what options are available to you. He's already told you your prospects are not good, so you'll need all the help you can get from him. For example, perhaps you could find a position as a teaching assistant somewhere and do research in your spare time. This will not be easy - doing research while holding a full-time job is very difficult - and it's not likely to be well-paid, but if it's what you want to do, you can try.
On the other hand if you think industry will serve you better, then finish up your thesis & defense and start applying for jobs. Be sure to visit your university's career center as well; they'll be able to help you a lot.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: This question is a year old, but it matched my own experience enough (including the specialization in algebraic topology) that I felt obliged to comment. Getting an academic math position is a crapshoot under the best of conditions. The field is glutted with other highly competent applicants (pretty much everyone going into pure math does so with the intention of doing pure math research); the field doesn't have the money of, say, computer science; and there really aren't any opportunites to do pure math research outside of academia and *maybe* a single-digit number of industry labs. With a great publication record and glowing recommendations from well-established professors, you have an outside shot at it. Without them, it's vanishingly likely to happen. It's unfair, especially if you wind up with a useless or abusive advisor, fall into a field that isn't the cool new thing, choose (or get saddled with) a research project in your limited time to prove yourself that doesn't work out, and so on. What's even worse is that (unlike some other fields) there's really no way to burnish your credentials; there's nothing you can do outside of academia that academic mathematicians would care about.
So, unfortunately, there's probably nothing you can do. It should be relatively easy for you to find *some* job in industry, though; the tricky part is finding one you like. Just being able to think rigorously and scientifically is a prized skill in industry, while it's taken as given in academia. (Conversely, some interpersonal and organizational skills work the opposite way. On the other hand, there are more opportunities to pick up the latter, whereas there's really no place to pick up pure math skills outside academia.) I don't see anything in your post to suggest that you aren't employable, so at least you should have some breathing room to take a look at what's out there and see if there's anything that might be, if not exciting, at least acceptable.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I know it's too late but for someone in the future, there are some folks in machine learning / AI (or more generally applied/engineering) community who are interested in the intersection with pure math, e.g., Topological data science employing the concept of Homology from Algebraic topology or homotopy methods in computational aspects of polynomials.
So, considering these directions and finding positions in industry might be interesting!
\*\* In these directions, people likely do not appreciate the advancement in theoretical direction like the way you used to research on though...
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/03/01
| 773
| 3,032
|
<issue_start>username_0: Should the first author be the one that worked the most? And then by the amount of work order (descending), but the last one the most-senior researcher?
Are there other ways? Which ones?
Does it vary from field to field? I've heard some areas or even some conferences always ask for alphabetical order. But then there are evaluation committees that count for how many first-author or last-author publications does a researcher have. Can someone provide exhaustive insight into how this is done across many fields?<issue_comment>username_1: Usually first author = writer, grad student, main worker.
second = other grad student who did some work
Third = advisor
(This assumes single group work.)
If two (plus groups), it will usually be something like:
worker1, helper1, advisor1, worker2, helper2, advisor2
With 2 being another group, for instance the measurement group as opposed to the synthesis group). You can use your brain to extrapolate to more than two groups or to situations where there is more than one worker/helper/advisor or some roles are missing.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: It very much depends on the field. In pure math, for example, authors lists are universally alphabetical. When <NAME> puts these papers on his CV, they show up as
>
> <NAME> (with <NAME>, <NAME>, and <NAME>): "Acylic graphs have no co-orbits of degree 18", Journal of Improbable Results, vol. 2789, 2019.
>
>
>
(i.e., the list of authors as given is not even in the order that's printed on the paper). Many other communities have varying other conventions. For example, they may sort the author list in order of contribution, or they may put the senior author last. It really all depends.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Ask a hundred academics and get one hundred differing answers. Disciplines do differ.
* Some base in on who did the most work.
* Some base it on who developed the idea.
* Some base it on a hierarchy (my lab me first).
* Some do alphabetical.
* Some do "equal author contributions."
* Some horse-trade, I get first on this as you got first on last. Many types of horse-trade exist and some move outside the domain of the research.
* Some do it based on need. I need to be first to keep my job but you do not. I need it for tenure and you are tenured.
* Some do it based on who wrote most of the paper.
* Some do it on random numbers or similar.
* Some decide in advance before the process starts.
* Some give it to the person who made the big breakthrough.
* Some give it to the organizer who pushed everyone and harassed everyone to get it done.
* Some people just do not care so give it to the person who asks first.
* Some give it to the person who got the funding.
My process is that you essentially know by the end of a research process and writing of a paper who should be the lead author and then the horse-trading begins. I have fun with it and I really dislike teams who spend more time on discussing this than the research.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/03/01
| 710
| 2,874
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated from by undergrad two years ago (this May) and now I am applying to law school and require letters of recommendation from my undergrad.
Although I did well in their classes and spoke with them to some extent outside the classroom, I haven't stayed in touch with my professors, so I am not sure how well they would remember me, due to the length of time.
My question is how I would logistically go about asking for LOR's. I live relatively near the University, so I could conceivably ask them in person, but it would seem odd to just drop in on them randomly (at office hours?). Would this be the best approach?
Or should I email them ahead to ask to meet? If so, should I allude to the fact that I want to discuss a letter of recommendation in these emails or should I just ask to meet without giving specifics.
Final point: I am planning on applying September, so does it seem to early to ask in this March, or is that not an issue?
Thanks for any answers/suggestions!<issue_comment>username_1: Just send them an email (or make a telephone call).
Any time you ask for a reference (to include job hopping when 40), always try to help out by being brief (but explanatory) and giving info on what/why you are trying to do something AND helping the letter writer with any info on what the recipient is looking for as well as your particulars.
"Hello, Professor username_2law:
I was a student of yours in Euro history 1 (required) and then Babylonian Craziness Seminar (elective).
I very much appreciate the great education I got from Enormous State University and have done well as an insurance adjustor for Franco. But I have recently decided to go back to school for a law degree. Think I can do a good job there and the added degree will help me move ahead.
Could you write me a letter of reference for the Amco fellowship in Law for Roadrunner Devices?
I think Amco is particularly interested in candidates from ESU, so emphasizing the unique things we do here would help the cause.
For a refresher on my interaction with you:
\*A in EUH01. A+ in BCH05 (special dispensation to take course as second semester freshman).
\*Strong oral presentation in round table seminars in BCH05, including debates with much more senior students with more historiography training.
\*Weekly submission of 2 page (max) precis in BCH05 and mastery of the format after first two papers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Meeting in person is good. Setting it up with an email is good. Office hours is good. Don't worry about asking too early. It is better to give a heads up.
Most professors will be happy to support past students, but after a couple of years may not remember you very well. Seeing you in person will help that. They can also ask for information that you might need to supply about your plans and such.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/03/02
| 702
| 3,206
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm actually an United States citizen who has been living and being educated in Malaysia. So currently my family decided to send me back to the States to continue my future studies. Some people told me that I need TOEFL/SAT results to prove my English but some of them said that I don't need it because I'm a citizen. I'm kinda lost now...
What should I do to prepare myself before going there?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are a native speaker, don't bother. If you are not, do.
It is possible to not be a citizen and be a native speaker. And vice versa. Consider babies moved at 5 months.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: As <NAME> already mentions in a comment, there will be a statement somewhere on the application page that specifies who needs to provide language scores as part of their application and who doesn't. Since schools receive large numbers of applications, there isn't really any leeway for special cases: Just follow the letter of the application requirements. If this requires that you to take the TOEFL or SAT, then that's what it is -- whether you think that's fair or necessary or required is a question that's entirely unimportant.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There is no general rule on it. Each university may have its own requirements. You need to follow admission requirements which are often clearly declared on the universities' website. Otherwise, send an email and ask admissions office about your specific condition.
However, depending on universities' policies, some candidates who have not lived in an English speaking country may not need to sit English tests. As an instance, if applicants have been studied in an institute in which the language of instruction is English or have worked in a company in which the main working language is English (such as international companies, foreign affairs/business/translations/education departments, etc.) for more than two years; these candidates usually do not need to sit any language tests. They need to prove this fact, like the language of instruction should be written in their graduation documents, their manager/ instructor/ supervisor should write a letter to the university and clearly declare that candidate have been working in an English environment, etc.
So, the point that you are a citizen of an English speaking country does not really mean that you do not need to sit any required tests. It is important that you have lived in a non-English speaking country. Language of instruction is very important. If you have studied in local schools and in Malaysian, you may need to prove that you have enough language skills by sitting a test.
Please also note that some programs require test scores of GRE/SAT etc as part of their assessment of all the candidates, even native English speakers. These tests are not language tests and mainly focus on assessing candidate's skills in mathematics, logical reasoning, etc. Sometimes candidates need to sit both a GRE/SAT test (depending on which program they are applying to: undergraduate or graduate degrees) as well as an English test and both are part of their admission documents.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/03/02
| 683
| 2,833
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently read a paper that conducted an experiment, analyzed it, and reached a conclusion. However, the way they conducted the analysis is seriously flawed and cannot be used to support the conclusion.
As far as I can tell, the experiment is valid and only the analysis is problematic. Thus the paper can be rewritten, although the conclusion may completely change.
The paper is published in a highly-reputable and prestigious scientific journal. The authors are all senior researchers at reputable institutions.
It's a bit of a surprise that this flaw got past the authors and peer review. I suspect that, because the conclusion confirms what many people already believe, the analysis was not scrutinized too closely. I only became suspicious of it because the measured effect was too strong. The analysis is also reasonably complex and the flaw is somewhat subtle.
I contacted all three authors by email and explained the problem with their analysis. I did by best to phrase the email appropriately.
A month later, I have received no response to my email. What would be a reasonable course for further action? Options include:
1. Send the authors a follow-up email. (If so, what should I say to get the message across?)
2. Contact the journal with my concerns.
3. Write a response. (Would such a thing get published?)
4. Do nothing. (I think the paper is too important.)<issue_comment>username_1: >
> 3. Write a response. (Would such a thing get published?)
>
>
>
This. Such things are usually titled "Comment to..." and, yes, they are published, typically alongside with a reply from the authors of the commented paper (the comment is usually sent to them by the journal editor).
As usual disclaimer, since things may vary across fields and journals, check if the journal in question has already published comments of this type and, in doubt, contact the editor.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There are about a gazillion papers with problems with them. And authors who don't want to fix them, don't think they're wrong, whatever.
1. Just resign yourself to the imperfection of the published literature. Really, killing yourself with worry that there is a science paper with a mistake in it is like the XKCD cartoon about "someone is wrong on the Internet". <https://xkcd.com/386/>
2. Failing that, write a paper of your own to correct/dispute the issue. Either a direct comment/critique (harder avenue). Or a paper with some new contribution but that allows revisiting the work of the other group and dissing it en passant (easier avenue).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If by analysis, you mean statistics/informatics, you could possibly do the analysis correctly and submit it as a response. The conclusion might be the same, but it should still be sorted out.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/03/02
| 205
| 820
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm applying for Colleges for my MSc. But all of my letters of recommendation address me by my first name. is it okay, or should the complete name of the candidate be included?<issue_comment>username_1: Letters of recommendation are proper documents, and as such they must include candidate's full name at least once. It is often included in the first sentence, e.g.
>
> It is my pleasure to write this letter of reference in support of Mr <NAME>'s application to the College of Crafts and Wizardry.
>
>
>
The following text can refer to the Candidate by the first name.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It's fine. Just make them physical or electronic attachments and mail the stuff in. Don't bug your references with this clerical pettiness. Grad programs won't fuss.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/03/02
| 992
| 4,170
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am planning to ask professors that I haven't seen in two years since graduation for letters of recommendation.
I want to ask in person so they can see and remember me, but I want to set an appointment ahead of time for this meeting. I really don't want to drop in on the during office hours randomly.
I am having trouble thinking of how this email should me worded.
If I don't allude to the letter of the recommendation and say something like:
\*Dear Professor,
I was in your class two years ago. I would like to meet with you to discuss something.
Sincerely,
Student
\*
Then they have no idea what I am meeting about. But if I say:
*Dear professor
I was in your class two years ago. I got an A+. I would like to meet with you to discuss you writing me a letter of recommendation.
Thanks for your time.*
...Then it's like I am just asking over email, which I don't want to do because I haven't seen them in multiple years.
Can anyone think of a better wording for this email?
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: You could do sort of a hybrid between an ominous email and a surprise appointment by asking for a letter over email and also asking to meet with them. It could be written something along the lines of:
Dear Dr. **Professor**
First sentence is a simple introduction stating your **first and last name**, the **class** you had with the professor, and the **semester/year** you had it with them (if the class was a big lecture it could be helpful to also include your grade, but it may not be necessary). This sentence lays out your academic career path (applying to graduate school program in **field**). This next sentence explains how this professor/class has influenced your academic career path choice. The following sentence asks if the professor **would be willing/be comfortable writing you a letter of recommendation**. Next, if they are **willing/able/comfortable** writing you a letter, you would like to arrange a meeting at their convenience to **discuss/answer questions**. This last sentence thanks them regardless of their reply.
It doesn’t need to be lengthy, but this basic structure allows you to jog the professor’s memory without being too overbearing. It also allows them to have an easy out to decline writing a letter for you (which is beneficial if they do not feel comfortable writing you a strong letter). Remember, it is possible that the professor may not remember you even if you meet in person, or they might completely remember you just by hearing your name again.
If asking over email is *really* not your thing, you could make an appointment to discuss graduate school so that the email hasn’t asked for the letter yet, but it’s much less ominous.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I, and I suspect, many of my colleagues, would rather deal with the whole thing in a single email with no meeting needed. That means your first, and probably only email needs all the detail the professor needs. Here is what I tell my own students:
* **Tell me what the deadline is!**
* Include your student identification number.
* Remind me which of my classes you have taken, and when.
* How did you distinguish yourself in those classes?
* How would you describe yourself? What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses? I am going to have to answer those questions when I write your reference, so the more details the better, but these have to be things I've observed myself.
* What are some of your academic and nonacademic accomplishments that I may not remember?
* What makes *me* particularly qualified to write a letter for you? That is, why should the recipient of the letter value it over a letter from someone else?
I also tell students that they *should* waive right of access to my recommendation (I'm in the U.S.) because the institution receiving the recommendation is likely to give it more weight if it's confidential. "Besides that, if you don't trust a professor to write a good recommendation, you've asked the wrong professor."
You can offer to meet: "I'm happy to call on you during office hours...," but be gracious if your offer is declined.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/03/02
| 2,746
| 11,614
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose that I found a technical flaw in one of the papers coauthored by my previous advisor. This mistake will substantially change their major result, but their contribution will be still worthwhile after the correction. I am 90% sure about my findings. It is not a difference of ideologies or subjective beliefs, but a mistake in purely technical analysis.
My previous advisor is among the top-three worldwide in his narrow field, and that paper was published on the top journal. He was neither the corresponding nor the first author. The first and corresponding author was also his previous student. So here is my possible options (any other suggestions are also welcomed):
1. Write a short paper and submit to the same journal. The journal welcomes this specific type of submissions. Best case is, if my previous advisor is happy to see his previous students are still contributing to this field, then I will get a top publication. Worst case is, since many of the referees are also his previous students, they could possibly defend our teacher and deny my submission, and I lost all the precious time redoing the analysis and writing the paper.
2. Talk to my previous advisor. Since he keeps constant contact with the journal’s editor, he can definitely update that mistake, much faster than me; that way I will lose a worthy publication. He can also decide to ignore my findings or even try to prevent my findings to be published because they significantly challenge his result.
How can I choose between these, or is there a third way?
---
Update: I am preparing to send a friendly inquiry, politely say things like:
>
> Dear *XX*, It was a pleasure to read your exciting work titled *XXX*. Could you do me a favor by explaining your analysis in *ABC*? I was hoping to do analysis *XYZ* such that your results can be refined and here are my preliminary findings. Do you feel this approach promising? Would you like to help? Thanks for sharing thoughts, again.
>
>
>
How do you feel about the tone? Shall I be more explicit?
---
Update: after talking to multiple mathematicians about erratum, I find that even the most honest, objective, and rigorous mathematician will be deeply embarrassed in heart with new mistakes found in his paper.<issue_comment>username_1: Probably more likely than not that he either doesn't like it or defends the old calculation. That's human nature.
Thus, I counsel course one: a corrective paper, not a discussion as in course two. Just put the thing out there and let more people judge versus trying to convince your advisor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Two suggestions:
* You found that someone was wrong in a good journal. The fact that the error was published in a good journal does not mean that it is worth working on. You should decide if this error is really worthy of your research efforts. It might be better for you to work on something more important.
* If you decide to pursue the error, you can choose to present your correction as a new idea. If you tell people that you have found a new idea that advances the state of the art, that makes you look good. If you tell people you have found someone else's error, that makes the other person look bad but may fail to make you look good. The actual substance of the research can be the same, but the way you present it makes a world of difference in how it is viewed.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Unfortunately, depending on the topic, published mistakes can damage reputation (e.g. in math, as far as I know). This may, depending on topic, affect your advisor. Publishing a correction oneself can mitigate that. Other fields are less sensitive to honest mistakes.
So, the question becomes:
Do you have a good relation with your advisor? Then it were just an act of friendliness to give them the opportunity to fix their mistake. If you make it public, it means that you do not feel friendly enough to give them this opportunity and you feel that you need to go formal.
Which is acceptable and not wrong, but it clearly sends a message that you do not feel obliged to give your advisor the opportunity to rectify, in favour of getting a few pages in this journal, or else - as suggested elsewhere in the thread - that you do not trust them to do so.
The question is really if you think that this correction is so worthwhile to be published as standalone that you go possibly contrary to your old advisor and his friends.
**To be sure**: if one thinks something is seriously wrong with a given important research and the original researchers are not prepared to fix it, then one should report it (one has to balance this feel of duty with the fear of potentially ruining one's career).
But this is different from above: you do not know yet how they will react as long as you haven't given them the opportunity to correct the mistake. In this case, however, it is certainly not about getting a correction paper into a journal; the stakes are higher. Any backlash, if they are unhappy with your suggestion and you end up publishing a correction, would counteract any advantage from getting your paper into that journal. You should do this because it is the right thing, not because it advances your career.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If you trust your previous advisor, I would:
3. Talk to him (or his co-authors) to figure out whether you are really correct about that mistake. Also state that (if correct) you would like to get a publication out of this due to the effort you put into this. If he accepts the mistake, you may then benefit from having him on your side (be it as a co-author, reviewer, etc.). If it turns out that you were wrong about this, you save a lot of time. If he doesn’t agree, but also cannot convince you otherwise, you can still to have an open scientific debate about this.
At least in my fields, contacting the authors is the common first step when noticing potential mistakes in papers, independent of the relationship to the authors.
This is less to give them a chance to correct it, but to give them a chance and use their capabilities to dispel potential wrong arguments.
If you do not trust your advisor and pre-prints are a thing in your field, consider having a pre-print ready for submission when talking to your supervisor, so you can outrun them (or use any of [the other methods to prove priority](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/23367/7734)). At least in any reasonable journal, you shouldn’t be able to correct a fundamental mistake just like that. Corrections need to undergo at least some review as well.
Finally, if you think that your field may be so corrupt that corrections of mistakes can be completely suppressed, you should seriously ponder whether you want any reputation in that field anyway. If your answer is *no,* you have nothing to lose, and may as well try to publish about the mistake. Either you succeed or you can make a fuss about the way you were rejected.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Talk to your previous advisor and just say I read the paper you were co-authored in, why didn't you do X analysis?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: There are many aspects of this.
People make mistakes. Even top mathematicians make mistakes.
People have egos. Top mathematicians are no different. See the movie [Good Will Hunting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Will_Hunting) for a dramatization.
There are a lot of different sorts of mistakes that one can make in mathematics:
Suppose someone publishes a theorem with a "proof" that "A is true". And suppose that you have a "proof" that "A is false". Assuming that the axioms aren't inconsistent, one of the "proofs" is wrong and needs to be resolved. It could invalidate a lot of other work if A is false.
Suppose, on the other hand, that someone publishes a "proof" that "A is true", but you find an error in the proof. Without more work, the truth of A becomes unknown. Perhaps you can supply an alternate "proof", establishing "A is true". This is a proper advancement and deserves publication even if no one has questioned the truth of A.
You describe a somewhat intermediate case, of course. A is 'mostly' true, presumably with a proof.
In mathematics, often enough the proofs are more important than the theorems, if they give a certain previously unexplored insight that permits the proof of other things.
However, you say you are 90% sure of your work. That doesn't seem very high to me, but that is just a guess, as your estimate is likely also a guess.
How to proceed.
Write up what you have found as a proper publication, citing the earlier work and complete in every way. You can submit it to a journal (any journal, actually) or you can submit it to your advisor for comment. Send an email stating that you think there is a problem/issue/error and the enclosed paper develops the idea.
Either way you will get feedback, either from reviewers or from your advisor. But it is feedback that you really need. You might learn that you, too, have made an error. You might get a request for collaboration if you send it to your advisor. You might get a request for co-authorship, though that would seem to me to be less valid.
But, the bottom line here is that it is the mathematics here that is the important thing, not the egos. Yes, your advisor will "feel bad" if s/he has made an error, but, like I said, people make errors. There are a lot of published errors in fact.
One reason that errors get published, other than simple carelessness, is that in an esoteric corner of a field there are only a few people qualified to review a given paper. Likely all of them were similarly trained and have the same, or very similar, insights about that field. If the author missed something, it isn't especially unlikely that a similarly trained person will also miss it. If you "expect" something to be true, in the middle of a complex proof, you won't be as likely to notice that it isn't. There are many papers by prominent mathematicians with this sort of error. They are worth correcting, especially when the correction leads to new ways of proving things or new kinds of insight.
Politically, the proper course is to send it to your advisor, rather than first to a journal. But this depends a bit on your past and expected future relationship with the advisor, as well as your judgement about how ego driven they are.
But, among other things, you need to reduce the 10% uncertainty you have to zero or near zero.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: I have been working through a paper by my PhD supervisor published in a very reputable journal. I wasted a lot of time before I realised that one of his equations was wrong.
What was the reasonable, professional thing to do? In my opinion, without any question, it was to contact him and say, frankly, I think that X is wrong, maybe it is a typo. His answer "I have looked at my original papers: "it was wrong then and is wrong now: it was not a typo."
A few weeks later I found another mistake, as I thought, in the same paper (actually on the same page of that paper). Same procedure. Answer - brief but conclusive explanation from my supervisor as to why it was not wrong at all. He was right.
Moral of the story: everyone can make mistakes, including your supervisor and YOU. As <NAME> put it: "I beseech you, ..., think it possible you may be mistaken." Having done so, approach the person concerned to express your comments with appropriate recognition of your own fallibility.
Upvotes: 2
|