date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2019/07/08
| 613
| 2,489
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received a request to referee a paper submitted to a journal I hadn't been aware of before. The paper is in my area of expertise, and I've been working in the field for a few years and read arXiv & major journals (nobody I know has published there, as far as I know). Though to be fair it is published by Springer Nature and has an impact factor of about 2.5.
I'm reluctant to accept the request, because (i) it would cost me time, (ii) I never read the journal, (iii) the abstract is badly written (grammar mistakes, and it's of the form "We use standard methods to calculate some properties about a standard system, which have been discovered in many slight variations before").
Is it okay to reject review in this case? I'm afraid that my judgement may be off.<issue_comment>username_1: I would recommend you have a look: If the submission is as bad as it looks, you will not have to devote much time to it anyways. Someone has to do some refereeing else nobody would referee my papers so my rule of thumb is: I referee as many papers in a year as the number of referees needed to review my work that year.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Let's examine the three reasons you give one by one:
1. Reviewing would certainly cost you time. If you don't have time available, or if you need the time to do something else, then decline and give that as a reason. The editor would understand. If you do have time available, then why not?
2. I don't find this a good reason to decline. There'll always be things one has never heard of before. For example, would you attend a colloquium at your institute if it's given by a person you've never heard of before? Even if you don't read the journal and never intend to, it doesn't mean you can't help.
3. This is a good reason to decline. Of course if you can give more details it'd be good - something like "this paper uses standard methods [already used in this ref, this ref, this ref ...] to study this standard system [already studied in this ref, this ref, this ref ...]". You don't have to actually accept the request and then turn in a reject review: if you decline to review and give this reason, there's a good chance the editor will reject the manuscript.
In the end though it's up to you. You shouldn't feel like you're obliged to review the manuscript. If you lack the time or the motivation to review, you should absolutely decline instead of submit a weak review.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2019/07/08
| 1,465
| 6,009
|
<issue_start>username_0: My manuscript is actually a new theory, consisting of four chapters, 15,000 words, so it cannot be rewritten in the form of a journal. If I delete some of the content to fit the format of a journal, readers will not understand the ins and outs of my theory.
What should I do? Can I publish it as a monograph? Does the monograph also have a scientific credit, and can be cited? Is it possible to publish a monograph without peer review?
ADD:
See below comments. I really appreciate all of you! I will take your advice. I will divide my manuscript into four themes, and submit the most creative ideal first avoiding arguments.
I am not worried that some people say that I maybe a "crackpot" because my manuscript has no "imagination" but LOGIC and math. I am an independent researcher, who thinks outside the box.
I just want to make a contribute to science. But I have no idea how to make a connection for these four themes when my manuscripts under peer review process.<issue_comment>username_1: Some journals accept longer articles or a series of articles. You, an especially your article, have to be very convincing for that to happen, but it can happen.
You could publish a manuscript. Depending on the discipline, that will be absolutely standard to highly unusual. In the latter case your book has to be extremely exceptional for it to have an impact.
Also stay away from vanity publishers. They ask you to pay for publishing your book, and obviously they will publish any c\*\*p you want as long as you pay. People know that, and ignore anything published by those publishers. So that is worse than useless.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am sorry. The answer to your question is: rewrite it. If you wish to communicate your ideas you need to make it easy, not hard, for the reader. No-one is going to read 15,000 words to understand the ins and outs of your theory without some kind of motivation. What motivation are you going to provide: 'Trust me: you won't understand this unless you commit to reading 15,000 words'? Why would anyone bother?
Try to imagine explaining your theory to someone you have met on a social occasion. What is the theory about? Why is there some question arising in that field that you have put so much work into? What is the question? What is the answer?
If you get that far, you might be asked 'Why do think that is the answer?'.
If you can imagine that conversation then you will have created an abstract of your work. that might give you some clues as to how you might break down your work into manageable chunks for publication.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As in other answers, I think a large point is about *persuasion*: presumably your goal is to persuade other people to seriously consider what you've written... apart from "peer review" or "publication" in whatever sense.
That tends to mean that you cannot require people to read huge amounts to be convinced. The thing has to "have a hook" from the beginning, to get people to commit themselves to looking at the larger thing.
I distantly understand that things may be different in the humanities, but, even then, surely a persuasive opening gambit is a good thing?
So, in particular, as others have said, do not publish a monograph \_with\_a\_vanity\_press\_. No one will take it seriously.
That is, if you are not already established as a professional, but you want your work to be taken seriously, you simply must jump over some hurdles. Some of those hurdles (details depending on your field) require fitting things into the standard boxes. If/when, as a novice, but also later, you say to people "oh, my work can't fit into the standard boxes" then you lose credibility. If you're a novice, you have no stockpile of credibility to "spend", so this is a very bad idea.
So, a very serious issue (apart from the necessity of talking to your advisor... or getting one if you don't have one currently) is establishing credibility... which probably means conforming to format ideas. Just do it. At this point in your life, don't tell people that you "simply can't" make your work fit into traditional molds, because they'll just think you're 99.99% likely to be a crackpot... (because, without knowing you, they will have heard such remarks from crackpots...)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Contrary to what other answers tell you, I'll say that 15.000 words may not be the problem. I have had a couple of 10.000 word papers accepted in journals that specialize in long papers about theoretical topics, where you are in fact encouraged to spell out the details. This is of course field dependent.
What worries me is that you say that your manuscript is too complicated to understand without all 15.000 words. No one will sit down and read it cover to cover. Try to have a colleague, a supervisor or really anyone experienced with the field to read through your manuscript and ask for helpful suggestions to extract important bits that can be understood without necessarily understanding all the background, and make that into a shorter paper, which refers to the long one for details.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: People simply do not have time to read such long manuscripts from authors unknown in the field. The odds are *overwhelmingly* in favour of this being crackpot work. From the info provided by the OP, the odds are also *overwhelmingly* against this being published is a reasonable peer-reviewed journal: maybe it shouldn’t be but provenance matters to some degree and unknown authors, unless they are *immediately* (within 2-3 pages) clear in their writings, will be dismissed out of hand.
*If* the results are sound, the OP should first expose them to a professional mathematician, who can in turn contact specialists in the field if warranted. Finding someone willing to spare some time on this might be a challenge, but such a “sponsor” might at least push some levers to increase the credibility of the OP.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/08
| 2,113
| 8,116
|
<issue_start>username_0: How are (pure) mathematicians paid to do research? Let's say my interests lie in the foundations of mathematics and I want to do research in that area. How am I going to get paid for that in the traditional context of academia?<issue_comment>username_1: This funding comes from two main sources:
1. Employment, e.g. by getting a professorship somewhere. This means a steady salary. Note professorships aren't just teaching duties - professors are also expected to output research, mentor PhD students who output research, and so on (see [this recent question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/132996/what-happens-to-unproductive-professors) for what happens to "unproductive" professors).
2. Grant funding. You write proposals to whoever is funding mathematics research (e.g. [the NSA](https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/research/math-sciences-program/proposal-guidelines/) if you're in the US). You tell them what you intend to do, how you intend to do it, how much money you'll need, etc. If they approve of your proposal then they send you money to do the research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the US, 99% of long-term positions that involve being paid to do research in pure math are tenure track faculty positions, colloquially known as professorships (in the US, they follow the progression Assistant Professor -> Associate Professor -> Professor). A professor is paid to teach, do research, and to a lesser extent, to do a variety of other vaguely related things that are discussed in many places on this website and elsewhere.
Professors teach and do research. It is not true that (quoting from one of the comments) “mathematicians are not paid to do research, but instead do research on the side and teach to make a living”. It is also not true that (quoting from another comment) “at some universities, research is the main job and teaching is a necessary byproduct”. Perhaps some professors have the *mindset* that their job is “mainly” about one or the other thing, but that’s simply a matter of personal perception rather than an objective truth. The objective truth is that professors teach and do research, and are paid to do those two things. Nothing is “on the side” or is “the main job”.
It is also not the case that (as seems to be implied by another answer) all math professors have, or need, grant funding to do their work. Grant funding is good to have, and getting it is both a catalyst for and a side-effect of career success. It can also give your salary a modest boost. But most of the funding doesn’t go directly into your pocket, and there are plenty of math professors who have steady employment and do quite well in their research without having it.
Finally, there is a very small number of mathematicians who have permanent, full time positions doing only research. Examples of places where such positions exist are the [Institute of Advanced Study](https://www.ias.edu/), and [Microsoft Research](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/). Those positions are very prestigious and rare, so hoping to land one of them is not a viable career plan.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I will argue that research is the primary job that most salaried professors get paid to do. From [Wikipedia: Professor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor):
>
> Professors often conduct original research and commonly teach
> undergraduate, professional and postgraduate courses in their fields
> of expertise.
>
>
>
Note that "research" is listed first. From an excellent page by <NAME>, University of Houston, ["Job Responsibilities of Professors"](https://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/WhatProfessorsDo.html):
>
> In the UH math department, the responsibilities of a typical tenured
> or tenure-track faculty member are usually allocated as 40% Research,
> 40% Teaching, and 20% Service.
>
>
>
Note that research is again listed first. (The approximate allocation matches what I've heard expressed many times, in many places.) <NAME> in *How to Teach Mathematics* (Ch. 6) quotes the Chair of the University of Chicago Mathematics Department, welcoming a new faculty member in the 1960s:
>
> Remember: Our job is proving theorems.
>
>
>
At my institution, faculty promotion is officially based on the standard triad (research, teaching, and service); but I've been told by those involved that in practice, it really just boils down to number of research publications (justified by the fact that research publications are easier to identify and count than quality teaching or service).
One might argue philosophically that the "emphasis" of faculty work derives from the funding source. Traditionally most funding in the U.S. came from state governments (arguing in favor of a research focus); over time state support has shrunk, and student tuition increased, such that today it approaches a 50/50 ratio (arguing in favor of parity emphasis with teaching). [See Figure 8 here](https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: The current top answer is simplistic and US-centric.
First, it glosses over the obvious. Tons of PhD students and postdocs are paid to do research and nothing else. It is difficult (and not really desirable, or usually possible) to be a postdoc forever, but this is certainly doable for many years, even more than a decade if you count PhD+postdoc.
Second, and this is the part which is US-centric in the current top answer, many researchers are employed as full-time tenured researchers. In France for example, more than 10% of all tenured mathematicians affiliated to the CNRS – i.e. almost all French mathematicians in public institutions – are full-time researchers (see [this document by the Insmi](https://www.cnrs.fr/insmi/IMG/pdf/Fiche_INSMI_14_1_16.pdf), 400 researchers out of 3600 full-time researchers). Similar positions exist in many European countries (I know it's the case at least in Belgium, Switzerland, Spain... with various titles). Yes, these positions are enviable and difficult to get, but they are not some unattainable holy grails that only exist at IAS, IHES or the likes.
Third, many private companies employ math researchers. Not many employ researchers on the foundations of mathematics of course, and you would need to do research on what the company wants, but you'd still be a full-time math researchers. These positions exist anywhere, in small startups, global corporations, and anything in between. These aren't positions that exist only in "elite" institutions. Things like data analysis, machine learning, etc are hot right now, and you need serious math for them.
---
Finally, let me address a misconception in your comment.
>
> So, usually mathematicians are not paid to do research, but instead do research on the side and teach to make a living?
>
>
>
I believe you are confused by the word "professor". While etymologically it means "teacher", nowadays, a professor at a university has a double job: teacher and researcher (and a third job called "administration"). The same goes for a lecturer, a reader, a maître de conférences, a førsteamanuensis, or whatever your job title is. Many academics are relatively blasé and consider that teaching is actually a chore that is imposed on top of the main job, research – a discussion for another time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Lot of great answers, already. Some different thoughts (not as good, but hopefully additive):
1. You could do it as an avocation. Go and earn a bunch of money elsewhere and then do it on the side. Like Fermat.
2. (US answer) Look at government service, especially the NSA, but also national labs or FFRDCs (quasi government as they have contractors running them). It's not a "great answer" as you don't have total freedom and really they like applied guys more. All that said, there are pure guys going in there and you might find a niche (all you need is enough pay for one). And the pay/benefits/hours/security are great. At least take a look.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/09
| 962
| 3,818
|
<issue_start>username_0: Somewhat a follow-up to [this post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/131768/is-it-ethical-to-cite-a-reviewers-papers-even-if-they-are-rather-irrelevant).
I recently had a paper reviewed, and in receiving one of the reviews, I feel strongly that I know the identity of one of the reviewers (someone with whom I'm on generally friendly terms, but not enough to be a COI). Unfortunately, the paper didn't quite make it in, so we're looking to make the requisite changes and resubmit elsewhere.
Out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to reach out to this individual to ask if they were a reviewer for this paper. However, I believe this may be inappropriate, and have thus avoided doing so. Is it ever appropriate to ask such a question, and if so, when? I suspect doing so before the paper is accepted elsewhere is likely a faux pas for many reasons, including selfish ones (e.g., getting this reviewer again after making the suggested changes would likely be quite beneficial).
While not strictly relevant to the question, it's worth noting that this reviewer gave an extremely helpful and thorough review, though they ultimately gave a weak reject. In my reaching out to this reviewer, it would be solely to ask whether or not they reviewed the paper, and **not** discuss the review whatsoever (regardless of how they responded).<issue_comment>username_1: No, this is why the review process is anonymous...
Any "reaching out", while you **say** it is only to find out if they did or did not review your paper (and others will think "well that's because they want an inside track"...) will put the reviewer in a difficult position whether you intend that or not.
The reviewer's reputation with the journals they work with is important to them, so while **you** might be curious, don't go there.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Is it ever appropriate to ask such a question, and if so, when?
>
>
>
I can't think of many instances (probably only if there's some gross misconduct). Reviewers are anonymous for a good reason.
>
> Out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to reach out to this individual to ask if they were a reviewer for this paper.
>
>
>
Paraphrasing, curiosity killed the paper :)
How about just sending them a copy of the manuscript and asking for their opinion?
"I have written a manuscript that I think you might find interesting, I would love to hear your thoughts."
This alludes in no way to you having any suspicions (you may get your answer if they inadvertently let it slip), and offers you a chance to get more feedback. If they aren't actually the reviewer then you can get more feedback and outreach for your work - a happy unintended consequence!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There is one reason I can think of as legitimate for getting the identity of a reviewer, and it is closely related to your situation: you have a manuscript rejected and found the reviewer's comments so helpful that you'd like to ask them to collaborate and become co-author of the enhanced version of the manuscript.
In contrast,
>
> In my reaching out to this reviewer, it would be solely to ask whether or not they reviewed the paper, and not discuss the review whatsoever (regardless of how they responded).
>
>
>
to me would not be a legitimate reason.
---
All that being said, I still don't think it legitimate if an author directly approaches the suspected reviewer: what you could do is to explain your reason for wanting to contact the reviewer to the editor who handled your manuscript. If they think it a legitimiate reason, they can contact the reviewer whether they in turn agree to be de-anonymized. If everyone agrees, you'll get to know your reviewer - if not, this procedure ensures their anonymity.
Upvotes: 5
|
2019/07/09
| 1,937
| 7,872
|
<issue_start>username_0: I think this is more of an interpersonal/workplace question rather than an academic but still related I think.
I'm in the first year of a three year post doc in the UK. I enjoy the work I do with my advisor for the most part and I enjoy working with my advisor. Its unfortunately, everything else about the position I dont like.
The building doesnt feel 'academic', rather more of a generic office building. While this is likely minor for most, one of the reasons I chose academia over industry was the dislike of 'office culture' ie semi-forced social events, rumours, cliques, almost timed coffee breaks, offices with many people leading to volume issues or temperature disagreements etc. While some of this may be UK culture (American), I still find it hard to want to come into work. Some interpersonal issues as well in regards to politics (centrist with regards to American politics, which is apparently far far right in the UK).
This has led to me working from home or working odd hours (~6am to 2-4 pm) so that I attempt to remain productive while not having to deal with these issues. This led to rumours about me being depressed and 'raised eyebrows' about how I leave much earlier than others. Outside of work, I enjoy my hobbies and the area and I am mostly content, but having to come into work 5 days a week just drains me and stresses me out and is wreaking havoc on my emotional state and to an extent my productivity.
I have brought this up to my advisor, and we may try and change my location in the building, but there's likely not a free 1 person office so all the previous issues are still there.. just different desk location? Im not as productive at home and Im unsure how 'okay' the department is with regards to me working from home even if my boss is okay with it.
I'm unsure I can manage 2 more years at this rate. Advice?
TL;DR I like the work I do and my boss, I just dont like going to work or being at work. What should I do.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm afraid that it might be difficult to find buildings that feel really 'academic' and I wouldn't want to select positions based on that. Similarly, whenever you work together with other people there will always be some degree of gossiping and cliques. I think your expectations here do not correspond to a lot of academic environments.
I would strongly urge you to find a way to deal with this for yourself - stuff like noise-canceling headphones may work, and you don't need to interact more than superficially with people you don't like. Maybe there are some friendly people around as well; I could very well imagine not everyone is very much into office culture.
However, I'm a little surprised about the discussions about politics and the raised eyebrows/rumours about you choosing your own working hours. This seems absolutely impolite and I would try to find a way to shut this down friendly but firmly ("I'd prefer not to discuss politics/Let's not discuss my mental health.")
Hope this helps!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Sadly, I am an American postdoc in an American lab, and I am experiencing the same issues. The details are different, but the sentiment is the same--the laboratory is not conducive to work. At all. It is a noisy, distracting place with coworkers of all varieties doing any number of distracting activities. And right now, I have to write, and i have to write a lot. My PI/boss likes to be able to also come into lab and look over our shoulders, to make suggestions and check progress. This is entirely unnerving to me. it's compromised my ability to be productive and keep those standard hours in the lab. So, I employ strategies- noise-cancelling headphones. Working from home. Telling everyone I'm writing and getting the biggest headphones and possibly sporting a slight scowl in general. It's not fun and i'd love an office. But for me, the bottom line is what I have to show for this experience when it's over. And I'm willing to do whatever it takes, because this is a great opportunity to advance my career. And i need it and i want it badly enough. But, that said. ...it is difficult and the environment works against me, daily. It might be something you encounter in an ideal setting.
And what i've found...is doing 'whatever you must' to be productive, might get some odd looks. People might talk or be judging. Someone might not like you working from home or keeping odd hours.
But you will have those first author papers. And that matters. That matters to your boss, the department, and for your career--far more than whatever situational annoyances arise in the process. You've got to get yours.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Unfortunately what you describe has become the rule, instead of the extreme exception, among academic groups around the world. There is an increasing pressure and nurturing of **company-like standards**, which is quintessentially incompatible with quality and deep thinking. Departments are increasing the demands over professors for speed, numbers of both publications and graduating students. Because of this trending treadmill a "boss culture" is also thriving, realised by the scores of professors role-playing *the manager* or *the start-up CEO*, surrounded by ever-smiling show-offs and yes-men.
I suggest you hold your horses through creative and adaptive strategies as best as you can through this postdoc period. I bet you can always reach for the library (or even the cafeteria area) so you don't leave early and always leave a bad impression? Maybe switching one of your working days into the weekend ? Think carefully, and try your best as not to "disrupt the group mood" which is also the kind of company nonsense being minded seriously in today's academia.
As a personal advice, I'd recommend you take a look into more introspective work cultures, such as Swiss academia. You might be able to find a better fit for your next step.
Remember: Adaptation is key to survival! Good luck.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Noise/distraction can be an issue in shared labs/offices (the norm for students and postdocs).
Actually I have this issue in corporate America as well (especially on travel, working with a team in a conference room). What I try to do is find a nook, conf room, study carol or the like where I can be nearby but separate. The issue is not all from others, but from me wanting to chitchat. I think for a postdoc, even more separation is fine, than for a team in corporate America. [If you have an enclosed office, though, there's enough separation to be efficient.]
A couple small other stories (just for comparison) in case it helps.
1. Had a Japanese postdoc, who would come in and work 3-4 nights (long ones)...and crank out a lot of lab work. Then he would goof off for the other time. He was productive. And it was accepted as people saw he was productive (and not super social).
2. I wrote my thesis in 10 days (last minute crunch) coming in and working nights. Other people bailed from the lab around 1700. I would be there ~1800-0700. Allowed me a modicum of face time and interaction if needed. And kept me out of the churn. So I could type, type, type-ity type.
Big picture: Figure out what works for you to get stuff done and to it. WAY better to be asocial AND PRODUCE than to "show face" and not get the "ball across the goal" in terms of paper cranking. [This applies in corporate world too. Yes, better to have cake and eat it too. But if it is a choice...pick production over fitting in.]
P.s. Personally, I don't find the at home thing to work for me as I goof off. But whatever works. I prefer at work but with some ability to isolate myself for periods of time. You can still say hi a couple times a day as you get coffee or go to the head, but they are not in your shi... the whole time.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/09
| 663
| 2,787
|
<issue_start>username_0: [I am thinking of starting a PhD in CS while holding a full time job](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/132960/12973). If someone has a full-time job and starts a part-time PhD, it's reasonable to expect the PhD to take more than 8 years to be completed. I am wondering how relevant such a PhD would be, considering how fast some areas of CS are advancing.
For example my area of interest (and where I have practical experience) is computer vision and statistical learning. If I had started a PhD thesis, let's say in 2010, then by 2019 my thesis topic would most likely be redundant, considering all the advancement in computer vision and machine learning in the past decade.
I guess I am trying to get more insight from the more experienced people.<issue_comment>username_1: You don't wait with publishing till you finished your PhD, especially in such a fast moving field. So by the end of your education you will have made a contribution, even if at the time your PhD is finished your contribution is already less relevant. This is fine. A PhD is supposed to show that you can do independent research; think of it as vocational training for researchers. So if you show that you made contributions that *at the time* were good, then you have shown what you needed to show. Nobody expects of PhD students to be able to see the future.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the US, if a doctorate takes 8 years, note that it won't be 8 years from selecting a problem to the end of the dissertation. In other words, a doctorate in the US is normally not completely filled by research directly applicable to the dissertation. It may not be research at all until near the end. It is likely to be only a couple of years if you do it only part time and maybe a year or so full time. But insight into your problem can't be scheduled. There is uncertainty in any research, full or part time. But, of course, you will know more when it comes time so finalize the research question.
Also, your advisor would be unlikely to wait around for an 8 year research project to mature.
The program in the US normally includes coursework related to the general area of the (future) research, seminars in which you get close to the research boundary and explore open and possible problems. There is also preparation for comprehensive exams.
On the other hand, working slowly in a "hot" field with a lot of research activity elsewhere means an increased likelihood that your research will get "scooped" before you finish. That can be a major setback, though sometimes the effect can be lessened.
But, doing what you propose will be a lot like having two full time jobs. It is a recipe for burnout if you don't have ways to manage it well.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/09
| 477
| 2,169
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I got a paper got accepted by a well-known conference (computer science). I am about to submit a camera-ready version of the paper for the conference proceedings, trying to incorporate the comments of the reviewers.
Two out of five reviewers point a problem in my research design, which is something I have felt too, but didn't weigh in much to address at my paper. Now, before submitting the camera-ready version, I feel that I should address the opinion of the two reviewers, but that would come up as a major drawback of my research. If I do so, what are the chances that it will have a negative effect on further publication?
I am new to academia and don't have appropriate advising regarding what to do regarding this.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, if you got an acceptance notice from a conference, then you are accepted. At this point, it's up to you just how much to take the reviewers into account in revising your paper.
Personally, I do recommend changes in response to every issue raised, because that will generally make you paper stronger. Even if a reviewer is dead wrong, it at least points to a place where readers can become confused. In this case, kudos to you for taking the reviewers seriously and thinking carefully about their feedback, rather than just being defensive.
Note that in some cases you may get a "conditional acceptance", and in that case you definitely have to be concerned about the reviewers' opinions of your new version. That does not seem to be the case here based on what you have written, however.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the results aren’t outright wrong or buggy I wouldn’t worry about it too much. No experiment design is perfect, and anyone can find methodological issues with your approach. That said, if you feel like your results could be improved then by all means mention this in future work and then write another manuscript with corrections and improvements. That’s what scientific progress is all about!
Also please acknowledge the reviewers in the camera ready, you can even point out that it was then that suggested the improvement.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/09
| 691
| 2,648
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing one research article in the field of biology. I want to refer some concept which I am going to describe in next sections but have not described in current sentence (or previous sections) to avoid confusion. I felt it will break the flow of the article if I explained that concept in previous sections. For example,
>
> Section 1: Some Title
>
>
> ... We extended this task by performing XYZ (explained in section 2.3) which will help in better understanding of this issue...
>
>
> ...
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Section 2.3: XYZ
>
>
> This method performs ...
>
>
>
I have seen few papers with such referencing. I was just wondering if it is logically fine or there is some alternative style.
This is not similar to the content which we put in supplementary data. And also this is **NOT** a problem of keeping it in **Materials and Methods**. It is just complex concept which will need separate section for its clarification.
I have found one similar [post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69565/referencing-future-ideas-in-abstract-of-a-research-paper) but answer was not satisfactory and slightly unrelated to above situation.<issue_comment>username_1: It is indeed fine to reference forwards in a document. If this weren't the case, knowing when to read a specific appendix would be very awkward... In some journals it's even the norm to provide some forward references in the introduction to explain how the rest of the paper will be organized.
Also see
[Is it formal to inform readers that a point will be discussed later in the chapter?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/21107/17254)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It doesn't help the reader to write, in the introduction, that
>
> We extended this task by performing XYZ (explained in section 2.3) which will help in better understanding of this issue
>
>
>
because the reader won't know why *XYZ...will help* until later. That's okay if XYZ is well-known. (Albeit, I'd then replace *explained* with *detailed*.) Otherwise, it would be useful to briefly explain XYZ and why it will help in the introduction.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Always think of the reader. If XYZ is relevant to understanding something then if possible you should summarise at that point the key points of XYZ that are relevant. If you do that, it is quite OK to say 'more detail in Appendix Y' and/or 'a full account of XYZ is given below in Chapter X'.
What you must avoid is the kind of thing that might be quite acceptable in a work of fiction: 'for reasons that will only become clear later...'.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/09
| 536
| 2,471
|
<issue_start>username_0: Previous quests for the ideal study technique usually led me to "solve problems" (mathematics courses) or use spaced repetition (+ e.g. ANKI) for courses which require at least some level of memorization.
Now I'm taking courses which require reading (and understanding) research papers and I'm not sure about the best way to study. Should I print out quizzes for each paper? Or just read them again and again? Are there study techniques specifically for "paper-based" courses?<issue_comment>username_1: My strong suggestion is that you write and keep notes on the papers you read. There is some evidence that hand writing the notes is superior to typing them for learning purposes. The goal is to engage the mind more fully in what you are trying to learn and note taking is a good way, especially if you don't have exercises to solve.
But even better is to summarize your notes a bit later. You can do this by entering your summaries onto electronic media for saving and later searching.
But one thing that is worth considering is to take your notes in a way that allows you to later extend them as thoughts occur. This is much like a "research notebook" in which you record yet unsolved problems and your thoughts on coming up with solutions. These problems might just be thoughts that occur to you as possible research areas but that you need to defer for the moment while you do higher priority things.
But the key is to fully engage the mind. For most people reading isn't enough. It works for short term retention but not well enough for long term learning. Writing is a better mechanism - especially writing by hand.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends in each case what purpose you are reading the paper for. At the lowest level of engagement, it might be to acquaint yourself with the existence of a paper on such-and-such. At the highest level of engagement it might be to understand the paper so fully you could explain it without notes to an undergraduate class. There are all sorts of intermediate stages, and you may find yourself moving through them in respect of the same paper.
I have certainly experienced the realisation that that paper by <NAME> Jones that I glanced at a while ago is now, I realise, one that I need to understand inside out and backwards. When that happens I fully endorse username_1's advice that going through the paper taking detail notes in manuscript is the best way.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/09
| 724
| 2,721
|
<issue_start>username_0: A "[CIFRE](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_industrielle_de_formation_par_la_recherche)" in French is another type of doctorate where the French government helps to fund a company to hire a doctorand.
There are several differences between a CIFRE and a "[doctorat](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorat)" in France, or PhD, as far as I know, the main are more are less those following:
* You are hired within both a company and a laboratory for a CIFRE instead of only a single laboratory for a "doctorat"
* You are generally better paid with a CIFRE, slightly more than a "doctorat" but still less than a regular position within a company as an engineer for instance
* You are suppose to do more theoretical and less applied work for a "doctorat", CIFRE aiming to apply your researches for the company that hires you. Also meaning you'll probably publish less while doing a CIFRE.
* You have to teach within universities or Engineering/Business schools for a "doctorat" while it's not mandatory for a CIFRE
Here I'm not focusing on doctors of medicine at all (a French distinction exists).
I was wondering if this kind of huge distinction exists in UK or US and if not, in any other country.<issue_comment>username_1: **Yes**.
[CIFRE](http://www.anrt.asso.fr/sites/default/files/plaquette_cifre_en.pdf) is a mechanism for PhD students in France to be funded and work with industry.
The US NSF offers similar opportunities through the [Non-Academic Research Internships for Graduate Students (INTERN) Supplemental Funding Opportunity](https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18102/nsf18102.jsp).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: From the description in the comments, the closest UK equivalent might be the [CASE studentship](https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/icc/documents/What%20are%20CASE%20studentships.pdf) (CASE once stood for Collaborative Award in Science & Engineering, but now probably doesn't stand for anything). These studentships are funded jointly by the UK research councils and a second party, who provides a "top up" of at least 33% to the student's maintenance stipend, additional supervision during the ordinary course of the university study and will be expected to arrange a short internship for the student of [about three months](https://epsrc.ukri.org/skills/students/coll/icase/intro/) during the (maximum) four year degree course.
The value to the government is the targeting of research at problems UK companies care sufficiently to throw money at (a small amount by industrial terms). As far the the actual period of study goes, there will be relatively few functional differences, beyond the (significantly) higher income.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/09
| 1,611
| 6,787
|
<issue_start>username_0: I finished my PhD a few years ago, and since then have been hopping from temporary job to temporary job every year. They've all been research-and-teaching jobs, which has been exactly what I wanted. I applied to a whole host of jobs this year, and got one. It's a secure, open-ended job, in a location I think I could be happy living in for a long time. I'm incredibly relieved about this.
The one downside is that it's a teaching-only job.
Now, I honestly enjoy teaching, but it alone is not enough to keep me in this career in the long run. This job seems like a poisoned chalice for my research career: not only does it mean less research time, it also means I'm less likely to be able to attend seminars, I'll have minimal free time during other mathematicians' work hours to liaise with them, I'll receive no funding to attend conferences, I won't be able to swap out duties with other people to give talks, and so on. I won't even be housed in the same building as the research mathematicians, so even interacting with them over lunch is going to be difficult. I'm basically excluded from all of the things that are involved in being an active member of the community!
How do I avoid being funnelled into a permanent teaching-only career? How do I make the most of the time I have during this job? Am I going to find it more difficult to be taken seriously as a researcher after a few years in this job?
---
Edited to clarify: my department is not the mathematics department. It is part of the university, but it is a "learning and teaching"-style department: the vast majority of staff there are teaching-only. I don't know whether this makes a concrete difference, but it might well impact funding, internal policy regarding grants, the priorities of my line managers, etc. I have no idea. Anecdotes and experiences related to this might also be useful.<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like the research mathematicians are at the same campus. If so, even if not in the same building, you can cultivate collegiate relationships:
* Go to the seminars held by the research group
* Be a co-supervisor for PhD students in the research group
If you spend some time finding out peoples' interests, then you could potentially write a grant application during the summer teaching break with one of the research mathematicians, and that grant could include buyout time for you. Find out the buyout policy for your department.
Do the research mathematicians also teach? That is, would you be able to apply for jobs with the research group where your teaching experience is relevant? If so, becoming familiar with the group would also be an advantage in any application for a position.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **First, I’ll describe what happens at my department (engineering, high ranking, UK). It might be useful to understand the mindset.**
We were recently hiring for teaching only position at my school (teaching fellow). The idea behind it was to get someone to teach in a specific area. *The job is open-ended, the same salary as other faculty (Lecturer/assist prof), and has excellent career progression (to full professor on a teaching track).* We wanted someone that loves to do that, teaching. If we wanted someone to do both, then we would open a position for someone to do both.
As a panel, we tried to understand if the candidate really wanted to do research and was only using the position as a transition or as a way into the department. Then, we removed those candidates. Afterwards, there is a probation period of one year during which, if the person seems that is not interested in teaching (which was the job description), the school can decide to let them go.
The school only “allows” the teaching-only colleagues to research if it’s related to teaching. For instance, new teaching methods, methodologies, etc. With “allows”, I mean would shift timetable, include in workload, and pay for conferences. If the teaching staff wants to do anything not related to teaching, they need to do it at their own time and expense. PhD co-supervision is not possible.
**To your questions**
The more you stay in a teaching position, the more you’ll get trapped. Your peers in research or combined post will be encouraged and have more time to write grants and publish papers. Since these are the main characteristics looked for in research-track hiring and progression, you will gradually become unattractive for research-focused or combined positions.
Transitioning within the same department is indeed possible (but rare). We have a colleague that transitioned from a teaching to a combined position after three years. He is now transitioning back to a teaching post. He found that three years without publishing and without the skills that other research-track colleagues honed over the same three years (grant writing, networking, panels, etc.) it was impossible to attract funding (which is a requirement in our school to keep your position).
**Edit based on OP comments**
Our university offers two progression tracks. The research track has 80% research excellence, contribution to the field, and funding criteria and 20% teaching. The teaching track is the other way around.
The teaching-track research is on education in the area. One of the best journals for us as an example is [IEEE Transactions on Education](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=13). Admittedly, most of the research is translational. That is, bringing modern educational concepts and ideas into the engineering teaching environment.
Other criteria involve participation to accreditation process, designing/updating teaching programs, achieving Fellow status at HEA, outreach activities at schools, etc.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The obvious answer is to shirk teaching and divert time to research. Do it in a stealthy manner of course (just be perceived as efficient, not blowing things off). Use your massive Ph.D. brain to figure out how to do that. (limit graded homework, use established texts and curricula versus trying new ones, etc. etc. use your noggin.)
But really, you are already pretty far off the beaten track ("job to job" along with taking a teaching only post, versus finding another one with partial research). At this point, you really need to re-evaluate your goals and see if pursuing hard core academia research is in the cards for you. It is a tournament system (like being a rock star...lots of aspiring musicians, few headliners). Consider if you will be happy being a postdoc in your 40s. Or an adjunct forever. Or if you even might want to look at alternate fields (more applied, BUT don't take more school) or going to work for government or the like.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/10
| 706
| 3,139
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have about 5 relatively small tables which will be shown in the same part of my thesis. I think it might be a waste of space if I place one table per line, but I am not sure whether one should put e.g. 2 tables side by side in an academic thesis as I have never seen someone do this.
What is the convention?<issue_comment>username_1: The only rule here is to **do what is best for your reader**. Try it different ways and see which presentation is simplest for the reader to interpret. Some considerations to bear in mind are simple labelling of your tables and close proximity of the tables to any textual explanation of their contents. Try to allow the reader to see the tables and accompanying textual explanations without having to flip back-and-forth between pages. Your supervisor might be able to give you some guidance here, but the goal is to make the dissertation as clear and simple as possible. The fact that you have not seen this before in a dissertation is not determinative of any problem with it.
If you find that you are presenting large amounts of information in tables, then another thing to bear in mind is that tables are usually a poor way to present large amounts of information, relative to appropriate graphs. Consider whether you can present the same information graphically in a simple and clear manner, and relegate the accompanying tables to an appendix. Again, you should be driven by consideration of what is best for your reader. Always ask yourself: if I was reading this and had not seen it before, how would I want it presented to me?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In general\*, it is a bad idea. Even a two column table will look fine when centered on the page and with 1+ inches of white space between the columns. It is the norm\*, for thesis style to have lots of white space margins, double spacing, non-wrapped tables and figures, single-column, etc.
They are not usually set with anything approximating the layout in a journal. (Even for journals, they often have an easier time type-setting articles that have simple "white paper" style formatting with figures/tables at the end, etc. versus attempts to make the thing look like an article ahead of time.) In addition, I think you will find it easier to maintain the formatting of the document over time (as you write it), if you don't do some complicated setting of two tables side by side.
I did my thesis with the tables/figures at the end of each chapter and used endnotes versus footnotes for the citations (like a white paper or journal submission...and several chapters were sent to journals almost as is). This was received fine in terms of the review committee and the "ruler lady" (grad school format czar who checked white space and such). In general, I advise to write clearly and simply and truthfully and with good content. Elaborate typography is not desirable and can make your life a hassle as you work with a large document over time (distracting you from the core content).
\*Of course follow your local thesis style guide. I am giving you general advice.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/10
| 827
| 3,742
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just received a decision letter from IEEE ACCESS with resubmission option(first decision came in one month). The recommendation of reviewer1 is "Accept (minor edits)" and the recommendation of reviewer2 is "Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)".
Reviewer 1: Accept (minor edits)
compare the performance of proposed method with conventional methods are given in ref[] & ref[].
Reviewer 2: Reject (update & resubmission encouraged)
Comments came like grammar check and typo corrections are needs to be done...
some notations, abbreviations are need to be corrected...
Add expression for proposed technique and also explanation with performance cure...
I am doing revision on my manuscript as per advice given by the journal reviewers and going to submit ASAP....
If anybody has the similar kind of experience, please share what could be the final decision?....
Valid points are welcome & appreciated....<issue_comment>username_1: The only rule here is to **do what is best for your reader**. Try it different ways and see which presentation is simplest for the reader to interpret. Some considerations to bear in mind are simple labelling of your tables and close proximity of the tables to any textual explanation of their contents. Try to allow the reader to see the tables and accompanying textual explanations without having to flip back-and-forth between pages. Your supervisor might be able to give you some guidance here, but the goal is to make the dissertation as clear and simple as possible. The fact that you have not seen this before in a dissertation is not determinative of any problem with it.
If you find that you are presenting large amounts of information in tables, then another thing to bear in mind is that tables are usually a poor way to present large amounts of information, relative to appropriate graphs. Consider whether you can present the same information graphically in a simple and clear manner, and relegate the accompanying tables to an appendix. Again, you should be driven by consideration of what is best for your reader. Always ask yourself: if I was reading this and had not seen it before, how would I want it presented to me?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In general\*, it is a bad idea. Even a two column table will look fine when centered on the page and with 1+ inches of white space between the columns. It is the norm\*, for thesis style to have lots of white space margins, double spacing, non-wrapped tables and figures, single-column, etc.
They are not usually set with anything approximating the layout in a journal. (Even for journals, they often have an easier time type-setting articles that have simple "white paper" style formatting with figures/tables at the end, etc. versus attempts to make the thing look like an article ahead of time.) In addition, I think you will find it easier to maintain the formatting of the document over time (as you write it), if you don't do some complicated setting of two tables side by side.
I did my thesis with the tables/figures at the end of each chapter and used endnotes versus footnotes for the citations (like a white paper or journal submission...and several chapters were sent to journals almost as is). This was received fine in terms of the review committee and the "ruler lady" (grad school format czar who checked white space and such). In general, I advise to write clearly and simply and truthfully and with good content. Elaborate typography is not desirable and can make your life a hassle as you work with a large document over time (distracting you from the core content).
\*Of course follow your local thesis style guide. I am giving you general advice.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/10
| 1,321
| 5,365
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let's suppose my paper is about icebergs. The paper is accepted to a quite well known journal on a broader topic. The copy editor has changed the word "iceberg" to "ice-berg" everywhere in the paper. I have requested twice that the hyphen be removed, and the copyeditor has disagreed.
A clear majority of scientists in my field use the spelling "iceberg" but there is a minority which uses "ice-berg" in their published papers. It is easy to produce several lines of evidence that this is true.
How should I respond to this situation? My primary concern is that I want my paper to be easy to find. I do not think people are searching for papers using the term "ice-berg."
Update: As suggested by the answers below, I tried to contact the editor. After waiting a while and getting no response, I tried again. And I waited, and tried a third time. Subsequently and without explanation, the copy editor made the requested changes. Overall, I had to check five proofs. In summary, I was successful but I am not sure why.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest not worrying about it. First, even if a clear majority of the scientists in your field prefer "iceberg", the journal still has to stick to its own style. Second, it's not like people will confuse "iceberg" with "ice-berg".
If it really bothers you, then there's no point arguing with the copyeditor - they don't control the journal's style. You will have to convince the editorial board. Contact the editor who accepted your paper; he/she should know what to do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Don't worry about it. If your paper is on a topic suitable for the ArXiv, just use your preferred spelling in the ArXiv version, which is more likely to be found by google search anyway. This way people are likely to find your article regardless of which spelling variant of the keyword they use.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You might consider voicing your concern to a member of the editorial board -- probably whoever handled your paper.
If they agree with you, then they will probably contact the journal on your behalf and request that your preferred spelling be allowed to stand. Conversely, if they think that your concerns are unwarranted or unnecessary, then you should probably drop the matter.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Putting style above content and reducing the ability to find the paper does not help anybody. My experience with copy editors is that they make and introduce far more errors and problems than they solve.
Anyway, I would discuss this with the editor that accepted your paper and give him/her the scientific reasons. This might help more than discussing the issue with the copy editor.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: I strongly advise allowing the journal their style, since you already put up an argument.
A physics journal change $K$-theory to K theory in one of my papers. I investigated, and found the same publisher did the same thing to a Fields medalist. At that point I figured I had a funny story to tell and let it go.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I have had this issue in the past. As a first step, look through past issues of the journal and see if they consistently apply their style guide. If they don't, provide them a few references to their articles that use your preferred version. If they consistently apply the style, your battle will be harder. Go through the articles in your reference section show them that your usage is preferred. Finally, provide them references to highly cited articles in other journals that show your usage.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: Personally, I'd push-back on the copy editor's choice of "ice-berg". If you're unable to convince the copy editor, then as other's have mentioned, speak with, or exchange email with, the editor for your submission, if that's a different person than the copy editor. If you don't get satisfaction from the editor, you can raise the issue with the publication's Editor in Chief. Obviously, your final recourse is to withdraw your paper. Only you can determine how much of an issue this is for you and how far down that road you want to go.
In discussions, I usually find that it's important to have evidence to back up your choice.1 It would be good to have a sampling of papers in your area showing which version of "iceberg" vs. "ice-berg" is predominately used. I also find that for this sort of discussion, it's often convincing to use information from [Google Book's Ngram Viewer](https://books.google.com/ngrams) ([info](https://books.google.com/ngrams/info)).
For ["iceberg" vs. "ice-berg", Google Book's Ngram Viewer shows](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=iceberg%2Cice-berg&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3) that "iceberg" was used **344 times more often** than "ice-berg" in 2008, and has been the dramatically predominant form, at least in Google Book's corpus, for more than 200 years:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kwsE0.png)
You can also look "iceberg" up in various dictionaries. All of the ones I checked didn't even give examples of the hyphenated version.
---
1. Something just being your preference is also valid, but that's not the case for this issue.
Upvotes: 5
|
2019/07/10
| 1,020
| 4,433
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in theoretical computer science. It is my understanding that if I work on a paper without my PhD advisor (which is common in my research area) and without any lab resources then that work is my own, and I can submit the paper where I choose. In particular, my advisor cannot force me to add them as a co-author if they have not contributed to the paper either intellectually or in the form of resources. Is this the most widely held view among scientists? What if the PhD student is an RA for 20 hours a week?<issue_comment>username_1: **Theoretically**
Unless you have signed some sort of agreement that states that any research you produce is the property of your advisor or university, papers you have written as an individual would be your own work to do what you please with it.
**In Practice**
It might not be too hard for your advisor/university to establish a contribution of resources that would warrant authorship/acknowledgements. Especially in super computing. (Unless you have your own super computer).
Keep in mind that the large majority of university professors do not advise students because they love mentoring students absent of any publications. Your advisor is your advisor because he/she wants to put his/her name on research produced by you. I know of no professor who advises students solely because they love teaching students. They want credit for your work, whether they contributed significantly to it or not.
With these thoughts on authorship in mind, it is feasible to believe that your advisor may not be super happy to allow you to independently publish research you produced. They will have significant leverage on your degree progress and funding. Act accordingly.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: If your advisor hasn’t contributed anything to the paper intellectually then they can’t ethically put their name on a paper they didn’t contribute to. That has nothing to do with funding or RAships.
That said, what I described above is the ideal. Students are often under pressure to do what advisors say. Authorship is best discussed directly and if you have any issues you should speak with your advisor and establish standards in your group.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is this the most widely held view among scientists?
>
>
>
In principle, yes; in practice, perhaps not. But that's not the question you want to ask.
>
> Is this the most widely held view among **theoretical computer** scientists?
>
>
>
Yes, it is.
The most widely held view in theoretical computer science is that **authorship requires a significant intellectual contribution to the paper.** Thus, if your advisor truly did not make a significant intellectual contribution to the paper, they *cannot* be a coauthor. The fact that they are your advisor is utterly irrelevant. The fact that they are giving you an RAship is utterly irrelevant. The fact that they may be going up for tenure is utterly irrelevant. No intellectual contribution, no coauthorship, period.
But let's be very clear here: "most widely held" does *not* mean "universally agreed, without exception". Even theoretical computer science has its (thankfully small) share of unethical advisors.
You need to have a direct, face-to-face conversation with your advisor about their expectations, both for authorship and for how you spend your research time, *well before* you have to worry about how they *might* respond to your submitting a paper without them. The best time to have this conversation is before you accept the RAship or sign an advisor agreement. (And yes, that might be before you accept the admission offer.)
Ideally, you should be comfortable telling your advisor about your independent results, asking for their suggestions for where to submit them, and even asking for their feedback on the results and presentation, without worrying about authorship issues. Ideally, they should either *encourage* you to submit without them or *ask* if they can work with you on further extending the results. But not everyone follows these ideals, which is why you must ask about their expectations well in advance.
(I am assuming here that you are meeting the requirements of your RAship, and your independent research is *in addition to*, not *instead of*, the research you are being paid to do. Skimping on your job is not going to make your boss happy.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/10
| 1,182
| 5,082
|
<issue_start>username_0: Currently I am an MSc student in Resource and Environmental Economics. In the pursuit of further graduate studies, I think that I would be a lot more interested in pursuing something along the lines of quantitative sociology or applied mathematics. But what I am not sure about is how often people are able to make lateral jumps to different fields.
I finished my MSc course work with a 3.8/4.0 gpa and I did my undergraduate degree (after having floated to different faculties in my earlier years) in economics with a minor in math while finishing my last two years with a 3.5/4.0 gpa. However, my early years of of schooling were pretty crappy (2.6-2.7 gpa), and so I bring these numbers up to both assert resiliency as a student and as merit to suggest I have matured in many faculties of my own learning abilities. Hopefully with those numbers, it would suggest to faculty from another field that I have the capabilities of pursuing studies in that area, although the area would be fairly different from what I did for my MSc.
Do you think it is possible to shift fields and directions or do people often find themselves on a similar track when pursuing PhD level work?<issue_comment>username_1: **Theoretically**
Unless you have signed some sort of agreement that states that any research you produce is the property of your advisor or university, papers you have written as an individual would be your own work to do what you please with it.
**In Practice**
It might not be too hard for your advisor/university to establish a contribution of resources that would warrant authorship/acknowledgements. Especially in super computing. (Unless you have your own super computer).
Keep in mind that the large majority of university professors do not advise students because they love mentoring students absent of any publications. Your advisor is your advisor because he/she wants to put his/her name on research produced by you. I know of no professor who advises students solely because they love teaching students. They want credit for your work, whether they contributed significantly to it or not.
With these thoughts on authorship in mind, it is feasible to believe that your advisor may not be super happy to allow you to independently publish research you produced. They will have significant leverage on your degree progress and funding. Act accordingly.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: If your advisor hasn’t contributed anything to the paper intellectually then they can’t ethically put their name on a paper they didn’t contribute to. That has nothing to do with funding or RAships.
That said, what I described above is the ideal. Students are often under pressure to do what advisors say. Authorship is best discussed directly and if you have any issues you should speak with your advisor and establish standards in your group.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is this the most widely held view among scientists?
>
>
>
In principle, yes; in practice, perhaps not. But that's not the question you want to ask.
>
> Is this the most widely held view among **theoretical computer** scientists?
>
>
>
Yes, it is.
The most widely held view in theoretical computer science is that **authorship requires a significant intellectual contribution to the paper.** Thus, if your advisor truly did not make a significant intellectual contribution to the paper, they *cannot* be a coauthor. The fact that they are your advisor is utterly irrelevant. The fact that they are giving you an RAship is utterly irrelevant. The fact that they may be going up for tenure is utterly irrelevant. No intellectual contribution, no coauthorship, period.
But let's be very clear here: "most widely held" does *not* mean "universally agreed, without exception". Even theoretical computer science has its (thankfully small) share of unethical advisors.
You need to have a direct, face-to-face conversation with your advisor about their expectations, both for authorship and for how you spend your research time, *well before* you have to worry about how they *might* respond to your submitting a paper without them. The best time to have this conversation is before you accept the RAship or sign an advisor agreement. (And yes, that might be before you accept the admission offer.)
Ideally, you should be comfortable telling your advisor about your independent results, asking for their suggestions for where to submit them, and even asking for their feedback on the results and presentation, without worrying about authorship issues. Ideally, they should either *encourage* you to submit without them or *ask* if they can work with you on further extending the results. But not everyone follows these ideals, which is why you must ask about their expectations well in advance.
(I am assuming here that you are meeting the requirements of your RAship, and your independent research is *in addition to*, not *instead of*, the research you are being paid to do. Skimping on your job is not going to make your boss happy.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/10
| 2,915
| 12,334
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a domestic student in the US at a medium-sized state school. Despite my poor English, it's my first language.
A few months ago, I finished a class on web development.
My final submission was a simple but fully functional web app.
The professor of the that class seemed happy with my work (and the work of my classmates) and gave positive feedback. No one was accused of plagiarism. It was a small class with only five people, we all know each other fairly well and I don't think anyone cheated. I know I certainly didn't.
This summer I am taking another class, which is co-taught by Prof X, who has made it clear that he thinks I am an idiot. Prof X is also one of the co-chairs of my program, but not the department chair.
Last week, I asked Prof X a question. Without going into too much detail, the question had to do with presentation skills. He scoffed at me and asked me how I completed the web-development class if I didn't already know the answer to the question (Prof X is, by his own admission, not much of a web developer).
I told him I had completed it just fine. Then he told me I couldn't possibly have completed the final project. I told him I did. I asked him the question again.
Then he asked me what my grade was in the web development class. I got an A, so I told him that. Normally I wouldn't get into it but I was happy with the grade.
I was not able to get an answer to my question.
This week I found out that Prof X is starting a formal university disciplinary process against me.
I didn't cheat and I can prove it. I have all the code I wrote for the project and it's in my GitHub in a private repo so it was all version-controlled. I also have the presentations I gave to the class that show the work in progress. The web-development class's professor would vouch for me if needed, I'm sure of that.
**While I think this is likely to blow over and not result in any problems for me, what are some precautions I should take just in case?**
**Clarification / Updates:**
* Prof X has never criticized my coding skills, only my ability to pass the web development class based on my question about giving presentations.
* I can't drop the course as it is past the drop date now. But regardless, Prof X is one of three professors teaching this class and the other two seem to think highly of me so far, so I am less concerned about the grading.<issue_comment>username_1: @JeffE recommends in a comment:
>
> Discuss your situation with the department chair and your previous instructor, and keep careful documentation of *everything*.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: Your Github commit history is sufficient to demonstrate that you did not cheat. Show that to the appropriate authorities and they should decide in your favor.
However, I guess you have misunderstood the situation (assuming you have stated the facts accurately). I suspect there is a conflict between Prof. X and the professor who gave you an A. Prof. X is attempting to make the other professor look bad in front of his colleagues by presenting evidence that his teaching is not good.
Most likely the end result will be harm to Prof. X's reputation, if he has one.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm really guessing here, so I might be completely way out, but my guess would be that you wrote the code and got it working despite not understanding some fundamental concept of WHY it worked; and the Prof, having a more theoretical mind-set than yours, can't imagine the possibility that people can get code working without understanding the theory.
It would help to know exactly what the question was.
So my answer to your question would be: try to engage in dialogue. Ask why the Prof thinks it would be impossible to get the code working when lacking the relevant knowledge; explain how you got it working despite not knowing the answer to the question. Perhaps be prepared to concede that there was an element of "good luck" in the process, and that the reason you asked the question was because you were seeking a deeper understanding of why your solution worked.
I have to say that after years of answering coding questions on SO, I am amazed how many programmers seem to operate quite successfully without having any real knowledge of the theory of what they are doing: you can get a long way by trial and error, and perhaps your Prof doesn't realise that.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: At this point, you should treat the situation as if you were sued for committing a crime. The stakes are very high: at worst you risk being expelled from the university, which would leave a permanent scar on your CV and significantly mess up your life on the short term. You might think that I am exaggerating, but in your situation, you cannot be *too* careful. Some people, perhaps on this website too, will try to convince you that if you appear defensive, or uncooperative, then you are going to garner ill will. But ill will is immaterial, while being convicted of academic fraud is very real.
You should of course refrain from talking (especially orally) with your accuser. You should be extremely cautious in what you say to the authorities (the representatives from the department or the university). You should restrict yourself to denying the allegations, and only answer questions submitted in writing. You should seek help, at the very least from your friends/family (this is a stressful time), from your student union, from a trusted advisor at your university if you have one; perhaps even consult a professional lawyer who is used to dealing with university matters if you think the situation deserves it.
If you are afraid of how your department's chair / former instructor will react because of these actions, you can send them a letter/email explaining your motivations: a formal disciplinary process was launched against you, and while you are innocent, you are also afraid of what might happen if you do not take this seriously.
If you have not left anything out of your question, then your chances are good. People are not convicted based on lack of proof, in your case, lack of proof that you are good enough to have coded the web app that you have submitted. If this is all the other prof has against you, then he will be laughed out of the disciplinary process... unless you do something wrong.
I would strongly advise that you do **not** follow the advice given in username_3's answer. You should obviously not admit that you do not master such and such fundamental notion, or that you had "good luck" when coding your webapp. This can only hurt you and introduce doubt about your abilities. You submitted your work, there is no material evidence that you cheated, and you got an A for it: this means that your instructor thinks that you actually master what was required for the class. Stick to this.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> This week I found out that Prof X is starting a formal university
> disciplinary process against me.
>
>
>
You were asked in comments how you were notified about this, and I haven't seen an answer.
Unless you have heard about this in some official capacity, my advice would be to
* make sure your process in the web-development course is as well-documented as it can be
* Think about how best you can present your github history in a manner that a hearing panel can understand it
* check your code against plagiarism detection tools to make sure there isn't a real problem
* simply forget about the whole thing until you have an official notification.
The reason why I suggest this is because it feels like you're missing something. It is pretty unlikely that Prof X would launch an academic honesty case for a course he did not teach. He may well be encouraging the other prof to do so, or he may even be filing a case FOR THE SUMMER COURSE YOU'RE IN RIGHT NOW -- in which case you should consider whether all of the work you're claiming credit for is your own.
When (and if!!!) you get notification of an accusation of academic dishonesty, you'll be presented with what substantiates the accusation. Deny it and request a hearing. At the hearing, (assuming you're right about it being about the earlier course) explain that you are having a disagreeable misunderstanding with X, that you don't know what he's talking about, and walk the panel through your github record and show that your code passes plagiarism detection software (assuming that it does). The standard such boards use is usually not unreasonable doubt. My instructions, serving on such a board, is "halfway plus a hair" -- so if plagiarism detection software shows a problem, there is high likelihood of penalty -- assuming the board will even hear a case from one prof about another prof's class. That feels highly irregular.
Of course, the standard caveat is that I've only heard your side of the story. The prof may have a perfectly reasonable case against you.
If you're presented with some plagiarism detection output that shows copied code, and it does go to hearing, you will likely be found responsible. If this is the case, you might consider waiving the hearing and accepting the offered penalty, if you find it reasonable. It sounds like prof X might have a hair up his butt about you, and you might get a more just penalty from a hearing board.
If you do get a responsible finding, it's not the end of the world, and likely not even something that anybody important will ever find out about down the road, if this is a first offense. Try to learn whatever lesson is there to be learned, and move on.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: In addition the other answers,
>
> document *every interaction* you have with Prof X.
>
>
>
* **keep communications to a minimum**, your discussions will not convince him of anything and he will be looking for ways of incriminating you. The more you talk, the more opportunities you have to put your foot in your mouth (e.g. telling him you got an A in a subject which you don't 100% understand, which started this whole thing)
* communicate with Prof X through email, rather than orally. This is probably the best method to keep record of who said what.
* write down your oral conversations after they happen (remain factual)
* record the lectures, many apps on your phone can do this.
* make extra sure that nothing you submit for this class could be suspected of being plagiarized
Additionally, in regard to your academic performance overall rather than to the accusations in the other class
>
> look at ways of getting out of Prof. X's class. He will most likely not be a fair grader.
>
>
>
* Look at whether or not it's possible to take this class with a different professor, either by switching section or taking it at another university and getting the credit transferred. Given your username and your mention that the web course you just finished had 5 students, I would imagine this might not be possible... but worth looking into
* If the course is not a prerequisite for upcoming courses in your program (and if you think that next year's instructor will not be Prof. X), look at the deadline to drop the course, and take it in the future with another professor who will most likely be fairer towards you.
If you can't find a way to get out of Prof X's class that won't affect your GPA (such as dropping a class after the deadline would) or delaying your graduation (if it's a prerequisite) make sure to do everything you can to be the "perfect student".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: You need to get advice from someone local who knows Prof. X. You might start with a departmental academic advisor or to the director of undergraduate studies (or some similar position). This situation is so truly bizarre, and it's difficult as an outsider to work out whether Prof. X is experiencing a serious psychological break, whether Prof. X is a blowhard who makes a lot of idle threats, whether this is about internal politics between X and the other professor, or whether you've completely misunderstood the situation. But at any rate this is not normal. As everyone else has said document everything, and you might also look into whether there are "student advocates" or similar people to help you navigate the disciplinary procedures.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/10
| 391
| 1,664
|
<issue_start>username_0: My supervisor is too busy to find an external examiner for my PhD thesis, so the job will probably fall to me. I know all the academics who may potentially be an internal examiner, but I don't know any academics outside of my own institution. To be honest, I do not know where to begin.
My area is computer science, but it overlaps with medicinal fields as well. There are presumably any number of people who would have some expertise in some part of my research, but very few who would cover all of them.
I feel that cold calling academics who are some way related to my research (maybe ones that I am citing in my thesis) asking if they will become my external examiner is a particularly poor strategy, but it is the only one that is apparent to me at the moment.<issue_comment>username_1: Start by going through the bibliography of your thesis draft. For each author, consider whether they might reasonably be an external examiner (e.g. are they established scholars with a reasonable reputation, do they hold positions as professors in your discipline, etc.) This should produce a large list of potential external examiners.
I'd encourage you to get your advisor to contact prospective external examiners rather than contacting them yourself.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You need to ask faculty in your field of research at your university for advice. They will know how the invitation is issued, who is likely to accept, and the reputations of different examiners. Invitation of external examiners is an important networking opportunity. Someone with a good network can suggest good choices.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/11
| 459
| 1,896
|
<issue_start>username_0: This question has already been asked, albeit not so much, in [this thread](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55560/publishing-academic-research-in-more-than-one-field). This, however, still gets me thinking. I am an early career research (not even done with my PhD yet). A PhD candidate told me that despite all my papers being focused in one country, I am "all over the place." Meaning, my published works are in different fields (i.e. sociolinguistics, politics, anthropology, international relations) - all of which I have a good grasp with. What is common among all my publications are my ideological standpoints. I remained consistent.
My degrees are in area studies, and I did (and still does) all the researches for my degrees in the fields of sociolinguistics, the politics of language, and political rhetoric. Area Studies is so broad enough that it can be considered multi- and interdisciplinary.
However, will writing and being able to have my works published in various fields in the social sciences affect my profile (positively or negatively) when I apply for faculty positions in the future?<issue_comment>username_1: To give a general answer: If you can show you have a significant, long-running research agenda, i.e. if you can bind the different publication or most of them with a single narrative - than it's probably ok. Of course, expectations depend by field, country etc.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Often these things depend on how you sell them when questioned about it. Working in a few different fields can be positive or negative, but often it can put you in a position to offer a unique perspective that people who only work in one area might not have. Also, people who have worked in A, B and C are often more adaptable and able to pick up D than someone who has spent their entire life working only on B.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/11
| 673
| 2,995
|
<issue_start>username_0: As part of applying to a postdoc fellowship, I need to write the following:
"Please describe your planned research activities for your postdoctoral studies (up to 650 words)".
I'm not sure whether the intentions are to describe my future research plan (as in what research questions I'm going to tackle) or what research activities I plan to have (e.g., conducting simulations, reviewing papers, collaborations or organizing workshops).
I suspect that the answer is trivial, yet I'm not familiar with this academic terminology. Any help?
Edit: following Nathan's answer, I add the other questions:
* Please provide a summary of your dissertation (up to 450 words).
* Please provide a summary of your present research, if different from your dissertation (up to 400 words).
* Please describe your planned research activities for your postdoctoral studies (up to 650 words).
* Explain, in some detail, the reasons for your choice of country, institution and academic supervisor abroad, and the connection, if any, with your present and planned future work (up to 130 words).
* Please describe in one paragraph (10-12 lines) what you hope to have achieved at the conclusion of your post-doctoral studies.<issue_comment>username_1: The best answer may depend on what other questions are asked on the application form. These types of questions are usually used to assess whether you have a clear research line moving forward, but it is also helpful to know how you are going to break your research line into smaller goals. This is typical for grant applications -- high level research questions followed by measurable research activities.
So, if the 650 words gives you space, I would suggest providing both answers. The high-level research questions you want to answer and the first few research activities that will support this.
I wouldn't spend too much time talking about general service activities such as reviewing papers, but organizing a workshop to support those working in your research area would be worth mentioning, as this demonstrates broader impact.
---
After the edit:
As I suspected, the other questions are related to the first question you asked about. So, my overall advice doesn't change, but you can spread the answers across your questions as appropriate.
For instance, what you hope to achieve is related to the planned activities, but is looking for a broader answer - here is where you can talk about the expected impact of your work on the field.
In your dissertation or present research summary you can introduce some of the higher-level questions being answered, leaving more space to talk about specific activities in the response to that question.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My interpretation:
* What results will you obtain?
* How will they be published?
* Why are the results important?
What you do and how you will do it should be stated only to support the answers to those questions.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/11
| 1,564
| 6,867
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a given field there are essentially two types of articles, N-author articles and single author articles. Related to this fact, I wonder how a committee when evaluating someone for a tenure promotion establishes the personal contribution of an N-authors article? Just to give an example, suppose that we have two candidates which one has in total 20 articles, all co-authored, and another candidate which has in total 15 articles, with only two co-authored articles, and the rest are single authored. Assume also that both candidates have published their work in the best journals in their working field.
Based on your experience and on my example above, how is in reality determined the PERSONAL contribution of an N-authors article? Would this contribution just be 1/N? Which of the candidates in the example which described above would be more likely to be selected for a promotion? How in reality are seen single author articles published in the best journals in a given working field?
An observation: Usually people who work with several co-authors tend to have more publications than someone who works alone. Also in many fields, in an N-authors article, the author names are put in alphabetic order.
EDIT NR.1: My question is mostly related to theoretical fields, such as mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science. In these fields usually the number of co-authors is N<10.<issue_comment>username_1: That depends on your field.
In my field (bioinformatics / biomedicine) co-authorships have almost no value (because being author number 12 out of 23 is not much of an achievement). What really counts is if you are first author (=first position) or senior author (=last position). But authoring a paper alone looks also a bit odd as you might look like a weirdo/loner (but in other fields like math this is more common).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: As mentioned above, it depends. First authorships matter, last authorships matter, solo authorships matter, authorships without your supervisor / mentor / head of department matter, impact factors matter. I've even seen mentions of a points system, where each publication was awarded some number of points and you need to have so and so many to pass your habilitation (which is something like a tenure evaluation in Germany).
So, what can be recommended? Try both. Being on a huge paper in a highly praised journal, even if it's a collaborative effort with 100 people, will do you some good. Publishing a paper completely on your own, even if the target journal is less well ranked, will do you good. How much good it is, depends on your area.
Some journals, esp. in biomed area, have a thing called author contribution list, where is stated who did what. Similar statements are sometimes required for all of your publications by some hiring committees.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: There isn’t a precise rule about such things, but to the extent that one can formulate a general principle, I’d say that the credit for an N-author article would almost always be *greater* - often significantly greater - than a 1/N fraction of the total credit. That is why collaboration is generally a profitable activity - it allows two or more people to leverage their skills and abilities and together create something that is worth more than the sum of its parts: the very definition of synergy.
Another synergistic effect in collaborations is that your coauthors will be going around giving talks and telling people about your joint paper. If effect, you get double (or five, or ten times) the “marketing” or “buzz” about your paper for the same effort on your part: the credit you get is higher simply by virtue of more people getting to hear about your paper. Moreover, when your coauthors give talks about your paper they can say flattering things about you that you probably wouldn’t dare to say about yourself, or that if you did say about yourself people wouldn’t be as impressed by (and it works both ways, you say nice things about your coauthors’ contributions when you give talks about the joint papers of course).
I estimate that close to half of my papers are solely authored, and the others are joint. I enjoy both styles of work, although I think these days I most enjoy the freedom that comes with writing papers by myself. I often reflect about the (small) injustice that comes with the fact that those papers usually take longer to make a splash than my jointly authored ones, for the reasons I mentioned above. Oh well. Not every decision we make is driven by some ultra-rational cost-benefit analysis. Do what makes you happy, and what you feel you are good at. Some people excel at collaborating, others are solitary thinkers.
My experience is with pure mathematics, and applies mostly to papers with 1-4 authors. In math, for papers where the number of authors is, say, 6-10 (which are quite a rarity), the credit might start getting seriously diluted, to the point that I’m not sure how much of what I wrote above is accurate - probably it would depend quite a lot on the specific details of who the authors are and what their paper is about.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: This depends on the type of evaluation the committee is doing.
In a "gross" evaluation, such as an evaluation done by non-specialists, or at the stage where a committe selects 30 out of 150 applications, the difference between single-authored and multi-authored papers can get lost in the noise. In particular this will happen if people use coarse bibliometric indicators such as the h-index.
In a "fine" evaluation comparing a few candidates on a shortlist, there is more time for actually reading papers, and single-authored papers can become disproportionately influential because there is no question of who did what.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You equate theoretical physics with math/comp sci in this question. But a major difference that I am used to from physics (all of it) to math is first author emphasis versus alphabetical author list. If you are looking at a field where first author prominence is acknowledged, then there's nothing to worry about with adding more "bodies on the sleigh" (assuming you are first). If it's not, then you have more concern and should try to do sole-author papers.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> Based on your experience and on my example above, how is in reality determined the PERSONAL contribution of an N-authors article?
>
>
>
The correct answer is that you should not try to quantify or judge performance based on authorship alone. Additional, qualitative information is always important. You must know what was in the publication, and how the publication has been used.
In practice, I recommend asking the authors to explain their individual contributions.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/11
| 822
| 3,636
|
<issue_start>username_0: I love computational materials science. I was an experimentalist and involved in some Computational work during my masters degree. I did not not enjoy the experimental part. I did not enjoy the lab politics, the dependency on others. Also, I did not enjoy the significance of the work I was doing. Most of the time, it was just reporting the experimental data without trying hard to find a theoretical reasoning.
On the other hand, I was fascinated by computational research. The only limitation was I myself. Implementation of ideas, thinking about the fundamental physics that's occuring, and getting to theoretically predict the results was exciting. Thus, I was extremely determined to do a PhD in computational aspect of materials science for this particular reason.
Fast forward 4 years, I am done with my PhD. And I have published some papers on my research area. However, I did not do anything substantial during my PhD. I did not get any awards, nor my research got any media coverage, applying for grants with my advisor was always a nightmare. Contrarily, my colleagues who work on experimental aspect of the research, find it much easier to publish, gets multiple awards, easily gets grants approved, have media coverage for every "groundbreaking" stuff they develop.
Now that I have completed my PhD, I sort of envy the experimentalists and regret not being one. I feel that being average in computational materials science is disasterous as compared to being average in experimental research. I feel that I made a wrong choice 4 years ago when I decided to apply for a computational PhD than an experimental one.
My question is: How does one know that the field of research they are in is the best fit for them ? And how to be content with one own's research field and not feel resentment that probably I am not a good fit for this field?<issue_comment>username_1: Well, in my opinion, there is an element of chance to getting awards, grants, and recognition. Even citations have a bit of chance to them. Every now and then, a researcher will hit a lottery paper early in their career. They are working on the right problem at the right time. On the other hand, the field you work in might catch fire. Those researchers working on neural networks prior to 2010 were largely making contributions in a relatively thankless field. How that has changed.
I had a mentor put it to me very succinctly- Any given decent paper has a chance of being noticed by the wider community. Do enough decent work and you will be noticed.
But from personal experience-
I know the field I work in is the field for me because I gain a large amount of satisfaction from it. I enjoy writing papers and submitting them to journals. I enjoy reviewing manuscripts from those journals. I enjoy going to conferences and talking with other researchers in the field. I enjoy thinking about problems in my field. I enjoy talking with practitioners and policy makers about those problems and possible solutions as well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: "I love computational materials science." End of discussion.
If you can do what you love you can have a marvelous life. If you can't do what you love you will have a harder time.
But, with time, hard work, and experience you will likely improve. There will always be people better than you at whatever you do. Don't worry about it. Don't envy them. But try to form collaborative relationships that might, in time, let you work with some of the superstars.
As to your colleagues who seem to have an easier time: they may feel quite differently.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/11
| 666
| 2,783
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have asked earlier this question in that post [Submitting Workshop Proposal by A first Year PhD student](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/132941/103209)
I asked my supervisor and he is okay, but I was astonished that he told me that I have to take permission from the head of the department, in general, he didn't give me a bit of useful advice.
To have a paper it requires time since I am working with collaborative groups, I cannot publish yet and I want to be engaged more in scientific activities.
My question now: Does it count to a first-year Ph.D. student to submit a workshop proposal ( I am going to have other professors, however, I will be in charge of all the logistics)
I don't know whether it could be wise to invest time in submitting a workshop proposal.<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like you asked your advisor for *permission* which was granted.
You should also (or instead) ask for *advice*. Not "can I do this?" but "do you think this will help me, or should I be focusing on \_\_\_\_\_ instead?"
Your advisor is the person best positioned to determine whether this is a useful move for you. My outside opinion is that it is not and that at your stage of career you should be focused on building your own research: you want to be known for your research, not for your workshop organization skills. However, *I am not your advisor and am not close enough to you to give this advice*.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Does it count as having a paper
>
>
>
That depends on the workshop. Your submission counts as a (peer-reviewed, published) paper if and only if
1. The submission is an actual manuscript, and not just a short (few-paragraph) abstract, AND
2. Your submission is accepted by the committee after significant review by your peers (the workshop committee)
3. After some revision, the manuscript will be made available to the public in some persistent form, either paper or electronic, that can be found many years in the future by someone who did not attend the workshop.
Many workshops fail all three of these conditions—submissions consist of only few-paragraph abstracts, which are lightly reviewed by the committee (to eliminate obvious garbage), and which are printed verbatim onto paper handouts that are distributed at the conference, but never made public elsewhere.
This may be a language issue, but a "workshop proposal" doesn't sound like a paper describing your own research, but rather a **proposal** for a **workshop** that you want to *organize*, either for other people to present *their* research, or to collaborate on new research, or both. Organizing a workshop could be valuable experience and a positive point on your CV, but it does not count as a "paper".
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/11
| 452
| 1,865
|
<issue_start>username_0: I found an interesting figure in a review which has no reference ( i assumed that it belongs to the review author if i am wrong kindly correct my idea) , can i paraphrase the caption or use the figure information and paraphrase it ( deal with it as any original data from any article review ?).
additionally, what are the elements in the review paper that belongs to the review author ? is it just the conclusion and the non referenced figures ??<issue_comment>username_1: You have to distinguish between 2 things here:
1. **Academic:** If you cite correctly using a sentence like "Adapted from Smith et al 2015" you can re-use graphics.
2. **Legal (copyright):** You will have to check the journal's policy if you are allowed to re-use material from them. In most open access journals you can do this unlimited. For some other journals you might need the explicit permission to re-use a figure. This is the usually phrased as something like this "Reprinted with the kind permission of XYZ".
You need to address both points.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It's hard to tell without the exact context, but in all likelihood "yes". Two issues to consider are (1) copyright/plagiarism and (2) accuracy.
1. Don't make an exact copy of the figure or the caption. Reword it and convert it to your intent somehow. Also, cite the review paper as the source.
2. I get a sniff of concern that the curve may be made up ("cartoon") or the like since it is not well referenced or discussed. This is not the end of the world, but just consider the context to see how much this is a real concern. Also, how you will use it (e.g. to make a general point or to do detailed calculations from). You can also cover yourself a bit by actually naming the review author, so it is clear that it is "Smith's" view, not yours.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/11
| 978
| 3,990
|
<issue_start>username_0: My paper, that is part of my thesis, has been accepted to a conference as a part of the poster session. In the paper, I have mentioned my gratitutes to my supervisors. In fact, an unofficial supervisor of mine who works at the same place with me, acted and helped me more than my actual supervisor deserves all the credits in this thesis. (My main supervisor lives in another city so that we met only 2-3 times, but the unofficial supervisor I mentioned helped me enormously as my official one advised me to work with her, no need to mention, she's not a faculty member but holds an associate professorship..) So it's a basically an unresponsive thesis advisor issue.
In the submission of my final version of the thesis for the conference, I want to make her my co-author if she accepts.
But as there is literally no input from my actual supervisor, I do not want to put his name. (He also said to me once that you made all the work by yourself without me or if she (the 2nd person I work on my thesis, who is not officially assigned for my advisorship) accepts what you did then I'm fine, so he does not care at all what's going on such that I doubt if he reads the final draft of the work I sent.
So would it be okay to not to include his name?
What do you suggest?
thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: This is a "safety first" suggestion. While there is probably no ethical constraint here, I strongly suggest that you do what is expected and traditional in your field and location. You won't be in such a situation forever, provided that you graduate, and then you can choose according to more personal standards.
At a minimum, however, you should acknowledge the other professor for her help.
You might also, provided that it seems safe, ask your main advisor for advice in this. "I would like to include Y as a co-author, if she agrees, to acknowledge her help. What do you suggest?".
If your advisor provides funding, but not advice, or a lab in which to do the work, then he would normally be co-author in many fields. But if you go against the traditions of your field it could come back to your disadvantage.
Think long term. This won't be your last paper, nor your best, if you stay in Academia. Don't step in front of trains unnecessarily.
Riskier solutions may be psychologically satisfying in the short term, but don't sacrifice the long term for the short.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a common dilemma in academia that can quickly escalate to sorrow. My advice is short and straightforward: once the manuscript is ready from your side, politely approach your *both* supervisors and ask them directly about their expectations concerning authorship.
I understand the situation may feel uncomfortable and you'd prefer to make this decision relying on everyone's best judgement, but most of the times supervisors are overly touchy regarding merit and authorships.
Thread carefully there and be frank with your superiors. Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If your de jure advisor, does not mind to omit the co-authorship, than go ahead. As for the de facto advisor, please take care of her!
If the de jure advisor expects the co-authorship, than give it to him. (In theory, co-authorship reflects an actual scientific contribution. But in practice, these are often given to the PI who just procured funding. They even have to show them, expect to show them, to continue to get funding. So go with tribal practiced reality, not hypocritical unpracticed theory.)
The one case in which I would consider to omit the de jure advisor is if he wants to be a pain about editing the document, where he is not even a real contributor. In that case, you need to show a little mettle and tell him that you did the work and will lead the paper, that he can go along or leave (gentler words, but in effect...go along or leave.) Sometimes these profs feel like this is how they show they are needed.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/11
| 2,481
| 9,778
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a UK student, 23 years old, and started a PhD in theoretical physics last October 2018 at a top 15-20 university (my undergrad Maths degree was at a top 5 uni where I got a First Class Honours 1:1), I have since come to realise that I do not want to pursue a career in academia but want to go into industry.
Considering that a PhD in these disciplines cannot replace work experience and to mitigate that at best, you could train programming skills and general knowledge in the area which you are going to apply to (although you would have nothing to show for it, and which would be learnt on the job anyway). Then would a full PhD in theoretical physics/pure maths (~4 years) be considered a downside in the eyes of an employer compared to a graduate with 1 year of PhD, when applying for a data science/analyst/consultant/actuary job?
Any advise, especially from STEM PhDs and PhD dropouts who later went into industry, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much!<issue_comment>username_1: You do not want to pursue a *career* in academia. It is good that you have worked this out early enough to do something about it.
Was "the next step in the career" the only reason for doing your PhD? Or is it a genuine delight to you to be learning and to be looking forward to making a contribution to knowledge?
* If there is no delight then if I were you I'd drop it at once. *But I am not you, and that is not advice.*
* If there is delight then if I were you I would pursue that wholeheartedly. There is little enough delight in the world as it is and we shouldn't throw away what we have. *But I am not you, and that is not advice.*
* If you are half way between the two - it is always possible to start a doctorate at 60. A friend of mine did. So bear that in mind.
But here at last is some genuine advice. It comes in two stages.
1. **Take a total and irrevocable decision to abandon all your academic pretensions** and go straight for business. No second thoughts, no looking back, that is what you are going to do.
Live with that decision for a week. But do it seriously. Remember that you are not trying to decide, you *have* decided. That is the key.
2. **Take a total and irrevocable decision to complete your PhD** and only go into business after that. As before: no second thoughts, no looking back.
Live with *that* decision for a week.
---
The reason why this exercise in self-deception works so well is that it frees all the important parts of your psyche to engage with a definite and unambiguous future and not some sort of vague undecided limbo. And they are able to tell you what you feel.
At the end of those two weeks, look back on how you felt. When did you have regrets over what you had decided, and what were they? When did the choice feel righter? In which week were you most looking forward to life?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: First things first, **figure out how useful a PhD is going to be.** Without knowing this you can't make an informed decision.
Go to your local jobs portal and search for jobs that require a PhD in theoretical physics vs. those that only require an Honors degree. How much more attractive are those jobs? Are they more attractive at all? How much better-paying are they? Can you imagine doing those jobs? It's natural that jobs that require PhDs will have a more difficult job scope. You'll be asked to do things that you wouldn't be tasked with - at least initially - if you only have an Honors degree. That also means you'll be paid more (again, at least initially).
Once you've assessed that, then you can make an informed decision. For example you might get reach a conclusion that if you leave now, you'll earn $X/year, while if you finish, it'll cost you two more years as a PhD student but you can earn $2X/year upon graduating. That's a 100% increase, and likely means that if money is the only thing that matters to you, you should finish. Alternatively, you might find that although you'll only earn $1.1X/year after graduating, the job scope for Honors holders is dull and uninteresting. In that case you might want to finish as well.
One more thing: **talk to your former classmates** - the people who did undergraduate studies with you but didn't go on to PhD studies. What are they doing now? How much do they earn? Do they work in places that also employ PhD graduates, and if so, what do those PhD graduates do that they don't?
If you have the answers to all these questions, you'll be able to make a decision much more comfortably.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Having interviewed (on both sides of the desk) for most of the positions you list (albeit in the US), I should maybe answer.
**A PhD will be useful.** Most of these jobs will prefer a PhD, or at least give you credit for years spent pursuing a PhD. Many people start their career and say they will go back to get a PhD, but this rarely happens.
**Physics is a good PhD to have.** "Physicists and Physicians" are notorious for having very low unemployment rates (compared to biologists or chemists). But, physics is a big place. If you are doing data analysis on the computer, it should be easy to continually learn new skills (even having awesome Python and BASH skills is a good start). Other subfields might be less useful.
**So, I would lean toward finishing.** But of course, there are several factors that I don't know about:
* whether your advisor is supportive about letting you do your research in ways that develop marketable skills
* whether your advisor is likely to let you graduate on time
* whether you are still interested in your research
* your family and personal situation
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Did the PhD and then straight into industry for much the same reasons.
Personally, do not regret getting the Th. Phys. knowledge.
Your PhD is always narrow, but you do learn a lot more and this stays with you.
The PhD did give some help careerwise. How much kudos it brings is culturally specific. US values it more than UK more that Australia.
How much it helps in problem solving is very hard to prove either way, but a story you can tell when job hunting.
Incomplete degrees do not look good on CV.
But getting out earlier because of a change of plan is way better than something that looks like a failure to complete. Lost count of the number of people that are in that situation I have come across. All have a story and lets just say it cannot always be the supervisor's fault.
So, make very sure that if you stay on, you finish it.
See if you can get a Masters instead.
Also, if you do stick it out, build some useful skills on the way.
Learn to program, machine learning, financial maths or whatever suits. There is enough overlap with the physics that it should not impede you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: In addition to Martin’s very comprehensive answer on 'larger-scale decision-making‘, I would like shift the perspective towards the *process* instead of the *result*. I claim that you can have a successful career in the industry with and without a PhD. So:
**What is it that you would like to spend the next 3 years of your life on?**
Is it a PhD project and a thesis - or a job in the industry?
Back then, this question was all I needed to make my decision. I had decided for the PhD position, although I was quite confident that I will not persue a career in academia, because that was what I wanted to do at that time. My PhD project was successful, I had a very good time and gained valuable experience (more on a personal than on a professional level, though).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: If you get your PhD, you will live with the achievement the rest of your life. If you stop it now, you will live knowing you never finished it. 2 years more in a working life of 40 years is nothing! Besides, everyone has a basic degree, so a PhD is one way of standing out from the other seagulls. Perhaps you just need a break. Go hiking for a few weeks; come back fresh and renewed and finish the PhD with more zeal than you can muster right now. A PhD does not force you into an academic career.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I quit a PhD after wasting more than three years on it... like you I realised that I wasn't going into academia early on in the PhD but was planning to go into industry where the PhD would not only be relevant but necessary to getting a decent job.
So I stuck to it when it wasn't going well and wasn't enjoyable way longer than was reasonable. But eventually I quit, changed direction and went into a career where a PhD was not only un-necessary but of no value. Do I regret giving up? Very very rarely. Do I regret having started it? Rarely. Do I regret not listening to the voice that said I should have given up much sooner as soon as I realised that it wasn't enjoyable and it implied that my career plans at that time were not going to be enjoyable? YES!
Do your research... decide what career you want to go into instead of academia, find out if a PhD would be of any benefit to you in such a career and make an informed decision. Don't rush into it. By all means start applying for jobs now... you are not committing yourself to take any of them... and discuss with some of your interviewers the value of a PhD to them - you might make those interviews a throwaway and right off your immediate chances of a job with them, but you have time to throw a few interviews to get a feel for the industry.
And remember, by the time you've been working in your chosen industry for a few years, having a PhD or not will become fairly unimportant because it will be historic. I've been working for 35 years and a PhD had never been relevant to my career
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/11
| 857
| 3,156
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have to give my Master's defense soon. I am provided with the name of a "Jury", a professor. And two professors in my 'vowel', one of whom is my advisor. (total 3 on Jury)
What is the definition of this 'vowel' and what does it mean? What is their role in relation to the 'jury'?
My university is Portuguese and the Portuguese word is Vogal (singular).<issue_comment>username_1: "Vowel" is likely a translation error from Portuguese, Spanish or another Romance language - probably caused by Google Translate.
In a committee or a board, a "vogal" or "vocal" is a member without a specific role. For example, in a committee I was recently to grade end-of-degree dissertations, the three members were the president (tasked with chairing the committee), the secretary (tasked with writing grades down) and one "vocal", with no specific task besides deciding grades with the other two members.
Another meaning of "vogal" or "vocal" is vowel. Both meanings come from the Latin word for voice or speak, because a "vocal" is a person who just speaks in a committee and vowels are sounds or letters that can be pronounced alone.
I tried to find a translation into English but no dictionary gave me a suitable one. Then, I would translate "vocal" to "board/committee/jury member". Maybe boards are organized in a different way in English speaking countries.
Just for reference, definition of [vogal in Portuguese](https://dicionario.priberam.org/vogal) (see meanings 3 and 4), and [vocal in Spanish](https://dle.rae.es/?id=bzLBGNn) (meaning 5) and [Catalan](https://dlc.iec.cat/results.asp?txtEntrada=vocal&operEntrada=0) (meaning 2).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: On several occasions, I have been a member of an academic jury at a Portuguese university. In Portuguese, the structure is usually the following:
* **<NAME>**, the "president of the jury" who presides to the dissertation. His participation varies between symbolic to active — he can make 1 or 2 questions or comments, if he so desires, or just present the thesis and sleep until the end, when he officially concludes the event.
* **Arguente principal**, the main examiner, who will be relentlessly and exhaustively putting the student under scrutiny with questions and remarks of all sorts concerning the thesis and the oral presentation.
* **Vogal**. The "vogal" are, well, "vocal", i.e., members of the jury that will have a limit of 2-3 questions, usually targetting the impact of the study in the global context, but can also target very specific things of the dissertation that where not covered by the main examiner, which often happens when the dissertation covers multiple scientific subjects or is interdisciplinary. The number of "vogais" in MSc degrees is actually 1 only, currently, and for PhD degrees it is usually 2.
* **Orientador**, the supervisor, his task here can be summarized as follows: to defend the candidate against unreasonable questions, praise the work developed and the efforts of the candidate, and finally, ask the candidate for future perspectives concerning his work and professional future projects.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/12
| 675
| 2,639
|
<issue_start>username_0: Many funding agencies require a list of co-authors in the past *n* years. Is there an easier way to do this than to find all of my papers and copy and paste the names and institutions?<issue_comment>username_1: As with most other administrative data, it's far easier to *maintain* this information than to rebuild it from scratch every time you need it.
Maintain a spreadsheet with a complete list of your collaborators, including name, affiliation, ORCID, contact info, and most recent collaboration date for each one. Keep this spreadsheet in the same directory where you maintain your CV.
If you're lucky enough to have lots of collaborators already, setting up the *initial* spreadsheet will take significant time. Better to invest that time only once.
Every time you submit a paper or grant proposal, spend 5–10 minutes adding any new collaborators and updating your information for collaborators already listed.
Each time you need to submit a list of conflicts, extract the collaborators recent enough to create a conflict, in the precise format the agency requires. Different agencies define conflicts differently, so if you plan to submit proposals to more than one agency, I don't recommend removing anyone ever.
If your agency is like NSF, it will require a list of names and *current* affiliations of your recent collaborators. So every time you submit a proposal, you need to double-check that everyone's listed affiliation is current. A list of affiliations *at the time of your collaboration*, no matter how you obtain it, is not sufficient. People move; your conflicts follow them. (People also occasionally change names, but that's must less common.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In combination [with the answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/133402/258) by @jeffE above - keeping a spreadsheet has been handy, necessary and practical, I found a bit of R code that can query a list of publications and then a list of co-authors for each publication.
```
library(dplyr)
library(scholar)
#install.packages('scholar')
my_scholar_id <- ('XYZDPDQ')
pubs <- get_publications(my_scholar_id)
# n_deep means only get my co-authors, not the co-authors of my co-authors
coauthor_network <- get_coauthors(my_scholar_id, n_coauthors = 1000, n_deep = 1)
# may need to manually filter out conferences that don't count
coauthors2018 <- pubs %>%
filter(year >=2018) %>%
rowwise() %>%
summarise(authors = get_complete_authors(my_scholar_id, pubid,initials = FALSE))
coauthors <- data.frame(authors = strsplit(coauthors2018$authors, split = ','))
```
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/07/12
| 228
| 939
|
<issue_start>username_0: I reported a fellow classmate's verbal abuse to my professor and an associate dean at my school in a previous semester. I showed proof as I was reporting the incident. Their response to me was merely that his behavior was "very unprofessional" and that was it. They never told me if and how they were going to proceed with this student's behavior.
Is there a way for me to check if the student faced any disciplinary action or not without asking the folks that I spoke with? I have a feeling that no disciplinary action was ever taken, and this was pathetically in a master's program.<issue_comment>username_1: If your university has a student welfare center or an ombudsman, they’ll be the right address.
Sorry this happened...
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: No, you probably cannot find out what the outcome was. Here in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) disciplinary actions are confidential.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/12
| 375
| 1,681
|
<issue_start>username_0: We sent paper to a reputed journal. After 4 months we get:
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
Im confusing about revise? what it does means? The reviews was easy and we already resbmit them. Does the paper will be reviewed by the same reviewers? What is our change for our paper to be accepted? how long in average will take to get the decision?<issue_comment>username_1: This depends on the journal in question -- many have very clunky interfaces on their manuscript management systems. From what you say, it looks like the paper has been reviewed and somewhere in the system, there should be reviewers' comments. Most journals will send revisions to the same reviewers. Depending on the journal, the journal editor and other factors, reviews can take a long time. If in doubt, you should contact the journal's editor.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Does the paper will be reviewed by the same reviewers?
>
>
>
Authors, editors, and reviewers, would all surely prefer resubmissions to be reviewed by the same reviewers. (Authors want their changes evaluated, editors want their selected reviewers to see the process through, and reviewers want to ensure their concerns have been addressed.) However, reviewers may be unavailable or may decide to no longer participate (perhaps they've seen enough of the paper already), or editors may include a new reviewer to get a better perspective. So, **resubmissions may be reviewed by different reviewers**.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/12
| 1,241
| 5,351
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in bioinformatics/computational biology. A year or two ago I helped a fellow student using a software package she needed for creating a certain type of figures for her project. This week I got an email from that student asking if I wish to be listed as an author in a paper she is submitting in which she used these figures.
Other than helping to get her started with this software package and maybe helping her a bit with improving her code otherwise, I made no contribution to that project and in fact had only a very vague idea what she was working on until I saw the manuscript this week. I estimate that at most I dedicated 5-10 hours to the whole thing.
So my dilemma is if such a minor contribution justifies me being listed as an author.
On the one hand, I have invested very little in this student in terms of time and effort, and was not involved at all in her research process per se.
On the other hand, I did invest a considerable amount of time learning to work with the said software for my own project (totally unrelated to hers) so I think there was some kind of knowledge/skill transfer involved that may have saved her some time.
If it matters, the paper has four authors other then me: the student that I helped, her two supervisors, and another PhD student who to my understanding was much more involved than me in this project.
I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective, O wise ones.<issue_comment>username_1: The criteria for authorship may somehow vary by discipline. The [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)](http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) stipulates four criteria that must be met if someone is to deserve authorship.
>
> * Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
> AND
> * Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
> * Final approval of the version to be published; AND
> * Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the
> work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
>
>
>
The ICMJE guideline further states that contributors fulfilling only less than four of the criteria should not be listed as authors but should be acknowledged.
A [COPE discussion document](https://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf) about authorship also raises authorship criteria that are considered in different disciplines.
You may decide whether you qualify to be listed as an author based on the different guidelines available, probably based on the one closest to your discipline.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no reason why you shouldn't go for authorship. Free publication, you have nothing to lose, as a student yourself why not?
Anyone can be an author for a paper as long as the first and last authors agree. I'm an author for a paper on something I had absolutely no idea, but I'm still an author!
FYI: Providing technical advice is of course counted as serious contribution.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: As a PhD student, it is always worthwhile increasing your publication list and if the 'real' authors are happy to invite you, then it's certainly acceptable. It then comes down to your personal comfort.
I have been in similar situations where I provided what I consider to be general assistance without any real intellectual input: coding assistance, editing style comments on a draft paper, suggestions on how to visualise results. For me, I think about it from the other perspective. If someone had provided that level of assistance on my project, would I invite them as a co-author or would I be upset if they expected to be a co-author. Sometimes my general assistance leads to invitation as a co-author and I always decline on the basis that I didn't really contribute to the study.
This has consequences, though, my publications list is shorter than others in my discipline. For me, that's less important. But for a PhD student, every paper you can get is valuable. On the other hand, if you decline, you are also in a stronger position to limit the authors on your papers to people who genuinely contributed, which may also be important to you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: **Yes**
For you your contribution might not look very important and was easy to do for you but for people with non-technical background some help from a bioinformatician/statistician etc is of high value and possibly saves them lots of time and effort. Therefore in their perspective (and objectively) your contribution is significant and it justifies authorship.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you expect to continue to be on this student's papers or to have her on yours, go ahead. After all there are a huge amount of professors tacking onto papers where all they did was write a grant. It is a good way to boost your count. And you'll still have first on your papers, doesn't hurt to add others. That said, if you think/want no further association, I would just say "make it an acknowledgement".
P.s. Cynical view, but "keeping it real".
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/12
| 736
| 3,169
|
<issue_start>username_0: TLDR: How do I figure out who to ask to review an article (who isn't too busy)?
I was asked to submit an article for an upcoming thematic issue for a well-regarded, peer-reviewed journal in my field. Several months after the initial submission, the issue's editor mentioned that they've had issues with finding a peer-reviewer for my article. They asked a handful of people: some have disappeared, some are too busy. As such, they would like for me to suggest names. I don't have an issue identifying people in my field who can review my article. However, I don't know who to identify as someone who would have enough time, especially because it's summer. I know the top people in my field -- the superstars -- but not so much about others I could ask.<issue_comment>username_1: You're not being asked to find reviewers who are willing to review your paper. You're only being asked to suggest reviewers. There is no guarantee that any of the reviewers you suggest will actually be the one(s) who review your paper.
Therefore you should not so much identify people who have time as you should identify people who can review your paper. If you're still concerned you could identify people other than the superstars, but suggesting superstars is fine, because the superstars probably know others who can review your paper (so they can suggest someone).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Just give the editor a long list. Don't try to predict who takes a summer holiday. It's absolutely not your job to know people's schedules. And definitely don't try to research that or contact potential reviewers.
Also, while it's fine that you assist with a list, it's really the editor/journal's job to get the paper reviewed. I would be a bit irked to have made a requested submission (they actually reached out to you) and then they can't even get the paper reviewed. Push comes to shove, just move the paper. Might not be summer or your topic being obscure, may just be a not very efficient journal/editor.
Furthermore, I find it strange the idea that the whole season of summer precludes reviewing. I bet PLENTY of papers get reviewed in the summer. Sure, people go for vacations, but in the US at least, tenured professors (and I would assume some US tenured R1 profs could be in your superstar list), don't usually take the whole season off. If anything, many professors I know have more time in the summer than in the academic year. In any case, even if there's less, the wheels still churn and lots of papers get reviewed. This editor also ought to feel some responsibility for all the non-summer time when the paper sat. But really, I think you are overthinking it with worrying about summer versus reviewing.
If the editor is doing his job, he will only leave the paper with people that say they can review it (if no response or a "no", move on down the list). Not just dump it into inboxes of 3 people who are spending the summer on an Alaskan field trip. But even this, I would feel is just the editor doing the editor's job. You shouldn't have to micromanage him. Just move the paper if you feel he's not being efficient.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/12
| 632
| 2,770
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a lecturer at a UK university, and I got an oral offer from another university. I was called by their HR today saying that their official is condition on satisfactory reference checking with my current line manager, who is the HoD of my current department. In my case I do not know my HoD is willing to provide a reference letter, as I am pretty sure that he will not be happy knowing I want to leave.
I am wondering if this (requiring reference from current line manager) is a common practices for UK universities? If there is any alternative solution to it? Thanks for your suggestions in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: It is common practice in UK universities. It would also be considered bad behaviour if your HoD was unwilling to provide a reference, or if he wrote a bad letter out of spite or revenge or similar. Of course, there are people who take it personally and are unpleasant when people leave so there's no guarantee he would be reasonable.
You should be prepared to have a discussion about why you want to change universities. Is it a promotion? Or is there a research group that is closer to your field? Presumably you applied for the job for some reason. You haven't said why you think he may not be happy. If you have been there only a short time, there might be some bad feeling. But people move all the time for all sorts of reasons.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would try talking to HR and letting them know that you prefer not to give that reference as you are searching secretly. This is of course the norm in corporate jobs, so HR may be much more understanding than you realize. Suggest some alternates (old advisor or a peer who knows you're looking). At least, it is worth a shot. See what they say, before you just give in.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, it is common practice for UK universities to state that 1 reference must be from your current line manager, but whether this is actually enforced for academic jobs is a different story. You might want to confirm this with your new head of department (or whoever it is that you have been negotiating your position) rather than with HR.
When I filled out a form to apply for my first UK Lecturer job many years ago. I simply ignored this restriction and nobody cared: I got the job anyway.
A few years later, I applied at another UK university and the same thing happened: they requested the references already during the job application and it explicitly said that one of them should be my current line manager.
As before, I listed whatever references that I thought would be best, i.e. people who actually know about my research, and, just as before, it didn't cause any problems and I got the job.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/12
| 1,202
| 5,485
|
<issue_start>username_0: I serve on a Promotion and Tenure committee for an assistant professor who has (in my opinion) a lack of professional courtesy and collaborative attitude. This professor will collaborate and publish with graduate students or faculty at other institutions.
However, has conducted at least 5 small research projects, that have been published in regional or national research conferences, where faculty in our own department who are experts in the field were not included and even their previous published research not referenced (I think there's a clear issue with reviewers, but).
Only after it is clearly and sometimes loudly pointed out "you did this whole project and didn't even reference any of XXX's work or ask them to be part of the study in his/her area" will this faculty member ask people to review the article for journal submission.
Further, there are a few faculty across the country, who could be external reviewers for this individual. They have also witnessed this lack of collaboration and professionalism.
While collaboration is not a measure of success in the P&T process, the quality of the research conducted and published should be.
My questions are:
How do I guide, mentor this young faculty member through the promotion and tenure process, so that they understand the importance of collaborating with the experts within the department?
How do I address this issue during the P&T meeting with the rest of the committee?<issue_comment>username_1: You seem to think that an assistant professor should collaborate within your department. However, a more common view is that an assistant professor should be an independent researcher. An assistant professor should clearly distinguish their research from that of other faculty at the same institution. Assistant professors do not want to be asked, "Why should we grant you tenure when we already have a tenured professor who can do the same research?"
Without more detail added to the question, it sounds like the assistant professor's collaboration strategy is okay.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> While collaboration is not a measure of success in the P&T process, the quality of the research conducted and published should be.
>
>
> How do I guide, mentor this young faculty member through the promotion and tenure process, so that they understand the importance of collaborating with the experts within the department?
>
>
>
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If collaboration is “not a measure of success in the P&T process”, then you can’t expect the faculty member to “understand the importance of collaborating with the experts within the department”. Either collaboration is an official criterion or not: if it is, explain this to the tenure candidate. If it isn’t, you have no business viewing it as a weakness of their tenure case, and neither do the other faculty members you mention who are “mad about the lack of inclusion”. Quite simply, there is nothing to “understand”.
>
> How do I address this issue during the P&T meeting with the rest of the committee?
>
>
>
You say you are concerned about the tenure candidate’s “lack of collaboration and professionalism”. Perhaps a way to address it is to give some thought to your own professionalism in advance of the meeting. Part of professionalism is following the policies and procedures of your institution without allowing your judgment to be clouded by irrelevant factors. Since you said that collaboration is not an official criterion, I suggest that you focus only on the factors that *are* official criteria, and be prepared to remind your committee colleagues of what those factors are and steer the discussion back to them in case any of them attempt to bring up other, irrelevant factors.
Another aspect of professionalism is not tolerating your department functioning as a kind of mafia in which senior faculty members exploit more junior ones by pressuring them into entering collaborations and into citing the senior members’ works, and trying to make the junior members “understand” that such collaborations are “for their own good”. I understand that I may be reading a bit too much into your description and maybe that’s not what’s really happening here, but it does sound like such a coercive/exploitative environment is a possible interpretation of what you wrote.
Since you say that the quality of the candidate’s research is important in the P&T evaluation, what *would* be a good idea is for you to counsel the junior faculty member about ways in which they could improve the quality (and quantity) of their published research. If you truly believe in good faith that collaborating with senior faculty members in your department would be a good way to achieve *that goal*, it would certainly be reasonable of you to explain that to your mentee. It would also be reasonable to discuss with them academic standards involving citation of relevant literature. If there is a real issue of them not including citations to clearly relevant earlier work in their publications, definitely this can be an important issue that you can and should discuss with them. However, it should not matter whether the literature they are not citing is by someone from your department or outside of it. The only relevant issue is whether your colleague is living up to the high standards of conduct and scholarship expected from a tenured professor at your university.
Upvotes: 5
|
2019/07/13
| 1,370
| 5,895
|
<issue_start>username_0: I worked on research that was presented as a poster session at a conference. However, I was not the first author and didn't attend the conference, but my name was on the poster. Is it still okay to list the session on my CV?
(I'm aware that poster sessions are not a big deal, but I'm very early in my research career, and I did real work on this project, so I'd like to be able to take some credit for collaborating as long as it's ethical to do so.)
Update: Since the field seems to be an important factor, this would be in linguistics.<issue_comment>username_1: I wouldn't. If you physically made the poster, maybe. But even then, I would probably pass.
Consider, do you expect to list every talk where your name is written as one of the researchers but your advisor presents the work? Even if you did the slides for him, I wouldn't bother.
I don't think that section on your CV is so much for written work. (That's where the publications go in.) Meetings/presentations is to show that you attended and presented and interacted and learned something. If anything, maybe it's a fair implication if you haven't been to any meetings, that you are not yet a full member of the community. Fine, try to travel more towards the end of your Ph.D. And yes, funding and advisor sensibility can affect this. But still, it is a rational (imperfect) indicator that people look at to see how much you are a grown scientist.
P.s. Here's an idea though if you want to buff that meeting/presentation part up, but don't have the budget to go to ACS for a week. Do some "lunch talks" or the like at companies, national labs, FFRDCes, etc. that are in your geographic vicinity. It will at least be an external audience. And honest, sometimes these interactions are more fun than a several thousand people mega conference. Get a plant tour, network for jobs, learn some applications of your work, even get a consulting gig (at least in the future).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This might depend on the field. In computer science, for example, conferences are more than just "get togethers" and serious research is often first presented there and might be published only in proceedings. In such a case it would be good for a young researcher, especially a student, to list poster presentations on a CV.
As you say, it isn't just the "presentation" that is important. It is the work that went into the research behind it. If there is no other publication of that research at present, list it, but be clear.
I've learned some interesting things walking through poster sessions and talking to students about their research. It was the research that was important, not whose face I was looking at.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In my field (neuroscience, would probably also apply elsewhere in biology and medicine), posters count far less than papers but are still a concrete way to demonstrate progress on a research project. Posters are often drafts of papers so reporting a poster suggests you will be an author on a future publication (with all the caveats of the work not being peer reviewed yet understood by any professor).
For an early career person like a grad school applicant I would definitely list these. The typical way is to have a separate section listed "abstracts" or "poster abstracts" and then cite the abstract including author list, title, and venue. Your presence as a middle author would suggest you were involved in the project but not the presenter so no need to clarify or explain your presence or absence at the conference.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As Bryan and username_2 stated, it can depend on the field and I won't go into that for my answer. I would add a bit to username_2's answer regarding where you are in your career. If you're a tenured professor, then it probably doesn't make much difference whether you have it on your CV or not--publications matter more anyways. But if you're a graduate student or post-doc who's about to enter the job market, then I would ask the question of "why would you *not*??"
For junior scholars, poster sessions can have multiple implications beyond just presenting research findings. It can be a sign that you're active in the research community, working with collaborators on their projects, and/or disseminating findings to a wider audience than the ones who read the journal that you publish your work in, even if you're not the one who presented the findings.
It can also often times be the case that the one presenting the work is not actually the one who had the lead role in the project. For instance, you can be the PI of a large project and have one of your students or research assistants go present the findings to not only give them exposure to the academic environment but also to disseminate findings without having to sacrifice money, time, and effort on your part (perhaps you don't have travel funds or have teaching obligations and can't physically make it to the conference). In this regard, the program of research is headed by you, and presumably, you played a role in the creation of the poster, so why not receive credit for it where credit is due?
Graduate students and post-docs also often times list poster presentations that their students did on their own CVs. In the long run, this doesn't help them in advancing their own career (i.e., no one's going to get a lifetime achievement award for only successfully sending a bunch of undergrads to conferences). However, in the short run for those looking for their first professor position, having a successful track record of your students presenting at conferences can be a good sign of being an active mentor (which can be a quality that hiring committees may value).
But again, in the long run, it may not be worth it to put it on your CV if there's no benefit to career progression.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/13
| 494
| 2,101
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am looking for stylistic advice regarding the (over) use of cross-references. For instance, using cross-references in Latex through `\ref{...}` for major structural blocks like chapters and sections certainly is a good idea. But when it comes to subsections or subsubsection that are only one or two pages long, technical cross-references begin to feel a little over the top and I prefer using phrases such like *as mentioned earlier* or *as discussed in the previous section* (while possibly actually meaning a latex subsubsection). I also prefer it this way, as I don't like numbered headings for subsections and subsubsections, for the same reason: It looks overkill. But numbered headings are requiered for the cross-references to work.
So, should I rather use technical cross-references with `\ref{...}` throughout the text? Are the more or less agreed upon stylistic rules for this in scientific writing?<issue_comment>username_1: I like numbered headings. You can refer back to which section you want (if more than previous). I find "as discussed" or "as previously noted" to ring as slightly pompous and long-winded. "As per section 4.5..." has more an air of precision and meaning.
If it's in the immediately before section, I wouldn't even refer to it. Or if the meaning is reasonably clear even if further back, try to avoid either textual or hyperlinks. Just use these when they're really needed. Judgment call. But I get impression, you do too much.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: What you prefer is barely relevant; think of the reader. It so happens that earlier today I was consulting a book to find a specific method. I quickly found an example of its use, but the book said '...as explained in detail in Chapter 13...'. Chapter 13 was a long chapter. The explanation when I found it was very short - and it took me a long time to find it.
In general, the more cross-references the better but you have to credit the reader with some short-term memory. A cross-reference to the previous paragraph would be more irritating than helpful.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/13
| 982
| 4,183
|
<issue_start>username_0: Hello am currently an undergraduate student. My major is CSE. But I am very much interested to do my masters and then PhD in theoretical physics/mathematical physics. Is there any university that admits CS graduates for these courses?
I have looked up some universities that offer these courses.
Queen Mary University, University of Edinburgh and Durham University sounds perfect to me (I can meet their minimum requirements).
But I am not sure whether they admit CS graduates or not. I have not got any reply from them yet.
Would you suggest some Universities both in the UK and US that do? Would any university admit me directly for PhD (without masters)? Will having research paper help?
I could not find any university in the US that offer this course for masters.<issue_comment>username_1: I can't speak for the UK, which has a different educational system altogether, but in the US, most programs would find a CS graduate "acceptable" for a physics doctorate. This assumes a good record overall, of course, and probably a few physics courses in which you did well. In the US, a CS student probably has a few such courses, though not advanced ones.
But to actually be admitted you have to be better than "acceptable".
In the US, the graduate program has quite a few courses available, primarily to prepare the student for comprehensive exams. But the normal path would be into a doctoral program, perhaps with an MS along the way.
I would guess that in the UK the university would expect an applicant to be further along in the major subject, but others would need to verify.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, you would have to be very unusual to make this jump. Of course it's possible. I have seen it more from chemistry to physics or math to physics for students who knew they just sort of picked wrong to start. Even then the road was not easy. (But consider Lars Onsanger was a chemE bachelors. However, he was also Lars Onsanger!)
In general, CS students are much less mathematically strong than physics students, so you would have to show this is not true. It's not even about specific courses (although that helps), but about a strong ability with "engineering mathematics" (Bessel functions out the yingyang, long derivations and homework problems with lots of algebra).
There's also the matter of maybe not knowing the physics. Physics students sort of follow a plan of learning the same topic with more intensity (usually with new mathematical structures added) over time. Consider that mechanics is tought as in intro course (similar to all students), than as a junior level majors course, than in grad school. Same for E&M. Quantum mechanics and stat mech (in grad school) are taught at a level harder than that during junior year majors course. I.e. it's helpful to have had it before if you don't want to get killed.
Again, if you're a genius, it really doesn't matter. But if you're just above average, I would be concerned about the pre-reqs. Not for any silly reasons of credentials but just for the grounding. I mean Jackson E&M is not trivial and many physics grad students struggle with it. If you're anything like the average CS student as opposed to the average physics student (in terms of math and problem solving ability), I would recommend going nowhere near a physics grad program. Even if you got accepted, you'd struggle and the experience would not be good for you.
P.s. Finally to address your question specifically, I recommend to reach out to the departments. You will learn more than just coming to a Q&A site. Talk to them and learn something. I suspect, they will actually be more willing to consider out of track people than you think. But they will expect you to be rather special. And you may get a few grim old salts like me, who warn you.
P.s.s. Also, consider that the market for physics Ph.D.s is pretty dismal and has been for about 30+ years. Many of them eventually go into some sort of computer related work since there's just so many jobs for that sort of stuff and since they have the physics brain to rely on to just get up to speed on the computer stuff.
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/07/13
| 2,750
| 11,447
|
<issue_start>username_0: In short: is it possible to do research in academia (starting from a PhD position up to being a professor) while not liking competition?
I was an athlete in high school and I left because I was not really able to perform well under pressure. I thought that academia (or the research world in general) would have been a better fit. But I now realize how wrong I was. In fact, some fields are even worse. I like doing research and I really want to continue my journey in academia with a PhD. But that's it, research. I'm not interested in competing with other researchers. Actually, I'd love to learn how to collaborate rather than *being faster to get it published before them*.
I thought I could handle it but it's getting worse and whenever I start working on something that I would otherwise enjoy doing, I start panicking thinking that my peers are doing it better and faster.
Again, is it possible to do (good) research in academia while not liking competition? Is it really fundamental?<issue_comment>username_1: What academics think is collaboration is night and day from being in a company together (operating roles) or even the sort of collegial environment in corporate R&D or at a national lab or FFRDC.
I wouldn't expect the mountain to move for Mohammad. Your sense of academia is *not off*. And don't expect it to change for you. And listen to your gut. Some people don't mind it, but I think you will. The tournament system for tenured profs at R1 is exactly what you're NOT looking for. Yeah, you can get off that (as many people here have), but expect lower pay/prestige than. And much more emphasis on teaching and being a second class researcher with less grants, etc.
Not sure your exact qualifications, but looking at your profile of communities, having a masters in stats (or the like) and then moving to some role at a pharma company is not a bad move. Of course, very few jobs are secure and who knows what the future for that industry is. It might get less plushy and R&D focused if price controls come in effect. But it will still be around in some form. Also, if you are willing to consider working more with operating companies, there are huge needs/opportunities for statistics in healthcare, manufacturing, oil and gas development, Internet usage, etc. I think many places where you could do something useful and not be tenure track professor at Berkley or Harvard, still struggling for grants even there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Actually, the competition is largely in your head, not in academia itself.
I'll never be able to win a stage of *le Tour de France*, so why should I ride a bicycle? I'll never win the final at *Wimbledon*, so why should I play tennis?
Of course, there *are* extremely competitive corners in academia. If you are in a "hot" research area where many many people are chasing exactly the same very few goals, then, yes, you are likely to get scooped.
But imagine two scenarios.
The first is that you have a thousand people at one end of a field and there is a single prize at the other end. Everyone runs to get that prize but only one can succeed.
The second scenario is that the thousand people are wandering around the field, each seeking something that they find interesting. Here, everyone can succeed.
Academia is, except in a few instances, much more like the second scenario than the first. Collaboration is possible. Two can enjoy a sunset. But only one can capture the flag.
Another competitive scenario is being one of many junior faculty at a very (very) top university, in which only one can be promoted to a tenured position. It is, of course, very competitive and collaboration with your competitors may be sub-optimal. But collaboration, even here, with others is not to be spurned. Even being second or third on an important paper is a good thing for a beginning academic, so long as you don't quit with just that.
But most universities, even very good ones in the US, aren't like that at all. Life can be good. But there are also some people who thrive in such a high pressure environment and would have nothing else.
My experience in academia was that the greatest thing was that I could think my own thoughts and pursue my own goals. Much of that was in collaboration with people. Some of those folks were just about like me, and some were internationally known superstars. But it was always fun.
I studied at R1 universities, but taught there only briefly (visitor). But my sense of it was that even for people in the same narrow field, collaboration was highly valued. The most senior professors, were happy to share ideas with junior faculty in field-centric seminars. Often those junior faculty (and we grad students) would develop those ideas, even with help of the top researcher. It was a shared process to extend what was known.
Of course, if a person has a lot of ideas, it is also often the case that they don't have time to completely explore them. For such people, generosity in sharing those ideas costs them nothing. They may not be a co-author of every paper, but their stature in academia rises nevertheless.
Don't think of academic, or research in general, as a zero-sum game. Everyone can win, especially if everyone has their own goals and are not somehow driven to adopt the goal/value system of others.
The field of research is broad and richly endowed. Find the bits that are interesting to you.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: You have a rather big misconception if you assume and experience that academia or research is mostly consisting of competition. Maybe even amplified by reading too long on this site where many Q&A's are about "being first author" and publish as much as possible. I also guess you are doing research in an engineering field where research is more about improving incrementally figures of merit, not real fundamental research, which is mostly about complementary research questions among groups, everybody doing the same would be a tremendous waste of money.
Your misconception can be explained though: the number of tenured positions is not as much increasing as the number of PhD graduates. Though, this is the same nowadays in industry for leading positions in a company, more and more academic graduates. **If you actually like to collaborate, academia is the right place, as it gets more and more interdisciplinary, team-oriented and the number of publications is growing exponentially.** Therefore, the direct topical competition has not really become higher, but lower. But it is more a lottery nowadays to become professor. You just have to make a decision if you want to join the lottery game for 5-10 years being a postdoc.
You just seem to have the utter most wrong research strategy: Doing exactly what your peers are doing, just better and faster?! That's exactly the engineering/industry view. Look for unsolved complementary questions in regard to your peers or look/ask for collaborative ideas that make a outstanding contribution to the community and a single group/researcher cannot solve. Also, don't waste public money by doing exactly the same like some other national group. Among different countries there is and has to be competition, due to economical competition.
Most of the funding mondy is also given to the best ideas, not the most competitive researcher, at least if the scrutinization is objective and anonymous, which seems to become more important than having a big name in an interdisciplinary research landscape.
Last but not least, it's not like that the researchers get elected professors which published the most x highest impact factor until 35-40. I know many professors being postdoc nearly a decade before turning professor with 42-45, because they were very well connected in their community and true experts rather than having a couple nature papers with 35. Maybe the latter case becomes more common in times of publish or perish, but this can also be a short trend as many trendy topics in high impact journals when faculties sees that bibliographic statistics are not the best measures to judge the influence of researcher in a community.
Have you ever wondered why many professors in STEM are not 30 year old prodigies, but quite normal and assidiuous people and many chemistry, mechatronics, material science professors being educated physicists? The best and most competitive specialists rather go industry/entrepreneurship and they get paid there much better, interdisciplinary interested and curious researchers tend more towards academia, where the competiton and responsibility is much lower for a professor in comparison to a R&D manager in a company, if you only manage an average research group as a professor and not bigger institutes consisting of several teams and sub-groups.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm not sure what these wishy-washy answers are trying to accomplish. Make their authors and you feel good? Try to lure you in academia because it's a cult and the more people try to join, the better? Working in academia isn't riding your bike every other weekend because it's fun. It's a job. It's training with your bike every day and watching videos at night about biking techniques, because if you're not in the top 10% at the biking competition, then you won't even get to enter the next one.
Academia is a competition from start to end. You have to perform well in school to get a PhD stipend, then you have to perform well during your PhD to get a postdoc, then you have to perform well during your postdoc**s** to get a tenure-track position, then you have to perform well to get tenure, then you have to perform well to get recognition, grants, promotions... At each stage the funnel becomes smaller. If you get the thing, someone else won't, and vice-versa.
Don't get me wrong: it's not a dog-eat-dog world out there. You will collaborate, you will make friends, you will meet mentors who will help you through your career... But this doesn't change the core fact that yes, academia is a competition, and yes, it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on you. There are not many jobs out there where the line between personal and professional life is so blurred, and they usually pay *much* better. You will be required to perform at your best all the time, and if you don't, this will visibly and immediately stunt your career. You don't have to be the very absolute best at what you do to succeed in academia, and you will always have peer who are much faster and must better than you; but if you are not among the best – I'm not going to be able to give a precise number here – then you will not even get a choice about whether this life is for you or not: you will be kicked out. You will be able to do research and enjoy yourself for a while, sure, but at some point, time will catch up with you.
I'm not trying to scare you, but at the same time, I don't see the point in sugarcoating the truth.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Don't forget that you can be extremely competitive and run into personal issues and you'll be out of the game. Mine was becoming a caregiver for a dying family member during the last stretch of my PhD. But in the end, it does not matter. There is more to life than academia. You'll make enough to pay your bills, you'll find other stuff you are passionate about and you'll be all right.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/13
| 1,396
| 5,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently passed my qualifiers and research proposal. My research is in computational mechanics. I had two courses (continuum mechanics and finite element method) as part of my research related courses. I will be using the concepts learnt in the courses in my research, though my research will be more applied than theoretical, so will involve utilizing a commercially available software and develop few additional routines for it.
Now, I scored B+ in both the courses (the minimum grade required for being eligible for qualifying exams was a B-). I struggled through few concepts but fared fairly well in the qualifiers and answered most of the questions asked by the committee.
However, I am concerned that my average grades might be an indicator that I might not be fit for the field I have chosen to build a career in. Now, I am confident that I will manage to adequately complete my PhD thesis and publish papers as required.
But, I am worried that academia is going to be a closed door for me. Eventually, if I get tenure track position after my PhD, I will have to teach these subjects (There's no teaching assistantship opportunities in my department for me), and how will I be able to teach something in which I fared poorly? Also, I will have to do theoretical research work after my phd, and I will not fare well in that. What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: You are overthinking it. First, if you complete your degree and get that first academic job, no one will care anymore what your grades were.
Second, you seem to be implying that your learning ended in those subjects with the courses you took. I think that isn't very likely.
In fact, for teaching purposes, it is sometimes valuable to have had the experience of struggling earlier, so that you have an appreciation for those students that don't find everything easy, or even trivial. You will probably be required to teach students who are not at all like those who go on to earn doctorates - i.e. not at all like you. Every student is different and the strugglers need to be taught along with everyone else.
There are many reasons for mediocre grades, though yours are a bit better than that. I suspect that things may have been hectic at the time and there wasn't time enough to reflect and gain deeper insights. But that level of insight isn't forever closed off to you.
As for the research, in many fields the research is so deep and narrow that it is almost necessary to give up a deep knowledge of other *somewhat* related, but not essential companion fields.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A bit about myself-
1. I am a methodological/statistical reviewer for the top journal in my subfield
2. I landed a postdoc in a top 10 school
3. I will be an assistant professor at an R1 where I will teach graduate level statistics (of which my B's on my transcript never came up in the interviewing process).
4. I publish methodologically rigorous work (at least in my opinion) that uses complicated statistical and computational techniques.
Also
1. I got a B- in my introductory stats course in graduate school and probably should have gotten a C except for the professor cutting me some slack.
2. I averaged around an 85 in my statistics courses throughout graduate school.
3. I think of the myriad of statistics courses I took, I only got a single A. Maybe 2.
I have found that me making B's in my stats courses in grad school has only had the purpose of showing how grades in graduate school are not reflective of research productivity or expertise. I can share my story and say "dont worry". The moral of things are not to worry and let your research do the talking. My grades are probably reflective of me being a poor classroom student rather than anything else. Probably indicative of the test anxiety I have.
If you publish research with rigorous methods in good journals, you are likely an expert. At the very least, you will be perceived as such by your peers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If one needs a single indicator to predict future performance, the set of grades in first year graduate courses is likely as good an indicator as any. Usually a student with the passion, interest, and work ethic needed to do research will get good grades in courses. Bad grades in courses at this level certainly are negative indicators (on the flip side, good grades are less reliable as positive indicators, because there is a sort of student whose goal is good grades rather than learning and this can lead to good grades, although the mentality is not one necessarily conducive to doing original work).
However, when one says grades are an indicator, one is thinking in probabilistic and distributional terms, in terms of expected values, and in big populations the lower probability events do occur. In fact, I know a guy who never passed his qualifying exams but got close enough that he was allowed to continue and went on to be a productive researcher, as good as many others who got much better grades (some of whom did not survive). He publishes things closely related to the subject matter of the qualifying exam he never could pass. But he's an unusual guy, with a lot of faith in himself and very little psychological need to attend to social conventions or institutional demands. His sometimes almost pig-headed passion for his field of study was always plainly evident, and he focused on what interested him rather than what he had to learn to pass qualifying exams.
You should ask yourself why you are trying to get a PhD. If the answer is that you want to have a doctorate, that a doctorate will be useful for achieving your professional goals, something external of this nature, etc., then bad grades are a bad sign. If the answer is that you want to learn more about X and there's really nothing else you want to do right now, then there is cause for optimism, provided you work hard to learn a lot about X.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/13
| 594
| 2,622
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently found a paper published in an high-impact journal containing as a main contribution a result which is rather well-known among the people working in the field. (In fact, this result has been firstly established in a paper in the 60s).
On the one hand, I think that the authors of the paper did not do that on purpose. In fact, they are not expert in that particular research field, and so, they probably were not aware that this result was already established when they wrote the paper.
On the other hand, being myself a researcher working in that field, I would like to
point this out to the authors and/or to the editorial board of the journal, so that the readers can be referred to the original paper establishing this result.
At this point, I was wondering what the right thing to do is. I would really appreciate any comment/suggestion.<issue_comment>username_1: It is simple enough and not rude to just send them a note with a reference to the older work. "In your recent paper, you haven't discussed the relationship to ...".
And note that even if they have some fault, which you don't suggest, it is shared by editors and reviewers who, themselves, missed the older work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is not an unusual occurrence. You do not need to do anything.
Some journals allow the submission of comments. You could submit a comment comparing the new paper to previous results. I would only do that if it were somehow more interesting than a simple case of inadvertent duplication.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: **As far as the readers are concerned**, there is no way you can bring this before them without sounding rude or unconstructive or worse. You risk sounding as if you're just jealous that they've got publicity that you haven't.
But **as far as the authors themselves are concerned**, being constructive is easy and quite possibly even your duty. Write privately to them and say that in their excellent paper they have addressed some questions which (it seems to you) have been addressed before by workers in *your* field. You are writing to them to encourage them to have a look round that field to see what else has been covered, because it may be beneficial to them and save them trouble in their future work.
With care you can phrase it so that if they *do* want to look into this further, they know that they can ask you for some suggested reading.
Thus you help to improve their work; show a proper attitude of collegiality; and you may even be laying the foundations for future communication and collaboration.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/14
| 1,568
| 6,575
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an American EE/CompE undergrad at a mid tier(top 200) smaller state school with a 3.96 GPA. I am the first person in my family to attend college, so you can imagine that getting advice on grad schools would be pretty difficult.
My university is not very big on research, so I have looked elsewhere for research opportunities and completed an EE REU at a top 20 university and a CompE Summer Research Program at a top 10 university. I'm looking to work on the Robotics/Perception/AI side of CS. I have posters and have given presentations on my summer research, but I don't have any publications. Realistically, what is my chance of getting into places like MIT EECS, Stanford CS, or UIUC CS? Is it even possible? Would they consider someone with my background, or is just a waste of money to apply?
I also plan on applying for fellowships such as NSF GRFP and will mention that on my application. I'm gonna be graduating in December, so I am currently applying for a prestigious CS research internship at a national lab for the spring(Jan - June). Assuming that I get accepted, would you list it on your Resume/CV in your application as a "future accepted position"? Or would that look unprofessional since you didn't start yet?
Am I at a disadvantage in terms of being a domestic student since most applicants are international? What kind of GRE scores should I be aiming for(I know some universities don't require the GRE)?
Thank you so much! I would really appreciate any feedback or advice that you may have. Sorry if my post is too long.<issue_comment>username_1: The main disadvantage that you have isn't the school at which you studied, but only the extreme level of competition for entry at such top level institutions. None of them will (or could) admit every "qualified" applicant. All of them will look at each student's overall record of accomplishment and try to make a judgement about the probability of success in their respective program.
You lose nothing (except maybe money) by applying. But make sure that your application materials clearly demonstrate your *drive* as well as ability. Probably say something about goals. And get good letters of recommendation.
You want the committee, who will reject many, to put your application folder into the short pile of people to be further considered and not in the larger pile of easy rejects.
Most places would rather have an A student from a school like yours than a C student from Harvard or Yale. But you need to make your case. Acceptance rates are small. It is necessary, however, to have a backup option, either lower rated universities or ideas about work in the (gasp) real world.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me offer some concrete data to support username_1's answer, as a faculty member at one of the departments you mention (although I don't work in AI). Short version: Your profile is definitely strong enough to be considered at Illinois, but your chances are low, because *everyone's* chances are low.
The computer science PhD program at Illinois received about 1100 applications for Fall 2019 admission. More than 300 applicants listed artificial intelligence as their *primary* research interest. (Another 450 applicants listed AI as one of their secondary research interests.) We offered admission to 35 of these 300+ applicants; about half of those 35 accepted our offers.
(I'm sure the application numbers are significantly higher, and the acceptance rates comparably lower, at MIT and Stanford.)
*Almost* all of those 35 admitted applicants were from universities with highly-ranked graduate programs. A significant fraction of the accepted applicants already have research publications (or at least strong submissions) at top conferences. A slightly smaller fraction are finishing masters degrees or applied to transfer from another lower-ranked PhD program. (Every successful applicant with some grad school under their belt has already published.)
The main thing we look for in PhD applications is **compelling evidence of research potential**. This evidence must be explicit in your CV, in your statement, in your choice of references, and in the content of your reference letters. (Not surprisingly, this is also what the NSF GRFP and similar fellowships look for!) So your application really needs to include strong letters from your mentors at both of your REUs.
On the other hand, the biggest resource constraint is faculty attention. We only admit PhD applicants that get several positive reviews from faculty, and at least one faculty member declaring their willingness to advise. Admission in AI isn't ridiculously tight because we don't want to admit people, or because we think the people we reject wouldn't thrive, or even because there isn't enough money. It's tight because students require care and feeding, and AI faculty need to sleep occasionally. So thinking strategically, you may fare better aiming at newer faculty, or at subfields where the department is growing. (Hint: Robotics.)
Finally, if you're not accepted to a strong PhD program straightaway, you might consider joining a research master's program first, to build up your research track-record, and then applying again. But then you *really* need to publish during your MS program to have a shot; PhD applicants with prior graduate-school experience are held to higher standards. (Not surprisingly, this is true for the NSF GRFP and similar fellowships!)
>
> Assuming that I get accepted, would you list it on your Resume/CV in your application as a "future accepted position"?
>
>
>
Yes, absolutely! (See: evidence of research potential.) But be sure to describe the position in more detail in your statement, to remove any ambiguity.
>
> Am I at a disadvantage in terms of being a domestic student since most applicants are international?
>
>
>
No, not at all. It's true that most applicants are international, but the *average* international applicant is weaker than the *average* domestic applicant. (It's really hard to entice our own best undergrads away from six-figure salaries at Appflix or Twitbook or Ubazon or whatever.) Roughly half of our PhD admission offers went to domestic students this year.
>
> What kind of GRE scores should I be aiming for (I know some universities don't require the GRE)?
>
>
>
MIT and Illinois don't require GRE scores (because we think they're useless as evidence of research potential), but Stanford does. You should aim for the best GRE scores you can get.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/07/15
| 3,105
| 12,890
|
<issue_start>username_0: I notice that many pure math PhD students, doing things like [algebraic geometry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_geometry) or [representation theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_theory), drop out and enter industry and become software developers. The ones who finish their pure math PhDs also drop out and do things such as blogging, tutoring, etc. These students are pretty "top of the heap" too, attending the top pure math PhD programs like at [UC Berkeley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley) and [UCLA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Los_Angeles).
Then I notice that many applied math PhD students typically finish, and also get post-doc offers. These PhD students are typically doing numerical methods for the solutions of partial differential equations.
Why does this happen? Do pure math PhD tracks often lead students to dead ends? Is it too hard, even for the brightest PhD candidates at the best programs?
In numerical [PDEs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_differential_equation), it seems that just a little progress leads to a PhD degree, e.g. solving numerically a PDE in one space dimension. (I know firsthand of someone getting their applied math PhD from an [Ivy League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League) program for solving a PDE in 1D.)
I have friends in both pure math and applied math PhD programs and have noticed this trend for many years now.<issue_comment>username_1: Only my personal experience, but I hope it will help you a little bit:
I am almost in the exact situation you describe in your question. I finished my PhD in Algebra (coding theory, lot's of linear algebra and representation theory) and am now working as a software developer. As a fun fact, this wasn't always planned. When I started my PhD, I was still dreaming about getting a PostDoc and ending up as a tenured prof at a prestigious university.
For me, personally, there were three reasons to take this step:
1. The PhD was quite hard and taxing on my mental health. Having a rather theoretic topic, you sit at your desk all day and try to come up with an idea. There is often no way to track progress for a long time, as you either have a clever idea or you don't, you can't set up a step by step plan to see if you are doing ok for such things. There is also always the fear that you simply won't have the right idea before your time/funding runs out. Due to that reason, I decided already some time before finishing it that I will run from academia without looking back as soon as I am done.
2. Closely related to the first reason, I wanted to do something more applied. I found a job where I can use my skills to really help people/the climate/... (our company develops AI solutions for agriculture, allowing farmers to better use resources and minimizing the need for pesticides).
3. I still plan to become a professor, one day. But after that experience during the PhD, I'm aiming for a position that is more focused on teaching and applied research (e.g. with industrial partners). For this, at least here in Germany, you need some years of industry experience.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Well, it's been more than a couple years for me since grad school, but I can add my personal experience to what is appreciably a rather subjective question.
Of my group of students at a pure math department, with a few world renowned old timers, I would not say algebra was considered the harder path. On the contrary geometry and analysis students, such as those studying general relativity or geometric analysis, such as stochastic differential equations over manifolds, were generally seen as having more brass. Ironically geometry and PDEs are closer to what's studied in "applied math" but this was a pure math department and numerical analysis was not studied.
The students I knew doing algebraic subjects, such as number theory or topology were more successful. One of whom got a post-doc at MIT, doing cetegorical homotopy theory and such.
But I think your point of view applies to the difference between pure math and applied math in general. Of some 15-20 of my grad school friends, most completed their PhDs and eventually worked for Google or in cyber-security or for IBM, such as myself, after perhaps teaching math for 3 or 4 years. I think 5 have settled down as math professors.
The simple answer to your question is just that pure math is very hard. I cannot speak to applied math training, I was not much exposed to it, but from what I understand proving an unknown statement or theorem is not necessarily required, whereas it generally is for a pure math thesis. It is occasionally said in academics that obtaining a pure math degree is the biggest challenge among PhDs. As the decades pass the bar is set higher and higher because math is a progress field and it is being completed. A similar sentiment is often expressed regarding physics and other hard sciences.
So, whether or not a student completes a thesis, being a mathematician is onerous work and requires an emotional commitment to continue at any level.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: This is also something that is very true in statistics as well (applied vs theoretical).
A theoretical math PhD is (obviously) extremely difficult and most of the topics in it tend not be *directly* beneficial towards future employment in anything but more work in abstract theoretical math. While many people think this is what they want to do at the beginning of the degree, the reality of the work is often far worse or different than what they are prepared for.
Now this is hardly an uncommon situation in many of the degrees out there but there's a catch for people in degrees like pure math that isn't true (as an example) for someone getting their PhD in history or literature: the skillset of a pure math PhD student is extremely lucrative. When you can either continue to bang your head against the wall on incredibly difficult and esoteric topics, or get an offer the next day for a 100k + paying job in tech or banking, I don't think it's much of a surprise a lot choose the latter. Often times they have recruiters seeking them out telling and them as much.
The difference for applied PhD's is that the end product is even more lucrative/valued and opens doors that someone with a masters degree isn't qualified for. If you complete a PhD in something like cryptography or applied AI/ML, you will have career opportunities in Google, Microsoft, blah blah blah, as they are specifically seeking out people who are experts in those topics. Whereas with pure math PhD's they will still seek you out, but only because people with those degrees also have a skillset they value, not because they care about your thesis on << ultra abstract pure math topic here >>.
Of course there are exceptions, but I believe this is the general reason you see this phenomena.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: First, it is not accurate to use "algebra" to refer to broad swaths of mathematics, any more than it is accurate to refer to "pure math", in fact. One immediate objection is already partly related to the issue of the question, namely, these are labels very often used by outsiders to refer to "not what they themselves do", and/or reflections of their own lack of awareness of mathematics outside their immediate competence. (It is not a moral failing to not be a universal scholar, but it starts to become some sort of problem when one loses sight of the skewing that one's own ignorance may engender.)
More significantly, I really don't think that there is any coherent "subject" that is "algebra", for example. And in any case number theory is not a subset of "algebra", nor is algebraic geometry, nor "representation theory" (despite the weird and technically inaccurate wikipedia entry for it), nor... logic? set theory?
Is there "pure math"? Well, depends what you mean, obviously. A very common usage of the phrase is by people who have a limited understanding of mathematics, and use the phrase to refer to things they don't understand, and don't see the point of. Also, some people who are "pure mathematicians" give themselves this label as some sort of idealistic thing. *BUT* in reality the best mathematics tends to be relevant to lots of things. Yes, sometimes people get involved in "deep background", and due to non-trivial difficulties do not manage, in the lifetimes, to return to resolve the original questions that sent them off on their inquiries.
My 40 years of observation of people working on PhD's in math at good places does not indicate that "pure math" people have a harder time either finishing or getting jobs... except for the subset of those people for whom the label does truly refer to something they've discovered they don't care about.
And, again, the potential relevance of *any* part of mathematics to things outside of mathematics proper is huge. Category theory to computer science!?! Stochastic differential equations to finance? Elliptic curves to cryptography!?! More elementarily: quaternions and 3D games (not to mention aerospace?!?)
To recap: the framing of the question is unsurprisingly naive, but, also, inaccurate in the current reality. Not so surprising that beginners are not aware. Also, skewed language not only reflects misunderstanding or ignorance of reality, but can limit one's vocabulary so as to create difficulties in having coherent discussions about reality.
(It may be worth noting that in the U.S. some of the "research experiences for undergrads" are (perhaps necessarily) so artificial as to be pretty silly. Maybe fun, fun to be with other enthusiastic kids, but often quite misleading about what genuine contemporary mathematics is, and what "research" in it would mean. But/and it often seems to happen that the people slide into an apparent enthusiasm for an alleged part of mathematics that they give some naive name... and, often, become disillusioned when the part of *actual* mathematics that has that name is not at all what they thought they'd bargained for.)
EDIT: in light of several (generally understandable comments):
Yes, it's not easy to complete a PhD, and it's not easy to get a job, and in all cases one can easily feel that one has no hope to be any sort of heroic contributor. But may that last bit is asking too much for most of us, in any case.
In my years of observation: the primary determiners of success or failure in completion of the PhD itself, and in getting an *academic* job, are the advisor ... and, second, the student's attitude.
Seriously, for *completion* of the degree, itself, it's not that any kind of math is any easier than any other, unless by mischance standards are lowered. And it is not easy to gauge the latter. That is, often, *novelty* is a valuable thing... even if it doesn't pay off... and serious novelty is truly harder to achieve in topics that have been around for 200 years.
Some less constructive "criticisms" of my earlier remarks seem to hinge on the allegedly obvious esotericn-ness and irrelevance of sheaves... or something... etc. Ok, I have to disagree with this, and claim that such math is old news, and has proven its value in understanding basic things. The possible fact that novices do not understand/appreciate its value... while a significant fact... only makes discussion more difficult.
My own general subject of interest, number theory (and its applications), nicely shows the vacuity of attempted partitioning of "math" into "analysis, algebra, ..." (though, yes, not so many years ago my own university's math dept had a supremely idiotic categorization as the basis for a hiring plan, etc.)
E.g., one of my recent PhD students (<NAME>) solved a differential equation in automorphic forms that expresses four-loop (if I remember correctly) graviton interations in string theory. Simplistic classification is...?
What I do observe *is* true, again, is that novices' naive ideas about "what subjects are" leads them often to naive decisions, causing them to lose enthusiasm when the reality catches up... Perhaps a significant difference between "applied math" (maybe the questioner means "modeling"???) and (then???) "proving theorems" is that the bait-and-switch on theorem-proving might be perceived as far worse than in engineering-oriented "applied math".
The amazing thing about (good) math is that it is not only relevant but decisive in so many human endeavors. Whatever one's specialty, if one is \_good\_at\_it\_, one will have both specific and abstract mathematical chops, but/and demonstrated resilience to certain sorts of scientific/intellectual adversity. Crazily-enough, not all STEM disciplines teach that.
In brief: not, it's the person and their advisor, not the topic.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/15
| 2,642
| 9,892
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm aware that most NA law schools require an undergraduate degree. For example, [Yale's application website states:](https://law.yale.edu/admissions/jd-admissions/first-year-applicants/application)
>
> You must receive, or expect to receive by the summer of 2020, a bachelor's degree (or the equivalent) from an approved undergraduate institution in order to be eligible to apply. All offers of admission are contingent upon graduation.
>
>
>
In Canada, McGill doesn't require a degree, but strongly recommends it for competitiveness ([link](https://mcgill.ca/law/bcl-llb/admissions-guide/eligibility) ):
>
> While candidates who have completed 60 credits of university study are eligible to apply to the Faculty of Law, admission to the program is competitive and as such, almost all students admitted in the “University” category (see below) have completed an undergraduate degree.
>
>
>
That said, a law degree is an undergraduate degree in the UK. According to [this website](http://www.studyin-uk.ca/studyuk/law/):
>
> Students have the choice of studying a qualifying law degree at a wide range of UK Universities immediately after high school or after they have completed an undergraduate degree.
>
>
>
Thus a UK barrister or solicitor will spend between 4 and 5 years in university (4 = 3 yr qualifying law degree + 1 yr for LPC or BPTC, 5 = ≥3 yrs first non-law degree + 1 yr GDL + 1 yr LPC or BPTC), while the average North American lawyer will spend closer to 7 years (4 yrs undergraduate + 4 yrs JD).
Many senior UK judges have just 1 3-year undergraduate careers, some not in law at all. For example, Lord Sumption has just a BA in History from Oxford, [Lord Phillips](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Phillips,_Baron_Phillips_of_Worth_Matravers), first UKSC President, has just a BA in law from Cambridge, and [<NAME>ger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neuberger,_Baron_Neuberger_of_Abbotsbury) has just a BA (yes, not BSc) in Chemistry from Oxford.
The UK's leading law schools look better than Canada's. [The 2018 *Times Higher Education* World University Rankings](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/subject-ranking/law#survey-answer) ranks Cambridge at 5, Oxford 6, UCL 8; but the topmost Canadian are Toronto (10), McGill (13). [The QS World University Rankings by Subject 2017](https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2017/law-legal-studies) ranks Oxford (2), Cambridge (3), LSE (7), UCL (12); but the topmost Canadian LS is Toronto (17).
It doesn't appear that the far briefer university education has affected the quality of UK law or lawyers.
To that end, I'd reckon that to save students time and money, North American law schools ought follow the UK's lead in not requiring UGs.
Note that to simplify this question, I haven't discussed other [similar nation-states like Hong Kong](https://www.crimsoneducation.org/ca/blog/studying-law-pathways), or asked the analogous question for medical school.<issue_comment>username_1: Note that a US undergraduate degree is very different from a UK degree. The latter is much more specialized. In UK it is assumed that the *general education* occurs before the university level.
But in the US, the degree is quite general. Students of, say pre-law also study things like history, philosophy, foreign language, etc. It isn't that different from a History major. The "major subject" in the US accounts for half (more or less) of the total credits required. Even a math major will study all those things in the US.
And, in both places, it is generally believed that a lawyer needs that broad grounding. It is really just a question of where and how it is obtained.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The UK has national qualification exams that certify preparedness for advanced work. On the other hand, several US states don't require a JD to be a practicing lawyer.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In the US the primary reason to go to law school is to receive the credentials and certification necessary to practice law (even if one actually doesn't want to be a lawyer, which turns out to be quite common). The legal profession is easily the most well *represented* (har har) profession in the entire country, and has extensive power to lobby on behalf of their own interests.
The primary bar that must be met by legal students is, well, [the US bar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_examination#United_States) exam, [which requires a J.D. in about 45 states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_United_States). The American Bar Association (ABA) is an extremely powerful professional/lobby group in the US, and in fact is so influential that a section of the ABA is actually responsible for the [accreditation of J.D. granting institutions](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/) in the US. According to the ABA, "forty-six states limit eligibility for bar admission to graduates of ABA-approved schools". If the ABA wants to require students to play the Hokey Pokey at a World Championship level before studying law, they could very well make that happen.
Interestingly, the J.D. itself has a surprisingly short history, [being formally instituted starting in 1962](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor#Legal_training_in_colonial_North_America_and_19th-century_U.S.), and the "LLB" (bachelor of law) was considered sufficient to be a lawyer for still more years after that. Before that, one did not even need a college degree of any kind to be a lawyer, and lawyer was like nearly all other professions in that they did not require a college degree to enter into them.
Officially the reasons for this was a concern that the existing 2-4 year degree along with the apprenticeship model was producing many lawyers who weren't fit to serve their clients. Thus the goal was basically to "improve education", or simply to let less incompetent lawyers sully the name of the profession.
Another interpretation is that this was rent-seeking behavior, specifically in the form of economic protectionism of a profession putting up artificial barriers to entry to restrict the supply of labor and thus increase the prices that could be won by those on the inside of the system. Any benefit to clients would be secondary, in this interpretation. This time period saw the rise of using University education as required credentialing of many professions in the US.
You might also note that the sudden adoption of the increased credentialing of many professions happened right around the same time as [immigration law in the US was changed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965) and major increases in migration increased supply of foreign-educated and foreign-trained professionals in the US. A cynic might suggest that lawyers-as-politicians voted against a form of labor protectionism in one area, and then turned around and voted themselves unique labor protections to guard them from harm resulting from their other decisions. I would of course never suggest such an uncharitable view of our late, great statesmen. (*cough*)
I'll leave it to you to decide how to mix and match these interpretations of why things are as they are now.
By requiring additional education far beyond pretty well any other country, the US transformed in about 100-150 years from a country that didn't much care for lawyers, avoided their use, or found them only marginally useful and imported them from England...to a country insisting they have the absolutely most rigorously education, trained, and certified lawyers on the earth. According to the lawyers, anyway :) At this point there is hardly anyone alive today in the US that can remember a time when lawyers were not at the center of public life, or a requirement to conduct any business of significant scale.
Would requiring less education make the process cheaper, and allow more people to become lawyers in the US? Absolutely! Which is why it won't happen any time soon. [More elected politicians are/were lawyers than any other profession](https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/first-thing-we-do-lets-elect-all-the-lawyers/), so getting them to vote in the debasement and dilution of their own profession is about as easy as getting them to vote themselves into being restricted by term limits. After all, how do you think so much legislation got written and passed that gave so much accreditation power to a private group like the ABA, or required a J.D. (while grandfathering in existing lawyers so they didn't have to go back to school)? I am quite certain there was no grass roots popular movement, with throngs of people taking to the streets to demand that lawyers spend more time in a University.
You could try to get a hierarchy established, where more cheaply educated (and lower paid) workers get less formal education while doing much of the work of the legal profession. Oops, never mind, we already have that: [paralegal](https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/paralegal-vs-lawyer-guide-to-decide/). If you review the requirements of what it takes to become a paralegal, you'll see it is remarkably similar to what was required of lawyers in the US prior to the 1960s. That is, 2-4 years of college (and it used to be even less), some additional specialized training, and you'd learn the rest on the job. This is but one example of the many ways that the relationship between a University education and the Professions have changed, and college degrees and graduate education have become required to join professions that used to require little more than a high school (secondary) education.
[The times, they are a changin' (1964)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ)
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2019/07/15
| 1,408
| 6,392
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my institution, we have various lab exams in which part of the exam is completing a programming task, and a computer is available to each student for this purpose.
There are there various ways to submit the exercise then: for instance, files can be submitted through a dedicated web service (elegant and easy to use, but it needs to be coded by hand and the grading is more complicated if there is also a pen-and-paper part to match), or the student is asked to copy the program/function on paper (tedious, but simple to implement).
Clearly, in this exam format it would be desirable to limit access to the internet, to reduce the possibilities to cheat and (in exams where this is forbidden) look up external information. This task seems complicated because
* some network access is necessary for the computer infrastructure to work (for instance, network logon)
* some programs may require additional network access: for instance, Matlab campus installations usually require access to a "license server" installed on a university-controlled machine
* the exam itself may also require the network somehow: for instance, to download test files, or for the interface to submit exercises mentioned above.
My experience is that IT administrators are reluctant to provide something like this, and that the result is quite error-prone: limiting the network access is tricky to do, it often fails and usually it leaves room for loopholes (for instance, the students can still chat to each other with `netcat`). Ideally, a fully locked-down "exam mode" would also have some more features, like forbidding access to USB sticks, but this also must be implemented by hand.
With this premise, my questions are:
1. Is this way of conducting exams common also in other institutions/university systems/nations? Is it inherently bad, or does it have some pitfalls that I have overlooked?
2. Is there an easy way to implement a "locked-down exam mode" on a computer (with either of Windows, Mac, and Linux, or rather, possibly, all of them) by using standard products? Are they effective, or are they easy to circumvent? Or does everyone roll their own hand-crafted solution? Some operating systems ofter "guest modes", which are a good starting point, but some more configuration is needed.
3. Is it normal for us teachers to ask the IT service to hack together something to implement this mode? Are there any technology suggestions that we can give them to make it more effective?
4. Should I (as an instructor) expect this "locked down exam mode", once implemented, to work seamlessly out-of-the-box, or is it something that is inherently clunky and error-prone?<issue_comment>username_1: My university in the UK provides such "locked down exam mode". Students log in with special "exam accounts", while their normal accounts are disabled for the time being. Exam accounts have limited access to network, permitting access to the University network (including submission servers, licensing servers, and other necessary infrastructure), and restricting access to anything else. This has been working well for the last 10-ish years at least, and I have not heard any major complaints from IT staff about it. For comparison, the same IT staff found it difficult to install TexLive on all university computers and were reluctant to perform this task.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your locked-down exam mode only need to be some special network rules. You probably want it to be a restriction so that the computer can only communicate with:
* The Active Directory
* The license server
* The server providing the questions
* The server where answers are submitted
* Maybe a DNS server
This could be performed locally at the client. For instance on Linux that would simply make a few iptables/nftables rules. You can probably get a Windows firewall with similar features, too.
But it can also be done at the network level, by making the switch on the laboratory performing the filtering (but importantly, you need client isolation to be enabled).
The main issue I foresee is actually on the features the allowed hosts provide. For instance, your institution is likely to be using a learning management system that allows sharing of materials, requesting submissions, etc. but it could end up being too powerful, such as allowing:
* Private messages between students
* Messages on a forum of a different subject
* 'Public' messages that are then quickly deleted
* Downloading of class materials that were not supposed to be used (theory, solutions from previous years...)
* Access to the contents by students not present in the room (from a different group, arriving late...)
* Submissions by a third not present in the room (which may know the credentials of a student which is there)
So I would go for a dedicated "exam server" that did just that thing and did it well.
---
If you don't have the means to do that, eg. you are not supposed to do such changes, or it would need support by a different department (IT?), which doesn't welcome such ideas, here is a low-tech procedure:
* Computers are networked and students log in and open needed programs as usual
* Students download a password-protected zip file¹ with the assignment as well as any supporting files required
* (NB: that students will download here everything they can, so this better be an open-book exam)
* Instructor disables network for the computer (either centrally or physically by removing the network cable from each computer)
* Instructor reveals the assignment password
* Students code their answer
* Students prepare the file they will submit
* Students write down on paper the hash for their submission (preferably on an Optical mark recognition paper) and provide it to the examiner
* After receiving the results from everyone, network access is restored and the students upload their submissions
* Later that day, the instructor verifies that the submitted files indeed match the electronic submission, and performs the grading.
This way both students and examiners get the advantage of actually using digital files (no manual copying or grading of paper code!), while being a sound procedurecitation needed requiring a minimum of technology support.
.
¹ The filenames are not encrypted in this format, so avoid tipping the exam contents on them!
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/15
| 928
| 3,665
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am interested in applying for PhD programs in discrete mathematics, but one of the schools I'm looking at isn't included in the top 10 rankings of discrete math programs (at least not according to US News: <https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/discrete-mathematics-rankings>). The school I am looking at is an overall top 25 school in math, but just not in the top 10 for the specific area I am interested in. They do have several people (about 5) researching discrete math, so it is not a non-existent research area in this school.
The part that I am especially torn about is that if I were to go to this school, then I wouldn't have to move (and incidentally the city I currently live in is my favorite city), and I could likely keep my current job and just work at my job half-time. I figure that if I'd have to likely work 10-20 hours a week as a TA, it might be worth it just to do 20 hours a week at my current job with better pay. Also I should mention that so long as I do 20 hours a week at my current job, I will get tuition payed for, health insurance, 401k etc (all the benefits I currently have). My goal isn't to stay in industry, but to go into academia, and so I would need a really stellar dissertation since academia is so competitive. My question is therefore if you want to take the academia route, how important is (in shaping how good of a mathematician you will become) the ranking of a school in a certain specialty if its overall math ranking is good (top 25), and there are still several people doing research in that specialty?
EDIT:
I wouldn't be able to live in the same city as the school is located in. I'm in a city that is close by. How important is it to live near the campus when doing a PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: Don’t trust the US News grad school subfield rankings *at all*. They’re based entirely on surveys and most people don’t actually know a lot about things outside their speciality *and* their university. So you infamously end up with high ranking places that actually don’t have anyone in the subfield.
If you want to know how good a school is in a subfield you’ll have to look into it seriously yourself. Ask people you know in that subfield, look up the research interests in the department, find out whether their have been grad students their recently, after you get accepted visit the dept and ask questions.
That said, I think in the US in math it’s a mistake to narrow down to a specialty before you go to grad school. You have a year of grad school before you have to pick an advisor, and you’ll learn a lot in that year. Plus you’re more likely to find a good advisor match if you are picking between 20 potential advisors and not 2.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I wouldn't be able to live in the same city as the school is located
> in. I'm in a city that is close by. How important is it to live near
> the campus when doing a PhD?
>
>
>
Living near your campus is important in the sense that doing well in a graduate program tends to be highly correlated with coming into the department regularly (and doing things like studying for exams, doing research, reading papers or skimming abstracts, attending departmental seminars, talking math with other students in your area, etc). There are definitely plenty of people that are able to work very productively from coffee shops or at home, but when I was in grad school I found that the most successful students tended to be the ones that came in to the department virtually every day. It's like the Woody Allen quote: *80 percent of success is just showing up*.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/15
| 1,838
| 8,042
|
<issue_start>username_0: 2nd year PhD student going into 3rd and final year in September, in the UK.
My PhD supervisor is a brilliant researcher, and for the most part I enjoy working with her. I do have a second supervisor but she is essentially useless.
My project is pretty hectic, I enjoy working on different components at once. That said, I have a defined research question and thesis chapters.
However, recently my supervisor has tasked me with helping on lab work for a project which needs to be completed for a grant application. This project has nothing to do with my PhD (other than I will be using the same method). It involves about 10-12 hours of hands on time per week. This is a significant amount of time out of my work which is intense enough without this. I mean I would frequently work from 7-7 on it alone.
I have been told I can only be paid for the weekend work (which consists of about 1 hour of the weekly 10), but this to me seems dodgy. The work has nothing to do with my PhD and is directly impacting my ability to get stuff done.
The fact is I'm scared of saying any of this to my supervisor, as at the end of the day I am planning to do a post with her and I feel like if you present as inflexible it could hurt me down the line. However I do feel a bit taken advantage of, and at the end of the day considering that doing this work for a few months is only prolonging my thesis submission.
Just wondering if anyone else has experienced anything similar or has any advice?<issue_comment>username_1: For my field (biological sciences), this doesn't sound like a lot of extra unacceptable non-PhD work. It might be different for yours. In a collaborative field, typically not every project you work on will be part of your thesis, and not all of the work in your thesis will be solely yours.
Since you rely on other people's work, including other current and past students, you should expect your work to also help other current and future students, as well as the lab as a whole (i.e., your PI).
That said, it is perfectly acceptable to have a conversation with your supervisor if work is preventing you from making suitable progress on your own thesis. This sort of conversation should be part of your regular meetings with a supervisor: your goals for progress on your thesis and checkpoints towards those goals.
It sounds like these other tasks might be somewhat temporary, so try to set a plan with your supervisor that keeps you on track to get back to finishing your primary work. However, I would suggest you go into that conversation with a collaborative mindset, treating both this task and your thesis as shared goals between you and your supervisor: that is, your supervisor will (or should) want you to complete your thesis on time as well, so you can work with her to achieve that shared goal, as well as what should be a shared goal of completing the work for this grant.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Although there may be a number of people here who are quick to claim that no PhD advisor would ever take advantage of the cheap and free labor that PhD students can be coerced into (by means of using degree and thesis requirements as a figurative cudgel), I think that it is somewhat common that PhD advisors make use of such free labor. **This should not be.**
This being said, there are a few things to consider:
1. The grant application you are assisting in might be a direct means of funding your future research. That is the "pay off" for you. Nothing happens in academia for free. Make sure that you are being compensated, but also keep in mind that not all compensation is directly and immediately monetary.
2. A few months of weekend work is sometimes part of "paying your dues" in academia and can open up further opportunities for you. (Such as a future post-doc with this professor).
3. Address your concerns as to timeline with your supervisor. If she dismisses your thoughts entirely, you may want to consider if this is really a professor you want to do a post-doc with.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Maybe see the extra lab work as relevant experience and developing your skills?
You can use that relevant experience in your CV and future job applications.
The major issue is the impact on your mental health and your social life. You are already in your final year, so you should be scouting for future jobs and opportunities now.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Academics usually have a written set of duties to their students under university rules. This falls short of a fiduciary duty to the student, but it usually entails duties to facilitate the progression of their candidature. It is perfectly acceptable for a PhD student to work on other research outside their PhD topic from time to time, but the supervisor should not assign work to the student that is at odds with progression of the candidature or advancement of their academic progress. In view of this, the work that your supervisors ask you to perform should generally fall into one of the following categories:
1. Research, administration, and other work that is related to your PhD candidature;
2. Coursework or other learning activities that are properly connected to your PhD candidature;
3. So long as it does not hinder your ability to progress your candidature, research work that you have voluntarily accepted and which is *unpaid*, but gives you some valuable *academic benefit* (e.g., co-authorship of publications, your name as a researcher on successful grants, etc.);
4. So long as it does not hinder your ability to progress your candidature, research work that you have voluntarily accepted and which is *paid* (and even then you should get appropriate credit for your contribution).
From what you have described, a small amount of the work that you are doing is paid, but most of it is unpaid. Your supervisor should only be asking you to do this work if they judge that it will give you some academic benefit (albeit one that might not line up with your PhD research topic) and they judge that it will not hamper your progression in your PhD candidature. If you have concerns about this, you should raise these with your supervisor, and ask for an explanation of how this activity will advance your academic development, and how you can balance it with your PhD research.
Depending on what has been arranged, you should get some academic benefit from this work, due to being listed as an applicant on an academic grant, or as a co-author of publications. If this is not the case, *you should not be doing the work*. Since you are undertaking lab work for a grant application, you should ultimately get credit for this, through co-authorship on publications that use your lab work, and possibly also being listed as a co-applicant (or at least given an acknowledgement) in the grant application. You should make sure to negotiate this up-front --- have a talk with your supervisor about expectations for co-authorship, etc., to see what credit you will be given for your contribution to this research. Assuming you are given appropriate credit for your work, it might be a valuable addition to your accomplishments during your candidature.
In any case, in the first instance, I would suggest you raise all these concerns with your supervisor. Make sure to have a discussion about what credit you will get for your work, in terms of co-authorship of papers (authorship order, etc.), and whether you will be listed as one of the applicants on the grant application. You should also discuss timelines for your PhD candidature, and make sure your supervisor is giving you time to progress your actual topic. If you are unsatisfied with your supervisor's plans and responses on these issues, raise the matter with the relevant graduate-student co-ordinator and ask for a second opinion. Also note that, if you are not getting appropriate academic credit for this work, and it conflicts with your PhD research, it should not be assigned to you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/15
| 712
| 2,992
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am about a graduate from my university. Will it be OK to use my personal email if I am looking for faculty jobs/postdoc positions. Will it somehow give a negative impact on my application as compared to those who apply through any institution's link?<issue_comment>username_1: No, there's no negative impact. In many universities your email account stops working after you leave, and you'll definitely want potential employers to have valid contact information. And everyone knows and understands this.
And your current university will be listed in your resume and application, and will be confirmed by other means than having an email address.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have an institutional email that will still be accessible for the foreseeable future, I would suggest using it. When I see applications for academic positions that use @hotmail.com or something, I sometimes (subconsciously perhaps) judge the application to be of lesser desirability.
**However**
This momentary judgement of the applicant's email address is quickly dismissed if the rest of the application is quality. If you are using a good @gmail.com email address or something similar, there is no shame in that. *It should go without saying*, but obviously do not apply for faculty positions with an email such as <EMAIL> (or whatever). Even an email like <EMAIL> should be avoided.
I would suggest creating a nice gmail address specific for just your applications.
>
> <EMAIL> (assuming one's name was actually <NAME>)
>
>
>
This will allow you to be professional in your presentation as well as funnel all necessary correspondence to a specific and single purpose email account.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There is a third possibility here, which is also worth considering: establish a professional address that is linked to a professional society rather than your current institution.
While not all societies do this, some will offer you an address at their domain as one of your benefits of membership (IEEE and ACM are examples). If the professional societies in your field do this, it can be an easy way to have a long-term professional email address that is respectable and clearly indicates your professional affiliation without being tied to your current institution (e.g., `<EMAIL>`).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Another way to show a distinct level of professionalism is to take the time to register your own domain. As this will be used for professional purposes, its name should reflect that usage.
With a bit of learning you can use the same domain to host a resume. This can all be done for under USD$20-30 per year so beware of unscrupulous services offing to do it for you for much more.
Any employer is likely to be (perhaps even subconsciously) impressed by `<EMAIL>` vs. `<EMAIL>`.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/16
| 1,173
| 4,920
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am entering my 5th year as a PhD student. The "understanding" with my advisor is that I need three journal papers accepted to graduate. I think I have enough material (designs/ measurements/ analysis) to write the three papers now, but so far have only written one. In a normal situation, my next step would be to write the other two papers.
The issue is that my advisor received more short-term funding for my project, and he plans to ask me to do one more "design" before the grant expires. This "design" will extend my PhD by 1.5 years at the very least and I will have to delay my paper-writing to meet the incredibly ridiculous deadline associated with the short grant and design deadline.
Naturally, my advisor being who he is, he will use the fact that I do not have the three papers to impose more work on me instead of allowing me to actually write the papers I need. He does not have a problem hitting the maximum duration allowed by the Institute to keep a PhD student (6-7 years), even when the student has done enough.
This is further complicated by the fact that my advisor lacks experience in my specific field and only understand that "more designs = more papers".
I need advice on how to address this. How can I make a compelling case that I have done enough and I just need to focus on publishing so that I can graduate? I would really appreciate realistic advice.
Note: My advisor is very powerful in the department. This makes approaching the department unrealistic. I will be on the losing side if I approach the department. I am in a North American Institute.<issue_comment>username_1: I think your most realistic option is to have an honest discussion with your advisor about your goals and expectations.
Tell them that you’d like to graduate by 20xx, and you think your work on A B C was fulfilling and interesting. You feel like you can really build a narrative around these projects that would culminate in a good thesis within the timeframe set above. Given your goal, you feel like starting a new project at this time will be detrimental to your progress.
Ideally your advisor would totally see it your way and you’ll graduate into the sunset. Realistically: advisors tend to be overzealous at times and can exert a lot of pressure over their students. A reasonable advisor would leave the choice to you; a clever one will make you believe that it’s a really good idea to start this new project (you don’t have enough material now, your CV will be amazing with the new project accomplished...). So a lot of this depends on the dynamics you have with your advisor.
I would not go over their head unless you’re willing and able to switch advisors. Its hard to get back to a good working relationship after something like that.
I will try to establish my own independence and capacity to successfully graduate with a plan (by 20yy I plan to submit these results, draft by Jan 20zz and so on).
Good luck!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Adding on to username_1s answer, it would be helpful to provide context to your planned graduation date. A reason to graduate by a certain date presented with reasoning from a different angle makes it more difficult for the professor to counter argue.
Drawing reasons for example from:
1. **Family** - presence needed, marriage or impending split/divorce, pregnancy or desire to get pregnant by a certain age due to fertility
2. **Work** - money needed, job offer, etc
3. **Visa** - although this is specific to your case
4. **Relocation** - plan to move elsewhere for some reason or another
Whether you actually are going to carry through with the reasoning and how truthful the reasoning is up to you. Just try not to be blatantly false that you'll get caught
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Lots of good advice in @username_1's answer. I would add that you might suggest mentoring an new student to take over the project when you are gone. You can advise them on the design while you focus on writing your last two papers. This is a reasonably common practice, at least in the fields I have worked in. This should have a number of advantages from all perspectives:
1. Your adviser will get your help training the new student to take over which means they will have 5 more years of work on the project rather than just the 1.5 they can get from you.
2. It takes the burden of the new project off your shoulders while still providing a mechanism for the work to get done.
3. If it isn't worth your adviser's efforts to recruit a new student for the project, then it shouldn't be worth your time either. Making your adviser have to make the first effort toward moving the project forward will demonstrate how much they really care about making it happen.
4. By helping the new student, you might be able to get your name on some of their papers even after you graduate.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/16
| 1,483
| 6,414
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm curious if anybody here has ever transitioned from a teaching-strong academic career to a curriculum assessment type job (in calculus, for example)? If so, what would you be able to say about that? That is, what do you think a successful applicant to such a job should have on their CV, coming from academia? What would you be able to say about the types of tasks you were involved in, once hired? How did the lifestyle differ (or not differ) from your past academic experience? You know, the works. (If it matters, I'm coming from an American context.)
I should perhaps say a bit about myself to help clarify this question more.
I graduated with a PhD in mathematics in 2017, having worked as a part-time graduate teaching assistant for six years (two semesters as full instructor-of-record). I have now completed two years of an intensive teaching post-doc, with one more year to go. This position has given me the ability to teach a wide range of undergraduate courses: calculus 1, 2, and 3, linear algebra, complex analysis, topology, real analysis 2, abstract algebra 1, and four semesters of an active-learning/group-work/IBL style logic&proof course for non-math majors.
These last two years, I have employed various teaching styles running the gamut from teacher-centered to student-centered. In graduate school, I was fortunate to serve as a TA for various instructors who I observed, and assisted with, employing techniques like flipped classroom, IBL worksheets, group work, etc. I have written several creative quizzes, exams, and interactive proofs (further details upon request) in all of my classes, and have come to quite enjoy this part of the job. I am preparing a conference talk and paper about work I did this past spring semester to revolutionize my department's logic&proof course for non-math majors.
I know that I would like a math education-focused career, but I am lately considering the possibility that perhaps being more behind the scenes rather than constantly in the classroom might be a better fit for my temperament/personality. Assuming that a transition to a curriculum assessment/specialist type job (still learning the lingo) is even feasible for someone with my experience, would it be advisable? Assuming, down the road, that I wish to return to university teaching, would it be possible? It strikes me that having experience in developing unique, cutting-edge curricular materials might actually be a benefit for a university instructor. Anyway, this is a new idea that I'm beginning to explore, so I'm gathering all the information and perspectives that I can at this stage.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest the following course of action when thinking about any non-standard career path:
1. Identify people who already have the job you would like to have. Get in touch with them, and ask them as many questions as you can think of (about their job, how they got it, etc.). If you can't find anybody, chances are that this job doesn't really exist in your area. For instance, I am not sure if my university employs anybody for "curricular assessment", although we have a few people who more or less work fulltime on program management and development (which may be close to what you have in mind).
2. Find out what qualifications these people have, and which qualifications they had before starting their job. It's well possible that you may need additional training before you can realistically apply for the job you are looking for (e.g., to become a program manager in my department, you typically want to be a mid-career username_2 with considerable pedagogical training and some publications in education-focused journals and conferences).
3. Let everybody and their dog know that you are interested in transitioning into such a position. One challenge with non-traditional career paths is that most people in your network may not even be aware that you might be interested in such a job if they happen to come across one. The only solution for this is to make sure that your entire network is aware that you are not looking for a standard faculty position.
4. Volunteer for every opportunity to take on a role in your department that comes close to what you want to do. Besides giving you valuable experience this will also help you become known as the person doing program development in your department (and, hopefully, beyond). If a suitable job opens up, you should be the first person that people are thinking about.
In a nutshell, it's really not all that different from how engineers transition into management positions in industry. First, you make sure that people know you are interested in a management position in the first place. Then you get the necessary training and take over more and more management tasks, until a suitable opportunity arises and you get asked to transition.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: One possible option is to do this at the university level, where a possible career path would be as follows:
1. Get a tenure-track faculty position at a university that cares about teaching. Your qualifications should make a very positive impression on the job market, especially if you have a respectable math research record as well.
2. Once hired, continue to invest time in your new department as you've been doing. Volunteer for leadership, service, and administrative roles.
3. Once tenured, try to transition into an administrative role. You could work as your department's undergraduate director, seek a role in the Dean's or Provost's office, etc. Alternatively, you could seek a job in an accrediting agency, or in a national organization like the AMS or MAA.
But beware (as you might already be aware) that many professors have a habit of tuning out "curriculum assessment". Your influence will be a function of your ability to persuade people; even if you obtain a lot of formal power, that doesn't mean that anyone will listen to you. "Assessment" has a reputation for being useless busywork, which you might have to fight.
That said, if you want to work in higher education, this is probably your likeliest career path. My impression is that, for better or worse, no one outside universities has much influence on college-level pedagogy.
There might also be options at the K-12 level or elsewhere; I don't know anything about these and so won't comment. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/16
| 1,829
| 7,564
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PHD student, finishing my candidature in a year's time. The environment of my lab is slightly different. My prof (owner of the lab) does not supervise me at all and I received supervision mostly from a post-doc in the lab. Her role in the lab is more of a PI's role, giving instructions to the other lab members, but not really doing any experiments and data collection. When I first joined the lab, I took over the one project everyone in my lab is working on (a very small lab), planning, doing and getting data from all of the experiments for the project (except for those that were done before I joined the lab, which is only like about 5% of the entire data obtained). While she initially guided me for the project's direction in my first year, for the past 2 years, I did not receive much guidance from her.
Now, she is writing a paper with the results I generated over the past few years, not giving me a chance at typing my own manuscript. Is this normal in the academic setting? She listed herself as the first author and me as co-first, and I feel like I have been reduced to the likes of a research assistant, who generates data for her to use. I am worried this will affect my employment chances in the future when I graduate. This will probably be my only paper at the end of my PHD. Does the number of papers/ or amount of contribution listed in the papers matter to PIs who are employing potential post docs?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Supervisor takes my results to type a manuscript. Is this normal?
>
>
>
I don’t know about normal, but certainly not helpful in making you an independent researcher. Perhaps they want to make sure you see how it’s done right, perhaps they really need a paper fast, but I can see why you’re frustrated. I suggest you politely suggest that you help write things that you contributed with: like the data analysis, or the experimental setup. Ask her if she’d like a draft by a certain time.
>
> She listed herself as the first author and me as co-first
>
>
>
This is tentatively good though author order importance greatly varies by field. Contribution is a tricky thing to establish. You say you generated 95% of the data; even if this is true, maybe your PI and the rest of the lab managed most of the grunt work allowing you to generate so much. What do other lab members think of you getting first co-authorship?
>
> Does the number of papers/ or amount of contribution listed in the papers matter to PIs who are employing potential post docs?
>
>
>
Very much! When I hire postdocs I want to be sure that they’re “fully baked” and able to conduct research independently, so they can help drive the lab forward, and perhaps advise students (as you were advised).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A supervisor writing their student's paper is far from unheard of, see e.g. [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/93810/17254). I suspect it isn't the overall norm in academia, but it might change from field to field. Anecdotally, I'm sure it isn't the norm in physics, but I've certainly heard of some supervisors who are more controlling than others, or who consider their student's English so bad that it'd be a waste of time to let the student write the first draft. Of course, the advisor isn't necessarily wrong in thinking it might take *them* more work rewriting a rough draft, than writing the full paper would, especially if they aim at a higher impact journal.
Yet, whatever the reason, I consider it a bad practice. If a PhD degree is supposed to show that the degree holder is capable of independent high-quality research, and eligible for an academic career - surely having written a paper and seen it through the publication process is a valuable experience? These are skills and experiences you can pick up later, of course, but it isn't ideal.
As for them claiming the first/co-first author spot too, well, that strikes me as a bit much. I suppose that, Depending on the details, it might be appropriate. Now, the meaning of first authorship [varies between fields](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2467/17254), so I don't want to speculate how this will be perceived in your case. (Maybe your supervisor even has a reputation for doing this, that people who might hire you as a postdoc are aware of...) Anyway, in the physics cases of the supervisor writing their student's article mentioned above, the supervisor remained last author. I think that is *more* normal, but again, it's not like I have access to any statistics on this.
The number of papers can matter in a post-doc application, yes. It's obviously not the only factor (recommendation letters, skills, quality of the work etc.), but it is a sign of productivity. All other things equal (not that they ever are...), why not pick the more productive candidate? There's been a number of other questions about this on the site, including [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/99437/17254) and [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/89982/17254). Everyone's circumstances will be unique, so at the end of the day you'll need to apply to a number of jobs and see what happens.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The solution in my opinion is to speak out. You can approach your actual supervisor, explain the situation to him, ask for a meeting with the post-doc. The may consider the authorship as you have done all the work. Or at the very least, indicate a mark in the authors list saying that you both had equal contributions. With equal contributions, employers can consider you as a first author too.
In these cases, the earlier you speak, the better. If you have learned she started writing a manuscript, you could have spoken earlier and reached a resolution that allows you to write the manuscript or a decent part of it. However, from your question, this stage seems gone now.
You still have a chance to write your own thesis. So do not worry too much about practicing writing. But I am certainly against silence towards some selfish self-centered people who hijack other people's work and ideas. I know how sad that feels quite well from a personal experience. If everyone will stay silent against such people, they will increase.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: In bio-molecular fields, there are generally two important positions on the authorship list: The first author, and the corresponding(senior) author . Usually the corresponding author came up with the idea, got the money and trained/supervised the first author. Usually the first author is the one that generated the largest amount of actaul grunt work (be that data collection or analysis). In the end, it is the corresponding author who is ultimately held responsible for the content of the paper (i.e. it is their neck on the line if something in the paper is, for example, fraudulent).
It is not unusual for the senior author to draft the paper, practice varies from lab to lab (personally I think it is best for the first author to at least take a stab at it, but thats just my opinion), and I would not be worried about that. I would be more worried that you are not being listed as first author if you did 95% of the work.
In the ideal world you should probably be first and the postdoc corresponding, that would actaully be best for both your and the postdocs career (the postdoc will benefit greatly from a corresponding position) but I have a feeling your PI is going to want the senior position, even if they had little to do with it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/16
| 1,812
| 7,600
|
<issue_start>username_0: I need relatively broad information on the functionality of a certain technology as part of the exposition to my seminar paper. As scholarly papers tend to focus on very specific questions, already taking the existence of my sought-for concepts for granted, and since suitable books don't seem available to me, I feel that I have to look for answers on a regular website.
For this, I've found a short article by a major corporation which happens to be the market leader of said technology. Is it acceptable to cite their web page in a seminar paper?
I understand that credibility of the used sources is a major concern. Given the fact they are market leader, I believe that credibility to be present. Do I need to name this company's status (e.g. "According to [company], market leader in [technology], ...") to validate the source? If so, would simply citing Wikipedia for this fact suffice, assuming their prevailing status on the market needs to be proven as well?<issue_comment>username_1: Let me advise caution. In part it depends on what you expect the future of your paper to be. If it is to be published, then using volatile and un-reviewed sources can be a mistake. In the context of a course paper, not intended for publication it may be ok, but for tactical reasons (keeping your professor happy) if nothing else, don't depend exclusively on such sources. The problem is that the source may disappear before the publication that cites it.
The problems in the two examples you cite are that the company has a vested interest in what it says and isn't an independent voice. And wikipedia, while it may be reliable on many things, especially in STEM areas, is volatile and might change at any moment. Neither is it reviewed in any real sense and so misinformation does creep in.
Also, any web resource is subject to change outside your control and the articles you cite may disappear tomorrow. Such citations should always come with a date on which the article was read/downloaded as a partial check. And, your acceptance of their credibility is just opinion. It is a weak foundation unless it is backed up by facts or by others.
But, in general, you want reliable sources and preferably you want sources that don't benefit from what is said. But if you are clear about that, and also use more stable and reliable sources to support your arguments then you may be ok for a course paper. And you might actually be ok for a more long-lasting publication if you don't just accept what you have found online as *truth*. In particular, critiquing online claims is a perfectly valid use.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Personally, I would use Wikipedia as a starting place and see who they cite. I would read the article and use the reference as starting place for my own literature search.
Academics will sometimes cite Wikipedia, but tend to be the exception rather than the rule. For example, <NAME> cited Wikipedia for [tutorials](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.3443&rep=rep1&type=pdf) and noted:
>
> We use Wikipedia here not as an authoritative source but rather as a reflection of a general consensus. My views on induction, deduction, and Bayesian inference are not in agreement with this consensus, and so it is my duty to explain, first, why my views are right and the consensus wrong, and, second, if the consensus is so clearly wrong, how could so many intelligent people hold to it.
>
>
>
In the above case, Gelman wrote one of the major Bayesian textbooks and can get away with citing Wikipedia in his specific context.
As for the cooperate page, I would only use their website as a primary source (e.g., Acme Company uses *shiny new technology* to make widgets). I might cite reports for companies, but I would cite those as reports and not webpages. For example, Bell Labs published [reports](https://www.bell-labs.com/our-research/publications/). Also, sometimes companies publish reports that lay the foundation their technology (e.g., [*The PageRank Citation Ranking*](http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf)).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the answers posted here so far, but I want to add a few points.
You can realistically use *any* source in your paper, but it depends on how you use it. If you want to write about what X company says about a particular topic, then using that particular web article seems appropriate. If you want to write something informative about a particular product that X company happens to use, then citing that article (written by X company) is a less than ideal choice. As @username_1 mentioned, the company has a vested interest in portraying the product in a certain way, but as @username_2 mentioned, this article (or Wikipedia) can be a good initial stepping stone.
Articles that you use for information need to be **peer reviewed** in order to have a high level of credibility. Not having access to books is not a valid excuse; universities have a plethora of resources for this exact circumstance. I recommend Inter Library Loan (ILL) for hard to get books and journal articles. Your professor may have suggestions on where to start.
tl;dr:
* you can use anything as a source (even Wikipedia), but it depends on *how* it’s used
* peer reviewed sources are best for research credibility
* you can find obscure resources using your university’s library privileges
* consult with your professor
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I'll address the Wikipedia portion of the question specifically:
>
> Do I need to name this company's status (e.g. "According to [company], market leader in [technology], ...") to validate the source? If so, would simply citing Wikipedia for this fact suffice, assuming their prevailing status on the market needs to be proven as well?
>
>
>
Since Wikipedia content can be changed at any moment, any citation to a Wikipedia article needs to refer to a *specific revision* of the article. And of course, that revision might just reflect one person's view, and that one person might or might not have a conflict of interest, which might or might not be discernible to the reader.
If you want to use Wikipedia to justify something like this, you'll need more than just the article. You might find that a statement like "company A is a leader in industry B" has footnotes; if so, look at those footnotes and see if one or more of them is worthy of citation. (A news article from a well-respected publication, that actually says that? Yes. Somebody's LinkedIn profile? No.) Or, by visiting the Wikipedia article's talk page, you might find that several Wikipedia editors have discussed the point, and decided that it belongs in the article for various reasons. Or, again by looking at the talk page, you might find that the article went through one of Wikipedia's formal peer review processes (like "featured article" or "good article") and that the statement withstood challenges in that discussion.
In any of those cases, the thing to cite is not the Wikipedia article itself, but the stuff that justifies the statement in the Wikipedia article. That is, the news publication used as a footnote, or the discussion on Wikipedia's talk page, or the Wikipedia review page.
*Disclaimer and statement of expertise: I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, I run a business advising companies on Wikipedia engagement, and I designed the Wikimedia Foundation's first program to engage university professors in assigning Wikipedia writing to their students.*
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/16
| 759
| 3,461
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied for winter 2020 entry. The applications open in September but I was recommended to contact potential supervisors ahead of time. I emailed my CV, transcript and quick background about myself to few potential supervisors and landed an interview with one. I went to the interview and we discussed the research endeavours and my research proposal. The 45 minutes interview seemed positive and the prof mentioned me to email him when applications open. He said he will be a potential supervisor. Acceptance into the program is conditional upon securing a supervisor. Should I continuing contacting other profs or assume my prof is secured based upon the interview? I am worried if by the time applications open another potential grad might catch his attention and take my spot. Thanks in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: It is unwise to assume anything. Keep all options open until you formally accept an offer. Even a simple misunderstanding can leave you stranded.
But following user username_2's question, don't give the impression that you are uninterested or conflicted about the original contact. And don't give the impression that you're already committed. Stay flexible. Celebrate at the signing.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You should continue contacting and interviewing possible professors until you have an official offer of admission that you have accepted, especially at other institutions.
It seems like this professor is most likely willing to take you as a student, but only *if you are accepted* to that program (which likely does not depend only on that professor's opinion), and only *if nothing else comes up* including an applicant they like better, unexpected personal circumstances, changing financial situation in the lab, etc.
As you say, acceptance to the program is conditional on having a supervisor: that means it is *necessary* for admission but not *sufficient*. The professor has only granted you permission to identify them as a potential supervisor on your application, this is not an offer or promise of admission.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with username_2. You keep contacting and interviewing until you get an *official* acceptance to the program. Just because the professor likes you and you two "clicked", it does not mean that they will be able to take you. It could be that some weird departmental politics may prevent them from taking students this cycle. This very issue happened to me this last cycle.
One potential adviser, who I had clicked with and had very overlapping interests with mine, informed me after the selection process began that they were lower on the level of their priority than they had expected, and as a result would not be able to take me. It was unfortunate, but it was not unexpected and reasonable.
It could also be that you are definitely *a* favorite of them, but not enough of the department to receive an offer. The professor may also have you as a favorite, but not *THE* favorite. Professors recognize that the application process can be long and tedious and it is in the interest of applicants to apply to multiple programs. Even if all goes according to plan, your advisor will most likely not take offense with you having contacted and applied with other people. At the same time, you may regret not continuing to contact people if you just stopped with them.
Stay excited, but keep your options open.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/16
| 354
| 1,301
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm reviewing a manuscript with a two column layout that has line numbers on the left margin of the page, but not on the right. Like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/X240h.png)
How do I efficiently and effectively reference a particular line in the manuscript? Is there a standard way of doing it?
Currently I write "P1 C1 L12" to refer to page 1, left column, line 12.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not aware of a standard, but you can always define your own notation in your report. Perhaps some journals do have a recommended standard in their reviewer instructions, but I don't remember seeing that either.
If you want to go compact, I'd suggest "p1, R12" for page 1, right column (L for left), where 12 is understood to be the line number. That is, there are probably few enough columns that there isn't a need to have a running number for them...
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Use whatever protocol you like, but explain your protocol to the editor and authors. For example, you could include something like the following (quoting from someone else's review of one of my own papers):
>
> Throughout this review, "p.5(17)" refers to line 17 on page 5.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/16
| 438
| 2,114
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are there any legal (or other) limitations in accessing research databases from a computer at my workplace?
As a part-time student I have full access to resources provided by my university and was wondering whether I should stop using company's laptop for research purposes.
I'm based in UK, if that matters.<issue_comment>username_1: You should check with your library policies, but use of academic library (and other) resources *for work outside an academic educational/research context* is very likely against policy and may violate the licenses by which the university has obtained access to material (i.e., the library has obtained a license for the students and staff of the university to access the material for noncommercial purposes related to academic research and education; they likely have not obtained a license for those students and staff to access the material for commercial purposes outside the university).
Using your company's laptop might be a bit of a grey area since you are transferring materials to the property owned by the company; if you are using the company laptop for academic purposes, you might be in violation of company policies but it has nothing to do with the library access. Whether simply accessing library materials from a commercial source if you are not using those resources to do non-licensed work (i.e., to use the access for commercial purposes) seems like a question only a lawyer could answer, and you won't get legal advice here.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If a university has given you permission to access resources online, then the university will generally not care what machine you use to access them or what location you access them from.
It is possible that your company might have some policy about using your laptop only for company purposes, but that is a question for your supervisor and/or the IT staff at your company. Most companies that I know of, however, would not have an issue with you accessing such material as long as you aren't doing it instead of the work the company has assigned you.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/16
| 624
| 2,517
|
<issue_start>username_0: After an article has been accepted, all edits finished and finally published, some (many?) journals mail 10 or so printed copies of the completed article to the author. Not full copies of the entire journal issue but just the single article. I believe traditionally this was done so an author could prove to their institution that the article was indeed accepted and published. This is still standard practice for journals in South Korea where I live. I'm aware of the Korean word used for them but colleagues have been asking me what to refer to them in English and I couldn't offer an answer.
Is there a special name in English for these copies?
The best I could think of was just "excerpt".
Other terms I've found that don't seem to fit: "advance copy", "proof copy", "galley proof", "final proof"<issue_comment>username_1: They are called **offprints**. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offprint):
>
> An offprint is a separate printing of a work that originally appeared as part of a larger publication, usually one of composite authorship such as an academic journal, magazine, or edited book.
> [...]
>
>
> Offprints are used by authors to promote their work and ensure a wider dissemination and longer life than might have been achieved through the original publication alone. They may be valued by collectors as akin to the first separate edition of a work and, as they are often given away, may bear an inscription from the author. Historically, the exchange of offprints has been a method of correspondence between scholars.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The name I know these by is "reprints" or often ["author reprints"](https://www.nature.com/nature-research/reprints-and-permissions/author-reprints) in the context of those printed for the authors' use and distribution.
These are prints in the form of the final published article (rather than a pre-published form which are typically called 'proofs' and are often not a completely final version; these in my experience are always digital).
Other examples:
[Science](https://www.sciencemag.org/site/help/authors/permissions.xhtml)
[ACS](http://pubstore.acs.org/reprints.html)
[AHA](https://www.ahajournals.org/author-reprints)
[LWW](https://shop.lww.com/author-reprint)
Although "reprint" seems to imply they are done after other publishing, in my experience they are offered immediately to authors, though many journals now simply provide authors with PDFs to distribute.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/17
| 1,644
| 7,021
|
<issue_start>username_0: My husband and I work in the same research area (of theoretical computer science). We were in the same PhD program and even had the same advisor. We are a great collaboration team, and really enjoy and are productive when we work together. In addition, neither of us have anyone else to collaborate with because no one in the department really works in quite the same area (not even our advisor - long story). As a result, nearly all of my papers are co-authored with my husband. My husband has a decent number of papers without me as a co-author because he is three years ahead of me in the program, so he has his papers from before I even started, and also has had more time for more papers since I have just completed the class-heavy portion of my PhD.
My husband has recently graduated and is a tenure-track professor at a good university. I would also like to be a professor one day. From what I've seen in my field, spousal hiring seems pretty common. So we figured that we would both apply to a bunch of universities and would end up being hired as a pair. However, we have been worried that us both being in the same research area and publishing together is going to cause difficulties being hired. Since I have a few more years left in the program, my plan is to to have two or three good publications that don't include my husband (I already have one single author paper in a good place).
So my question is, how difficult will it be for us to be hired together into the same department if we have so many papers co-authored together? Will publishing a few good papers without my husband improve the situation to the point that we have a reasonable chance of being hired together, even though a significant amount of my early work was with my husband?
Additional Note: Even just in my department, several of the new hires in the last 3 or 4 years have been husband and wife pairs where they were both hired into the computer science department. So it seems that this practice is currently very common in CS. I have not seen any that shared a research area, though.
Edit: This question is very different from the one asked at
[PhD Student : Publish Paper with Wife?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/45706/110952) . That question is primarily about whether it is strange to publish with a spouse at all (and the spouse in question is not in academia), while my question is specifically about my husband and I getting hired together in the same department if we have co-authored a significant amount of our work together. The answers provided there don't really help with this question.
Edit: I have edited down the four questions to just a single main question.<issue_comment>username_1: The problem of the two of you getting hired together in the same department is much harder than for each of you getting hired separately somewhere near each other.
The problem is simply that there aren't enough job openings for two people in the same field at the same time, or even near in time. There might be exceptions, such as if you are in a very competitive and hot new area in which universities are competing for faculty in that field, but that is also rare.
But, if you are in an area with a lot of universities, such as NYC or London, for example, you could probably find employment close enough to solve your problem. One of you might need to take a job at a lower ranked place to make this work, I suppose.
Being nearby, but at different institutions would also open the options for collaborations separate from each other, as well.
You can't really control how people judge your collaboration, but if you are being interviewed separately for jobs, each of you can stand on your own in your knowledge of the field and potential for future work. But, don't obsess over what you can't control.
I'll note that it is easier for a university to solve the two-body problem if the two are in very different fields. It gets harder the more similar they are, especially the same sub-field. But being "hot" helps if you can find the place that is trying to rapidly expand. That is rare for lots of reasons and it isn't a stable situation. "Rapidly expanding" today could be "saturated" tomorrow.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. In my (restricted) experience, it is generally a considerable problem for person A if all/most of A's good publications are joint with the same person B; and even more so if A and B are related and/or B is more senior / overall more productive.
2. So getting good publications with someone else (preferably solo, if this is not uncommon in the field) will most definitely help. (Not just for getting a position at the *same* university, but for getting a position *anywhere*.)
3. Otherwise people will (maybe unfairly, but quite naturally) assume that the collaboration is not symmetric.
Remark: If person B is extremely successful, then sometimes universities will quite openly and shamelessly hire a mediocre spouse A as well, just to get B. (Let me stress that I of course do not claim that you are mediocre.) I personally just found such deals always distasteful (how would a possibly better candidate C for A's position feel?), but from the point of the university this can be a rather rational strategy. This fact might even be a small ("social") disadvantage for a spouse A' which is hired because they actually *are* most qualified, but happen to be married to superstar B' (as some people will assume A' is hired only/mainly because they are married to B').
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The goal of both getting hired in the same department is obviously a high bar, and much more difficult than just each getting hired somewhere. For the specific goal of getting hired at the same department, there are a few competing issues:
1. Generally speaking, it is desirable for new hires to be able to collaborate with existing academics in the department, so your track-record of collaboration is a positive for this part. The fact that you and your husband can do joint-papers together is an advantage over other applicants who have no existing research collaboration with department members;
2. One the other hand, universities must be careful to avoid nepotism, and so the university will need to be careful to ensure that you are not advantaged in your application based on any considerations beyond the above. As you point out, it is not uncommon to see husband and wife teams in university departments (there were two pairs in my last department!) so it seems that the pendulum has not swung too far against this.
3. Since most of your publications are collaborations with one person, there is the general danger that the hiring committee may find it difficult to assess your own contribution, or (even worse), might conclude that your contribution to the publications was insufficient. This one is a general issue that is not specific to getting hired at the same place, but it is something to be aware of.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/17
| 1,417
| 6,292
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a US postdoc at a lab in Japan doing niche research in computational biology. I recently found out my advisor will not allow me to be first author on papers. He says the datasets (which were my primary reason for joining this lab) were funded by the Japanese Government (although the data collection was international) and so a foreigner cannot be first author (though I would be doing most of the work).
There is a half-Japanese/half-American professor who teaches a short course for foreigners about how to survive/excel at the university. He told me this is common and that most foreigner postdocs leave the university with zero first-author publications - because first-author credits are typically reserved for Japanese researchers. He said I will need to creatively navigate these issues while not stepping on toes.
I want to figure out a way to obtain first-author publications during my postdoc without stepping on anyone's toes.
**Question:** Is this typical for foreigners in Japanese Academia? How can I navigate it? I know it is difficult to switch labs in this niche field, but if I do not take action, I will finish my postdoc with 0 first-author publications.
**Possible solution:** I have connections with a scientist at a government lab in the US. I have a negative impression of him from our past interactions, but he does have datasets in this niche research area. I could ask if he would be willing for me to remotely analyze one of his datasets. Does this seem like a reasonable solution? Any caveats I should be aware of?<issue_comment>username_1: While what you are describing is entirely inappropriate from a perspective of scientific ethics, I would not be surprised if:
* there may be a language/culture miscommunication causing you to misinterpret the situation, or
* there is indeed an informal policy of this sort amongst some laboratories (but individual labs all over the world sometimes have odious policies)
Anecdotally, while I have not worked in Japanese academia myself, I have Japanese colleagues who don't appear to have such a policy and have non-Japanese colleagues who did postdocs in Japan and published as a first author. Such a policy is at least thus not extremely common.
So, what should you do?
* First, I would recommend starting from the position that this is a mis-communication and asking how your advisor recommends you getting first author publications during your postdoc, since this is important for your career.
* Your advisor is unlikely to say no (for a number of reasons), but if they do not give you a clear path to getting first-author publications, then I would indeed suggest finding other people to work with, while doing what's necessary to maintain relations and face with your current laboratory.
* Finally, note that while first author publications are wonderful, "co-first-author" and second author publications are also good, and if the common denominator amongst a number of papers is you, then people will likely recognize that fact.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As a person working at a Japanese university, I never encountered such cases. Having said that, I can imagine reasonable motivation behind your advisor's actions. It all boils down to the fact that the "first author" is considered the "primary author" by default, and being the "primary author" makes reporting a smoother process. Say, I obtained (as a "primary investigator") a certain dataset, and I expected to report results achieved with the dataset. So it would look better if I am also the main contributor of the corresponding research paper(s). Similarly, it is easier to obtain additional funding for a conference trip if I am the primary author of the paper to be presented. (There are also various internal evaluations where your authorship counts, so it's tempting to increase own score, even at the expense of others).
None of these considerations turn into ironclad rules, but I understand that it's much easier for an advisor to be "the one who contributes" and "the one who reports" at the same time (especially if you aren't planning to stay long there and you might not be a lab member at the time of reporting). However, as I said before, these are my informed guesses rather than hard facts.
What you can do... well, perhaps, negotiate. Maybe you can sacrifice first authorship of this particular paper, but you have to do it on condition that your next paper will go with you as the first author, and if is means switching the dataset or adjusting anything else your advisor considers necessary -- let them sort it out before you do any more work for them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It might be a little late to contribute to this topic, but officially there is no such thing in Japan that foreigners cannot be first author of their papers if the material (data) upon which the paper is based on was obtained through Japanese government funds. It is certainly not an official rule in any Japanese research institution and he has just told you that HE THINKS that is doesn't look good... In other words, it is just your boss treating you in a discriminatory manner, which is not uncommon in Japan (e.g., not considering foreigners for promotions or a permanent contracts, though I have never seen up to this level of denying authorship as 1st author). I know many people who work for Japanese research institutions and all foreigners publish as 1st authors. All the data required for research is obviously obtained directly or indirectly by Japanese funding. The bottom line is, if a foreigner cannot publish as 1st author, a foreigner shall not be hired for that job in the first place. I unfortunately believe that there is no negotiation that will work but you should try anyways, as other suggested, to make your point clear that you DO NEED to publish 1st author papers... In case he denies that, I would suggest you should contact the JAXA compliance desk (madoguchi) perhaps by an anonymous e-mail (they do accept this according to their website) and ask them to advice you on how to proceed. Obviously there is always the risk that if you start pushing your boss on that matter, he will not renew your contact, which is likely renewed on a yearly basis.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/17
| 1,201
| 5,343
|
<issue_start>username_0: For a one-year postdoc position (extendable up to three years) in psychology/linguistics in the US, I'm asked to submit a cv, two published works, and a one-page research statement (so, no cover letter).
I am wondering if I should understand this research statement as a short "cover letter"-type of writing, including past experiences, future plans, and why these plans fit in this department, or should I only describe my plan for the research project that I would like to carry on during that time? Should I be really precise as to what and how I want to conduct research during that year?
Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: While what you are describing is entirely inappropriate from a perspective of scientific ethics, I would not be surprised if:
* there may be a language/culture miscommunication causing you to misinterpret the situation, or
* there is indeed an informal policy of this sort amongst some laboratories (but individual labs all over the world sometimes have odious policies)
Anecdotally, while I have not worked in Japanese academia myself, I have Japanese colleagues who don't appear to have such a policy and have non-Japanese colleagues who did postdocs in Japan and published as a first author. Such a policy is at least thus not extremely common.
So, what should you do?
* First, I would recommend starting from the position that this is a mis-communication and asking how your advisor recommends you getting first author publications during your postdoc, since this is important for your career.
* Your advisor is unlikely to say no (for a number of reasons), but if they do not give you a clear path to getting first-author publications, then I would indeed suggest finding other people to work with, while doing what's necessary to maintain relations and face with your current laboratory.
* Finally, note that while first author publications are wonderful, "co-first-author" and second author publications are also good, and if the common denominator amongst a number of papers is you, then people will likely recognize that fact.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As a person working at a Japanese university, I never encountered such cases. Having said that, I can imagine reasonable motivation behind your advisor's actions. It all boils down to the fact that the "first author" is considered the "primary author" by default, and being the "primary author" makes reporting a smoother process. Say, I obtained (as a "primary investigator") a certain dataset, and I expected to report results achieved with the dataset. So it would look better if I am also the main contributor of the corresponding research paper(s). Similarly, it is easier to obtain additional funding for a conference trip if I am the primary author of the paper to be presented. (There are also various internal evaluations where your authorship counts, so it's tempting to increase own score, even at the expense of others).
None of these considerations turn into ironclad rules, but I understand that it's much easier for an advisor to be "the one who contributes" and "the one who reports" at the same time (especially if you aren't planning to stay long there and you might not be a lab member at the time of reporting). However, as I said before, these are my informed guesses rather than hard facts.
What you can do... well, perhaps, negotiate. Maybe you can sacrifice first authorship of this particular paper, but you have to do it on condition that your next paper will go with you as the first author, and if is means switching the dataset or adjusting anything else your advisor considers necessary -- let them sort it out before you do any more work for them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It might be a little late to contribute to this topic, but officially there is no such thing in Japan that foreigners cannot be first author of their papers if the material (data) upon which the paper is based on was obtained through Japanese government funds. It is certainly not an official rule in any Japanese research institution and he has just told you that HE THINKS that is doesn't look good... In other words, it is just your boss treating you in a discriminatory manner, which is not uncommon in Japan (e.g., not considering foreigners for promotions or a permanent contracts, though I have never seen up to this level of denying authorship as 1st author). I know many people who work for Japanese research institutions and all foreigners publish as 1st authors. All the data required for research is obviously obtained directly or indirectly by Japanese funding. The bottom line is, if a foreigner cannot publish as 1st author, a foreigner shall not be hired for that job in the first place. I unfortunately believe that there is no negotiation that will work but you should try anyways, as other suggested, to make your point clear that you DO NEED to publish 1st author papers... In case he denies that, I would suggest you should contact the JAXA compliance desk (madoguchi) perhaps by an anonymous e-mail (they do accept this according to their website) and ask them to advice you on how to proceed. Obviously there is always the risk that if you start pushing your boss on that matter, he will not renew your contact, which is likely renewed on a yearly basis.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/18
| 1,046
| 4,304
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been using an econometrics toolbox for around 2 years and it is great, very useful. It is available from someone's personal website.
I have found a mistake in one piece of code which has set me back for a considerable amount of time. It is a small change but with vast consequences. Instead of questioning the code, I did my idea.
Now that I have found the problem, what is the protocol for highlighting this? Is emailing the author necessary?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Now that I have found the problem what is the protocol for highlighting this, is emailing the author necessary?
>
>
>
It isn't necessary, but **it is the right thing to do**, if you don't, you're responsible for causing others set backs that will waste them a considerable amount of time.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You have 3 possibilities:
1. Contact the author as per the other answer. Best option based on the subsequent comments revealing that the source was a personal website.
If the code was published in an article or paper then the following may be applicable:
2. Contact the editor.
3. Publish a paper showing your work to improve the usefulness of the code.
The third depends on the type of error and how it was corrected - if it meant changing a 3 to 5 then that is trivial, but if it meant re-coding a significant portion with an extra process then it may well be a suitable option.
You have to tell somehow though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If you are the programmer yourself, and this is the open source project, best would be just to submit the pull request if they have the SCM repository. Both software would be fixed and you would get credits.
If not, report the bug, best over they bug database if they have any. Blogging about the issue on some random place makes little sense because it may take forever for the authors to find your comments.
If this is some obsolete team that has no repository and no bug database, may make sense to take over the project.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Many repositories have a file "CONTRIBUTING.md". The file contains guidelines for providing feedback, bug reports or how you open pull requests. ([Example 1](https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) , [example 2](https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md))
Other projects have a web page or wiki with a "How to Contribute" section, where you can find this information.
If you don't find any of this, you should write an email with the bug report and ask the repository owner on the following procedure.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: An important point of etiquette that has been skipped in the other answers:
Treat it as a *suspected* bug, and do not assume "I'm right, you're wrong" while presenting your fix.
* No matter how confident you are on the matter, there is *always* room for having misinterpreted or overlooked something important.
Consider the case of finding an 'error' in code of:
```
(A + B)
```
And you decide that all of *your* use cases need this to be:
```
ABS(A + B)
```
Your use cases may not include a need for that possible negative to exist, or even be able to handle it when it does, but that does not mean cases outside of your consideration may not require them.
* Start off with the assumption that the original coders know more about the code than you do. [They might not actually, but opinions of others can always be re-evaluated...]
* Approach it as having a goal of mutually gaining a better understanding of what the code is doing, and what it should be doing, and how it is actually being used.
* Consider phrasing any suggestions for changes/improvements as *questions* rather than *commands*. ["Do you see any flaws in my attempt at fixing my problem?" vs "You should use my code instead."]
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: I'd just like to point that people are publishing code exactly because they want/expect some bugfixes/improvements. I've sent some fixes in my life (or just reported issues), and they were mostly well received. Even when I was wrong (turned out that compilers have the freedom to interpret "undefined behaviour" in the most liberal way).
So don't be afraid to send a report/patch!
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/18
| 705
| 2,971
|
<issue_start>username_0: There have been a couple of occasions in my research in which I've come across a preprint that is several years old and is very relevant to the work that I'm doing.
Often these preprints have very promising initial results. However, when looking at the CVs or Google Scholar pages of the authors on the preprint, I can't seem to find a version that ended up getting published in a peer-reviewed journal, even if the preprint is several years old already. Why would would a researcher abandon a manuscript that they obviously put a lot of time into?
Do researchers sometimes just abandon lines of inquiry because they get too busy? Or, is this an indication that their promising initial results were not robust enough for peer-review, and I should be wary of attempting a similar study?<issue_comment>username_1: There might be any number of reasons. You might try to contact the author(s) to get more information. But... (not all with the same likelihood)
They might have left academia for various reasons and not bothered. Is the CV also old?
They might have incorporated the key ideas into another paper with a very different title. You search is then fruitless.
They might have discovered errors.
Reviewers might have considered the results trivial.
Their attempts to publish might have been rejected by journals for other reasons.
They might have changed sub-fields. (This one less likely, I think.)
But you should be wary, at least, of following up on unpublished work and, at least, be sure that you can verify the claims independently.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Not all peer-reviewed papers are solid, and not all non peer-reviewed papers are unsolid.
Judge for yourself.
Seriously, sometimes people cannot be bothered to fight with reviewers about minutia, relevance, impact, significance; worse, sometimes people have a problem to get a paper published in a journal that later proves to be seminal to a field. The story of Schechtman comes to mind (or also some colleague from my own field who wrote an absolutely central paper for my field which took several years to get published in a peer-reviewed journal).
If it is an experimental paper and hard for you to verify, you may tread more carefully, but anything that's theoretical and in your reach to check for yourself is worth consideration if you need it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: As others mentioned, there can be various reasons.
Perelman only published his proof of the Poincare conjecture as preprints. It was enough for everybody to hear about his proof, so why bother?:-)
Mochizuki only published his proof of the abc conjecture as preprints (to be more precise, he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken). In this case, the extra reason was the proof was too complicated, so nobody could referee it :-) (I am cutting some corners:-) )
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/18
| 841
| 3,769
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am taking a graduate course with a non-tenured professor. During one of the sessions, the non-tenured professor told students that recommendation letters from them would be helpful and that they could be sent directly to the professor. This seems very unethical, given that class is not over yet and that the students have received few grades. Is something wrong here?<issue_comment>username_1: There could be an issue, even a serious one. It might just be a head slapping error of a person not seeing how it might be viewed. If the request to send such letters was both optional and to be done after the end of the course (and grading) then it is probably fine.
Otherwise it could well be seen as improper. It is probably best to raise the issue somewhere, perhaps anonymously, pointing out the "appearance of bribe seeking."
The head of department should be made aware of it.
If you are coerced into it, it is improper, of course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, as a general rule there is not *necessarily* something wrong with a professor encouraging their students to provide feedback to the university about the professor’s teaching, including in the form of letters, if this is done in an appropriate way. For example, I regularly encourage my students to fill out teaching evaluation surveys at the end of the quarter, saying the feedback is very helpful for my department. Is that unethical? Well, no, because I don’t tell them what to write, don’t insinuate or imply that I am referring only to positive evaluations, or that some harm would come to those students who don’t follow my suggestion, and know that my students know that I have no way of knowing who filled out the survey, which is anonymous.
What is quite concerning in this case is that the professor requested that the letters be routed through them. That creates a real concern that the professor may only pass along letters with positive (or very positive) feedback to their department and withhold less positive ones. It also means the professor will know who wrote what about them (and who didn’t write anything), and gives them an opportunity to practice favoritism and/or retaliation based on this information, particularly since as you say the course is not over yet.
To summarize, the way this was done is certainly not the best practice for how such letters can be solicited, and would represent either extremely careless and thoughtless behavior on the professor’s part, or (which seems a bit more likely) outright unethical behavior. I might perceive it less or more seriously depending on various other factors, including the precise words and tone of voice the professor used when making their request, but you would certainly be quite reasonable in looking for ways to bring this up with officials at your department and/or university and express your discomfort to them.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: One of my duties as an associate chair of my department is to chair the tenure review panels and to help prepare the faculty promotion files that we send to the college administration. Letters that were not solicited by the panel cannot be included in the promotion files. So letters of the sort your professor asked for would not even be seen by the college administrators.
I suppose I'd be allowed to read such letters and perhaps even bring them to the attention of the tenure review panel, but I would probably just ignore them, especially if they were brought to me by the promotion candidate. If I did mention them to the panel, the likely reaction would be something like "Yikes! Whatever made him think that was a reasonable thing to do?" And then we'd all ignore the letters.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/18
| 515
| 2,320
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing a series of three papers. Each paper I'm writing contains two parts (part A + part X), where part A is a new technology and part X is the field of applying it. Part A is common in all the three papers while part X (the field) is variable according to the field the paper discusses.
Can I use the resources of part A in the same arrangement (but with different paraphrasing) in all three papers, or should I get different resources for the same information in part A for all of them?
my question here represent my intention to understand the scientific logic not to suggest bad solution because i am a beginner still .<issue_comment>username_1: In general, the best way to approach this specific type of problem is to consult with your advisor and review the standards of the place (journal?) to where you are submitting this work.
As practical writing advice goes, arbitrarily changing sources will not help your readers. If you got your information from Source Z, you should cite Source Z instead of arbitrarily citing Source Q, even if the information is largely the same between both of them.
You may make your research better if you try to rework part A as each field (part X) changes. Many of your resources will largely be the same between the three papers, but part A will cater more closely to the specific topic this way. A reader of one of your individual papers is likely better served this way too.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It sounds to me like you are trying to game the system by publishing Part A three times simultaneously with revisions to the wording to claim it is not self-plagiarized.
Assuming Part A is important, which it seems to be because you are describing it as a new technology, you seem to be trying to get three journals to think they are each the first to publish that new technology, when in fact they are not. **This is unethical.**
If all the applications are relevant, you should publish whichever your favorite one is with Part A, and then submit separate papers citing that paper that show the results with the other applications. These works will likely repeat some of Part A, but only as much as is needed to explain it for that application.
However, this is something best discussed with your academic advisor.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/18
| 793
| 3,615
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are generally two kinds of ways to get admitted to a PhD program in Europe or some other places—one is through a calling for PhD applications by a research institute, a university department or a research division therein consisting of researchers involved with closely related research topics, and another is through an opening of a position—which can be called PhD position, PhD scholarship, research assistant, or research associate as far as I have seen—within a research project of a principal investigator. The first usually administers once every a fixed short period, like a year, half a year or four months, usually has multiple positions and is flexible in research topics for PhD studies while the second only administers when an principal investigator gets the funding, usually only has one position each opening though it can occasionally have two, and the PhD research topic is confined to that project.
I have long heard that if one wants to pursue a PhD in Holland, they have to first look for a related job vacancy. I guess this means Holland mainly admits PhD students by the second way mentioned above. However, I also heard from activities regarding Studying in Holland in my country that it's almost impossible for a foreigner to win a PhD position through a job vacancy in Holland unless they have a network with related principal investigators in Holland, like they have pursued their MSc in Holland. I wonder whether this also applies to other countries, particularly in Europe, where a PhD position opening within a research project like a job vacancy, that is my aforementioned second way of admission, seems very common as a whole. I heard the reason that Holland rarely awards job-like PhD positions to networkless foreigners is that they don't have many vacancies of that sort and therefore they prioritize their compatriots. I wonder whether this is the same situation for other countries.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, the best way to approach this specific type of problem is to consult with your advisor and review the standards of the place (journal?) to where you are submitting this work.
As practical writing advice goes, arbitrarily changing sources will not help your readers. If you got your information from Source Z, you should cite Source Z instead of arbitrarily citing Source Q, even if the information is largely the same between both of them.
You may make your research better if you try to rework part A as each field (part X) changes. Many of your resources will largely be the same between the three papers, but part A will cater more closely to the specific topic this way. A reader of one of your individual papers is likely better served this way too.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It sounds to me like you are trying to game the system by publishing Part A three times simultaneously with revisions to the wording to claim it is not self-plagiarized.
Assuming Part A is important, which it seems to be because you are describing it as a new technology, you seem to be trying to get three journals to think they are each the first to publish that new technology, when in fact they are not. **This is unethical.**
If all the applications are relevant, you should publish whichever your favorite one is with Part A, and then submit separate papers citing that paper that show the results with the other applications. These works will likely repeat some of Part A, but only as much as is needed to explain it for that application.
However, this is something best discussed with your academic advisor.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/18
| 548
| 2,502
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a college student considering applying to PhD programs both in the US and internationally. Currently I research in a lab affiliated with a top US university and run by my older brother, an instructor at that university. I really enjoy my research here and hope to continue with it; however, I worry about getting letters of recommendation for grad school. I will ask professors in project based classes at my university, but if I continue with this lab as I hope to, only my brother will be qualified to write one about my research abilities. Although the group has other affiliated instructors, my brother oversees the division I research in and my work. Will an admissions committee simply chalk a letter from him up to nepotism or, provided I demonstrate meaningful research, understand the circumstances?<issue_comment>username_1: In general, the best way to approach this specific type of problem is to consult with your advisor and review the standards of the place (journal?) to where you are submitting this work.
As practical writing advice goes, arbitrarily changing sources will not help your readers. If you got your information from Source Z, you should cite Source Z instead of arbitrarily citing Source Q, even if the information is largely the same between both of them.
You may make your research better if you try to rework part A as each field (part X) changes. Many of your resources will largely be the same between the three papers, but part A will cater more closely to the specific topic this way. A reader of one of your individual papers is likely better served this way too.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It sounds to me like you are trying to game the system by publishing Part A three times simultaneously with revisions to the wording to claim it is not self-plagiarized.
Assuming Part A is important, which it seems to be because you are describing it as a new technology, you seem to be trying to get three journals to think they are each the first to publish that new technology, when in fact they are not. **This is unethical.**
If all the applications are relevant, you should publish whichever your favorite one is with Part A, and then submit separate papers citing that paper that show the results with the other applications. These works will likely repeat some of Part A, but only as much as is needed to explain it for that application.
However, this is something best discussed with your academic advisor.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/19
| 625
| 2,704
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose that someone enrolls in a master's program but then fails out. Will future employers be able to find out about this? Or can this person just pretend it never happened, and there will be no blemish on their record.
If this person applies to other master's degree programs (in a different, better-fitting field) in the future, would those programs be able to find out?
A little context: this person has the option to withdraw by a certain deadline, and needs to decide whether remaining in the program is worth the risk of potentially failing out.<issue_comment>username_1: It may be that they would learn of it, or possibly not, but the consequences of them learning that you omitted something that they considered important could be dire. It would be treated as a mark of dishonesty and neither employers nor universities generally value dishonesty.
The record exist and might come to view at some point, though they would, in most cases, not be sought. But you need an explanation for the time you have spent. If it is a black hole it looks pretty bad on your record, both for an employer and for a future degree.
You are probably safer to just be honest. There may be reasons for failing out that others would consider valid. Academia isn't for everyone and many people have various struggles that make success difficult.
If you have access to an academic counsellor, you should make an appointment and go. You may get good advice there about withdrawal and your future plans.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Will anyone know if you fail out of a Masters program? Maybe.
The point is that when you write a CV (necessary for almost all employers) you'll have to include details about what you've been doing. If you did your Bachelor's degree from 2013-2017, and then the next meaningful thing in your CV is in 2018, an astute reader is going to recognize that there's a missing year. She might ask you what's in that missing year, which would force you to reveal that you failed out of a Masters program (or outright lie). Even if she doesn't ask you, she'll have her doubts: whatever you did was not something you wanted her to know about. What could it be? Remember failing out of a Masters program isn't the worst possible explanation for a gap year: perhaps you were in prison, for example. Should she hire someone who's clearly keeping secrets from her?
Having said that, she is not likely to know what actually happened unless you tell her. She could guess that you were doing a Masters degree somewhere, but there are thousands upon thousands of universities in the world and one cannot realistically query them all.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/19
| 342
| 1,514
|
<issue_start>username_0: A week after the submission of my CV for an academic position, a person from the HR department answered me:
"Thank you very much for your application and your interest […] We are currently screening all incoming applications and will get back to you as soon as possible."
The position will be open for more than one candidate, and the application deadline is it within one month. Based on your experience, does this answer actually means that I'll have to wait and hope, or does it mean that they are considering other candidates first?<issue_comment>username_1: They’re probably going over several candidates, I would wait and see. I’d imagine you received a template response to your application.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You have to wait for the closure date to be reached.
Others have the right to apply until that time, just because you applied early won’t give you an early result.
Once it has been closed then you will receive a reply, but that delay is not certain either - might be a week or two... or longer, you have to be patient.
If you have not received a reply after 2 weeks you might consider politely asking for an update.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This email means that HR have received your application. It is purely an acknowledgement, and you should not read anything else into it.
(You should, however, be pleased to get this acknowledgement, as many institutions don't respond at all unless somebody passes the first round)
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/19
| 3,082
| 12,659
|
<issue_start>username_0: I notice departments often hire graduate students as teaching assistants.
I'm curious why departments do this instead of hire a lecturer to do the teaching. I'm sure this is helpful for the GTAs, since they're 1) getting paid and 2) getting teaching experience, but if the department is hiring GTAs to give the students teaching experience, then why not *require* students to teach as part of their programme? If one is concerned about "free labor" being exploitative, then one can also just add the extra money that would've gone to the GTA's salary to the student's stipend.
The only other reason I can think of is cost, and full-time lecturers are more expensive than part-time GTAs. Is this the case?
**Edit:** In the arrangement I'm familiar with, the students (which can be undergraduate, Masters level, or PhD) are funded separately. They could, e.g., be funded by a department scholarship or by their professor's grant. They are then offered TA positions in the department, which they are free to accept or decline. If they accept, they are paid a salary, effectively making them employees of the university.
This question applies to any country in which this is practiced.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, full time lecturers cost more than graduate teaching assistants. In addition, if they are hired with permanent contracts, then it is a long term financial commitment, which is more risky financially than a short term contract.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> ....one can also just add the extra money that would've gone to the GTA's salary to the student's stipend.
>
>
>
I think there is a miscommunication about where the stipend comes from. In most cases, the student earns the stipend for either teaching or doing research. Particularly in the first year or two, research positions will not yet be generally available, and so students much teach to earn their stipend. If a student chooses not to teach, or is fired from teaching, there is no "stipend" to "add to".
>
> I'm curious why departments do this instead of hire a lecturer to do the teaching.
>
>
>
Still, I think there is an interesting question here -- the university could hire professional lecturers to do the teaching and not pay its grad students until they start doing research. Whether this is more cost-effective or would lead to higher-quality teaching is debatable. However, it would create a huge problem in that the university would find it much more difficult to attract qualified grad students. This would affect the professors' research output, which would lead to wide-ranging consequences.
>
> Edit: In the arrangement I'm familiar with, ... students ... could, ... be funded by a department scholarship or by their professor's grant. They are then offered TA positions in the department, which they are free to accept or decline.
>
>
>
In my experience, it is unusual for students to be allowed to have a fellowship/RAship and also a TAship, since having the latter generally makes the former less productive. Regardless, yes, they could simply require students with fellowships or RAships to teach, but I suspect the cost savings would be outweighed by the adverse affects.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Unless you have been living under a rock, then you will have noticed that this is far from being a problem exclusive to academia... Welcome to the 21st century! Under the guise of "flexibility" and "efficient" (some even dare use the word "rationalization"), managers everywhere are reluctant to hire permanent personnel and instead want to hire temporary workers. This makes it much easier to fire people, because you don't even have to; you can simply wait them out. Never mind the personal toll it takes on the people hired, or the loss of productivity because workers have to spend time looking for and applying to jobs, adapting to a new working environment every time they change, etc.
If you have been paying close attention to the news, you will also have remarked that a new trend is emerging. It's only a matter of time before TAs are required to setup their own personal LLC and are pompously rebranded as "Teaching Consultants", who are hired on a lecture-to-lecture basis and paid as contractors, getting a star rating from students after every session, and "losing their job" with no explanation (because their star rating is too low, or they've offended someone high up, or whatever) – concretely, they just stop received teaching contract offers through the app for no apparent reason.
---
You are also not seeing the obvious: there is nowhere else but a university to learn how to become a university teacher. If universities as a whole stopped hiring TAs and only hired permanent lecturers (presumably more experienced), then in five years the supply of university teachers would just dry up, and they would need to train fresh PhD's at a higher cost. It makes no sense. Not to mention that when one teaches, one also learns, and teaching is an integral part of a graduate student's curriculum.
>
> why not require students to teach as part of their programme
>
>
>
That's already often the case.
>
> If one is concerned about "free labor" being exploitative, then one can also just add the extra money that would've gone to the GTA's salary to the student's stipend.
>
>
>
What free labor? The graduate students teach as part of their contract and they are paid for their duties.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm not certain that my experience is still completely valid as it was very long ago that I entered graduate school in math. I'm now retired and have been for several years. But I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have earned a doctorate under a different system.
I entered an R1 program in the mid 1960's with a full fellowship. It had the requirement that I spend one year as a TA, to get some teaching experience. This fellowship program was part of the push by the US to beat the Soviet Union to the moon. It no longer exists.
I made relatively little progress, other than coursework, during four years and left with a masters for another R1 where I completed the PhD. Before I discuss the latter program, let me give a few reasons why a fellowship without teaching duties doesn't make it quicker or easer to get a degree. I was limited by a few things. The low income from the fellowship wasn't one of them, and I was one of the few to hold one. I had an advisor who wasn't sufficiently helpful as he was, at the time, up for tenure and worried more about his future than mine. I also didn't yet have the required insight into the deep nature of mathematics, though I was pretty good at solving problems and passing courses (high GPA). It turns out that in most research (I think) but especially in mathematics, more time in the office doesn't equal more insight or more progress. Getting that insight requires "seasoning" and it can't be scheduled. I had few duties, other than making progress toward the degree, but made little progress. No more than my peers who were TA's. I think it might have been different if I'd had the courage to switch to another advisor, but my basic introversion (worse then than now) made that impossible for me to do.
Eventually, after getting a bit burned out, I switched to another university and had a TA position and completed the degree in three years. I had a better advisor and conquered the burnout, but made better progress even though I had teaching duties. I also gained better insight into a small area of math and became, in the words of my advisor, "the most knowledgeable person in the world in ..." (paraphrase).
But, also, let me say some things about that second university. It was, like the first, a large US State university. As such it was partly supported by tax revenues, as well as grant funding from various places. The student tuition, at the time, was fairly low, and it was not paid by TAs. The stipend we got was very low - about the same as the fellowship I'd had earlier, but there were few expenses and I was able to graduate with a family, supporting them from the TA income.
The math department at the second place had about 60 full time regular faculty and about 180 full time grad students, almost all of which were TAs. The TAs normally helped a professor in a course for a year or so and "graduated" to teaching our own courses, say in calculus. But the system as a whole wouldn't have worked any other way. If those grad students were replaced with regular faculty (doubling the size of the regular faculty), if you extrapolate that to the whole university (about 40,000 students), there wouldn't be room for everyone, either in office space or in housing in the local area. Moreover, the students would need some sort of funding. If they had to rely on outside funding it would have been impossible to support even a small fraction of them in the local economy. Funding them with grants or stipends without work would have been infeasible as the governments had no interest in expanding to such an extent, nor could the grant funding agencies taken up the slack to such an extent. And the commitment of state governments to supply funding has only gotten worse in recent years in many places. This has been supplanted by increases in tuition fees, mostly paid by undergraduates and funded through a loan system that has many issues of its own.
So, working as a TA did many things. It gave me a small, but adequate, stipend, without which I'd have no place in academia. It gave me a bit of teaching experience, which also helped me learn how people learn (and don't). But it also gave me time. If it stretched out my education by a bit, that extra time allowed me to get the seasoning and insight that I probably wouldn't have achieved if I'd been on a more intensive "research only" regimen. As I said earlier, insight can't be scheduled. It takes time and reflection. It takes time away from the desk. So the time spent teaching and grading was just a break in the intense research that let ideas settle and integrate themselves into my thinking.
So, IMO, graduate schools don't use TAs because it is the expedient thing to do, but because it is a *good* thing to do. Give students a broad view of academia, even from the R1 standpoint, and the time in which to gain a bit of sophistication in their field. The low pay isn't such a terrible tradeoff unless money is your main driver. It isn't for most academics, I suspect.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: ### They do different kinds of work
Even ignore inappropriate composition of hires: A course's teaching assistant's work is typically different from the course teacher's.
The teacher decides what actually gets taught by reviewing the research literature, text books on the subject, their own knowledge, experience of teachers elsewhere and in previous semester etc. The teacher lays out how a course is structured. The teacher does most of the core frontal teaching work. The teacher is responsible for the homework, exams and such to be sufficiently but not overly challenging.
A teacher's assistnant (and note I'm not using the position title here) mostly assists the teacher: Grades homework, sets up and maintains a website, prepares physical objects for classes, handles communications with students (except on certain matters), teaches tutorial/recitation sessions, or perhaps supervised, limited, teaching in place of the teacher.
### Permanent faculty are expensive
Often, especially over the past few decades, universities try to cut down on costs by hiring more people as official "teaching assistants" rather than fill permanent faculty positions since they're much cheaper, and the university doesn't have to pay that much for their - both per hour of teaching-related work and for non-teaching work like research. Also, teaching assistants are politically weaker, individually and as a group, so their employment conditions tend to be worn down more quickly and easily than that of senior faculty.
### Teaching is actually part of the full-time position of a junior member of faculty
Decades ago (in some countries) it was much more commonplace to just hire both junior and senior faculty. A junior member of faculty would be a Ph.D. candidate (or less commonly an M.Sc. candidate) who would typically be hired as a full-time employee, with some of his time dedicated to research, some to attending a few courses and some to teaching - just like it is for senior faculty members (except that the latter also have official managerial/administrative work too).
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/19
| 676
| 2,706
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am finishing up my B. Sc. degree and thought it would be nice to have a fully English transcript of records (ToR). Although my university already offers an English version, the translations are picked from what lectureres have entered into the database. Consequently, some terms are missing. For example it shows:
>
> * Minor subject: Mathematics
> + Functional Analysis
> + Klausur: Funktionalanalysis(\*)
> + Übungsleistung: Funktionalanalysis(\*)
>
>
> (\*) denotes that English translations are missing
>
>
>
You see that it is even inconsistently translated. The overall second bullet point is in English while the "sub bullet points" for the exam ("Klausur") and the tutorials ("Übungsleistung") are in German.
**How important is it to have a fully translated ToR for B.Sc. for applying internationally?**
The question "[Sending non-fully translated academic transcripts for US PhD admissions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58896/sending-non-fully-translated-academic-transcripts-for-us-phd-admissions)" is related, although currently my ToR is not yet printed. **The exam regulations are in my favor.** They state that I have the right to request an English copy. However, I have been told that people responsible for fulfilling them are not fond of translations.
**Is it important enough to make the examination office not like me anymore?**
Especially, if I stay for my M. Sc. at the same university.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> How important is it to have a fully translated ToR for B.Sc. for applying internationally?
>
>
>
For most English-speaking universities, it is essential to have translations to English.
>
> Is it important enough to make the examination office not like me anymore?
>
>
>
In my opinion, it is fine to ask them to follow university regulations, even if they do not like it. So, yes.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I cannot comment on the regulations at your specific university.
In general, however, I do not think a university is expected to translate its degree certificates and transcripts into other languages. If you need your certificates and transcripts to be evaluated by people or organisations in a different language, you should obtain a certified translation from a professional translator or translation service, and then send that translation with a copy of the documents in the original language (NB: some places demand that this copy be issued from the awarding institution in an unsealed envelope; most places, however, will be happy with a scan/photocopy in the first instance, followed by seeing the originals if/when you visit them in person).
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/19
| 576
| 2,524
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am about to submit a paper to Nature but I made public the technical report supporting an important share of the results via BioRXiv a few weeks ago.
In the Nature submission system, they asked if the results have been published elsewhere. Is the preprint of my technical report considered as such?
Thanks<issue_comment>username_1: Nature encourages the use of preprints, as noted on their journal's [policy page](https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/preprints-and-conference-proceedings):
>
> Nature Research journals encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Preprints are defined as an author’s version of a research manuscript prior to formal peer review at a journal, which is deposited on a public server (as described in Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352, 899–901; 2016); preprints may be posted at any time during the peer review process. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at Nature Research journals. Manuscripts posted on preprint servers will not be taken into account when determining the advance provided by a study under consideration at a Nature Research journal.
>
>
>
The webpage then proceeds to provide the details for their policy.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Is a preprint considered as dual publication?
>
>
>
No, dual publication means that identical or significantly overlapping works are independently published by the same or distinct publishers. A preprint is not published by a publisher and is excluded. However, as noted in a comment, preprints may preclude publication by some journals.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In the case of Nature, the existence of the preprint should be indicated during the submission process, as pinpointed by @username_1. It is clearly stated:
« Authors should disclose details of preprint posting, including DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript or at any other point during consideration at a Nature Research journal. Once the preprint is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. »
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/19
| 536
| 2,233
|
<issue_start>username_0: My institution has access to a very limited selection of ebooks published by Springer-Verlag. Is it possible to buy individual access to their whole collection myself? I'm a PhD student in case that changes anything.<issue_comment>username_1: Even if it was technically possible, it's likely to be ridiculously expensive. Big consortiums of libraries have been struggling with Springer for years about the price of their subscriptions:
* <https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/french-universities-cancel-subscriptions-to-springer-journals-29882>
* <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices>
If this kind of academic groups which have very signifcant budgets and teams of lawyers to defend their interests have difficulties paying the fees, it's not hard to understand why there is no option for an individual to subscribe to the full service.
And this is certainly the reason why your institution has only access to a limited selection of publications.
So as far as I know it's not possible for an individual to subscribe (unless they are a billionaire).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You must ask Springer; they are the only ones who will know. There's a good chance they will be okay with you purchasing such a subscription since after all it doesn't cost them much to sell their collection to one more viewer.
*However*: although individual subscriptions tend to be way cheaper than institutional subscriptions, you are talking about subscribing to the *entire* Springer collection. This is a veritable *mountain* of information! Checking the Springer website right now, they have a collection of *301,765* books, and a publisher of their scale is going to be publishing several new books every day. Small wonder it is going to break your wallet to subscribe! Further, most of them won't be at all relevant to you and you won't have time to read them anyway.
If you can't get institutional access to this collection, you are probably better off buying each item you need one by one. Even then, be sure to ask your institution's library - they might be able to acquire/rent copies of what you need for cheap or even for free.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/19
| 1,861
| 8,128
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background**: I had a course about 1 year and half ago that is required to do a simulation for its final report. I developed my idea about simulation based on some papers I read and wrote a proposal based on that idea and submitted to instructors. Instructors send back my proposal and said it's good but the course requirement is to have a group mate on this final project for sure. I was reluctant to it but because it was course requirement, I just randomly searched for someone that did not have any group mate yet and I found someone that she did not have any idea about my proposal at all. I wanted her name to be on my proposal and final report just because of course requirement and nothing else. Because I even did my preliminary test simulations on my idea based on the codes that I wrote by myself and it turns out my idea is gonna work. It was not the greatest idea out there but it was something for a graduate course and I really liked my idea and wanted to do this. So, I just matched with this group mate and gave her all the code that I wrote and all the resources in terms of papers and other softwares and asked her just like an operator run these codes and simulations and store the results and I will post-process them by myself. That was all the story about this final report and I wrote the report and submitted it and successfully got A grade and done.
**Problem**: Sometimes after this course, I just decided to publish this idea even in a not so great journal with IF ~ 1 or even less. Because, I thought the idea is nice and new and even the results that I got because of this course project is good enough to warrant a junior publication as something that I did in my spare time. So, I decided to convert the final report into a paper. Initially, I was thinking it might be fair if I put my group mate on this paper because I'm not a native English speaking and she is an american and maybe she could at least help to polish the English of the paper. So, I sent a draft paper to her for her review about a year ago, but she promised to read and send her points back to me, which never did and I did not hear back from her. I think it was stupid but I wanted to just be nice and that's it. So, I decided to remove her name and publish it just in my own name. As a result, to completely even eliminate her contribution to just running my codes as an operator, I rerun all the codes again by myself and post-processed them again (it was good to make sure at least results are reproducible...) and added some other idea that I read newly in some papers and I submitted my draft to arXiv and it's online now. I also submitted this preprint to a journal that is not that great but it's not that bad for publishing a paper based on a course work and at least the journal is not predatory.
**Question**: Recently, my adviser found my preprint in arXiv and he's arguing with me that you should put the name of group mate in that article because her name is on the final report. Furthermore, you should withdraw the preprint because it's low quality. OK, the low quality is not something we want to talk about cause it's really relative and by the way my adviser does not have any experience on this specific topic. My question is only because the name of my group mate is on the final report of that course, does it warrant her an authorship?! I mean, why I can't write an even very very very low quality paper based on the codes and idea that I developed initially? Probably, you might know that I'm really angry and it makes me mad that I can't publish something based on my own work because I just put the name of someone on a piece of paper without contribution from her? By the way, it's not her that arguing and it's only my adviser that wants to fight with me. Any idea or suggestion is appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: While it's impossible to judge contribution from outside, I generally recommend erring on the side of inclusion when it comes to authorship. If there's a reasonable argument that somebody contributed, it doesn't really cost you anything to have them on the paper.
Furthermore, there are many ways to contribute to a paper (see, for example, the [CRediT taxonomy](https://www.casrai.org/credit.html)), and many journals even require a contributions section in which you can explain who exactly did what. In this case, it sounds like you wrote the paper, designed the system, built the system, and both of you ran experiments. You can't ethically "undo" somebody's experimental work by redoing it yourself.
What you should *never* do is to drop somebody from authorship without consulting them. You had a draft with this person on it as an author, and even if they never got back to you, for all they know they're still a co-author. Probably it doesn't matter to them very much (or else they'd likely have gotten back to you), but it's still unethical to remove somebody from authorship without their consent. It is also unethical to submit a paper without the consent of all of the authors, so that's also a potential problem in this situation, where you're just kinda doing what you feel like without consulting with anybody else.
In fact, the basic problem I see here is that you seem to be operating without any advice from somebody who can help you navigate these questions (as well as the issue of quality, which I won't touch otherwise). Your advisor is likely a good source of such advice, and even if you don't like/trust your advisor, you should be able to find somebody who knows the scientific world well who can be a mentor for you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You have exactly two reasonable options here:
1. Withdraw the article, or
2. offer to your group mate to add her name to the paper. (She may decline of course - that is her decision to make, not yours and not your adviser’s).
I can’t say which of those two options are better for you, but in the absence of other information I would tend to assume that the adviser knows what they’re talking about when they say you should withdraw the paper.
In any case, your group mate participated in the creation of the results, so it is indisputable that she has a right to be a named author on the paper. The fact that you reproduced her results after the fact is irrelevant. The fact that you feel that you were coerced to work with her is also irrelevant, and remains irrelevant even if we all agree that you could have done everything just as well (or even better) without her. The only thing that would be relevant is if she is asked her opinion, given an offer free of any pressure to have her name added to the paper, and decides that she’s not interested and gives her approval for you to remain the sole author.
Finally, the one thing I find a bit puzzling in this story is that your professor’s requests are a bit self-contradictory: if they really thought the paper was so bad that leaving it online would hurt your reputation, I don’t quite understand why they think it would serve the interests of your group mate to have her name added to such a low quality paper. But that is neither here nor there, and doesn’t change the gist of what I wrote above about your options for handling the situation.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: To answer your question shortly, if you have made a manuscript with her name on it and send it to her. Then yes you can't delete her name without giving her a deadline to come back with suggestions/corrections.
And as username_1 mentions, just because you do something again, does not equal that she never did anything.
I can easy see that you are very angry in this matter, so I'll give you my suggestion.
She should be given a "chance" with a deadline to return with a contribution to the manuscript. In any case, she should be mentioned in the contribution for performing experiments.
And lastly, stating that the advice given from your advisor is not interesting to you, is foolish as people (usually) get professorship for a reason and advice should be cherished and not thrown. IMO
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/20
| 1,546
| 6,469
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I am a master's degree student in math at a local university. I am very dissatisfied and surprised with the type of work that my adviser asked me to do. I am unsure if I have bad attitude towards work or what is happening is already inappropriate.
The task I was given is extremely routine; it was mind-numbing. It involves a LOT of symbolic manipulations that follows a few set of rules and I apply them repeatedly. To give you guys an idea of how much computation by hand, I have done; I have used more than 30 pages and I write really small (around 0.5cm height and 0.3cm width) with very few white spaces(less than 0.5cm) so this may take other peoples a 100 pages or even much much more. One can imagine the high likelihood of making a lot of computational error due to sheer size of the number of computations. I have checked my computations a few times already, and I am still finding errors here and there. I have asked my adviser, if we can use software to do this computations and he refused without giving any reason why other than being embarrassed(I did not ask why.). Obviously, we have to make sure my work is a 100% correct so we could conjecture correctly, but I have no idea how we'll manage to do this manually.
Hence, I am really finding it difficult to be not cynical about my adviser. I feel like it's a stalling strategy, but perhaps not?
**edit**
@Anyon, in response to "Can you at least check your pen and paper results using software or is he against that too?"
I have asked if I could allot time to study and use software on my own and he said we should do it near the end, but that means any errors may, of course, negate results; which I don't think makes any sense because it seems very inefficient. I don't understand how he plans to proceed without any computer checks. He also said that he'll check my computations, although he did not say if he'll do it by hand or by computer. He also mentioned that, he had use software during his dissertation and have now forgotten how to use it which means he can't help me with software.
**update**
I have succeeded in getting my adviser to reveal his motives. Well, he has no motives. As everyone below who answered have guessed, my adviser, simply, does not want to use software because there are technicalities in the mathematics that he does not know how to implement correctly to the software, neither do I. <NAME> is correct, there was a serious breakdown in communication. I am happy this is settled. Thank you to everyone who've answered.<issue_comment>username_1: I doubt that your advisors motives can be learned except from him. There are too many options, but I doubt that simply stalling you is one of them. No one gains from that, I suspect. I can only speculate on why this is happening.
Perhaps the advisor is simply distrustful of computer programming for this sort of thing. An error in coding can throw you off worse than errors in human computation, perhaps. Maybe he has been burned before.
Or perhaps he thinks that you don't have the computer skills to do it correctly and thinks the time required to obtain those skills and develop the *correct* program will slow down the path to the end.
Perhaps the advisor thinks you need some sort of discipline in computations (or in general) to make sure that you are learning lessons he thinks are important of vital. Maybe this isn't the most likely scenario, unless you have given him reason to think you need that discipline.
If you want a way out, and have the computing skills, you might develop a small program for a small part of the work, using something like Test Driven Development in which you can show the advisor that the codes are correct, through the tests, and are producing the correct results. That might change his mind if it is the first scenario and might also find errors that you are making with hand calculation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I have asked my adviser, if we can use software to do this computations and he refused without giving any reason why other than being embarrassed(I did not ask why.).
>
>
> He said it would damage his reputation. Not sure if he was joking or not.
>
>
> He also mentioned that, he had use software during his dissertation and have now forgotten how to use it which means he can't help me with software.
>
>
>
This doesn't sound like an adviser trying to stall you. Instead I'd guess that he is essentially saying "I don't know the software, so I won't trust results derived from it and *only* it, nor can I help you use it. Hence I'm also not willing to put my name on/near results derived only by software, as there could be errors I can't check, which could damage my reputation."
The algebra steps you described seem like they could be implemented in e.g. Mathematica reasonably easily, especially if you already know the basics of the software package. However, there's certainly something to be said for doing it by hand too - if both methods arrive at the same answer that tends to make you more confident in your results. There's also something to be said for trying to reach analytical result before deriving the same result using computer algebra, as you'd be less likely to fool yourself into mistakes by working towards checking a specific result. A result that may be incorrect, by the way, if you've made any coding mistakes/ Such checks along the way (not just the end) can be a valuable tool, as can any sanity checks of the resulting expressions. Maybe proposing doing so that would be a decent compromise.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Since everyone here seems to scratch their heads about what might be going on, my first reaction is that there is a breakdown of communication between you and your adviser. It clearly doesn't make sense to do 100-page long computations on paper if they can be done by a computer. So the reaction of your adviser doesn't seem to make any sense -- but what stands out to me is that you don't seem to *talk* to your adviser about the situation.
Talk to him about the issue. Have a conversation, understand his motives, discuss why he wants you to do these calculations by hand and why he doesn't seem to trust the software. He may have good reasons, but you'll never find out if you don't talk about it. At this point, it's all *speculation* when you could have a conversation to actually *understand*.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2019/07/20
| 615
| 2,732
|
<issue_start>username_0: The very first thought that comes to mind is that reviewing a paper is like giving back to the academic community. After all, one's own work is published after the efforts of some anonymous reviewer.
But what are the primary incentives that motivate so many researchers to voluntarily serve as reviewers? Does it make a researcher more established/reputed? How does it differ in the case of PhD students as opposed to faculty members?<issue_comment>username_1: This varies quite a bit by stage of career. For a senior academic it may just be seen as service to the community that provided service to him/her along the way.
For a mid level academic or even a student, however, the opportunity to get the earliest view of new research may be compelling. It can be a source of "hot" new areas that they can explore in their own research.
And for a beginner, seeing a lot of academic writing in your field might help you develop a compatible style that will be viewed favorably in your own writing.
The actual incentives are small, of course. Your name may get mentioned for some sorts of reviews, such as reviewing after publication for something like [Computing Reviews](http://computingreviews.com/index_dynamic.cfm)
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The primary advantage of peer reviewing is that you are ahead of the researchers in your field by a margin of several months. Second advantage of getting a bad paper for review is that you get an idea "what to avoid" in your own future work. Most people do not realize this because it is not a paid service, nor there is any public acknowledgement on the paper. Several journal editors have mentioned to me that they have difficulty inviting reviewers. I asked an editor of a pretty good review-type journal and he mentioned that at times he has to write to 10-12 people and only a few respond. It is a also common complaint among editors that people from certain countries don't commonly accept peer review requests because the academic promotion is based on paper publications rather than article reviewing.
In short, we should accept review requests, if we feel we are qualified to do so, as a service to the community as well for your own education.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Something that may be more anecdotal, and relevant only to some: in the United States, reviewing for established venues or journals can bolster\* your application for a green card, citizenship, or some visa statuses. In particular, it is something to mention on your CV/in your application.
`*`Maybe not *a lot*, and I don't have first-hand experience; but I have been told so by several people applying for such statuses.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/20
| 1,038
| 4,453
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in mathematics. I am going to participate in a conference. I want to show my research to some great mathematcian who is a specialist in the area that I am working on.
A friend of mine had a bad experience with showing her result to some great mathematician. In fact, she showed her result to the guy and he said that it was good and to keep up the good work, but two months later he put an article in arXiv and most of the parts of his article were as same as my friend’s. As such, I am bit scared to show my result to someone. On the other hand, I need to show my result to someone for completing a minor thing.
Does someone have any idea what I have to do?<issue_comment>username_1: First of all: you should really be asking your advisor this, not strangers who don’t know your circumstances.
In any case: if you have a result that you feel is ready to be shown to others, why not write it up and put it on ArXiv yourself? That way no one could do this to you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There is such a thing as a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that you could have the person sign (whether they would agree to sign it is another matter, but if they don't and you think your research is something that is worth stealing, don't show it to them if they won't sign). It would be best to see an attorney about this, but if you cannot afford an attorney, I think there are plenty of do-it-yourself NDAs online.
Also, taking another person with you who at least half-way understands the conversation would be good so that you would have a witness to the discussion. That would automatically discourage most people from stealing your ideas.
If they would agree to allow the meeting to be voice-recorded or video-recorded, that would also discourage them from stealing from you, and that would be even better proof in court in case they did steal the idea from you; be sure to state the date of the recording and state the names of the people in the beginning, and state that they are all aware that they are being recorded.
By the way, if the research that was previously stolen from your friend was documented and they can prove the date of when they developed that research (they might have saved it on DropBox or other cloud storage on a certain date, or something like that), they might be able to sue that professor for stealing their work. Again, they should see an attorney about that.
Many attorneys are willing to talk to potential clients one time for free. Your school might even have an in-house counsel who might be willing to talk to you or your friend about these matters for free; however, if the professor who stole the work is from the same university, then talking to the university counsel would be a very bad idea because their first priority is to protect the university and its employees.
The person who said that you should talk to your advisor is on the right track, although your advisor could possibly steal from you also. This all kind of depends on how valuable your research is.
It would always be a good idea to ask if it's ok to do a voice recording at all meetings. I think most people would agree to that. You can also probably get away with taking a photo of any work you write on the blackboard or whiteboard. Always save your research on DropBox or someplace like that at various intervals (do NOT erase old research files, just add new dates to the new research or put them in folders that have the date on them--don't make changes that can change the modify-date to the current date after you save older research). Then you have a way of proving that these ideas are yours and you can show how they changed at various intervals and can prove that you had a certain idea at least by the date on the file. In the past, many people would send plans of things they planned to copyright to themselves in a postmarked sealed envelope and left the envelope sealed in the filing cabinet in case there was ever a question of ownership of the idea.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, you should discuss it with your advisor. If you really need help, you may ask your question to the members of thesis comission who are already known by you and your advisor.
According to me, the reference you mentioned is very possible. The person you talked could take advantage of your idea regardless of who it is, a professor or a PhD student.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/20
| 435
| 1,920
|
<issue_start>username_0: I took a class that I thought I was auditing and got outside help.
Is there any way to fix this?
I did this at a community college.
Grades have gone out and I realized there was a mistake made.<issue_comment>username_1: Check in with your registrar office and see what they can do. You would have student portal to sign up for courses if you're enrolled in school/for the academic year. I don't think there's a way to "edit" your transcript per se, but you can always retake the course.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Most colleges and universities do have some sort of mechanism to correct errors in a transcript. It usually requires some fairly high-up administrator to sign off.
Your case is tricky because the error was apparently yours, not the school's. It's generally the student's responsibility to decide how to register for courses, and to verify their enrollment at the start of the term to check that it's what they want. And saying "I meant to audit that course instead of taking it for credit" is extra tricky because it's exactly what a dishonest student might say if they actually always did mean to take it for credit, but simply didn't do well in the course and now want to erase their low grade.
In order to get such a change approved, I expect you'll need to present some sort of evidence that you really thought you were auditing. For instance, did you discuss your audit status with the course instructor, or some other neutral person, during the course? You could try to get a statement from them.
You'll probably also need a good explanation for why you didn't catch the mistake sooner. Did you have some sort of life disruption going on? Were there IT problems? Does the college enrollment system display your registration in a confusing way? Did the course instructor or some other official mistakenly tell you that you were signed up to audit?
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/20
| 3,598
| 14,900
|
<issue_start>username_0: I, a twenty-year-old female, have come to admire the graduate teaching assistant for my summer course quite strongly. I'm extremely interested in what he has to say, I always pay attention, never use my phone and use eye contact to show interest. I do like them very much and I think about them with warmth often. I want to know about their work, I want to know what he is interested in. I would like to at least be their friend.
Despite my strong admiration I must emphasize that I have not and do not plan to cross professional boundaries until the end of the course.
I have spoken to them though it was only a short conversation about the work that was assigned to us the following weekend, however he did seem quite warm and open to conversation. Specifically he emphasizes in his syllabus to not hesitate to contact him with any questions we may have at all. I would like to be able to talk to them more without bothering them, and over stepping professional boundaries. I hopefully plan to ask them out once the course has ended, but I would still like to be able to have the chance to talk to them too as friends outside of course hours about the course material. Would this be ethical? Should I just back down? Specifically I wanted to thank him for giving me a very positive, in-depth feed back in the essay assignment that I had turned in that I got a perfect grade on.
I've been going through a really rough time in my personal life. Despite having flunked before, I made a promise to myself to work harder and to never give up on my goals. Truly their receptiveness, warmth and passion has genuinely inspired me to keep going and to study harder. I would very much like to thank them for inspiring me and being a good teacher which has helped me understand the material.
* Would it be ethical to express these sentiments of admiration and gratitude to them during their office hours?
* Would it be possible to date them after the course has ended since he is essentially a normal graduate student instead of a true professor?
\*edit
Class has ended and we have a date planned! Thanks all for your advice!
\*edit #2
We are still dating and our 9 month anniversary is coming up soon! The relationship is going really well and it is the best and most loving relationship we’ve ever been in! we are both doing fantastic!
Thanks for all your help ! (May 7th 2020)
\*edit # 3
Not sure if anyone comes across this anymore but our one year anniversary passed a few months ago and we're growing strong! I'm really happy that I went out of my comfort zone and found a lasting relationship. (10/28/2020)<issue_comment>username_1: Wait until after the course is over and grades are in: don't put your TA in a difficult situation.
After that, you are just two adult humans, assuming you won't have any other courses with this TA.
Upvotes: 9 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Would it be ethical to express these sentiments of admiration and gratitude to them during their office hours?
>
>
>
Of course. I would wait until the course, and the grades, are finalized, though. Consider sending a note or expressing your (professional) sentiments during TA evaluations (if such a thing exists where you are); doing it in office hours might be uncomfortable.
>
> Would it be possible to date them after the course has ended since they are essentially a normal graduate student instead of a true professor ?
>
>
>
You would have to check your university's rules. In general, there are no policies prohibiting this sort of relationship, if you will have no future courses together. The TA in question might be concerned about the appearance of impropriety, however.
>
> As an artist, would it be strange to ask them if i could give them a drawing?
>
>
>
Of course you should not give them anything until the course, and the grades, are finalized. As to strangeness, that's maybe an interpersonal issue -- for me, yes, I would certainly find it strange, but that's not to say I wouldn't think it was awesome, especially if I liked the student.
It gets more complicated since you plan to ask him out though -- if you give it, then ask him out, that's a bit uncomfortable; if you ask him out and are turned down, it's a bit awkward to give him the artwork anyway.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Telling someone you are grateful for their help with your work is usually a good and kind thing to do.
In this case, however, you are not just grateful for their professional contributions, but interested in them as a person, potentially romantically. If your TA was aware of this it would make their job harder:
* they may worry that you are trying to bias them in your favour,
* they may worry that other people will think you are trying to bias them, so they have to try extra hard to demonstrate that they are not,
* they may worry that they are actually being subconsciously biased, and try to compensate for it, and then worry if they're overcompensating and being unfair,
* they may worry that you will be especially sensitive to receiving criticism from them, or you may interpret praise differently,
* if they find the attention uncomfortable, they can't just avoid social contact with you, because it's a necessary part of their job.
Until the course is over you are doing them a favour by keeping the personal aspect to yourself.
With that in mind, even expressing just professional gratitude carries some risk that you'll unintentionally – through your manner, nervousness, choice of words, whatever – signal the personal feelings you have.
The safe thing to do is to avoid standing out in the eyes of your TA until the course is over. That said, the unsafe thing does have potential upsides and I don't want to tell you that no-one should ever say something kind to someone else for fear of unwanted implications. But make sure when you're thinking about what you want to do that you're including the potential ways it can go badly for them, as well as for you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'd like to add that there is another reason for waiting until the class have been over for a while. There's a phenomenon of "love for authority." It happens a lot in academia, where the instructor would otherwise not be that interesting, but because of the moderate position of power (and the things that go with it, like being the perceived leader, self-confidence, etc) he is much more attractive. It could be that a month after the course is over, your TA will fade back into his proper level.
Love relationships based on an unequal balance of power are usually unhealthy. You probably want to make sure that you're really attracted to him and not just his position.
Consider the other person's feelings in this as well. They could fall for you based on your attraction to them. If you find out later that your attraction was solely or mostly because of the teacher-student dynamic, it could be pretty hard for them when you break it off.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_5: First: Nothing wrong with you - many of us had/have colleagues they deeply admire and potentially want some kind of personal relationship with (and sometimes that works out), not such an unusual situation.
>
> I wish i could request to transfer myself out lol.
>
>
>
So why don't you? If there is another TA, you can ask the professor to move. Then ask the TA out for a coffee to explain why you moved.
>
> Would it be ethical to express these sentiments of admiration and gratitude to them during their office hours?
>
>
>
If you show gratitude or admiration be specific. No problem at all to thank for a specific hint or deed. Not a big deal in showing a moderate amount of admiration, like "i liked your slides".
However, if it is more that your conversation with him is based on your crush on him and not directed at a specific thing but at spending time with him, then don't forget, during his office hours he has not the simple option to just ask you to leave (it is his job to tutor), and maybe there are other students and time pressure - so ask yourself - if you would have a man make advances on you in your job under the pretext of the job, how would you like it in general as a female ? If it would be the other way round, people would consider it pretty obvious that such a behavior is not appropriate (obviously happens too often!).
>
> Would it be possible to date them after the course has ended since they are essentially a normal graduate student instead of a true professor?
>
>
>
Zero problem with that from a moral/ethical viewpoint, but
* check university rules
* avoid the appearance that it's related to the grading of the course in any way (if you date, be a little discrete for one or two months)
Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: If you two enter a romantic relationship, then together with the existing TA-student relationship, you two are having a [dual relationship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_relationship). It is recommended to avoid this type of relationship, for the reason that other people have discussed.
However, just for the sake of the discussion, let's assume that you decide to enter it anyway. Then the prerequisite is that you two be aware of all the possible negative outcome that come to this, that the benefits outweigh the risks. Then you two will have to continually consciously remind yourselves that these relationships should not be mixed, and to continually answer people's challenges. Since this is a very serious problem, they will scrutinize it more than normal – in other words, they are skeptical that this ethically works. And persuading them is the same with making them having **cognitive dissonance**, which is an arduous task. All of these things will quickly drain a huge amount of your energy to do other things, including building your relationship.
So it's about whether you have the energy to get through all of this or not, and whether both of you decide that this energy is worth to spend on this or not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Wait until the course is over.
Think if they don't feel the same way. It is just awkward after that.
Stay focused on why you're there.
You've got time to enjoy your life.
Maybe he'll be a part of it but don't put a wrinkle in your road that may affect your course outcome.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You won't have future courses with him, so **ethically** I expect it would be okay to get to know him *after* the course is over (as you said).
But you have a problem that hasn't directly been addressed in other answers.
>
> Would this be ethical? Should I just back down? Specifically I wanted to thank him for giving me a very positive, in-depth feed back in the essay assignment that I had turned in that I got a perfect grade on
>
>
>
Nothing wrong with doing that, but it might be awkward if he detects that you are interested in him.
He might feel obligated to put you at arms length (and he would be right to do so since he is currently your TA).
>
> Studying is so hard for this class now... Im trying really hard and i have an A but i find myself day dreaming about them at the same time.
>
>
>
That's great... except for the fact that you are in the middle of a relationship with him which he isn't participating in (yet). You need to reign it in some, or
1. by the time you tell him you are interested in him, you'll be much farther into this relationship than he is... that could scare him off.
2. or you could miss the mark with your assumptions but he is a great guy (and a great fit for you) but he isn't who you think he is...
so you end up disappointed with a guy *that otherwise* would have been a great match for you.
Just slow down... you'll have a better chance after the course is over.
Also, I'd advise you to wait a few weeks after the course to contact him... if you contact him immediately, he may still feel like he is your TA and feel ethically compelled to turn you down.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: >
> Would it be possible to date them after the course has ended since they are essentially a normal graduate student instead of a true professor?
>
>
>
I am going to disagree with the broad consensus of advice given here, which tells you to wait until after your course is over. I realise that some universities (particularly in the US) have an absurdly Puritan sexual environment, but even accounting for this, the precaution to wait until the end of your course still seems unnecessary to me. If you are romantically interested in this student, there is no reason that you cannot express your interest immediately. And indeed, if you wait, he might get scooped up by someone else.
Since you are the undergraduate student in this encounter, and he is your teacher, it is unlikely that there is any ethical/professional restriction on your own expression of interest in him. Bear in mind that *from his position*, it is likely that he will be under some professional/ethical restrictions on how he deals with this, since he is your teacher. Even so, it should not be all that difficult for a graduate-student teaching assistant to deal with a situation in which he is considering becoming romantically involved with an undergraduate, or (hopefully not) considering turning her down. University policies on this matter differ from institution to institution, but all that is likely to be involved is that he would disclose this to the course convener, and you might be assigned to a different class, or have your work marked by a different teaching assistant.
Contrary to the advice of others on this thread, there is absolutely no ethical reason to wait until the end of your course to express romantic interest in your teacher --- my advice: **[*<NAME>*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem).**
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_10: I agree with the previous answers; my immediate thought was that you might try proposing - while not in a work context - that you date once the course is over. If you are really worried about the university's position on this matter you could always consider declaring the relationship with the administration.
I can empathise with your position having been attracted to three different scientists throughout my career to this point. However, I would never have the courage to initiate, since I would be mortified if the feelings were not reciprocal. And I know that the feelings almost certainly were not reciprocal.
As somebody else has said, it is possible that we are subconsciously attracted to people because of their position rather than because of their individuality, and maybe you will only be able to discern between these realities by trying the relationship.
I wish you all the best, and I hope you form a happy couple!
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/21
| 450
| 1,898
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been working as a Senior Engineer in Industry for about 13 years since I graduated. However, I am seriously considering applying for a PhD program, because I am feeling acutely unchallenged in my job and I am very interested in getting involved with cutting-edge research.
So, I am wondering how common it is for people to do a PhD after first doing a stint in Industry? Roughly what percentage of PhD applicants are coming from industry?
My impression is that a large proportion would be applying to do a PhD course straight after their undergrad degree, but I would like to know if that is true.<issue_comment>username_1: I am about to go into a PhD (Computer Science) after a year in industry. During my campus visits at one large public and one small private University, I was the only prospective student that wasn't straight out of undergraduate. I did meet one graduate student who had been in industry for a year or two. So my experience confirms your impression.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The fraction going into a Ph.D. program directly from undergraduate/masters vs. spending time in industry or other areas varies wildly by field. In STEM fields, where a doctorate is typically a paid position, it tends to be a very high percentage going directly from prior education. In my graduate department, for example, I would estimate that approximately 10% came in from industry.
In other areas, such as liberal arts, I believe it is much more common to have to support oneself for the degree, and thus students are more likely to be working a degree part time or later in life (though I do not have hard statistics for either).
That said, the *professors* will definitely have experience with students coming in from industry, and in many cases will actually prize such students for being (on average) more mature and self-directed.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/21
| 385
| 1,678
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am the corresponding and the first author of a paper which has been accepted for publication in a journal published by Springer.
I have an important question that is I would like to know whether I can add another university as my second affiliation (before, I only use one affiliation for me) and what should I do to make this addition.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.<issue_comment>username_1: Email the editor using the journal submission site (there should be some method to send adhoc questions) and ask, explaining your issue. If you have changed jobs, for example, it is usual to use the current affiliation on the publication with some sort of note that the work was completed while working at the other institution.
Do not contact the editor through other channels - this is a publishing issue and should be dealt with through the publisher's tools.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you can make this change. The easiest way to do it is to wait for the journal office to send you the proofs. If you're worried this might be too late, you can also contact the journal office directly.
Don't email the editorial board because their role is over (they handle peer review, and this is not a peer review issue).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> can [I] add another university as my second affiliation...what should I do to make this addition
>
>
>
Assuming your manuscript has been *accepted for publication*, but you haven't yet submitted a camera-ready manuscript, then just add a second affiliation. If you're concerned that this might not be permitted, then read the journal's rules.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/21
| 477
| 2,020
|
<issue_start>username_0: [Some universities allow](https://www.umk.pl/en/admissions/in_english/english_studies_ma/) students to get enrolled in English studies without having a Bachelor degree in English.
If someone completes an MA and PhD without a Bachelor, can that person become a professor in English?<issue_comment>username_1: Of course you can. Yes, once you complete a Ph.D. in English, you will not need a bachelor's degree and you will not need a master's degree when you search for a job.
Entry into a Ph.D. program in English may be done by those with bachelor's degrees in other, related fields. Or by those with appropriate experience outside academia.
And let's face it: Once you are awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, practically any English department will hire you as a professor, even if you have no degrees at all.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Most likely yes. You’ll probably have transition units in your coursework.
==========================================================================
I’m currently doing a Master’s Degree in IT in Australia, and my university offers two different courses: one two year degree for people without an IT undergraduate degree, and a 1.5 year degree for those that do. The difference between them is the presence of “transition units” intended to give those who complete them the level of competency in their material expected of someone who has completed an undergraduate degree. While my university doesn’t appear to offer a Masters of English, the creative industries courses it does offer appear to follow the same pattern, based on a cursory search of their website.
It’s my understanding that the first two years of an American 5-year PhD are coursework-focused and are roughly equivalent to the two-year Masters degree over here, with the other three years being equivalent to the three year PhDs we have. I’d be surprised if there was a significant difference between them, though, as always, every university is different.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/21
| 1,300
| 5,265
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a math postdoc. On MathJobs they sometimes ask if there are any "faculty contacts," which are people I've met or who otherwise have interest in my work. But sometimes I don't know who the faculty are, I've never met them at a conference, etc. My feeling is that if I work on something that none of the faculty are particularly interested in, that will sink my application. In other words, I think I need to get someone on the faculty to be enthusiastic about my application. But to do that I have to say something like, "What I'm doing is related to the work of [insert name of faculty member]..."
Actually some of the job descriptions explicitly say that they *prefer* candidates that match the interests of the department. Why would a department hire candidate X, who works in some out of left field area, when they can hire candidate Y, who works on something that interests faculty there?
It seems that it is not enough to just do good research to stand out. I have to persuade the faculty that I should be hired over everyone else.<issue_comment>username_1: Ok, packaging-up some comments... First, the original title-question has an easy answer: look at the faculty web pages (if you don't recognize their names from papers you've seen... if not read...).
Second, a more substantive aspect of the question-context is about plausibility of job applications to places where there maybe aren't any senior (or tenured) faculty doing anything much related to one's own work. This is tricky. On one hand, something close but a little "edgy" may sometimes provoke people to think you'd be interesting to have around. On the opposite hand, if you're an orthodox practitioner of a specialty that's of no obvious interest/relevance to the faculty, well, ... given finite resources, you'll almost-surely lose out to someone who has more affinity.
And, for that matter, it is not a good career move to go somewhere where you'll be "solo" or some kind of "orphan", without adequate mentoring, encouragement, and protection from weird political stuff. You'd need someone to stand up at the critical faculty meeting and speak in your favor!
But, also, yes, there is more to say about many places where they may be wanting to broaden their competency, and their criteria are ambiguous. I do not know so much about such situations.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: First of all:
>
> In other words, I think I need to get someone on the faculty to be enthusiastic about my application.
>
>
> It seems that it is not enough to just do good research to stand out. I have to persuade the faculty that I should be hired over everyone else.
>
>
>
Yes. That is literally the definition of a job interview. If you get the job, then nobody else will. So you do have to convince the deciding people that you should be hired before over anyone else. You do not earn magic job-points when you do good research that you can cash in at your local university to get a free job. You have to convince the hiring people that you should be hired. I do not understand why you would state this as if this were some terrible hidden secret about academia. It works like this everywhere. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you are going to have real problems getting a job if you keep this attitude.
>
> But sometimes I don't know who the faculty are, I've never met them at a conference, etc. My feeling is that if I work on something that none of the faculty are particularly interested in, that will sink my application.
>
>
>
The onus is on you to get yourself informed about who the professors at that institution are. Why are you applying there at all? There must be a reason. If this is a personal reason rather than an academic one (e.g. "it's my hometown", "my fiancée works in this city", "I like the beach"...) then this will definitely be a hindrance unless you can find a way to turn this into a positive.
Not knowing anybody at the institution will not necessarily "sink" your application. But it will handicap you, for sure. They don't want to a complete stranger that will do research that doesn't interest them. They would much rather hire someone to whom they can at the very least talk to about research.
>
> Actually some of the job descriptions explicitly say that they prefer candidates that match the interests of the department. Why would a department hire candidate X, who works in some out of left field area, when they can hire candidate Y, who works on something that interests faculty there?
>
>
>
Why indeed? If even you cannot answer this question, there is a real problem.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> My feeling is that if I work on something that none of the faculty are particularly interested in, that will sink my application.
>
>
>
Postdocs (and to a larger extent PhD students) typically work on a faculty member's projects, rather than their own projects. I do not recommend applying for a position when no faculty are particular interested in your work.
>
> In other words, I think I need to get someone on the faculty to be
> enthusiastic about my application.
>
>
>
I think you need to **find a department that has faculty working in your area**.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/22
| 1,780
| 7,782
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going into my 4th year PhD in a STEM field. I am my advisor's first student. While things started off okay and the research had been interesting, my advisor developed a tendency to switch projects on me without allowing either of us to really troubleshoot what went wrong with the previous project. These actions have made it difficult to come up with meaningful consistency as well as the results that I would deem adequate for someone in my year as a PhD. I do have one paper in my name, but its subject was not in the research application I was interested in, and was instead in a totally different field (and a very useless one). I honestly don't see anyone referencing that paper.
So basically, I do not have control over my research project. I started off doing what I thought would take me in the direction of my goals post-grad, but my advisor's inconsistency has made that impossible. I understand that plans will unexpectedly change, but the whole scope of my research now is ultimately completely different and uninteresting. For instance, I presented at a conference, and the conference's theme was of something I was deeply interested in, and the abstract I had originally submitted was related to it. However, come time for the actual conference, my advisor had switched projects on me, and what I presented was nothing at all related to the session of that day. I was quite embarrassed, and I could tell during my talk that others weren't really interested in what I had to offer.
To make matters more fun, my advisor will "remind" me that my project is mine. In other words, any failure is my own, not hers. Also, when I go to ask questions regarding the fundamentals of the work she has in mind, she will take my inquiries as a personal attack. This behavior discourages me from communicating with her altogether. The past few years feel like a textbook definition of Gaslighting as well as Incompetence. (As a related example, my advisor had given me permission to get an internship during my first year, but then changed her mind when I went out and actually got an offer.)
So, now my other big program is that my advisor told me that I would have to graduate next Spring 2020, as she would not be able to fund me longer than that. However, I do not have a story to defend, and I would be hesitant to present the data I've gathered these past few years. Furthermore, I do not know what I could do post-grad, because what I want to do would require experience in the fields that I was originally in (not to mention I have no internship/field experience..).
Should I stick with it and see what happens? I would hate for 3+ years to go down the drain. Should I try and find my own funding, and is that really my responsibility at this point? Could I be wrong in that it is not unusual for projects to totally shift their scopes, and I should just deal with that reality?
I do want to remain in good relations with my advisor. I just don't know how to best express my desires and ideas without feeling like I am setting off my PI's short fuse. While I regret not taking action sooner, I really thought these small details weren't that big of a deal. Added up, however, I realize that I have some larger issues to work with, which is why I post here to see if there are any thoughts I should consider. I wish I could be more upfront, but confrontation is difficult for me. I now understand that is a skill I need to work on.
Thank you in advance for your time,<issue_comment>username_1: The situation you described is very unfortunate, and, if your description of your advisor's behavior is accurate, not entirely your fault. It is true that sometimes projects don't work out and students need to learn to take responsibility for their own projects, it is also the responsibility of an advisor to guide the project to fruition, one way or another. Most good ideas will not result in a paper without at least one to two years of work, and you end up in a futile cycle if you are constantly changing directions at the first sight of any trouble.
Your current situation is untenable. If you continue with it you will graduate with very little to show for and a difficult time finding a good post-doc or industrial position. If you want to stick with your advisor, you need to have a difficult conversation with her, in a non-confrontational manner, to lay out your concerns and the pattern of inconsistency that resulted in low productivity. Ideally the meeting will produce a plan to make better use of the remaining time you have to maximize your research output and prepare for your next job. But behavior change is hard, and if your advisor is as short-tempered as you say, negotiating a different relationship with her may be next to impossible, and any behavior change may be only temporary. Alternatively you should consider switching to a different lab, which will result in delay to your graduation and people may be hesitant to take you in at this stage of your PhD. Lastly there is always the option of dropping out. It is a difficult decision given what you've already invested. But if it becomes clear that the past time investment can no longer be salvaged the smart thing is to move on; maybe use the time instead to gain some industrial experience that will serve you better down the road?
Ultimately it is a hard decision that strangers on the internet cannot make for you. Nevertheless you should explore these options, perhaps simultaneously, and think through and prepare for the possible outcomes. Good luck.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: That really sucks.
I had a messy situation during my MSc which took me over 3 years, in part due to supervisors being flimsy and in part due to me losing my own motivation. There was also a project which changed direction halfway through, into the exact opposite of what I wanted. I had told them ahead of time, that the one thing I refused to do was work with GIS and guess what I ended up doing.
In the end I am happy I stuck it out though as it gave me much better job prospect and I generally had many more options after I graduated than I would have, had I quit.
Try to graduate as fast as you can, dont waste any more time with her than you have to. Once you move on to a post doc you will have more freedom. But be sure to build up your network and get into contact with those scientists that you would rather work with. Maybe you can collab on a paper with them.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> However, come time for the actual conference, my advisor had switched projects on me, and what I presented was nothing at all related to the session of that day.
>
>
> changed her mind when I went out and actually got an offer
>
>
> she will take my inquiries as a personal attack
>
>
> The past few years feel like a textbook definition of Gaslighting
>
>
>
Your advisor is abusive. You need to end the supervisory relationship and find a new one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'd suggest you make an appointment with your director or studies or ombudsman (or whoever else is in charge). You should explain the problem to them in an honest way like you did in this question, and ask them what are your options and what they recommend. At the very least you need to inform them that there are some issues with your supervisor, so that they have you on their radar and hopefully give you some support now and/or later. Normally such a meeting should be confidential (to be safe you can ask for confidentiality explicitly), your supervisor doesn't need to know anything about it. Having an experienced third-party person evaluate the situation will also give you an more objective assessment of how serious things are.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/22
| 2,827
| 12,437
|
<issue_start>username_0: I often wonder about Mathematics Education in China, particularly at the late high school and undergraduate level.
In the US, a typical undergraduate math degree will include
lower division:
1-2 years of calculus (3 courses)
different equations (1 course)
linear albegra (1 course)
upper division
1 year of analysis (2 or three courses, real and complex)
1 year of algebra (2 courses)
and a mix of: number theory, topology, more linear algebra, and so on.
I have heard from Chinese friends and seen on a few websites that Chinese students are often a few years ahead of our pace here in the US. For instance, they have often already started working on analysis and topology in late high school. It seems that they are doing US graduate level work by half way through their undergrad. What's more they are probably better at whatever subject they are learning too based on the sheer effectiveness of their education system.
I am wondering, for all that the romantic values of the US education are worth, why it seems that the Chinese system simply makes better, and frankly, more mathematically intelligent students. It seems that the best Chinese students read more, for longer hours, do more math problems etc. Whether or not this is by their own volition or because they are feeling pressure to do so (as is often case, so it's explained to me), the end result is the same regardless; They spend more time doing math, and they are better at it.
**How can a student in the US honestly hope to learn enough math to be on an equal footing with a student who has worked 50% longer hours, and begun their mathematics education years earlier (if we're also not looking at particular cases of geniuses emerging at a young age in either country, but rather the average intelligent student)?**
Please do share any knowledge, experience, or opinion you have related to these questions. I am a math student doing my undergraduate degree in the US, and I feel my education is not rigorous or thorough enough, despite being at a
reputably challenging, well regarded institution. Furthermore, when I express my desire to work longer hours than other students, I am met with negative comments about how more work does not mean more knowledge. I think that's just plain wrong, so long as you're remaining healthy.
I have heard similar things about Russia, and even Japan and Korea. Please do share your thoughts.
Thank you for your input.
**Edit and clarification**: I agree with the sentiment that a broader education can help students deal with the real world, so to speak, better than a narrow one can in some respects. But first I'd like to suggest that we can't use the fact that the US was doing the best science in the last century to suggest this system is better. Many of the great discoveries and advancements I think of here in the last century are disqualified from this discussion by two factors. Firstly, the imperial history of the U.S. and its strategic footing during the World Wars allowed it to dominate in almost everything globally, from trade, to military power, to science. Secondly, many of the great advancements I think of in the past century were done by either exceptional geniuses who typically exhibited exceptional abilities at a young age, and furthermore many foreigners who came to the US for the reason above (I'm thinking <NAME>, Einstein, etc). As the US loses its global dominance, I think that we will see less of this sentiment that the US education system really works exceptionally well in the ways that we imagine and discuss in this thread, and more recognition that other factors were at play. Furthermore, having first hand experience, it really does seem that my Chinese peers are better at math, their knowledge is not shallow in any respect. They work harder than most students here, and know the material better. They spend more time on homework and do more problems in their universities. It's not necessarily the breadth of our education that is responsible, but a combination of the breadth our lack of devotion to long hours and thorough understanding in exchange for serious labor.
Think, Chinese students will get perfect math GRE scores and be rejected from US math programs, while US students rarely if ever get such a score. Yet we still dismiss them as simply having memorized facts for the test. I think this is a big mistake, and will come back to bite the US, and its romantic liberal arts style education.<issue_comment>username_1: Hmmm. Are apples better or are oranges better? Hmmm.
It is difficult to compare educational systems with such a narrow focus as is done in the question. Where do we study Linear Algebra? Ultimately there are more important questions. These questions are attempted to be answered through a somewhat ill formed national educational set of objectives that may be driven centrally (China) or widely distributed (US).
In the US, there are problems with the pre-college education system due to a lack of resources and an unwillingness of politicians to raise taxes or to think creatively about how to provide those resources. More could be done, if more money could be provided and if it wasn't seen as a political strategy to attack teachers, partly because they have traditionally had strong unions.
At the undergraduate level in the US, the philosophy is that the education should be very broad. One doesn't only study mathematics if your major is math. You also study history, philosophy, language, sociology, art and music (possibly), literature, and other things.
At the masters level in the US, the study narrows, but not so much as in other places. One typically studies the field intensively, but mathematics is, itself, a broad field. Insight in algebra is quite different from insight into analysis. Some insights carry over, but not all.
At the doctoral level in the US, as is true elsewhere, one studies a small part of a field very intensively and focuses on research in that field and extending what is known there. Some MS programs start on this narrowing, but not all.
In the US, each university, generally speaking, defines its own curriculum. Within fields, the faculty *realizes* a curriculum and there is generally fairly wide acceptance about what is possible. Pre college education is normally defined at the State level, with Michigan and New Jersey, perhaps, having quite different standards.
In some other countries the educational system is very hierarchical with, in theory, every student studying the same things at the same age. But even there, differences of implementation can cause differences of outcome.
But what is better?
That depends on what you are trying to achieve. If your goal is to create narrowly educated "technocrats" who don't know or care much about life then a narrow education is what would be preferred. But if you want, instead, to educate the "whole person" then a broad education is better overall, even if it takes longer to develop technical skills.
But, as a CS professor, I always considered it much more important to understand *what should be built* rather than *how to build a given thing*. If you don't understand the *should* you can do great damage to the world (take note Facebook, Twitter, ...).
Traditionally this broad educational system has served the US pretty well. In the 20th and early 21st centuries, many (most?) of the world's most important scientific discoveries were done here, though often enough by immigrants who studied elsewhere. I note that that is now changing, but I also note that US education is receiving even less support - witness too many colleges depending far too much on loan supported student tuitions, rather than grants or straightforward, tax supported, funding.
I used to warn people in highly technical fields who focused too much on details, that, eventually, the history and philosophy majors who knew nothing of what they, themselves, did, would be their employers. The history and philosophy majors took a broader view and could better judge what was important. Even in CS courses, I predicted that the students that asked *why* would have a better future than those who could only ask *how*.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> How can a student in the US honestly hope to learn enough math to be on an equal footing with a student who has worked 50% longer hours, and begun their mathematics education years earlier (if we're also not looking at particular cases of geniuses emerging at a young age in either country, but rather the average intelligent student)?
>
>
>
Your question contains a flawed premise, which is that in order to succeed in your studies and/or career you need to be (or that it even makes sense to ask if you are or are not) “on equal footing” with some arbitrary group of students.
Empirically, every year a couple of thousand students in the US graduate with a PhD in the mathematical sciences, about half of them US citizens (see [here](https://www.ams.org/Excerpt_PhDs_Demographics.pdf)). **It is an empirical fact** that many of those US mathematicians go on to extremely successful careers in academia and elsewhere. We can argue from now until next week about the philosophical differences between US, Chinese and other nations’ education systems, but it seems pointless to argue with facts. The evidence simply suggests that American-educated mathematicians compete just fine with those educated outside the US. So the answer to your “How can a student in the US hope ...” is: they can certainly hope it, because that is what the reality on the ground is telling them.
Second, let me address the “on equal footing” issue. What comes to mind here is the notion of [comparative advantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) from economics - the idea that people in different places are better at producing different goods - I will apply it in the case when the “goods” are mathematical results rather than economic foods. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that Chinese mathematics students indeed study and work harder than their US counterparts. I don’t know if this is true, but I have heard some similar things in other contexts (for example that classical music prodigies in China work themselves half to death from a young age, and as a result achieve levels of virtuosity that western musicians find essentially impossible to match) so it wouldn’t surprise me if it were true. Now, as it happens I agree with you that a person who works harder will end up knowing more and knowing the material better than someone who doesn’t work as hard. That’s absolutely true, and if you want to be successful, being a hard worker is a terrific advantage.
But now, guess what? Knowing more does not *necessarily* translate to being more successful. It turns out that American students enjoy their own set of comparative advantages over those from many other nations, very probably including China. For example: the environment in which American students are raised and educated is more economically prosperous, safe, healthy, and (to some extent) psychologically supportive than those in many other countries. Their country is one that famously encourages freedom of thought and of speech, creativity, innovation, risk-taking, and many other values that are positively correlated with personal and national success. Even in the limited context of mathematics, I feel reasonably confident in estimating that all of those circumstances can add up to quite a significant comparative advantage, that enables those students to produce certain kinds of high quality mathematics that their Chinese and other peers are not able to produce.
The bottom line is: hard work is important; cramming your head full of facts and knowledge is important; but they are not the *only* important things. There is much new work in mathematics that can be better done (or in some cases can only be done) by someone who is very creative and has a flexible and original mind than by someone who works extremely hard and knows a lot but isn’t as imaginative or creative or willing to take risks. (And conversely, someone who works hard and knows a lot can do things that a “lazy” but super-creative person cannot do. The principle of comparative advantage works both ways.)
Focus on your advantages, and you will be fine.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/07/22
| 639
| 2,441
|
<issue_start>username_0: What does the term "*highest qualification earned*" or "*highest degree earned*" on applications mean? For example, if I am a current undergraduate student, does that mean my highest qualification is "*undergraduate degree*" or should it be my "*high school diploma*"?<issue_comment>username_1: *Highest qualification* means the **most advanced** (i.e., highest) **academic award** (e.g., high school, bachelor's degree, master's degree) that you've been **granted** (i.e., completed).
So,
>
> if I am a current undergraduate student, does that mean my highest qualification is "undergraduate degree" or should it be my high school (12th grade)?
>
>
>
A current undergraduate student has not yet been granted that undergraduate degree, so the student's highest degree is from high school (assuming no other relevant qualifications).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The [other answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/133665/31865) points out the most natural human interpretation of that question and how to respond, but that's not how you *should* respond. From [USAJobs.gov](https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/how-to/account/profile/education/),
>
> ### What if I’m currently completing my degree?
>
>
> If you’re currently completing your degree, select the degree and enter in the expected degree completion date.
>
>
>
It's discouraging, but, (job/internship/school/etc) applications are a place to be selling yourself as a candidate, and not necessarily being truthful for the sake of being safe. Or think of this: every other candidate filling in that same application asks themselves this same question you've asked here, and by giving the safe truthful answer you're putting yourself at a disadvantage to those who responded with the higher qualification that they are still completing.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In English language academia, qualifications are ranked like this:
1. Habilitation (not used in English speaking countries)
2. Doctorate (not used in all disciplines)
3. Masters (Honours in Australia)
4. Bachelors
5. Associates (Mostly in the US)
6. Secondary/High School
Your highest degree earned is the first one on the list you have completed. Starting a degree does not count. Exceptions apply if you are specifically prompted to enter a future completion date or if you are prompted to select a partially completed degree like "some college."
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/22
| 1,594
| 6,840
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just don't understand why the overall findings & implications of a PhD cannot be communicated in the style of a research paper?
Succinctness is a virtue in a field characterised by time pressure.
The research output is equal to or less than that of a 3 year postdoc - which is always communicated as a research paper.
Just seems like added embellishment for the sake of embellishment.
What am I missing?<issue_comment>username_1: Your question includes a number of assumptions, which are not universal and may be simply wrong for some areas.
1. You probably know that <NAME> had one of the shortest PhD theses with only 26 pages and 2 references. PhD theses of 300+ pages are also not unusual, particularly in humanities.
2. I would expect a postdoctoral researcher in Mathematics to participate / contribute to at least 1 paper per year. I know of colleagues in Engineering / Computer Science for whom this expectation seems very low - a postdoctoral researcher in their group would put their name on 3-5 outputs per year.
Number of pages, as well as the number of outputs, is an very poor metric of research effort and performance. Some universities may put an upper boundary on the number of pages to make sure that their supervisors are not overwhelmed with the amount of material they have to read and comment on during the supervision (after all, Universities want their staff to do a lot of work apart of supervising the particular student). I don't think that the lower boundary is very usual.
Having said this, there is definitely an expectation that a PhD theses should contain a detailed introduction and thorough literature review. After all, a PhD student should study the area and then train themselves to become a professional researcher in this area. In contrast, a postdoctoral researcher is already expected to be trained and their work is only to do novel research. For a PhD student, a lot of emphasis is on studying the methodology, and writing about it takes time and a significant number of pages.
Finally, compare the number of references: a typical journal paper could have 30, while a PhD theses can easily have 300. This clearly shows that the scope of a PhD theses is much wider than the scope of an academic research paper, while a paper may be more focused and deep.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know where your 150 page idea comes from since I have never heard this as a guideline. However, in my field, "staple theses" are common, composed of roughly 3 papers stapled together (either already published or publishable drafts), with an added introduction and conclusion that tie the works together and may get a bit deeper into background than is acceptable in a published manuscript.
Therefore, they must be at least the length of three research papers, and aren't typically all that much longer than that. However, theses are also typically formatted in a longer form, more similar to the original word-processed manuscript, whereas journal articles are composed in a dense, newspaper-like format. Figures may have their own pages. In sum, a manuscript that is 10-15 published pages can easily be 30-50 pages in this format.
No embellishment necessary to get to 150 pages.
I'd also add that a post doc in my field who only produced 1 paper in 3 years would probably have their next job in industry; a graduate student with only one paper will have been quite disappointing (it may happen that only one paper is publishable due to being scooped or unexpected failures, but even those outcomes can be part of a thesis). Not necessarily, it's possible that paper could be highly impactful, and might be reasonable in some subfields, but generally that would not be a suitable output for an academic career.
---
*Edit: decided to pull up my own thesis from the archives. 230 pages. Of those, 53 pages are "thesis-only" pages; the other 177 pages are verbatim copies from 2 published papers and a third draft manuscript which was later revised and published, all reformatted to fit the thesis formatting requirements. Of the remaining 53 pages of "fluff," 6 pages are title/contents/acknowledgements/abstract, and about 19 are references for the introduction/conclusion chapters, so about 28 extra pages of generously spaced writing, to be treated as "embellishment" if you wish, or alternatively, to provide enough background and context for the work for someone familiar with the field but not previously familiar with my research area, such as members of my thesis committee besides my advisor.*
*In summary, even if my thesis had nothing but 3 published/publishable manuscripts, it would already be >150 pages.*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Succinctness may be a virtue, but page limits means that papers are often overly terse. They also commonly leave out important information, helpful steps, and additional but less eye catching results. The presentation and style of a paper is also often geared towards experts in a field, while you have more freedom to be pedagogical and explicit in a dissertation. Factor in a double-spaced one-column format and some front matter, and it's easy to get to 150 pages and beyond.
In fact, one of my papers during the PhD (physics) was five pages long when published, plus references (not counted in page limit). Six pages of supplemental material was deposited along with the paper, for a total of 11 pages. The corresponding chapter in the dissertation is 46 pages long, with some details still relegated to appendices... The main difference in presentation, however, isn't the length or layout - it's that I attempted to make the description more self-contained. A new graduate student may actually get a reasonable idea of the background and calculations from reading this chapter and the introduction. In contrast, there's no way the same grad student could get all details from the paper and be able to reproduce the calculations without following a bunch of references, well *unless they already were an expert*. And if you do read those papers, the amount of material to go through would quickly exceed 150 pages anyway.
Yes, many dissertations could be made more compact, but why? The dissertation is a rare opportunity where you don't have to compromise style or contents. It's an opportunity to provide an alternate description than already exists in preprints or published papers that can be useful to another audience. It's also a place where you can make deposit certain results, derivations, proofs or procedures that don't fit elsewhere in explicit form for later use by *yourself* as well as others. So if you want to write a shorter dissertation yourself, that's alright, but avoid judging others for trying to be more pedagogical than the journal paper form allows.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/22
| 688
| 2,792
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been selected by my school and an external committee to attend this-year version of [this summit](https://www.nrf.gov.sg/gyss/home). As far as I've been informed up to now, the agenda is attending a bunch of interviews with both scientists and non-scientists to broadcast my research (panelists are supposed to be some Nobel Laureates).
To me, the only potential motivation to attend it would be the case based on which such attendance will be considered as an *honor* in my CV (something similar to, or even more significant than, what a "best paper award in X conference" does bring to mind). Namely by honor, I literally mean whatever may make my CV fancier than before to entice typical admission committees assessing assistant professorship applications. Additionally, I have to pay half of the commutation cost which is a great repulsive factor if this summit really wouldn't make any sensible impact on my future chance to hunt a tenure-track position.
All in all, would a "presenter at summit X" add anything big to my CV (considering I've some scholarships, an IEEE thesis title, a best paper award, etc.)?<issue_comment>username_1: I would think of it the same as any other conference presentation. Ask your colleagues, supervisors, mentors, etc, how well they regard this particular conference, and whether they think it is worth your time to attend and present. But you need to get advice from people who know you and are in your field.
The fact that this conference happens to be called a "summit" doesn't change any of that.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If I were you, I would also consider the connections that you might be able to create at such a venue. If you get the chance to present before nobel laureates, it might just happen that they like your work and know of an open position at their home university.
The more powerful people know your work, your name and your face, the better. There are many ways to land a good position, and sometimes the deciding factor actually is who you went to have dinner with *-after-* the conference.
So my answer is: go, talk to as many people as possible , and present what you are working on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this strongly depends on the field.
In pure mathematics, I think *nobody* would be the slightest impressed by "represented my university in the future research leader summit, which managed to heap 25 nobel laureates into a big pile". It might even have a slightly silly and vain vibe (whereas everyone would be ecstatic about an invited talk at the ICM).
But this could be completely different in other fields; so I think your best guess is to trust the opinions and reactions of the (senior) colleagues in your field.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/07/23
| 791
| 3,297
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just finished transcribing my interviews for my PhD thesis and I got a total of 200 pages as data to analyse, is this enough?
I only transcribed what is relevant to my research scope. Also, English is my second language. One of my friends told me that it is not enough,<issue_comment>username_1: Hopefully you have an advisor. That is the person (and probably the only person) who can answer such a question. Fifty interviews may be plenty or it may be woefully inadequate. Four pages per interview may be plenty or it may not be nearly enough.
Ask someone who can actually see your data and who has the experience to make such a judgement in your field.
However, you can at least do preliminary analysis. That might guide you to understand if you need more - or different - data to answer the research question(s).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Note: My background is Statistics.
Whether you have enough data to analyze, in other words, have a large enough sample size, **depends** entirely on what you want to do with your data, and what your data is.
One of the things you can do to find out if you have enough is a power analysis. Power is the probability that you will reject the null hypothesis (i.e, the status quo) when the alternative hypothesis (the thing you are most likely trying to show) is true. In simple terms, power is the probability that *if* your hypothesis is true, then you will be able to give evidence in support of it given your data.
Since I don't know your data's distribution, I can't really give an idea on how to calculate the power for your specific case, but if you have access to SAS software, or R Studio (free to download) you can use either of these to do the calculation for you.
Generally, this is done *before* the study even begins, but it can be done *after* the study is concluded. This is called a *post hoc* analysis. Generally, it's not a good idea to alter your study based on a post-hoc, since it makes your sample no longer random.\* However, if you fail to mathematically support your hypothesis, but your power was only 0.1 to start with, you can simply say your sample size was not large enough to detect the effect you were looking for, and that for future research you plan to increase your sample size.
Before I go, I feel it's worth it to add that your sample size as it currently stands appears to be 50, and not 200. It seems to me that each interviewee is your experimental unit, and even if each page was taken at a different time, these would count either as duplicates or replicates.
\*The reason that altering your study makes your sample no longer random. You start with a population of size N, from which you take a sample of size x. The probability of being selected is x/N. You then decide you need more data, so you exclude the original x, so now your population size is N-x. (This assumes the population does not change size). You need y more for your sample, so now the probability of selection is y/N-x, which can never realistically be equal to the first probability of selection, x/N. (I have the proof for the last claim, but I feel it is too far outside the scope of this question to include here. If you are interested, feel free to ask for it in a comment.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/23
| 652
| 2,747
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can you switch the position of the first co-first author with the second co-first author of an article after it is published?
Full story: During my PhD, I published two articles, both as the first of the two co-first author. In both articles, the second co-first author is my colleague. My colleague is highly career-driven and ambitious. Although he did not do much work to contribute to either paper (I did 90% of the experiments and analysis and writing, since these are my main projects for my PhD), but he has a good relationship with our supervisor, and managed to convince our supervisor that he did a lot. Our supervisor then spoke to me and insisted that I included him as the second co-first author. I am ok with this, since my name still appears first.
Now, I have finished my PhD and is going to leave this research group soon. I am worried that my colleague, being career-driven and has a good relationship with our supervisor, may try some means to switch his name on these articles with me, and becomes from the second co-first author to the first co-first author.<issue_comment>username_1: Journals generally don't want to change things after publication - especially things like [authorship order](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/102681/17254) that would cause havoc to past citations. It thus seems unlikely that your coauthor will even try, and even less likely that the journal would acquiesce to such a request. I think most (well-run) journals would also try to contact all involved authors if there is such an unusual request, so you're likely to be informed if your coauthor were to try something. Finally, even if such a change were to somehow go through, usually people take the idea and statement of co-first authors ("these authors contributed equally to the work presented in this paper") at face value, so it'd be unlikely to affect either of your careers to any significant extent (with certain [exceptions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/59027/17254)). Though of course, there's the usual caveat that conventions in your field about co-first authorships might be different.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It’s completely impossible to change author order after publication. I have a paper where the journal messed up the alphabetical ordering of authors in the bibliographic data (it’s a 4 author paper, and the print version formats the names in a square, and somehow they confused whether they’re read row-first or column-first). There was nothing we could do about it. Once the bibliographic data goes out into the world it’s unchangeable. If you can’t fix a simple alphabetizing error, there’s just no chance at all of what you’re suggesting happening.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/23
| 1,441
| 6,172
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have had an issue with my PhD advisor where they were essentially attempting to coerce me into inappropriately adding them as a co-author on a paper that they had no part in. They agreed that they should not be an author according to ethical standards, but essentially threatened me that there would be "problems with my graduation" if I did not add their name to the paper. They have refused to collaborate with me on this paper as well as any future paper because they "are too busy" and "no professors really do research".
This appeared to be a very serious ethical breach to me, so I immediately went to the department chair to describe the situation, and started looking for a new PhD advisor. However, some of the reactions I got to the situation disturbed me. The chair of my department openly stated that all of my research is "owned" by my advisor (whatever that means) and implied that I was a bad student for not adding my advisor to the paper. He even went so far to suggest that I add my new advisor's name to the (finished) paper in order to start off on good terms! Another professor trivialized the problem, stating that compared to what many PhD students have to deal with gift authorship is "not that bad". A third professor stated that it was clearly unethical, but that it was unfortunately the norm.
It seems to me based on this small sample size (as well as hearing other PhD student's experiences) that gifting authorship to uninvolved PhD advisors is rampant. This is obviously a terrible practice. Is this behavior really rampant in academia? And if so, what happens to PhD students who refuse to participate in this practice?
A further point about my situation: I am in a theoretical scientific field where there is no lab, etc., so there is no complications arising from that sort of thing. Although even if I were working on a grant and using lab equipment gift authorship would be unethical.<issue_comment>username_1: Is it rampant? I would say generally, no, but it occurs and it occurs too often. But different fields have different standards and some of them make sense even to those who say that it is wrong in general. That doesn't seem to be the situation in your case, of course, so I think your *rant* is justified.
But if an advisor makes it possible for you to do your research, through providing the lab (not your case, of course), and sets the general direction of research in that lab, and has "hired" you to carry on the work that s/he has defined for that lab, then it isn't so obvious that their name doesn't deserve to be on the papers produced in the lab. Of course, such fields also probably have conventions about the placement of names in the list. Often the "owner" of the lab is placed last on all publications, and that is understood for what it is.
But even in other cases, if a supervisor gives you a problem to solve and guides you a bit in its solution, does s/he deserve co-authorship. In mathematics we generally say no, but, even there, it isn't so clear that it isn't deserved. If a student can't come up with his/her own problem due to insufficient "seasoning" and insight, they may come to a significant result that would be outside their reach without the advisor. But, again, in theoretical math, at least, demanding co-authorship would be seen as a transgression, especially in a case that matches your description.
Rampant in academia? Probably not. Rampant in some corners? Perhaps. But look closer at the whole picture, not just the obvious bits.
Also, if a student is trapped in such a situation, it may just be self preservation to go along. Hold your nose, but get away quickly and don't look back. Find people with whom you can collaborate in a fair and just manner.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: This situation is not uncommon but not rampant, and depends very strongly on the culture of the institution, the department and the field of research, or even the individual thesis director.
There is some *weak* argument to be made that thesis directors provide resources (intellectual or otherwise) so they should be more or less automatically co-authors of work done by students. If they are not then the resources going to the lab/research group through grants or other competitions might be jeopardized. In other words, the resources you can access now are in part due to the past record of the supervisor so she/he needs to keep this up else these resources will not benefit the next generation of students.
There is also the argument that big names function as *imprimatur* in the sense that they will provide visibility to the work beyond what the junior authors could hope to provide.
Overall, I have always found both arguments not completely satisfactory. While certainly a thesis director should help a student as much as possible, there are clearly situations where it is not necessary for a thesis director to co-sign a paper. Likewise, it is entirely possible to highlight in a positive manner - in a grant application or otherwise - the fact that a student publish without his/her thesis director.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: No, it is not the norm in my field (in the arts & humanities) in the UK. In fact, a supervisor whose students never published solo would be considered a failure.
For future reference (and for the benefit of prospective PhD students reading this), a good piece of advice when evaluating a potential supervisor is to look at his/her publications list, and analyse the authorship/co-authorship patterns:
*[NB: applicable to the arts & humanities (I make no apology for this bias, since there are so many STEM-biased answers on StackExchange as matters stand)]*
* **good sign**: solo publications and publications with other academics of comparable seniority in the field;
* **fine/neutral**: some publications co-authored with students (you should then check the publication records of these students -- ideally, they should also have published solo and/or with different collaborators as well);
* **red flag**: **all** recent (last 10 years) publications co-authored with his/her students.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/23
| 1,830
| 7,522
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted my STEM PhD thesis to the committee. If everything goes well, my defense will be done by the end of the year. I published 2 papers during my 5 years of PhD, few more to be submitted.
I had applied to few industrial positions a while back, got rejections.
I am feeling unmotivated and lost now. I don't feel like searching for postdoc or industrial positions. I am 31 years old.
I have few pending projects that I should be doing, but I am feeling hopeless and dumb. I am taking this time to study and revise the theoretical concepts from my masters and undergraduate. I should be honing my programming skills. But the more I study, more I am feeling incompetent and lost.
I am literally wasting my time. It's already been over a month since I have not worked. I have just edited my manuscripts, watched some MOOCs. I watch movies or just sleep most of the day. I feel uncertain and uncomfortable about my future. Any advice for me?<issue_comment>username_1: Sounds like burn out. Take a vacation. Do something fun and not work.
These sorts of feelings are pretty common for someone completing an advanced degree. But in most cases the feeling doesn't last unless you continue to add stress.
In many cases it is worth seeing a counselor.
But your current activities are probably too related to work to allow for stress reduction.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Just to add a few things to username_1's answer:
What you are describing are some of the symptoms of clinical depression. There's no reason to panic, it's really common to go through a bit of depression at the end of the PhD (did it myself and know more than a few people who did). I would even claim that it's a quite natural reaction to the end of a long period of stress... and very often to the beginning of a new period of uncertainty.
That being said, it's really worth seeking professional help, if only to be reassured that it is indeed a temporary thing due to the professional context and not anything serious.
It's also normal to feel lost and confused regarding your career at this particular stage. Going through a PhD is a quite special experience which often affects us even as a person: we are not exactly the person we used to be at the beginning, and not only because a few years have passed! It can be confusing and it often takes some time to fully realize and digest these changes, including realizing the range of skills one acquires during this time. Very often people think that what they have learned is some very specialized knowledge about their field, but there is actually much more to it.
With some time and perspective you will feel better about yourself and discover which direction you want to take in your career. For now if you can afford to take a real break far from anything related to the PhD, preferably with some relatives or friends who have no relation whatsoever to this world, that would be the best way to start the healing process.
In my case I was applying for postdoc positions and got rejected every time. After about 6 months, when I had almost lost hope, I got a positive answer out of the blue. The following year of postdoc in a new town, new institution with new people and on a new topic turned out to be beneficial on every level. It helped restore my confidence and made me understand where I stand professionally and where I want to go.
I wish you the best.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I was at that point a couple of times. If I were you I would try to find out where it all comes from, are there some frustrations you have with your job or your field? Is there something in your particular workplace that brings you down? That might help you make sense of it all.
One thing that is nice about being in science it is that you have a lot more freedoms than in other fields. You said that you have not worked productively at any project for a month. I consider that to be more or less fine! Smart people often have a wide range of interests and confining oneself to one 'project' may temporarily kill your curiosity. That is often the case during a phd, you are forced to work on a super specialized subject for extended periods of time. If there is no other source of inspiration you sooner or later feel that.
I suggest you just accept the fact that right now you can't give a 100% for these topics, and find what you are passionate about in the meantime. That is fine. We have all been there.
have you done any traveling? Is there a place you'd want to see one time? There sure is a book you have always wanted to read and never found the time to. Have you, like me, been slacking on sporting activities? Volunteering in some kind of way may give you a break and perspective without long-term consequences (career-wise).
(If nothing of this seems to help, consider talking to a professional!)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: What you describe is understandable, and I'm afraid many people have some similar problems, depending on the place they work (academia or industry) or point in the career (beginning of PhD, end of PhD).
First of all, I'll share a phrase: You can't change yesterday, but you can ruin today by worrying about tomorrow. This comes to your statement:
>
> I feel uncertain and uncomfortable about my future. Any advice for me?
>
>
>
Your future is uncertain and that's fact. So try to accept it, and later think from the other way: you are not limited! The new, bright opportunity or idea might come, sooner or later.
>
> I am literally wasting my time. It's already been over a month since I have not worked. I have just edited my manuscripts, watched some MOOCs. I watch movies or just sleep most of the day.
>
>
>
What you actually do doesn't help you to get out of the situation. And what's even worse, I guess, you are fully aware of that. I had similar problems, with the difference, that I was actually **working** but there was **no effect**, and it's a different story. But what could help you are few things:
1. Cut off what holds you back. I was distrupted by facebook, you are by pointless movies. So drastic change might be a shock, so if you say "I don't watch movies", either you stop only for few days, or you'll find something even worse (I don't know, let's say, scrolling tiktok). So put yourself in the situation that you've no choice. Go somewhere there's no tv nor the internet connection. Change your phone for that time. And explore new opportunities on some holidays - museums, nature, baths, rollercoasters. Something that you might enjoy. What I did, I went for a one-week hike with my old phone and tent to Corsica. I slept near mountain shelters.
2. Find some new people, which are absolutely not related to what you do currently - it's hard nowadays, but just join new society, or club with the activity you wished. The thing is that now instead of doing that - you watch tv. Think about such change, it actually works for many.
3. Talk to someone you trust, and you like to talk to and listen to. If you don't have such person - you need a counsellor, as someone already mentioned. There are also many work-job related advisors, who went through similar problems (burnout, lost sense of work) and successfully overcomed them. A friend of mine found a good counsellor - it costs her quite a lot of money she earns, and it takes time, but her academic trauma was extreme. She is much more "normal" person after these meetings.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/24
| 444
| 1,851
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is probably me overthinking a lot but I really don't want to screw this up. There was a flyer sent to me by my adviser for a research assistant opening for one of the psych professors on campus. The flyer says basic info such as what the research is about, requirements, and benefits. On the bottom of the flyer it says please contact if interested. I am not sure what to email the professor besides "hello I am interested in your study and I would like to join as one of your research assistants" something like that. What else should I add?? or should it simply be something basic like that. Also she is looking for students that have a 3.0 gpa or higher. I have a 2.7 gpa but I am really working hard to get a high gpa taking many classes. I want to let her know this and let her know not to look at my gpa but my hard work and determination. I have a bad gpa from my mistakes I made in my first year at community college. Well any advice helps I just overthink a lot and I really want to become an assistant and start helping my career little by little.<issue_comment>username_1: You should use the email to ask for an appointment to visit her in person. Or, if she has regular office hours, to just say that you will stop by at the next opportunity. You can't guess what she wants to hear, other than your interest and a few words about your background if it matches what she has already said about the position.
But, you will need to meet with her eventually in any case. Better to do it soon. She won't hire you based on just an email.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You’re applying for a job. Treat it like any other job application: write a cover letter, and attach your CV. If you aren’t sure how to do those things, consider doing a google search or asking your university’s career office.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/24
| 548
| 2,361
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently writing a literature review for my bachelor thesis and I am not sure if what I am currently doing is acceptable.
My approach right now is to look at about 10 different literature reviews(from different papers) regarding the same topic and take one or two sentences or sometimes a paragraph from each of the literature reviews and put it in my thesis. Afterward, I synthesize the sentences I've collected from other authors' literature reviews and form a new paragraph. Lastly, I paraphrase the new paragraph and cites the original contributors behind the sentences.
Is this considered plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: Though it is a subtle difference, it seems that you might be rewriting sentences in your own words rather than paraphrasing authors’ ideas. It is difficult to assess your work without specific examples, but it sounds like it is bordering on plagiarism. Others may or not consider this plagiarism, but either way it is bad practice.
Since it is certainly easier to accidentally plagiarize using your method, I recommend taking notes on the pieces you are reading (rather than taking direct quotes/sentences) and paraphrasing your own work. Not only will this lead to a greater understanding and coherence of writing, it will also negate (most) plagiarism concerns.
And as always, cite, cite, cite.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You should take the list of references from those literature reviews you found, read those papers / articles / sources then write your own review that is up to date and is "tuned" to your work.
This means you won't have to paraphrase or plagiarize anybody else.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: No. By all means look at other authors' literature reviews to check which literature YOU YOURSELF need to review, but you absolutely have to review it yourself.
Other authors will not necessarily be focussing on the exact issues that you are focussing on, so what they say may bear no relation to your own specific interest.
A literature review is not just something that boring old professors insist, for some strange reason, on demanding of students. It is how you find out about the subject that you wish to research. You don't want to copy anybody else's work, but you do need to know what might be a good starting point for your own work.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/07/24
| 478
| 2,177
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just wonder according to Nature journal, we are allow to have 6 displays including figures and tables. However, my paper has 8 displays (1 table + 7 figures). Is that fine to have 8 displays for an initial submission?<issue_comment>username_1: My experience with other journals published by Nature Research is that they will have an editorial assistant check for rule adherence before forwarding it on to the editor. I find it hard to believe that Nature wouldn't be at least as strict on this front, so most likely you'd be told to reformat your initial submission.
Contact the journal before submission if you want to try to get an exception. However, your research probably has to be something quite special for Nature of all journals to make such exceptions. Other options are to include multiple figures into a single display panel, or to make use of what Nature calls "extended data figures". [These](https://www.nature.com/documents/nature-paper-composition.pdf) are not shown in the print paper, but can be referenced in the text, and are included at the end of the online/PDF versions.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The number of display items in a paper is so easy to modulate that there is really no good reason *not* to comply with a journal's requirements, even on initial submission.
If you have too many display items for their preference, you can easily reduce the number without reducing the actual content by these two techniques:
1. Turn figures into sub-figures in a multi-part figure. Most papers in figure-limited journals (including Nature and Science) have multiple sub-figures inside of them---sometimes *many* panels taking up a whole page with small images and graphs!
2. Move some figures to supplementary information. Journals that require "short-form" papers (including Nature and Science) typically have large amounts of supplementary information, including figures, associated with each article.
If you don't comply with the formatting instructions, you risk rejection without review. Maybe it's only a slight risk, but since these techniques make compliance easy, why bother to take that risk?
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/24
| 642
| 2,915
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a paper which has accepted in a journal published by Springer.
Today I have received the proofs from the production team. After checking the proofs carefully, we have detected some typos and minor errors in equations and data. To correct them we must change something in some equations and values of the parameters and these corrections do not effect to the results of the papers. On other words, the paper is still exact with the corrections.
My question is that what should I do to make the corrections?<issue_comment>username_1: I suppose that your proofs came with detailed instructions on how to perform the check. Did you read those instructions carefully? Usually also the scope of admissible corrections is discussed in those instructions.
Typically the following will apply:
* Fixing typos - certainly OK
* "changing something in some equations" - this is hard tell from your description. What is being changed?
* Changing values of some parameters - this not OK, since it affects the substance of the paper. If you want to change parameters you should certainly contact the editor before you do that.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Here is my method of correcting proofs. I write my corrections in a text document. You can also use the review mode of a PDF viewer.
1. The copyeditor provides a numbered list of questions. I respond with a numbered list of answers, with one answer for each question.
2. If there are repeated errors, I list those first.
3. I give a numbered list of corrections. These go from the start of the paper systematically to the end. Each correction begins with the location, including page and line or figure number. Each correction quotes the error and correction explicitly.
4. If figures need to be replaced (which does not happen in practice) then I prepare those as separate files.
5. I verify author names, affiliations, and grant numbers in acknowledgments.
6. I ask the copyeditor to send me a second proof, if the corrections are significant.
7. Everything is submitted according to the instructions, which are different for each copyediting company. Usually there is a web form.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You follow the instructions given to you by the journal.
If you haven't been given instructions you email your scientific editor and/or the production editor to ask for instructions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Are the errors ones that have been introduced in typesetting, or are they ones that were present in your original work?
If the former, just correct them using the journal's facility for doing so - this is the whole point of sending you proofs.
If the latter, then if they are clearly just typos then correct them, but if there is a chance that they change the meaning from what was reviewed - or if data is changed - then you should probably check with the editor first.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/24
| 2,570
| 10,821
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have always been wondering why some mathematics professors choose to publish problems in journals such as Crux Mathematicorum, Mathematical Reflections etc, which only focus on elementary mathematics.
I don't think that these journals are highly regarded by the academic community and I don't see how publishing problems here helps them in their career(of course, they may only be doing it as a hobby, but it seems highly unlikely for those who publish lots of such problems). Such journals seem more suited for high school teachers, even though I don't see how they may benefit from publishing there either.<issue_comment>username_1: There appears to be a mismatch between your view of "Math" and what math means to a broader community. Sure, there are those doing leading edge research, publishing bold new results, and so forth. But, there are also those who have a calling to do things like teach mathematics, including dedicated high school teachers. Why should there not be a journal for them to read? And if there is such a journal, somebody has to write for it, and those people are normally professionals closely engaged with teaching (remember that many professors, including in math, are at teaching-focused institutions).
In a non-math context, I would point to the American Association of Physics Teachers (aapt.org), associated with the American Physical Society. Their mission statement reads ([AAPT Mission](https://www.aapt.org/aboutaapt/mission.cfm)):
>
> Mission:
>
>
> AAPT's mission is to enhance the understanding and appreciation of physics through teaching.
>
>
> When the organization was established in 1930, our goal was clear: "ensuring the dissemination of the knowledge of physics, particularly by way of teaching." Decades later, we remain committed to that core value, but with a new emphasis and meaning provided by our current mission statement.
>
>
> Our vision is to be the leader in physics education. We are committed to providing the most current resources and up-to-date research needed to enhance a physics educator's professional development. The results are not only a deeper appreciation of the teaching profession, but most importantly, more enthusiastic involvement from their students.
>
>
> The Association has identified four critical issues that will guide our future activities:
>
>
> Increase AAPT's outreach to and impact on physics teachers
>
>
> Increase the diversity and numbers of physics teachers and students
>
>
> Improve the pedagogical skills and physics knowledge of teachers at all levels
>
>
> Increase our understanding of physics learning and of ways to improve teaching effectiveness
>
>
> The twenty-first century will provide the greatest opportunities and challenges for us as we take an active role in shaping the future. Our success will depend on the commitment, dedication, and continued input of our members and the physics education community. Join us in this journey to enhance the quality and effectiveness of physics education at all levels.
>
>
>
They publish several journals, the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher, focused on slightly different audiences within their society. Frankly, some of their stuff is pretty interesting (in the spring there was a nice paper on the production of polonium in the Manhattan Project, physics included).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I hope it isn't a radical position to say that math can be "interesting" and "enlightening" at any level. If it weren't then no one would ever study it long enough to reach the edge that the OP seems to prefer. It would just be too boring and uninteresting to pursue.
Unfortunately too many young students find it boring, I suppose, which makes the importance of such endeavors into *elementary* math more important, and actually gives them added interest.
How can we bring math insight to youngsters who are *only* studying arithmetic? Algebra?
Math insight is hard gained. But to truly be a mathematician requires it. That insight isn't in the individual statements (theorems, if you like) of math, but in the spaces between the more easily stated things. What *is* algebra? Really, what *is* it? How do its parts fit together into a whole?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I have always been wondering why some mathematics professors choose to
> publish problems in journals such as Crux Mathematicorum, Mathematical
> Reflections etc, which only focus on elementary mathematics.
>
>
>
I think that in this case the obvious answer is the correct one: some mathematics professors choose to publish problems in the journals you list because they enjoy working on and constructing interesting problems that are difficult yet have elementary solutions.
>
> I don't think that these journals are highly regarded by the academic
> community
>
>
>
There are definitely shady, predatory journals out there (I seem to get unsolicited email from them every day) that are not at all respected by the mathematical community and have a reputation for accepting any paper that is submitted to them, regardless of whether or not the results in the paper are correct.
The journals you listed, on the other hand, do not seem to be traditional math journals that specialize in publishing research articles. Instead the journals are devoted primarily (if not entirely) to publishing various flavors of mathematical problems. This being the case, I wouldn't say that the journals aren't *highly regarded* by the mainstream mathematical community, per se, just that they're likely off the radar of most practicing mathematicians. I hadn't previously heard of either of the journals, for instance. If I was looking at someone's CV and noticed that they published a problem (or perhaps many problems) in one of these journals it certainly wouldn't make me think less of the person as a mathematician. On the other hand, if I noticed that the majority of someone's publications were in predatory journals of the type I mentioned above, that would definitely be a cause for concern.
>
> and I don't see how publishing problems here helps them in
> their career...
>
>
>
I agree with you that in most cases publishing problems in these journals (or other similar venues) is unlikely to help someone's career in any significant way. Nor is it likely to hurt someone's career. People publish problems and their solutions because they find it intellectually rewarding.
The most well-known problems section that I can think of is the one that appears in [*The American Mathematical Monthly*](https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/american-mathematical-monthly). I've never submitted a problem to this journal, but believe it to be very competitive. Still, there probably isn't any number of problems (or solutions) one could publish here that would be viewed (by a hiring committee) as being an adequate substitute for one or more papers published in well respected research journals. But if you think this means that only high school teachers, students and amateur mathematicians submit problems to the Monthly then you'd be wrong. Regular contributors include several very well-known and respected mathematicians: [<NAME>](http://www.personal.psu.edu/gea1/), [<NAME>](https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/), [<NAME>](http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~lagarias/), and [<NAME>](http://www-math.mit.edu/~rstan/).
>
> Such journals seem more suited for high school teachers, even though I don't see how they may benefit from publishing there either.
>
>
>
The idea that elementary mathematics is something that is inherently not respected by the mathematical community seems to be implicit in your question. I think that this attitude is incorrect. That a paper concerns an elementary topic doesn't make it trivial or not of interest to the mathematical community. (Nor does the fact that a paper concerns a highly technical topic automatically make the paper "deep" or of broad interest.) As an example, consider the number theory journal [INTEGERS](https://www.emis.de/journals/INTEGERS/). Many of the papers published by INTEGERS concern elementary number theory and closely related fields. Yet the [editorial board](https://www.emis.de/journals/INTEGERS/edboard.html) of INTEGERS is extraordinarily strong and contains many extremely highly respected number theorists. And while I can't say that I've found every article I've read in INTEGERS to have been super interesting, many of the ones I've read there have been.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Both of these journals target mathematical educators, math outreach people (e.g., K-12, college, Math Olympiad), and people who have a general interest in mathematics.
Look at both journal's homepages, they describe their journal's purposes:
>
> Crux Mathematicorum is an internationally respected source of unique and challenging mathematical problems published by the CMS. Designed primarily for the secondary and undergraduate levels, and also containing some pre-secondary material, it has been referred to as "the best problem solving journal in the world". All the problems and solutions are fully peer-reviewed for clarity, completeness and rigour by academic and professional mathematicians. Crux includes an "Olympiad Corner" which is particularly helpful for students preparing for math competitions
>
>
>
and
>
> Mathematical Reflections intends to fill the editor’s perceived need for a publication aimed primarily at high school students, undergraduates, and everyone interested in mathematics. Through articles and problems, we seek to expose readers to a variety of interesting topics that are fully accessible to the target audience.
>
>
>
Similar journals exist in other fields. For example, biology has [*Journal of Biological Education*](https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjbe20/current) and statistics has the [*Journal of Statistical Education*](http://jse.amstat.org/). The American Chemistry Society also has a [webpage](https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/resources/highschool.html) of resources with several similar journals.
Academics publish in these journals to formally share ideas and methods they have for education and accessible examples. Reasons might include:
* A genuine interest in advancing the field and sharing what they know.
* A interest in promoting awareness of their field to recruit more people in it (e.g., teaching people to love math may increase the number of math majors in college).
* A professor who's research focuses on educational methods at a research university.
* A professor at a teaching institution who is looking for publications and sees a way to publish their methods.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/07/24
| 1,721
| 6,896
|
<issue_start>username_0: In human subjects research, it's fairly well settled that [researchers may not go ahead without the guidance and approval of an IRB, even if their research otherwise lacks ethical infirmities](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/118550/58912).
What happens in the opposite situation? That is, suppose a researcher *gets IRB approval* for their project, but later on, ethical issues are found in the research that the IRB missed?
Since researchers are not allowed to trust their own understanding and must seek IRB approval even in the most obvious "there's no way that could be unethical" scenarios, it stands to reason that the opposite is true - that if research has been IRB approved, then researchers may go ahead with a clear conscience even if there could still potentially be ethical issues in the research.
I recognize that there could possibly be civil or criminal liability outside of academia, but I'm not asking about this.
If research turns out to be unethical, *but it received IRB approval*, who is held responsible? Is it solely the responsibility of the IRB for misguiding researchers, or does the *researcher* bear some responsibility for not recognizing the ethical infirmity?
Another way of asking this is whether researchers have a duty to *police their own IRB*, potentially second-guessing their approvals.
To be clear, I'm asking about situations where the average non-expert might be unclear as to whether or not something is ethical. Obviously, if an IRB tells someone, "Yes, it's ok to torture political prisoners as long as you kickback 5% of your grant to us", that's blatantly unethical and no one should accept that, but an IRB saying, "Yes, we reviewed your consent form and we don't think you need to disclose the extremely remote risk of the subject being hyperspace tunneled" might be one where the average person (or even researcher) would just get glazed eyes and defer to the IRB.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Since researchers are not allowed to trust their own understanding and must seek IRB approval even in the most obvious "there's no way that could be unethical" scenarios, it stands to reason that the opposite is true - that if research has been IRB approved, then researchers may go ahead with a clear conscience even if they personally feel that the research still has ethical issues.
>
>
>
I don't see it that way. The IRB doesn't *replace* the author's judgment, it *supplements* it, and the ultimate decision should be based on the "logical AND" of the author's and IRB's approval.
Since conducting unethical research seems clearly worse than not conducting ethical research (a Type II error is worse here than a Type I error), it makes sense to have an asymmetry between approval and rejection.
So in my view, even if the IRB has approved the research, the author should not go ahead if they do not believe it is ethical.
>
> If research turns out to be unethical, but it received IRB approval, who is held responsible? Is it solely the responsibility of the IRB for misguiding researchers, or does the researcher bear some responsibility for not recognizing the ethical infirmity?
>
>
>
Practically speaking, the researcher would have some cover because of the IRB approval, but I would still hold the researcher primarily responsible. After all, it is their name on the paper.
>
> Another way of asking this is whether researchers have a duty to police their own IRB, potentially second-guessing their approvals.
>
>
>
Well, the researcher ought to make sure they think the work is ethically OK before submitting to the IRB in the first place. But if they start having doubts later, or they are ethically uncomfortable with changes recommended by the IRB, they should not proceed until those issues are resolved. So in short: **yes**.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: While the exact advice will depend on your institution's IRB, researchers have a duty to follow up with IRB if something goes wrong in research.
For example, here is the FAQ at the [University of Tennessee at Knoxville](https://irb.utk.edu/faq/):
>
> **What if I have an “adverse event” occur during my data collection?**
>
>
> Adverse events ***must be reported immediately*** to your advisor and the Compliance office.
>
>
>
IRB training and policy covers what an *adverse event* is. Here is the [University of Michigan](https://az.research.umich.edu/medschool/glossary/adverse-event-ae) glossary definition:
>
> **Adverse Event (AE)**
>
>
> Any experience or abnormal finding that has taken place during the course of a research project and was harmful to the subject participating in the research, or increased the risks of harm from the research, or had an unfavorable impact on the risk/benefit ratio. The FDA also includes in its definition abnormal preclinical or laboratory findings which may not yet have resulted in direct harm to subjects (e.g., a bacteria is identified in a culture from the same batch of cells used to produce a vaccine which has been administered, even if no cases of infection have been reported). The event may or may not be caused by an intervention (e.g., headache following spinal tap, death from the underlying disease, car collision). Adverse Events also include psychological, social, emotional, and financial harms. See also Serious Adverse Event and Adverse Drug Reaction.
>
>
>
Michigan's Office of Research has an [entire timetable](https://az.research.umich.edu/medschool/guidance/adverse-event-reporting) to determine how soon one should report an Adverse Event, as well as policies for reporting an ORIO ([Other Reportable Information or Occurrence](https://az.research.umich.edu/medschool/guidance/other-reportable-information-or-occurrence-orio)).
Generally, your IRB training should cover when and how you report issues, and if you have any questions, you should ask your institution's IRB. In other words, researchers definitely have a duty to recognize when harm or risk of harm is incurred by their research, even if their project is already approved.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There are really two kinds of answers to "what happens?"
1. IRBs are regulated by the OHRP which is a federal agency. If an IRB is actually approving things that should not be approved there are a variety of possible sanctions, which can range from mandated retraining to all research at an institution being shut down until the situation is remedied. Yes, this has happened when the situation is bad enough.
2. IRB approval is not supposed to be a one time thing, there is supposed to be ongoing monitoring, dealing with adverse events and often continuing review on a regular schedule. If the IRB discovers a problem (or is informed of one) they will shut down the research or take other actions and will report to OHRP if appropriate.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/24
| 2,342
| 9,704
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been studying linguistics for over a decade now. I've never taken a class, because there are no local colleges that offer a degree in linguistics. I didn't really care though, because I was able to find all I wanted online anyway. I could even talk to other people interested in linguistics.
However, the internet as of late has become increasingly useless. Boards are overrun with trolls which prevents any kind of sensible discussion, the web is filled with fake news and false information, and the number of sites seems to be decreasing. I keep coming up with things I want to research, but have no way to find the answer. If I ask anywhere, my thread just gets overrun with trolls that completely derail the discussion (and that includes this site, I regularly delete my profiles shortly after making them because I simply lose faith that I can ever get anything on having an account on this site).
I've tried to look up actual books, but linguistic books are quite expensive it turns out. And despite having over a dozen libraries in my home town, there's hardly any books in them that talk about linguistics.
I also had a problem doing any kind of research in a research class I just took. I only had a handful of websites I could really find reliable information on (one of them being pew research, which ended up being the one I went to 90% of the time). Its just impossible it seems to find anything that isn't overloaded with fake information, especially when it comes to anything even remotely political.
What I hate about this, is that I liked that I could be a linguist without spending thousands of dollars on a degree. Now it seems, that doing that simply isn't possible. And worse yet, I have no other way to learn about linguistics. I can't afford the books (and I'm not even 100% sure what I should be looking for, the only linguistic book I've ever really heard about was 'The World's Writing Systems by <NAME> and <NAME>'), and there's no college anywhere near me that teaches it. If I can't find information on linguistics online, I just can't go anywhere else. And yes, I've looked on Project Gutenberg, but it only has two books, one of which was published in the 1880s, and the other in the 30s, by a guy that I know isn't 100% reliable (<NAME>, if you care).
It feels like I can't be an intellectual anymore. Without the internet, I would just be yet another back-woods hick that didn't know anything about anything. Its solely thanks to the internet that I know anything at all. Without out, I'm lost. I don't know where else I can turn to continue my studies. It seems that I'm destined to become what I would've been without the internet, just another uneducated local living in a pathetic back-water where there really isn't anything of significance. I don't know what I can do to avoid this...
edit: Just because I seem to having people telling me about European Universities: I don't live in Europe, I live in the US.<issue_comment>username_1: You aren't taking proper advantage of your local libraries. Most have access to interlibrary loan through which you can obtain just about any book that exists. Talk to your librarian about your needs.
Academic libraries are best for this, of course, as the librarians are trained in the needs of academics. But even my local town library can get just about anything I require. At the town library you may need to know the actual titles you want to read. At an academic library, a research librarian can actually guide you fairly deeply into topics of interest. Perhaps not to the research edge of the known universe, but part way there, at least.
But if you have internet access, then I've found that wikipedia is a pretty good source for academic subjects, though not for popular culture, perhaps. In particular, most academic articles will have a references/bibliography section at the bottom that can point you to books and articles that might be worth exploring.
Be a bit cautious, though, even with wikipedia. I've occasionally found weird statements about mathematics there. But if it *seems* weird, it may actually be trolls at work. Normally, however, such things get cleaned up quickly (hours).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In an arts and humanities field, the short answer is **yes**, although you would be missing out on web resources not published in hard copy, and, given how long academic publishing takes, you may be a couple of years behind the times (because new research tends to be disseminated through conference talks and on the www first, pending the lengthy writing-up, peer-review and publication delays).
The big publishers and the big libraries have entered an unholy alliance to make it difficult and expensive to access material in hard copy, despite the fact that most people find it easier to do focussed study from a book rather than an e-book. Major libraries are moving towards acquiring many titles in electronic format only, and some have gone as far as [to destroy physical stock on spurious grounds](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/baker-fold.html) such as the "double-fold" test [(WorldCat record for a book about this)](https://www.worldcat.org/title/double-fold-libraries-and-the-assault-on-paper/oclc/71857371) (which overlooks the fact that you should not be folding the pages of a library book in any case). Publishers such as Routledge are making physical books extraordinarily expensive, whilst the equivalent e-book remains at a halfway sensible price. Pearson is going further, and [trying to discourage ownership of physical books and e-books by promoting a rental model, which totally undermines the notion of learning being a lifetime pursuit](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/pearson-turns-page-textbooks-favour-digital-first-us-model) (I often re-read books I bought over a decade ago), not a short-term cramming exercise.
Ultimately, this gives publishers and big tech unprecedented power [to censor and make things disappear down the "memory-hole"](https://theconversation.com/do-we-really-own-our-digital-possessions-115003), especially where people and institutions rely on cloud storage platforms.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Graduate student here.
First of all, the internet became widely available to the public in the mid-90s. Intellectualism was not born at that time. There were polymaths and geniuses and people who made prolific contributions to human knowledge for thousands of years before electricity was harnessed. Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth and its distance from the sun using a stick and a well. In 300 BC Euclid invented geometry and wrote a series of books on it that became the basis of mathematics for something like 22 centuries. Newton basically invented modern physics out of nothing, and then invented calculus as a means to increase its explanatory power.
You can be smart without the internet. But you have the internet, so I don't know why you are asking that question.
Conversely, people who do not have access to the internet are not "backwater hicks." There are a billion people in the world without internet access and literal geniuses emerge from them all the time.
I recommend you not obsess over the qualifications of being an "intellectual" because it's an abstract concept with no actual criteria for judging. I know doctoral students who can't write a coherent thesis statement and I know people who didn't go to college but are senior software engineers. Concerning yourself over whether people regard you as intelligent is a path to the dark side, which in this case is pseudo-intellectualism.
**As far as securing reading resources, I recommend you do the following things:**
-Determine who the major players are in the field of Linguistics. A simple email to any Linguistics professor at any university will yield this information.
-Go on Amazon and purchase the older editions of the works of those linguists (they are usually dirt cheap and have almost the same information in them as the new, expensive editions). Do this only after searching your local libraries and their ILL systems.
-Read the bibliographies of each of these books and write down the names that keep popping up over and over. Buy or rent the books of those authors.
-Read the footnotes of the books in your possession and repeat the above step.
And no, unfortunately you cannot become a professional linguist without professional credentials. That is to say, you will not land a professorship or become a speech therapist at any respectable institution. But you can get scholarships and do college for free or cheap. I was able to do an 80% ride to a UC school based on academic merit and financial situation. That left me with about $13,000 in federal loans, which were easy to pay off after entering the job market. The PhD program is fully funded, meaning you don't have to take out any loans to pay for it, as long as you agree to be a Teaching Assistant. This applies if you live in the US and are applying to an accredited PhD program. There are also PhD programs in European countries that will literally pay you to attend; most recently I read about one in Sweden or Norway.
As a side note I would also recommend you not ponder upon your own intelligence or refer to people as "backwater hicks" in a post where you're asking for help learning a subject. This is very likely why trolls tank your threads.
**Edit:** I should clarify that I entered the job market after graduate school, not before, and I strongly recommend taking time off between undergrad and grad school.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/24
| 2,774
| 11,810
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in my first PhD year and have some teaching duties -- assisting my supervisor with his lectures and also advising students. At the beginning of the semester, a student started working on his Bachelor's thesis and initially everything was fine.
However, for several weeks now I have not received any response from him. I wrote him mails on a weekly basis asking for a status update and inquiring whether he was stuck. Now the deadline is getting closer and while he could make some progress during the first weeks, I am afraid it is too little to pass. On the other hand, I saw a quite familiar post on SE recently and I believe it is actually him, as the topic is quite specific. Therefore I assume he actually is still working on his thesis.
I already have escalated the issue to my supervisor and he told me to let it student fail if required. I am not too satisfied with this way of dealing with the situation. Are there other options for me?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I wrote him mails on a weekly basis asking for a status update and inquiring whether he was stuck.
>
>
>
It seems that you are completing your duties as an advisor well. You can and should continue to offer help and suggestions in accordance with your duties. Perhaps this student is too busy or too anxious to respond to your emails. In that case, you could provide links to resources that might benefit them without the necessity of responding (if you feel that they need more advising).
While I personally try to respond to emails in a timely fashion, I often work better independently and only reach out when I am in need of assistance; this student might function the same way.
>
> I already have escalated the issue to my supervisor
>
>
>
Great, this means that your supervisor is aware of the issue and is likely to be understanding in the event that your student does not do well.
>
> he told me to let it student fail if required
>
>
>
This is also fine. If the student does not adequately complete their work, this is the expected outcome. If you are concerned that the student is unaware of this, you could send an email letting them know (or possibly reminding them of policies in the syllabus regarding this).
>
> Are there other options for me?
>
>
>
You cannot force the student to respond or work on their project. You should continue to advise this student to the best of your ability, but beyond that it is their responsibility to follow through.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: An alternate approach, not of the "sink or swim" school, is to see what office in your university provides student services. In the US, a college or university will normally have a *Dean of Students*, part of whose job is to look after student interests and well-being.
There may or may not be anything they can do, but if you have any suspicion that the student is suffering from depression, you can contact them. They may be limited in their ability to approach a student, but it might be worth talking to that office.
There is, by the way, the concept of *self-defeating behavior* and even *self-defeating personality behavior* that might require professional assistance.
You and your department head or supervisor are not the right people to deal with such situations, of course.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Put this in perspective: if you stick with an academic career, you will interact with many students who fail one of your courses. Likely hundreds, possibly thousands. You need to set some boundaries for how much time (and emotional energy) you spend on each, so it doesn't interfere with your ability to get other work done.
I think many faculty would say that you've done your job at the point when you wrote that first email that went unanswered; at that point it's in the student's court to respond. You won't have time to chase after every student who ghosts you in the future.
There are some tools built into online course management software (e.g., Blackboard's "Retention Center") to attempt assisting with this. However, in my experience the lowest-performing students don't respond to more requests for discussions or to get extra help.
(You may run into some administrators who either don't teach, or teach a single course per year, who will argue it is legitimate to chase after all failing students without limit. Easy to say, but not feasible to do in practice.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: **Your supervisor is correct. Let the student fail.**
I'm shocked the existing answers are so lenient. You have given the student an amazing opportunity to work with your group, and from the tone of your question, I assume you have been providing adequate guidance and support. In response, the student has "ghosted" you. This is unacceptable.
If you have not already done so, I would send a much more blunt message to the student. "Regular check-ins with me are required for all undergraduates in the lab. Please schedule an appointment for within the next week. If I do not hear from you, I will assume you are not interested in continuing with your thesis."
After that, the ball is in the student's court:
* If they do make an appointment, I would have a discussion about what happened. Based on the student's tone in this discussion, I would decide whether to proceed (in consultation with the advisor, in your case).
* Otherwise, no further action is needed from you. Either they'll show up with a completed thesis -- which your advisor will have to deal with -- or they'll never be heard from again.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: **Disclaimer:** I am not a psychologist nor am I trained in psychology.
**Preface:** I write this not necessarily for the benefit of the student described in the question, but for a general audience of academics and students, who may encounter such social situations in the course of their studies or careers, in the hopes that it may lead to an improved understanding and ability to prevent such problems from escalating.
---
Many students, at some point in their academic careers, engage in avoidant behavior in response to academic stress. This of course is not productive in the long term, but in the short term, it provides some measure of relief from what they feel is an overwhelming burden they perceive they cannot overcome no matter the amount of effort spent. This eventually can lead to fatalistic attitudes toward academics and the self-fulfillment of failure.
This type of response, [avoidance coping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidance_coping), is also associated with depression, low self-esteem, and [impostor syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome), both as causes and as effect; however, addressing such a relationship is not in the scope of this discussion. More importantly for the advisor to understand is that avoidance coping frequently occurs on a spectrum of degrees and not only at the extreme: students may continue to make some effort, such as seeking help from peers, but a sense of embarrassment or shame over struggling or feeling as if they have let their advisors and mentors down, may be precisely the reason why they do not seek help from those who are objectively the most qualified and able to provide it. Advisors are often perplexed by what they observe as sudden loss of communication ("ghosting" in the parlance of the day), and may attempt to compensate by what they believe is the most logical response, which is to confront the student and try to reopen a dialogue. However, once this pattern of avoidance emerges, such efforts can actually be counterproductive, because it not only serves as a reminder of the stressors the student is trying to avoid, but it now compounds the stress because the student is interpreting the advisor's inquiry as a demand for contact, rather than an offer for help. As a result, the student merely digs in further, feeling as if they have doubly failed--academically and interpersonally.
With this context in mind, sometimes it is not possible for advisors or mentors to "rescue" the student, especially if this avoidance behavior builds up prior to an important milestone, such as a thesis defense. In my experience, what seems to work best is showing that the student's perceptions of futility and incompetence are distorted, and that success remains within reach--if accommodations can be made to make it so. Relieving the perceived burden, breaking it down into smaller, more manageable tasks, and reinforcing positive, approaching behaviors through rewards and encouragement, is necessary in order to build a student's self-confidence.
So, what does an advisor or mentor do? First, I believe it is crucial to identify early signs of avoidance coping before it becomes entrenched, and to keep students motivated by reminding them that they are making progress. If the coursework or research is too copious or difficult, help them break it down into smaller problems. Explain to them that this is an essential life skill to learn, more so than the actual work itself.
If, however, a student has already "ghosted" you, then you need to step back a bit in your role as advisor. Rather than trying to remind them of their academic duties, you might ask them to come see you during office hours, and have a face-to-face interaction in which you would ask about how they feel about their academic situation. If they acknowledge being overwhelmed, suggest they look into student counseling. If you are able, offer to postpone upcoming due dates or modify the structure of their curriculum or research, or terms of their academic progress, but only conditional upon their agreement to recommit themselves. They need to be able to speak to someone with the power to make such adjustments. If the institution is not willing or able to do so, then the intervention was already too late.
Again, not all students behave this way, and not all students who do behave this way are doing so for the reasons I described. And not all students can be "rescued," nor is it anyone's obligation to do so. But for some, it is absolutely worthwhile, because they can and do respond remarkably well once they are given the right framework to learn how to apply positive coping mechanisms. Some students never learned how to cope with overwhelming pressure, and if they are not taught, they merely grow up into adults who still do not know how, and in my mind, that is far worse an outcome than not completing a degree.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: At my university, the supervisor should contact student affairs. Student affairs will perform a welfare check to make sure the student is okay.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Your question seems to include the most important points for an answer:
* You offer support, when needed
* He seems to be still working on the thesis
* Your supervisor said let him fail, when he does not complete the thesis
So you should continue to be available and maybe mail from time to time (not too often!), so you fulfill your duties.
When the student has questions, he can ask. When he prefers to work quietly and submit his thesis without your help, he may do it. When he stopped working on it (maybe he even left university and you do not know it?), he will fail.
I do not see any problem for you here and you seem motivated to help, when needed.
Side note: He may have things in his personal life, that require his attention. It would be good, when he would tell his supervisor and the university office, so they may for example redact the thesis and username_7w him to write another one, when it is sorted out, but these things are nothing of your business, as long as he does not talk about it himself.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/25
| 1,966
| 8,131
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm specifically asking about full-time teaching staff (unlike part-time teaching staff such as professors, who as I understand it can just spend more time on research during semester breaks).
I understand US universities pay their professors only 9 months a year, which effectively means they're free to do whatever they want in the remaining 3 months. Does this apply to lecturers too? If so, since professors acquire funding so they can continue to draw a salary during these 3 months, do lecturers also have funding targets? In that case, are they even full-time teaching staff (since they also have to do research to actually acquire funding)?
What about non-US universities where staff are paid for the entire year?
From what I know about high school, there are some duties that teachers must do during the semester breaks (such as grade exam papers & discuss what to teach next year), but they are few. Once these duties are done then teachers have no duties - they don't have to show up to school - so they usually take the chance to go on holiday. However, at least in the high school I studied in, these periods are short - there's a maximum of 2 months of teaching downtime in the academic year (this neglects the afore-mentioned time taken to grade exam papers etc), which is well below the downtime at university. Surely lecturers don't just go on holiday for 3 months (they must run out of annual leave)? But if they don't go on holiday, what do they do?<issue_comment>username_1: My mother, who lectures at a Chinese university, is paid during vacations but has no responsibilities (i.e., does not need to report to work or teach). The same applies in many countries, where university faculty are part of the civil service.
In the U.S., I believe that the 9-month rule applies to lecturers too.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the United States, the "9 month salary" for a faculty member is typically paid out over 12 months. For those faculty who engage in research or other pursuits during the summer months, the "9 month" designation gives the rate at which their salary can be enhanced through external funding.
So, what do "full time teaching" faculty do over the summer? Colleagues of mine in such positions generally still look at this time as an opportunity to focus on their professional interests, whether that is doing research or some other field-appropriate equivalent such as writing books, directing theatrical performances, etc.
Teaching responsibilities may also extend through the summer (and may be additionally compensated or not, depending on circumstances). Examples include teaching summer courses, preparing new course material, and supporting student groups' activities (summer is a common time for technical competitions, for example).
And some, in some circumstances, really do just take the summer slowly. In my experience, though, that tends to be the exception rather than the rule, with so many other opportunities and responsibilities at hand.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Here at the college I work for, most full time instructors (we aren't a research place) are on "9 month contract" which means they teach 5 classes in the Fall and Spring terms, and are off Summer, but their pay is split across all 24 paychecks we receive in a year. Note that we have a few 12 month faculty, mostly in specialized areas that are working other jobs at the college - for example, the Stage Manager for our theater teaches in the drama department, but his teaching 2 classes is part of his regular 40 hour work week. Our nursing faculty (well, most of our health sciences - nursing, resp. therapy, radiology and nuke med, etc) are also 12 month contracted employees, since they teach courses and do clinical supervision all year long.
During summer, quite a few folk "check out" and we don't hear from them until the day before classes start. Some are even proud of the fact that they don't check email, etc. which makes administrative stuff kinda hard to do at times.
Many 9 month faculty also choose to teach extra classes over the summer, which they do at adjunct pay rate (about $2200 for a 3 credit class over 6, 9 or 12 weeks depending on sub-term the course is in). Teaching extra in summer can be a major pay boost for faculty, since in theory (and some do this) you can teach a full load (4 classes) in A term, and another 4 in B term. Most often I see this as people get near the "entire retirement" stage, since our state retirement system is based on the average of your highest 5 years of pay over your service time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Some examples from the UK,
* Research. Even staff who are theoretically on a teaching contract may need to do research for career development, or want to do research out of interest.
* Writing grant proposals.
* Other non-teaching commitments. Maybe they're the external examiner for a PhD. Maybe they sit on the University's Committee on Paperclip Allocation. Maybe they have a backlog of six things they promised to peer review in April, and now it's July.
* Marking, supervision, teaching, etc., on courses that don't stop for the long summer break. E.g. in the UK it's common for one-year masters courses to take a calendar year, from September to August. Also, even courses that have summer holidays may have resits in that time.
* Preparing courses for the next year. Especially if it's something you haven't taught before, it's difficult to do all the prep during termtime.
* Exploring new ideas, or learning new skills.
* Teaching (or attending!) summer schools or other training.
* Holidays. Even academics need to stop occasionally ;-)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm pretty busy providing teaching and pastoral support for student who are doing resits or late assessments due to mitigation (such as medical issues). In addition I'm supporting student overseas via skype and instant messenger and pre-arrival support for overseas students. The time-zone difference also makes this quite challenging. Some of that is helping student work remotely who lack the technical skills to do it.
Shortly the late submissions will be submitted (as noted above) and then I have to grade them and give feedback and then start preparing for new student induction and welcome events. There will be examination boards and invigilation duties also.
I'm also improving the current teaching material, online pages on the VLE and so on.
There are quality process reports to be prepared on completed courses so management get their reports and completing students can look at quality and course reviews.
I also have to deal with a significant number of individual student queries from students who do not fully understand their results, or see a problem in their results or are in some other way unhappy with the information they have received from the automated information systems and want a human face of the system.
Then on top of that every thing @flyto listed. Then all the new edicts and demands from university managers who thinks we have nothing better to do with our summer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Just to add to the above answers...
Consider that most college faculty receive zero sick leave, zero vacation, and holidays are built-in to the pay schedule.
During the semester/term faculty receive zero overtime, take nights, weekends, and holidays for preparing, grading, training, and more.
Many schools have mandatory things that take place between semesters - turning in grades, attending training, preparing materials, faculty meetings, and more, the 9 months is often 10 months.
In reality, many full-time career employees will get time off (10 holidays, 10 sick, 20 vacation) totaling about 8 weeks. And, most college faculty get about 8 weeks of time off, it just comes all at once.
K-12 school teachers do get some leave during the year, and less in the summer.
Considering that teachers are generally underpaid compared to what they could make working a "day-job", the summer break is a trade-off.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/07/25
| 514
| 2,325
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a recently graduated 31 years old PhD in a STEM field. I have been applying for postdoc positions for the past few months, and have received rejections from almost all of them, with few yet to respond. With the academic year coming to an end, I don't have any hope of getting a position and I will continue as a postdoc or Research assistant in my PhD group.
However, one common reason mentioned in all the responses to my applications was that I don't possess the required mathematical and programming skills to work on the research field. My PhD research involved using Fluent CFD software to model has flow in a nozzle. I did not develop any code for that. I used python programming to develop different nozzle geometries and used it to study the flow.
I did not take any Finite volume method or Finite element method course or fluid dynamics course in my undergraduate or graduate school as my supervisor told me to self learn the concepts. I have published 4 papers in decent journals.
However, all the postdoc positions I apply to require code development for CFD and having academic background with the numerical methods. And since I don't have any experience with code development, I don't know if I will be able to do the job considering my lack of formal training.
Is this dilemma expected after PhD? What should I do to improve my chances in getting a position?<issue_comment>username_1: If you have the knowledge, but not the "qualification" in those areas, make sure that your letters of recommendation say that. If you don't have the knowledge, it might be a bit easier to improve Python skills than math skills.
Alternatively, you might be able to get someone to tutor you in the math area and make sure your advisor and other recommenders know to mention it in the future.
A third option is to focus your statement of purpose and other application materials on your knowledge of these things, rather than just listing courses.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: To improve your chances of getting a postdoc position you should apply for positions for which you have the technical skills that are required. It sounds like you've applied only for positions for which that isn't the case. In such cases it's difficult (but not impossible) to get the position.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/07/25
| 840
| 3,748
|
<issue_start>username_0: Say you've thought hard about a specific issue in your research and have elaborated a possible answer, interpretation, etc., to tackle it. (I'm not thinking about huge research subjects, but rather small ideas that articulate a demonstration.) You then discover later on, while reading a new paper, that someone has thought about the exact same thing. How do you present your idea on the issue?
On the one hand, you can't pretend that you haven't read what the other paper says about it, both for reasons of intellectual honesty and because the other author (or someone who read his paper) might think that you stole his idea. Citing the other paper is thus somewhat of an obligation.
On the other hand, it doesn't feel right to dismiss your demonstration and *just* cite the other paper, since, after all, you figured out a solution on your own. Conversely, it seems somewhat pointless (and maybe arrogant), to write explicitly that you reached the given conclusion and *only then* found the other article.
What to do in such circumstances?<issue_comment>username_1: This happens quite a lot if you are working in a field with a lot of current research interest. Things that you know are also known by others. People working parallel tracks can often come to the same insights at about the same time.
If there is nothing novel in your work compared to the other, you just do what you would normally do and explore extensions and deeper results. You can't be denied the satisfaction of having discovered something, even if you don't get public acclaim for it.
Write the next paper.
But, if you think it worthwhile, you can also contact the other author, mentioning that you discovered the same thing independently and exploring whether it is worth working collaboratively. Often this can be a good way to expand your research "neighborhood."
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'd argue that this is pretty common in research. As a consequence, the right thing to do is just cite the paper.
If, however, your derivation/interpretation/explanation is slightly different, you should both cite the paper and present your own work.
It may feel unfair to you, that you don't get credit for coming up with the same solution, but don't worry. If you came up with the same (presumably) correct solution, it shows that you are a good way. You have the right thoughts about good topics. That's good for you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Start collaborating with that guy.
Simple!.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Do not despair: your work likely still has value!
In my experience, it's almost never the case that work addressing the same problem has exactly the same solution or exactly the same approach to gathering evidence. Existence of a previous publication will thus typically make your results smaller and more incremental, but not invalid or duplicative. Some examples of what your work may provide:
* A second, independent confirmation of a hypothesis
* Confirmation of a closely related but different hypothesis
* A different approach that has advantages in some situations and disadvantages in others
There are even good journals like PLOS ONE that explicitly invite replications and "non-notable" incremental work. Thus, if you've got a set of results in hand and you discover somebody else has done much the same, you should still write up your work---just be straight and honest about the smaller size of contribution based on the prior work.
If you're still at the "ideation" stage where you're just thinking up possible work to do, however, then it seems more appropriate to move on and work on something else instead---maybe building on their results.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
|