date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2020/05/07
| 682
| 2,805
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've had experiences where some reviewers comment something along the line with:
>
> Why didn't you cite [x]. They solved a similar (but not strictly
> applicable) variation of your problem.
>
>
>
Now most of the times, I have read [x]'s abstract and conclusion + skimmed it, but I chose not to include it in my citations as it wasn't particularly relevant to my problem.
My question is, if I *have* read [x]'s abstract, conclusion, and skimmed its content, can I write a sentence such as:
>
> A considerable amount of work [a,b,c,x] addressing this problem, as
> well as its variations, has emerged in the recent years.
>
>
>
Is this considered citation stuffing?<issue_comment>username_1: I would instead advise you to add your thought and decision process to your paper.
>
> This problem is also addressed in [x]. While they achieved Y, Z remains open.
>
>
>
Then you present in your paper how to solve (parts of) Z.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you're asking the wrong question here. Instead of asking whether this is "citation stuffing", I would suggest you simply ask yourself whether this makes the paper better or worse (or no different) for your reader. That is always the ultimate question that should inform all other choices.
Given that you are only proposing to add a single sentence to the paper, citing some purportedly related works, it is not onerous to read that additional sentence. If the papers are indeed related enough to be of interest to some readers, then it is probably not going to make your paper any worse to mention them. Bear in mind that when you read an academic paper about a particular problem, you are often interested in related problems, even if they are variations that are different to the immediate problem. On the other hand, if the papers you propose to cite are not really related to the topic at hand, or are too far removed to be of interest, it will be annoying if you lead the reader to them on the basis of a false promise.
As to the fact that you have only "skim-read" the papers you propose to cite, that is not necessarily disqualifying, but you need to be careful. If you're going to say that these works are "addressing this problem, as well as its variations", then you have to make sure that you read enough to be absolutely sure that this claim is true. It is also important to have read enough of them to be satisfied that these are *good papers* ---i.e., you want to direct your reader to papers that are valuable for them to read. You don't necessarily need to read an entire paper to know that it relates to a variation of the problem you are working on, but you have to make sure you read enough that you are not just guessing or taking someone else's word for it.
Upvotes: 5
|
2020/05/07
| 451
| 1,873
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am interested in Post-doctoral degree in mathematics in France or in general in Europe after my PhD.
Do the universities or laboratories or organizations provide housing facility ?
Can you suggest me how is it possible ?<issue_comment>username_1: This depends what you mean by “provide” but it is extremely unlikely an institution would provide accommodation *free of charge* for a postdoc (it’s unlikely they would provide such free housing for students unless there were special circumstances of some sort). The institution might have residences but you should expect to have to pay for that.
A postdoc is like a job, and I doubt you expect employers to “provide” housing. Universities - like employers - might have access to rental listings and *might* help your find housing but otherwise you’re on your own.
Usually if housing *is* provided, it would be made explicit in the job offer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: For a post-doc, you generally would have to look at the particular institution(s) you are considering. Generally, the bulk of on-campus housing goes towards undergraduates, with some reserved for graduate students. But by that time, although there will be some graduate students living on campus if they can, a good amount look to live off-campus (primarily due to it being a lesser cost than on campus).
Post-docs will have even lesser priority, if any at all, for living on campus, so generally you would have to look to get housing on your own. This experience goes for the USA, by the way, but the off-campus living situation, based on the other answer, seems to be very in line with the way housing is done in Europe (for graduate students and post-docs). Again, it varies on your institution, so I would say get in contact with people there if you need assistance with housing.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/08
| 6,162
| 25,948
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was recently accused of unfair grading by a student. The accusation is meritless, and it didn't take long to prove that I didn't do anything wrong. No damage, but a lot of time wasted.
Later, I learned through the grapevine that I was among a long list of victims. Indeed, in just one year, the very same student filed formal complaints against at least nine professors. The nature of the complaints vary from case to case, but they follow the exact same script:
* In every case, the student will take some small thing, e.g. a missed quiz or a late homework, and make a big argument with the instructor out of it. The student will then escalate the issue to higher level and get the dean of college or even the president of the university involved. Of course the dean or the president have better things to do, so the student is usually ignored and the whole thing blows over quickly … or so we thought. This part turns out to be only the lead jab in a one-two combination. It's more of a setup.
* The real strike comes at the end of the semester. When the grade is not good (which is 100% of the cases), a formal complaint will be filed stating that the student was punished for the earlier argument. This is a very serious accusation and lead to complicated investigations in several cases. It caused so much additional work that several professors just gave in and changed the grade to something the student liked.
This trick had a surprisingly high success rate, especially considering several victims are tenured professors. The student is emboldened, and I have no doubt that the cycle will repeat. If not stopped, I wouldn't be surprised if this student can earn a degree just by reusing this trick again and again.
My question is: Should we professors (as a group) react to such a behaviour and if yes, how? What could be the consequence, if any?
So far I have read the students' code of conduct carefully. There appear to be nothing that can be directly applied here. The closest appears to be the rule about dishonesty, but it wouldn't work by itself.
Updates:
* After sharing parts of this story, I received several similar stories from friends and colleagues in other universities. So the situation I described here is perhaps not as unique as it first appears. It turns out, in my previous university, the department chair handled two similar cases while I was there. But because such cases are supposed to be confidential, I was not aware of them. I suspect this happens more often than we think.
* The student does not have to prove his/her claim for this trick to work. He/she simply has to file a complaint and a grade change appeal at the same time. Students' have the right to do those. That will trigger a lot of work for the instructors, the department chair, and the dean's office. In my case, it took me 20~30 hours to respond to the complaints, provide assignment for review, and do other works. Not everyone has this kind of time on the last day of the final week. Given the options of doing these extra work vs. changing a letter and let it go, not everyone will make the right choice.
More update:
* This student scored one more win:
The grade appeal committee's new ruling is that I should/have to change my grade (one letter grade higher) even though it was determined that I did not do anything wrong.
* I now realized the student's trick work on multiple levels: It just keep on throw in serious accusations. At some point, someone, will feel it would less trouble to just give him/her what he/she was asking for. The instructor does not have give in. It could the departmental committee, or the chair, or the associate dean, or the college committee,... The only way this trick fails is that every single person along this long chain stand their ground.<issue_comment>username_1: When it comes to "he-said, she-said" situations, as seems to be the case here, most institutions will tend to take the side of professors by default. For obvious reasons—the 18–22 year old college student is much more likely to lie to obtain a favourable mark, than the professor is to act maliciously to sabotage a student. The only scenario where the professor might be in trouble is if there are accusations from *multiple* students.
The most significant red flag here is that the student is making essentially the same accusation against nine different professors. It is preposterous that nine professors would collectively decide to sabotage a single student.
>
> So far I have read the students' code of conduct carefully. There appear to be nothing that can be directly applied here. The closest appears to be the rule about dishonesty, but it wouldn't work by itself.
>
>
>
Making dishonest accusations to obtain more favourable grades is an unequivocal form of academic dishonesty. Any respectable institution would discipline a student engaging in such behaviour. If this behaviour cannot be disciplined at your university, I would suggest seeking employment elsewhere.
You should lodge a formal complaint, possibly in collaboration with the other professors who are being accused. You have a rock-solid case.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: While I'll start by saying that I do not support the student's behavior and find it a form of harassment, I'd like to make the case that this should be approached by trying to improve the system, not by punishing the particular student.
>
> When the grade is not good (which is 100% of case), a formal complaint will be filed stating that the student was punished for the earlier argument. This is a very serious accusation and lead to complicated investigations in several cases. It caused so much additional work that several professors just gave in and changed the grade to something the student liked.
>
>
>
Now, I do not know what field we're talking about, but in my experience changing a grade that I gave to someone is a big decision - unless it is obvious that I just overlooked something for that particular student, I would need to change the marking scheme and review every assignment. Otherwise, if the students who submitted similar answers and didn't a raise get to know about this, they will (accurately) accuse me of grading unfairly. In my experience, graders are fairly adamant to change marks even when wrong, to avoid all this effort.
If the grades get changed easily, the student(s) receive two messages:
1. Filing a complaint is a safe strategy to get your grade raised;
2. The original grades were based on a whim to begin with.
Harassment of staff frankly is the least dangerous outcome here: depending on the broader political/social/legal circumstances in the institution, if an affected student would happen to belong to an underrepresented group, (2) may lead to claims of discrimination and much more serious action.
My only advice is to attempt to make the grading system more objective. I believe these two issues (complaints about grading and potential for discrimination) are major reasons why much of the university and secondary-level assessment has been moving towards more standardized tests. For a specific example, one university where I worked has instituted the rule that during any verbal examinations (which used to be very subjective), students must make notes while preparing their answers for the examiner; the notes are stored and will be used to assess any complaints about grading.
Specifically to avoid harassment, in my current position we emphasize that any complaints about grade will result in the entire assignment being reviewed - and therefore may even lead to a decrease in the overall grade as well. Combined with having an objective marking scheme, available to everyone, I think this works quite well to deter most of the time wasters, while still letting us review actual mistakes on our end.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As for addressing what already happened, this obviously depends a lot on what rules you have, but it may still be worth looking whether you have some of those very broad rules demanding mutual respect, not being a nuisance, not damaging the university, etc.
These need not be in the students’ code of conduct, but might as well be in the enrolment contract or whatever you have.
When in doubt, your university’s legal department may help, at least because this is a case they will very likely have to handle sooner or later anyway and to avoid such cases in the future.
However, at the end of the day, this strongly depends on how academic education is organised in your country.
However, most of the damage done by the student was because your faculty and university made the mistakes listed below.
By addressing these, you should be able to avoid such issues in the future:
* **You cannot be “bullied” if the power is clearly balanced towards you, unless you forget that.**
The student wants you to do something, not vice versa.
In the extreme case, they have to take legal action to get what they want, whereas you can simply deny their requests.
(And taking a legal action would be a pretty bad idea for the student in this case.)
As long as their complaints are obviously unfounded, you have nothing to fear – and this more than a lofty legal platitude here:
We often hear stories where faculty members abused the power imbalance and had nothing to fear even in the light of legitimate accusations.
(A possible exception to this is if your university is run by short-sighted business people who consider students as customer kings, but you should be able to convince even them that siding with such a student is a bad idea.)
* **You got into “big arguments”.**
I may misunderstand the situation here, but this is waste of immediate time as well as a complication for the second round as they have some fuel for their accusations.
As you have the high ground (see previous point), there is no need to get into big arguments here.
The burden of proof is onto them: For example, they have to convince you that you should accept their late homework submission; you do not have to convince them that you need not accept it.
Deny their request, state a brief reason, and if they keep pestering you, tell them their only option is to escalate (which they will do anyway).
* **Some of you gave in.**
This is a classical example of a short-sighted unethical action that many will defend as mercy.
Those who gave in avoided work for themselves and thus caused work for others.
Clearly establish the position among the faculty that those who gave in caused damage to their colleagues by encouraging the student’s behaviour and damage to the university/degree by watering it down.
Use this hindsight to establish some guideline against giving in to unreasonable demands to avoid this happening again.
* **The investigations are missing their goal.**
You say that this students managed to cause “complicated investigations in several cases”.
I assume that these are internal investigations.
While the first one or two requests of any student deserve serious consideration, subsequent inquiries by the same student should be streamlined and put the burden of proof onto the student.
Moreover, such investigations should only be triggered by claims more specific than “he/she thinks he/she has been punished for earlier arguments”.
I assume that internal investigations exist to avoid messy legal or public affairs and to be able to act early against actually abusive faculty members.
However, here I see no reason to be afraid of any of these (see Point 1).
This may be the most difficult part to address and strongly depends on how your university is organised, but this case should give you good arguments to change things.
Also, if this is a common process, you might consider establishing some resource for the accused faculty such as an advisor for such proceedings.
Finally, it may be worth making the student and potential copycats aware of the following potential consequences of their behaviour (taking care not to deliver this as a threat):
* Nobody in their right mind will voluntarily supervise this student’s thesis.
There will probably be some fallback mechanism to assign an involuntary supervisor, but this is clearly undesirable (for the student).
* If they aspire an academic career, they will have a hard time securing letters of recommendation from your faculty.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Independent re-evaluation and re-grading
----------------------------------------
In my institution a situation like that "The real strike comes at the end of the semester" complaint and dispute with some potential risk of unfair grading or not following due process because of some personal animosity would result in the student's submitted work being regraded and any oral exams/presentations/defenses reevaluated by an independent committee that does not include the original instructor, does not look at (or even see) the original grading, and make an independent from-scratch evaluation of how good that work/knowledge is and what is the appropriate grade.
That re-evaluation overrides the previous grade and is final. And it may be worse than the previous grade.
To illustrate this, there's an example where I was part of a bachelor thesis defense committee where one student's work was very weak and we decided to not award a passing grade, which meant that the student can't graduate this semester. Afterwards it turned out that unbeknownst to me this was a re-take after the student had been assigned the lowest-but-still-passing grade by a previous committee, but had lodged a protest somewhat similar to what's described in the original post, which resulted, among other things, in the work getting a separate re-evaluation, assigned to a committee with no member overlap from the previous committee, and I did not even know that this was a second evaluation of a disputed work, we processed it as any other bachelor thesis which were defended that day.
So this re-evaluation demonstrated that the previous committee was not in fact biased against him, and might in fact have artificially boosted the evaluation for similar reasons as the original post, perhaps to avoid the hassle of a potentially litigious student challenging everything. In this case the dispute backfired, but if there was a genuine unfair grade suppression, then the independent evaluation would have fixed that.
Because of this experience, I consider that such a procedure is reasonable, and would work well both in cases of honest "good-faith" protests about unfair grading and "bad-faith" protests fishing for unjustified grade boosts. It does take some extra effort to find uninvolved faculty to reevaluate the work, but it's manageable.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: [juod's first paragraph](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148837/how-to-address-a-student-systematically-boosting-their-grades-by-filing-frivolou/148846#148846) sums it up: it's about improving the system, not about that student.
Many instructors don't know the policies for *academic dishonesty*, complaints, reviewing grades ... they never need to. Especially non-tenure-track lecturers don't know if the department head or the university will back them. Just a little outreach can be reassuring and help them stand their ground.
Hearing about how a typical complaint is resolved: "you'll get students who claim X, here's how it's typically handled" -- knowing the process and the offices involved. If Stan has the semi-common policy of "no retakes, but the lowest quiz score is dropped" will that stand-up to a challenge? Has it? Is there another instructor they can ask "does this class typically get lots of complaints?" (many times the answer is: "wow, how did you get so few?"). If a student complains to you about *another* instructor, what can you tell them to do? Some general bits:
* when something is sprung on you during finals week, sometimes it has to wait until the next semester. Grades can be changed after the class ends. There's a form for it. Sometimes administrators will yell at you and require a written reason why, but that's easy.
* Incompletes aren't extensions. Students always ask for an incomplete at the last minute. But they generally require a whole process and an agreement *prior* to missing the work.
* use email to create a record. Use only one account, so it's easy to search. This is "as we discussed in class, I looked over your assignment...".
* if a school has some crazy assignment software that takes forever to search and can lock you out, keep an organized copy of everything on your home PC (I learned this the hard way).
As for that particular student, they only need to meet one old-school hard-ass who teaches most sections of a required class. Stops them cold. As for the sense of injustice about scammy students -- it helps to remember that you get paid the same either way, your name isn't on the school, and to read [Black Lives Matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter) posts to put the injustice in perspective. Sure, use that indignation to keep it from happening again, but there's no point in making a negative incident personal with a student.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: How much did they actually boost their grade by? If it's a large jump, such as their GPA going from 2.3 to 3.8, you should recommend the student for an award because they have identified a serious structural problem with how your institution is organized. It is clearly incentivizing students to learn how to game the system instead of learning the subject matter.
If the jump is small, ignore it. Other than your own chagrin at this student getting away with it, it matters very little in the grand scheme of things. The student did a bunch of work and managed to slightly boost their grade, big deal. Most students will recognize that they could just put the same effort into studying instead and get an even bigger boost; this one is an outlier. And even if you tried to punish them, you would waste a bunch of your own time splitting hairs over exactly how unfair the professors were in each case and how many complaints is too much. It wouldn't serve you, it wouldn't serve the institution, it wouldn't serve the student. It would waste everyone's time and accomplish nothing.
Also at the end of the day, the education system is funded by the state and has the additional mission of molding individuals into the society that the state prefers. Most likely you, like most of us, live in a highly bureaucratic country. There's a sort of logic in the institution teaching its students to navigate the state's own bureaucracy, a skill they will lean on again and again for the rest of their life.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: The other answers address ways to try to change student behavior or ways your university could change its processes. That might work. In this answer I will suggest ways to reduce time spent responding to complaints. This might reduce the bullying power of student complaints.
* Have a clear and specific grading policy in your syllabus.
* For every assignment, provide a grading rubric. Include this in your syllabus.
* Respond to complaints with a short form letter, instead of detailed responses to every point.
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
>
> I have received the complaint of student NAME dated DATE. I disagree with all aspects of the complaint except:
>
>
>
Put truthful quotes here
>
> To demonstrate that the student's work was graded appropriately, I have attached the syllabus for the course, which includes the rubric for the disputed assignment(s). Copies of the assignments with the rubric ratings are attached. The rubric ratings agree with the grade assigned. All students were provided with the rubric when they started the course. Grading was consistent with the syllabus and university policy.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
As a side effect, giving students the rubric will help them learn.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Rule #1: remember that <NAME> said it best: “Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.”
Rule #2: Once you’ve made your point, refuse to enter into further debate.
Rule #3: Keep all correspondence and start and keep a log of the timelines: when you meet with the student etc. In particular, keep duplicates of the student work so he or she cannot cherry-pick evidence. I also keep unclaimed assignments to provide a basis for comparison for at least *some* work.
Rule #4: if *in your estimation* the student is escalating, advise your Dean and start cc’ing your Dean on all email correspondence.
The strategy is not to ignore the student, but to give him or her the tools to dig a hole: most of the times the student will self-sabotage a claim by appealing to false or otherwise incorrect statement attributed to you, so the less you say the better your odds of “winning”.
Thus, statements like “Dear Sir, I acknowledge your email but I see no valid reason to change my position” are polite and to the point, and are in accordance with rules #1 and #2.
Rule #3 is useful because Dean or Vice-Provost or whomever deals with such complaints is always looking for timelines. In particular, it is easy to determine if and when a student really did ask (or not) to discuss the situation with you.
Rule #4 means the Dean will not be surprised when the situation escalates, and can genuinely gauge your efforts in defusing the situation.
In some cases the strategy takes its toll: the path of least resistance is to acquiesce but a well-organized factual and non-confrontation position will earn you brownie points with Admin and will also discourage others from such frivolous challenges.
In my own worse case no blame was assigned even if the Provost Office had to rule in favour of the student because of a clerical error on their part.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I think you found the flaw when describing
>
> He/she simply has to file a complaint and a grade change appeal at the same time. Students' have the right to do those.
>
>
>
First of all, you are not describing how this *extortion* exactly works. Apparently, handling the complaint is tedious, but somehow changing the grade the complaint is not followed on? Is the student retracting the complain for those that conceded?
At this level I would consider that he is extorting the professors with that “give me an higher mark or else…” message he is conveying.
However, I see no point why the student should be able to file a complaint about a grade change and appeal it at the same time. Either the complaint is not admissible until the resolution of the appeal, or the appeal cannot be processed until the complaint is resolved.
Being the target of a "legal procedure" (even if a weak, internal one), while at the same time having to interact with the other party puts the professor in a really weak spot. Note that it is generally advised that the parties to a law case to refrain from communicating directly with the other party, only doing that through lawyers if needed.
It should be noted that the professors that relent could then expose themselves to of a complaint of unfairly giving an higher grade due to the open complaint. Perhaps unlikely, but more problematic to defend (unless the grade change is trivial to explain, in which case there shouldn't have been a complaint to begin with).
An interesting possibility would be to **always** process the complaints in full, even if the grade changed and the student was now pleased with the new grade. After all, a formal complaint is an important matter that should be investigated in depth. And the university won't want to give the impression that you unfairly boosted the grade of anyone.
Initially, this will ensure that the instructors, the department chair, and the dean's office will always have that lot of extra work for (by the way, couldn't its handling be made less demanding?). However, it also means that there is no longer an incentive to the professors to relent, since they will need to devote exactly the same resources to the investigation anyway. Which will lead to more fairly not boosting grades when not warranted. And ultimately to less complaints since the trick becomes useless.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: Compartmentalise
================
The bipartite strategy employed by the student is possible because there is insufficient compatmentalisation in the assessment process. Two easy remedies would be:
* separate the assignment from the student, require all assignments to be submitted username_10ymously (that way, the OP has no idea which student's work he/she is grading);
* separate the marking from the teaching, and have all assignments marked by someone other than the person teaching the course (or, failing that, have a 2nd marker who gives marks independently of the OP).
At my institution, each undergraduate has a "candidate number" and uses that instead of writing his/her name on the assignment. Moreover, every assignment is seen by at least two people. Admittedly, the usual procedure at my institution is not quite as robustly independent as what I propose -- normally, the 1st marker marks it, and the 2nd marker checks the 1st marker's mark (in my experience as a 1st marker, the 2nd marker almost always agrees with my marks and feedback without further comment, which suggests that either I am excellent at marking assignments or they are lazy). That way, it is much harder to make a credible allegation of victimisation, because the lecturer does not know whose work he/she is marking, and is subject to oversight from a 3rd party. I realise these procedures are extra work, but they may turn out to be less work than handling the tactical complaints?
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/08
| 5,482
| 23,176
|
<issue_start>username_0: There have been a number of other questions about grading oral exams, or about which countries use them, etc., but for those of us who come from places that don't traditionally use oral exams, how do you go about, for lack of a better term, write them? Given the amount of online transitioning for courses lately, it seems to me that oral exams would be a good way to ensure that that the student actually learned the material and didn't get someone else to write their paper or copied answers from some repository.
For example, in a Latin class, would a typical question be to translate a passage on the spot? Or would it be questions about "what are the declensions for X?"? Or something totally different? Does it ever integrate previous work ("on your midterm paper you said X, can you explain why you didn't think about Y?") or is it generally totally standalone? All of them above?
Note that I just use Latin as an example, I'm mostly curious on a generic process level, so it would be applicable to all disciplines.<issue_comment>username_1: When it comes to "he-said, she-said" situations, as seems to be the case here, most institutions will tend to take the side of professors by default. For obvious reasons—the 18–22 year old college student is much more likely to lie to obtain a favourable mark, than the professor is to act maliciously to sabotage a student. The only scenario where the professor might be in trouble is if there are accusations from *multiple* students.
The most significant red flag here is that the student is making essentially the same accusation against nine different professors. It is preposterous that nine professors would collectively decide to sabotage a single student.
>
> So far I have read the students' code of conduct carefully. There appear to be nothing that can be directly applied here. The closest appears to be the rule about dishonesty, but it wouldn't work by itself.
>
>
>
Making dishonest accusations to obtain more favourable grades is an unequivocal form of academic dishonesty. Any respectable institution would discipline a student engaging in such behaviour. If this behaviour cannot be disciplined at your university, I would suggest seeking employment elsewhere.
You should lodge a formal complaint, possibly in collaboration with the other professors who are being accused. You have a rock-solid case.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: While I'll start by saying that I do not support the student's behavior and find it a form of harassment, I'd like to make the case that this should be approached by trying to improve the system, not by punishing the particular student.
>
> When the grade is not good (which is 100% of case), a formal complaint will be filed stating that the student was punished for the earlier argument. This is a very serious accusation and lead to complicated investigations in several cases. It caused so much additional work that several professors just gave in and changed the grade to something the student liked.
>
>
>
Now, I do not know what field we're talking about, but in my experience changing a grade that I gave to someone is a big decision - unless it is obvious that I just overlooked something for that particular student, I would need to change the marking scheme and review every assignment. Otherwise, if the students who submitted similar answers and didn't a raise get to know about this, they will (accurately) accuse me of grading unfairly. In my experience, graders are fairly adamant to change marks even when wrong, to avoid all this effort.
If the grades get changed easily, the student(s) receive two messages:
1. Filing a complaint is a safe strategy to get your grade raised;
2. The original grades were based on a whim to begin with.
Harassment of staff frankly is the least dangerous outcome here: depending on the broader political/social/legal circumstances in the institution, if an affected student would happen to belong to an underrepresented group, (2) may lead to claims of discrimination and much more serious action.
My only advice is to attempt to make the grading system more objective. I believe these two issues (complaints about grading and potential for discrimination) are major reasons why much of the university and secondary-level assessment has been moving towards more standardized tests. For a specific example, one university where I worked has instituted the rule that during any verbal examinations (which used to be very subjective), students must make notes while preparing their answers for the examiner; the notes are stored and will be used to assess any complaints about grading.
Specifically to avoid harassment, in my current position we emphasize that any complaints about grade will result in the entire assignment being reviewed - and therefore may even lead to a decrease in the overall grade as well. Combined with having an objective marking scheme, available to everyone, I think this works quite well to deter most of the time wasters, while still letting us review actual mistakes on our end.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As for addressing what already happened, this obviously depends a lot on what rules you have, but it may still be worth looking whether you have some of those very broad rules demanding mutual respect, not being a nuisance, not damaging the university, etc.
These need not be in the students’ code of conduct, but might as well be in the enrolment contract or whatever you have.
When in doubt, your university’s legal department may help, at least because this is a case they will very likely have to handle sooner or later anyway and to avoid such cases in the future.
However, at the end of the day, this strongly depends on how academic education is organised in your country.
However, most of the damage done by the student was because your faculty and university made the mistakes listed below.
By addressing these, you should be able to avoid such issues in the future:
* **You cannot be “bullied” if the power is clearly balanced towards you, unless you forget that.**
The student wants you to do something, not vice versa.
In the extreme case, they have to take legal action to get what they want, whereas you can simply deny their requests.
(And taking a legal action would be a pretty bad idea for the student in this case.)
As long as their complaints are obviously unfounded, you have nothing to fear – and this more than a lofty legal platitude here:
We often hear stories where faculty members abused the power imbalance and had nothing to fear even in the light of legitimate accusations.
(A possible exception to this is if your university is run by short-sighted business people who consider students as customer kings, but you should be able to convince even them that siding with such a student is a bad idea.)
* **You got into “big arguments”.**
I may misunderstand the situation here, but this is waste of immediate time as well as a complication for the second round as they have some fuel for their accusations.
As you have the high ground (see previous point), there is no need to get into big arguments here.
The burden of proof is onto them: For example, they have to convince you that you should accept their late homework submission; you do not have to convince them that you need not accept it.
Deny their request, state a brief reason, and if they keep pestering you, tell them their only option is to escalate (which they will do anyway).
* **Some of you gave in.**
This is a classical example of a short-sighted unethical action that many will defend as mercy.
Those who gave in avoided work for themselves and thus caused work for others.
Clearly establish the position among the faculty that those who gave in caused damage to their colleagues by encouraging the student’s behaviour and damage to the university/degree by watering it down.
Use this hindsight to establish some guideline against giving in to unreasonable demands to avoid this happening again.
* **The investigations are missing their goal.**
You say that this students managed to cause “complicated investigations in several cases”.
I assume that these are internal investigations.
While the first one or two requests of any student deserve serious consideration, subsequent inquiries by the same student should be streamlined and put the burden of proof onto the student.
Moreover, such investigations should only be triggered by claims more specific than “he/she thinks he/she has been punished for earlier arguments”.
I assume that internal investigations exist to avoid messy legal or public affairs and to be able to act early against actually abusive faculty members.
However, here I see no reason to be afraid of any of these (see Point 1).
This may be the most difficult part to address and strongly depends on how your university is organised, but this case should give you good arguments to change things.
Also, if this is a common process, you might consider establishing some resource for the accused faculty such as an advisor for such proceedings.
Finally, it may be worth making the student and potential copycats aware of the following potential consequences of their behaviour (taking care not to deliver this as a threat):
* Nobody in their right mind will voluntarily supervise this student’s thesis.
There will probably be some fallback mechanism to assign an involuntary supervisor, but this is clearly undesirable (for the student).
* If they aspire an academic career, they will have a hard time securing letters of recommendation from your faculty.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Independent re-evaluation and re-grading
----------------------------------------
In my institution a situation like that "The real strike comes at the end of the semester" complaint and dispute with some potential risk of unfair grading or not following due process because of some personal animosity would result in the student's submitted work being regraded and any oral exams/presentations/defenses reevaluated by an independent committee that does not include the original instructor, does not look at (or even see) the original grading, and make an independent from-scratch evaluation of how good that work/knowledge is and what is the appropriate grade.
That re-evaluation overrides the previous grade and is final. And it may be worse than the previous grade.
To illustrate this, there's an example where I was part of a bachelor thesis defense committee where one student's work was very weak and we decided to not award a passing grade, which meant that the student can't graduate this semester. Afterwards it turned out that unbeknownst to me this was a re-take after the student had been assigned the lowest-but-still-passing grade by a previous committee, but had lodged a protest somewhat similar to what's described in the original post, which resulted, among other things, in the work getting a separate re-evaluation, assigned to a committee with no member overlap from the previous committee, and I did not even know that this was a second evaluation of a disputed work, we processed it as any other bachelor thesis which were defended that day.
So this re-evaluation demonstrated that the previous committee was not in fact biased against him, and might in fact have artificially boosted the evaluation for similar reasons as the original post, perhaps to avoid the hassle of a potentially litigious student challenging everything. In this case the dispute backfired, but if there was a genuine unfair grade suppression, then the independent evaluation would have fixed that.
Because of this experience, I consider that such a procedure is reasonable, and would work well both in cases of honest "good-faith" protests about unfair grading and "bad-faith" protests fishing for unjustified grade boosts. It does take some extra effort to find uninvolved faculty to reevaluate the work, but it's manageable.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: [juod's first paragraph](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148837/how-to-address-a-student-systematically-boosting-their-grades-by-filing-frivolou/148846#148846) sums it up: it's about improving the system, not about that student.
Many instructors don't know the policies for *academic dishonesty*, complaints, reviewing grades ... they never need to. Especially non-tenure-track lecturers don't know if the department head or the university will back them. Just a little outreach can be reassuring and help them stand their ground.
Hearing about how a typical complaint is resolved: "you'll get students who claim X, here's how it's typically handled" -- knowing the process and the offices involved. If Stan has the semi-common policy of "no retakes, but the lowest quiz score is dropped" will that stand-up to a challenge? Has it? Is there another instructor they can ask "does this class typically get lots of complaints?" (many times the answer is: "wow, how did you get so few?"). If a student complains to you about *another* instructor, what can you tell them to do? Some general bits:
* when something is sprung on you during finals week, sometimes it has to wait until the next semester. Grades can be changed after the class ends. There's a form for it. Sometimes administrators will yell at you and require a written reason why, but that's easy.
* Incompletes aren't extensions. Students always ask for an incomplete at the last minute. But they generally require a whole process and an agreement *prior* to missing the work.
* use email to create a record. Use only one account, so it's easy to search. This is "as we discussed in class, I looked over your assignment...".
* if a school has some crazy assignment software that takes forever to search and can lock you out, keep an organized copy of everything on your home PC (I learned this the hard way).
As for that particular student, they only need to meet one old-school hard-ass who teaches most sections of a required class. Stops them cold. As for the sense of injustice about scammy students -- it helps to remember that you get paid the same either way, your name isn't on the school, and to read [Black Lives Matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter) posts to put the injustice in perspective. Sure, use that indignation to keep it from happening again, but there's no point in making a negative incident personal with a student.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: How much did they actually boost their grade by? If it's a large jump, such as their GPA going from 2.3 to 3.8, you should recommend the student for an award because they have identified a serious structural problem with how your institution is organized. It is clearly incentivizing students to learn how to game the system instead of learning the subject matter.
If the jump is small, ignore it. Other than your own chagrin at this student getting away with it, it matters very little in the grand scheme of things. The student did a bunch of work and managed to slightly boost their grade, big deal. Most students will recognize that they could just put the same effort into studying instead and get an even bigger boost; this one is an outlier. And even if you tried to punish them, you would waste a bunch of your own time splitting hairs over exactly how unfair the professors were in each case and how many complaints is too much. It wouldn't serve you, it wouldn't serve the institution, it wouldn't serve the student. It would waste everyone's time and accomplish nothing.
Also at the end of the day, the education system is funded by the state and has the additional mission of molding individuals into the society that the state prefers. Most likely you, like most of us, live in a highly bureaucratic country. There's a sort of logic in the institution teaching its students to navigate the state's own bureaucracy, a skill they will lean on again and again for the rest of their life.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: The other answers address ways to try to change student behavior or ways your university could change its processes. That might work. In this answer I will suggest ways to reduce time spent responding to complaints. This might reduce the bullying power of student complaints.
* Have a clear and specific grading policy in your syllabus.
* For every assignment, provide a grading rubric. Include this in your syllabus.
* Respond to complaints with a short form letter, instead of detailed responses to every point.
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
>
> I have received the complaint of student NAME dated DATE. I disagree with all aspects of the complaint except:
>
>
>
Put truthful quotes here
>
> To demonstrate that the student's work was graded appropriately, I have attached the syllabus for the course, which includes the rubric for the disputed assignment(s). Copies of the assignments with the rubric ratings are attached. The rubric ratings agree with the grade assigned. All students were provided with the rubric when they started the course. Grading was consistent with the syllabus and university policy.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
As a side effect, giving students the rubric will help them learn.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Rule #1: remember that <NAME> said it best: “Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.”
Rule #2: Once you’ve made your point, refuse to enter into further debate.
Rule #3: Keep all correspondence and start and keep a log of the timelines: when you meet with the student etc. In particular, keep duplicates of the student work so he or she cannot cherry-pick evidence. I also keep unclaimed assignments to provide a basis for comparison for at least *some* work.
Rule #4: if *in your estimation* the student is escalating, advise your Dean and start cc’ing your Dean on all email correspondence.
The strategy is not to ignore the student, but to give him or her the tools to dig a hole: most of the times the student will self-sabotage a claim by appealing to false or otherwise incorrect statement attributed to you, so the less you say the better your odds of “winning”.
Thus, statements like “Dear Sir, I acknowledge your email but I see no valid reason to change my position” are polite and to the point, and are in accordance with rules #1 and #2.
Rule #3 is useful because Dean or Vice-Provost or whomever deals with such complaints is always looking for timelines. In particular, it is easy to determine if and when a student really did ask (or not) to discuss the situation with you.
Rule #4 means the Dean will not be surprised when the situation escalates, and can genuinely gauge your efforts in defusing the situation.
In some cases the strategy takes its toll: the path of least resistance is to acquiesce but a well-organized factual and non-confrontation position will earn you brownie points with Admin and will also discourage others from such frivolous challenges.
In my own worse case no blame was assigned even if the Provost Office had to rule in favour of the student because of a clerical error on their part.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I think you found the flaw when describing
>
> He/she simply has to file a complaint and a grade change appeal at the same time. Students' have the right to do those.
>
>
>
First of all, you are not describing how this *extortion* exactly works. Apparently, handling the complaint is tedious, but somehow changing the grade the complaint is not followed on? Is the student retracting the complain for those that conceded?
At this level I would consider that he is extorting the professors with that “give me an higher mark or else…” message he is conveying.
However, I see no point why the student should be able to file a complaint about a grade change and appeal it at the same time. Either the complaint is not admissible until the resolution of the appeal, or the appeal cannot be processed until the complaint is resolved.
Being the target of a "legal procedure" (even if a weak, internal one), while at the same time having to interact with the other party puts the professor in a really weak spot. Note that it is generally advised that the parties to a law case to refrain from communicating directly with the other party, only doing that through lawyers if needed.
It should be noted that the professors that relent could then expose themselves to of a complaint of unfairly giving an higher grade due to the open complaint. Perhaps unlikely, but more problematic to defend (unless the grade change is trivial to explain, in which case there shouldn't have been a complaint to begin with).
An interesting possibility would be to **always** process the complaints in full, even if the grade changed and the student was now pleased with the new grade. After all, a formal complaint is an important matter that should be investigated in depth. And the university won't want to give the impression that you unfairly boosted the grade of anyone.
Initially, this will ensure that the instructors, the department chair, and the dean's office will always have that lot of extra work for (by the way, couldn't its handling be made less demanding?). However, it also means that there is no longer an incentive to the professors to relent, since they will need to devote exactly the same resources to the investigation anyway. Which will lead to more fairly not boosting grades when not warranted. And ultimately to less complaints since the trick becomes useless.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: Compartmentalise
================
The bipartite strategy employed by the student is possible because there is insufficient compatmentalisation in the assessment process. Two easy remedies would be:
* separate the assignment from the student, require all assignments to be submitted username_10ymously (that way, the OP has no idea which student's work he/she is grading);
* separate the marking from the teaching, and have all assignments marked by someone other than the person teaching the course (or, failing that, have a 2nd marker who gives marks independently of the OP).
At my institution, each undergraduate has a "candidate number" and uses that instead of writing his/her name on the assignment. Moreover, every assignment is seen by at least two people. Admittedly, the usual procedure at my institution is not quite as robustly independent as what I propose -- normally, the 1st marker marks it, and the 2nd marker checks the 1st marker's mark (in my experience as a 1st marker, the 2nd marker almost always agrees with my marks and feedback without further comment, which suggests that either I am excellent at marking assignments or they are lazy). That way, it is much harder to make a credible allegation of victimisation, because the lecturer does not know whose work he/she is marking, and is subject to oversight from a 3rd party. I realise these procedures are extra work, but they may turn out to be less work than handling the tactical complaints?
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/08
| 705
| 3,268
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have published a review paper a few years ago in an important journal which was recently (last month) cited by a review paper related to the topic (published in another journal).
However, a significant part of that new paper (basically an entire section of a few pages) is extremely similar to my paper. It is not copy/paste, but very close. There are several sentences that are almost alike and even match my writing style and line of reasoning, which I consider paraphrasing plagiarism. On top of that, there is a table which was copy/pasted exactly as in my paper.
I feel that my work is not acknowledged and I feel that the authors are publishing this information as it was collected and critically analyzed by them. It took me months of reading and cross checking dozens (if not hundreds) of papers to be able to make the review and summary of that information with confidence and with a critical view.
The authors of this new paper do cite my work as a reference here and there, but they present all that information as collected from their own sources.
I just feel that this is not fair and honest, but maybe it's just my feelings and maybe are not doing anything wrong ...
Can you tell me if I have reasons to act on this, and how should I proceed to get my work acknowledged properly?<issue_comment>username_1: You could trace the similarities sentence by sentence, give reasons for your doubts, and post your evaluation on PubPeer.
If you deem such a public evaluation to be too far-reaching for now, there may be another venue. Some countries have established institutional bodies for scientific integrity to whom you could delegate your matter. An independent commission will then look into it and assess your claims. Such an evaluation may contain more expertise and add greater legitimacy to your judgement. Ask your national Academy of Sciences.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You could consider contacting the editor of the journal that published your paper. Presumably you transferred the copyright to the journal. They have a vested interest in protecting their copyright. They may be able to request the other journal make a correction on your behalf
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: First I would suggest you ask someone fairly experienced to read both papers - yours and the new one - to check whether an independent person feels that they are similar. In many disciplines, review papers have a very formalised structure. This means that they all look fairly similar to each other and tables (for example) may be essentially identical.
You could also look at the specific sentences that you feel are being duplicated and also look at another review on a closely related topic. Are there also very similar sentences in that third review? This will give you an idea of whether the similarity is simply because of the requirements of reviews (such as methodology statements about the key terms being searched).
If you still feel that the review is plagiarising, then you can contact publishers and editors as suggested in the other answers. However, I urge you to be sure first as this is a serious accusation and it is risky to rely on only your own judgement of similarity.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/08
| 2,217
| 9,428
|
<issue_start>username_0: My supervisor has a bad reputation of forcing their name on papers at the final stage of research. The advisor is literally contributing zero or close to zero to my project, nothing more than- or maybe less than- very basic supervision tasks, like giving some comments on a written text.
This is unlikely to change, as the project is already approaching the final stage. How can I protect my work from being "hijacked" by an unfair co-authorship?<issue_comment>username_1: Sadly, it may not be possible to do this and also get your degree. If the supervisor needs to sign off on your graduation and/or dissertation, then they have sufficient power to end your career before it starts, or at least delay it while you find a different advisor and maybe a different institution.
I hate to keep giving this advice, but it may be your best course to go along and complete your degree so that you become independent of his influence. Once you are free you can control your own career.
An alternative, not recommended, is to complain up the chain of authority and hope you reach someone who cares enough to help you. But you imply that this has been going on, so finding that person seems unlikely.
Prioritize your long term goals, not this one paper. It is still positive for you to have a publication, no matter the other issues.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Does your superviser deserve an authorship? Check the following:
1. Have they contributed to the research design, in form of suggesting a topic to investigate, advising on methodology, suggesting literature?
2. Were they involved in evaluation of results, in form of checking them and contributing an opinion on whether the work is going in the right direction?
3. Have they contributed to writing a paper, in form of contributing an introduction or abstract, or editing the manuscript?
4. (\*) Have you used any of the facilities or financial streams (e.g. stipendship) funded from your supervisor's research budget?
If any of the above is true, then your superviser may actually deserve an authorship. You can also check Nature [Authorship Guidelines](https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/authorship) or a similar document in your university.
If you answered **no** to all of the above, then it is absolutely appropriate for you to publish on your own. Simply use the Authorship Guidelines to politely explain to your supervisor why you believe that they should not be included as an author. You may want to discuss your position with a dedicated unit in your University/Department, such as Research Office or the Head of the Department.
UPD: (\*) As many people commented (and I agree), criteria (4) is controversial. In many areas providing funding on its own does not qualify for an authorship (see e.g. [Vancouver protocol](http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html)). However, in many departments it is a norm to always include the Head or Director of the Lab as the last author, and it may not be easy to challenge this agreement for a PhD student, particularly if you benefit from this funding.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> The advisor is literally contributing zero or close to zero to my project, nothing more than- or maybe less than- very basic supervision tasks, like giving some comments on a written text.
>
>
>
**Your problem is that you are not being advised**. You can publish whatever paper with whoever as coauthors, [nobody can stop you](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3010/does-one-need-to-be-affiliated-with-a-university-to-publish-papers). But if you are in a program at an institution and you are expected to receive guidance, you should solve it.
You are not expected to have no advisor, that is bad situation to be in, especially during PhD training. Seek help.
Talk to your department and your academic advisor. For example, at [USC](https://viterbigrad.usc.edu/academic-services/academic-advisement/) they say clearly:
>
> The office of Viterbi Admission and Student Engagement (VASE) **provides services and resources to help students** in the successful pursuit of their graduate degrees.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> My supervisor has a bad reputation of forcing their name on papers at the final stage of research. The advisor is literally contributing zero
>
>
>
You need a new advisor. If your advisor has a *widespread* bad reputation, that will hurt your reputation.
As a side effect, a new advisor is likely to also contribute effectively and follow ethical standards for authorship.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I will add to Dmitry and username_1's excellent answer to point out the following.
1. You say "The advisor is literally contributing zero except [...] giving some comments on a written text."
In my opinion, this makes them a co-author. He or she do not have to have physically edited the document themselves to add material or sections you had not considered, in order to be defined as an "author". In fact, I would argue that a supervisor's role in a paper by their subordinates is exactly that: to make corrections and suggest changes. Now you may disagree with respect to how important those comments were in terms of shaping the form of the final manuscript, but this then becomes more of a "how many hairs make a beard" distinction.
2. "My supervisor has a bad reputation of forcing their name on papers at the final stage of research". As long as point 1 above stands, they have every right, and would probably feel that you robbed *them* of their contribution towards this project if you attempted to remove them as an author. Remember that their contribution started way before 'corrections on the manuscript' took place. It started when you two sat down to discuss how the project should be carried forward. Any research that formed part of the manuscript which resulted from your collaboration and those discussions make him or her a valid co-author. It would have been a very different scenario if you thought of something by yourself at home and an old professor suddenly knocked on your door and demanded their name to be put on the manuscript out of the blue.
3. "How can I protect my work from being "hijacked" by an unfair co-authorship?". My final point is a practical one. What you consider as 'hijacking' may in fact be 'saving' your manuscript. I don't know what the norms are in your country, but in most international labs, it is common for work to be associated to the lab it came from in terms of forming a judgement about its quality, rather than the first author, unless the first author has managed to establish themselves enough in the field to be a recognizable name. I have worked with people who would refer to names via the lab rather than via the author, and would be more willing to read a paper if they knew it came from a reputable lab, and less willing if it was from a single unknown author. So, make sure that you don't shoot yourself on the foot by insisting the lab leader is excluded from the paper. It is generally in *your* best interests to co-publish a paper along a person who carries some weight in the field (not to mention you would be burning bridges with this person for all the wrong reasons).
Having said all that, it seems to me that the problem here is less whether your supervisor should or should not be an author from a technical point of view (though I believe it sounds like they should), but the fact that you two seem not to have the best relationship, and that this is affecting your psychology and ability to perform work in a calm manner. Now this *is* an important issue. One's relationship with their supervisor, for better or worse, is one of the most important factors for successfully completing a PhD, let alone getting something useful out of it, be it skills, a professional network, etc.
So, perhaps you should be focusing on the more general picture, i.e. what you could be doing to improve your relationship with this person instead, or considering a change in supervisors, adding a co-supervisor, or taking measures to protect yourself from malicious actions (assuming they're that kind of person, which I did not necessarily get the impression they are).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: If I were you, I would not be trying to stick to your principles but ended up on your supervisor's bad side for the rest of the duration of your Ph.D. and beyond. You have to play the long game. Stop obsessing with the authorship of this one or the next couple of papers. Sharing one or two papers with your supervisor is not going to harm you. In fact unless your supervisor has only bad reputation in the field (in that case I don't know why you picked him to be your supervisor in the first place), it is going to help your career. Not sharing is going to hurt you in the long run for sure!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Different fields have different customs, norms, and guidelines. An answer valid for Mathematics would not be valid for Computer Science or Physics. In Computer Science, realizing that there is a problem to be solved or that there is an application for a certain methodology can be sometimes enough to justify co-authorship, even if it appears that the actual work was done by others.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/08
| 478
| 2,165
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm working on research that should be sent to publishing in the next couple of weeks.
The research is done by me and a friend of mine; we are both under the same professor. This started as an attempt to improve on another paper which I'm the third writer on, but it quickly turned into a new idea which we will try to publish as a separate paper; because of this weird sequence of events, we didn't talk about who takes the lead. I'm taking tasks on almost every field of the research (building taxonomy, writing code, running experiments, writing the paper itself, etc.).
I'm also considering the amount of ideas and implementations that wouldn't be done if not for me.
I would say that overall my contribution is around 40%.
In my field, it's common to have an "equal contribution" footnote if two or more authors contributed equally. What is the common standard to ask for an "equal contribution" footnote?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there's a common standard for how to settle this after the fact, at least not one spanning all fields where author order matters. But my rule of thumb would be this:
If your estimation of your coauthor's contribution exceeds your estimation of your own contribution by more than the (likely also estimated) margin of error of your estimates, then you probably shouldn't ask for equal contribution. If the balance is too close to call, or the contributions are too difficult to compare (which is often the case in a theorist/experimentalist collaboration, for example) then sure, having a discussion about it is appropriate. (Just be open to updating your estimates based on the discussion.)
You could also consider including an "author contributions" statement in the paper to clarify who did what.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think it's pretty clear that your buddy is going to be first author and you second, from the context (adding the asterisk, also that you even have to ask). My advice would be not to ask for the co-first-authorship. If it's offered, fine. But I would not request it. Instead find another project, where you can be first.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/08
| 519
| 1,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have always wanted to know the answer to this question (sorry if it's silly):
If a professor or lecturer answers a question or gives advice when replying to an email I sent them, in general, do they prefer if I send them a one-line email saying 'thank you!' or no email at all? If I send a one-line email I'm worried I'm just clogging their inbox, but if I don't send any email at all, I'm worried I'll seem cold/selfish.
Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: The answer to this question varies enormously depending on the person...
I myself definitely *do* like acknowledgements and/or "thank-you"s... in part as confirmation that people received the email, and that my response was helpful (I do also often ask, as closing, "Is this addressing your question?")
Other people seem to have no interest in confirmation of emails, etc.
It only takes a few seconds to delete a "thank-you, yes, you answered my question" email. Even with hundreds a day, it's still just a few minutes.
So, if you have to guess, I'd think a brief, polite, "thank you" is optimal. For that matter, the people who'd object to polite intercourse will have other problems, anyway, ... so it may/will be difficult to placate them.
Even though things do change, I strongly tend to prefer confirmation, acknowledgement, thanks, and such stuff. (At the same time, I am well aware that the current U.S. education system generally does not provide good guidance on these things.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It doesn’t matter all that much. But in general it’s good practice to thank people when they help you with something. And the extra workload imposed by dealing with such thank you emails is too insignificant to worry about.
When in doubt about these sorts of questions, apply the rule “[professors are people](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90725/how-should-i-phrase-an-important-question-that-i-need-to-ask-a-professor/90726)”.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/09
| 629
| 2,828
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have heard stories that graduate schools revoke their offers because of various reasons, such as lying in the application and some other serious misconducts.
As the title suggests, can the opposite happen? And can you recall any such events? If you have, why did they happen?<issue_comment>username_1: Most probably this is institution specific and if it happens, an extremely small number of this type of events occur. The main reasoning behind such a U-turn is that an applicant who accepted or was sent an offer, did not take it within a certain time. But even in this case, most graduate schools work with waiting lists and are likely to use them to send a second batch of offers.
Thus, technically possible, it is very unlikely that someone will have a rejection turned later into an offer. The only scenario I could think of is that someone came second in the application process and the school has unexpectedly received another grant allowing more students, but then would be a matter of the group wanting to run a second application process or just use a previous list of applicants.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The typical process that happens in graduate application selection is that you subdivide applicants into three groups:
* Accepted applications: These are your first choice of candidates, and you offer them a position. This list need not be ranked.
* Waitlist: These are the applications you think are good enough to accept, but not so good that you want to make them an offer right away. You rank this list, and go top to bottom as people who have previously been offered a position decline.
* Reject: These are the applications you think aren't good enough to succeed in the program. There is no need to rank these candidates because you don't anticipate ever tapping into this pool.
The point I'm trying to make is that the rejected applications are candidates you don't think are good enough to succeed in the program. You're probably going to ask what happens if everyone declines and you're out of names on your waitlist? Well, then you just don't make any more offers. That's because you've previously decided that the ones on the "Reject" list aren't good enough to succeed.
The only thing that's worse than not being able to fill all graduate student slots is to fill these slots with students who you believe will not succeed in the program. That's a sunk cost: you're paying for people who aren't good enough to do the job they're paid for.
So, under the assumption that all universities work on such a system (which I think is, in essence, the case), there is no reason ever to turn a rejection into an acceptance.
(Now, has it ever happened? Almost certainly, given just the sheer number of cases. Does it happen on a *regular* basis? No.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/09
| 1,321
| 5,733
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been invited as a special issue guest editor. The journal is genuine (I have both published and reviewed there multiple times) but not very prestigious and sometimes seen as "easy" to get into. So far the special issue has a title and a deadline, but the scope is yet to be defined by the guest editors. The title is broad enough to be its own journal. Within the fields that would fit with this title, my expertise and network range from "a little" to "none at all".
I've been a little surprised by the invitation because I thought guest editors were senior researchers in their field, and no matter how much introspection I do on the impostor syndrome, I'm not a senior researcher in this topic.
I tentatively accepted, because being a guest editor could be a great learning experience and would enhance my CV, and perhaps I don't need *that* much domain expertise if the other guest editors are more experienced experts and my role would be rather to carefully read papers, reviews, replies, and more reviews, before accepting a paper (or not)?
Now it turns out nobody else has accepted yet and I've been asked to find others, and I'm getting cold feet. Could people who have experience being special issue guest editors, or who are otherwise familiar with these roles, give some advice?
* In special issues, are guest editors usually senior researchers with a lot of domain expertise and an extensive network in the field? Or do you also encounter those whose expertise is at best tangentially related?
* How much of a handicap would it be to lack the in-depth expertise? Is this a debilitating limitation or one that can be reasonably accommodated?
The field of Earth Observation / Remote Sensing. The publisher is based in Switzerland, specialises in open access, and its journals are indexed by the usual places,<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, the main role of a guest editor is to find reviewers for submissions—and perhaps to solicit submissions. Can you think of some interesting work you'd like to see in a special issue? Do you know who you'd ask to review it? Then you're ready.
But you don't need our help with this, and you can get much more specific and exact advice—pick up the phone and have a chat with the editor-in-chief (or whomever asked you to serve). You were invited for a reason, and you may as well find out what it is.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I've edited journals without holding a PhD in the past (don't ask). Doing a mediocre job is not that hard - to invite reviewers for example you just need to do a literature survey of the paper's field, which is standard Masters-level work. You can then invite reviewers even if you don't know them. The success rate is quite good - I think roughly 50% of the reviewers I invited responded to the invitation (although a substantial number decline). Doing just this, it's possible to keep the journal operating, although of course it will not do well. Since you know something about the field you should be able to do better: for example you can desk reject with more confidence, make sure every accepted paper has something interesting to say, and so on. If you can understand what the papers are saying on a high level, you should not have to worry about not being able to do a good job.
However, there are several potential problems I can see:
* You've said it's an open access publisher based in Switzerland, which pretty much identifies which publisher it is. It doesn't have a great reputation. You could meet people who disapprove of you working with that publisher.
* More concerningly, you are very likely to be asked to help solicit submissions. This is very different from reviewing submissions, and here a wide network will be helpful. You may also feel like the publisher is exploiting you - viewed one way, you are using your contacts to help them make money. If this troubles you, then that feeling could be exacerbated by the low response rate from other potential editors.
* Yet another potential problem is "The title is broad enough to be its own journal". I would guess from this that the initiative for the special issue came from the publisher's staff, not the editor-in-chief. Although this isn't a red flag - there's a good chance the publisher got the editor-in-chief's approval before approaching you - it is something to keep in mind. Another issue is the broad scope could make it difficult for you to even put together a special issue since so many topics would be relevant. You could talk to the publisher and/or the editor-in-chief to narrow down the topic, if you feel it's appropriate.
One more thing probably worth mentioning is that you'll likely have a lot of scope to define what you want the special issue to look like. If the initiative really is from the publisher, chances are they will be willing to defer to your expertise, and the editor-in-chief won't object.
So, what to do now? If you don't care about doing a good job, you can go ahead. Leave the scope, invitations, marketing, etc to the publisher (they'll undoubtedly do a mediocre job at best, since they have no domain expertise) and just review any papers that actually are submitted. The special issue will not be pretty, but the amount of non-review work you need to do will be minimal. If you care about doing a good job, I'd suggest thinking it through before committing. Talk to the editor-in-chief, talk to a senior colleague, think about what you want the special issue to be about and who you might invite to contribute.
By the way: if you do go ahead, I'd recommend asking the publisher if they can offer free open access for your invited submissions.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/09
| 551
| 2,325
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently about to finish my BA thesis, and my topic is bullying. I have read several books, studies, and such that can be connected to my topic. I finished the literature review, but haven't touched it since. However, when I recently re-read it and looked at the sources, I have found that a lot of my sub-chapters in my lit. review are really similar to those in the literature. For instance, in the work I read, the author mentions the consequences of bullying and I also have a sub-chapter dedicated to this. Or for example, I have read about strain theory in another one of the studies that I have also included and wrote about in one of my sub-chapters. I did not include every single aspect of these particular studies, just specific parts that I found relevant in my study.
My question is the following: Is this considered plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: Perhaps it is, depending on how you present it. But you avoid plagiarism by citing the source of the information and making it clear to a reader that what you say is derived from some specific source.
It may be that all you need to do is to go through your document and add citations, say at the end of paragraphs. It seems like you have paraphrased things you found elsewhere. That can be fine, but you still need to be clear on the source.
If your thesis is more than just a summary of the existing knowledge, make sure that a reader can tell what is your own work and what is derived directly from others. And if it *is* a summary, make sure that that itself is clear.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Plagiarism is taking the work or ideas of others and presenting it as your own. If you have a sub chapter on topic X and somebody else has a sub chapter on that too, that doesn't make it plagiarism. E.g every 2nd grade math text probably has one chapter on addition and one chapter on multiplication. That doesn't mean they are plagiarizing each other, it's just the natural way to split up the material. What would be plagiarism is if you got the idea to have a sub chapter on topic X from reference Y but you did not cite reference Y and you made it sound like you personally came up with the idea of a sub chapter on X on your own. As long as you've cited your sources properly you should be fine.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/09
| 631
| 2,696
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an MS student in France. It is commonplace here to seek out professors from other universities or scientists at research centres to do the MS thesis under them, which is usually during the final semester. So, I reached out to a professor at a US university to carry out my thesis under him. I attached a motivation letter, CV and transcript with the initial email. I also mentioned that I have a scholarship and will not require funding. I heard back on the same day from him and he thanked me for my interest in his research. He said he would like to know a bit more about what I am proposing and went on to ask me about the duration of my thesis, the thesis requirements from my university and what I planned to do following graduation. He ended the email saying he was looking forward to our discussion. I responded to the email within two hours but he never replied. I waited a week to send him another email but he did not respond to that as well. It has been one week since. I do not know what to make of the situation. Is it appropriate to send him another email after a week? I don't understand why he would lose interest all of a sudden when he already had a chance to not respond after looking at my CV?<issue_comment>username_1: Perhaps it is, depending on how you present it. But you avoid plagiarism by citing the source of the information and making it clear to a reader that what you say is derived from some specific source.
It may be that all you need to do is to go through your document and add citations, say at the end of paragraphs. It seems like you have paraphrased things you found elsewhere. That can be fine, but you still need to be clear on the source.
If your thesis is more than just a summary of the existing knowledge, make sure that a reader can tell what is your own work and what is derived directly from others. And if it *is* a summary, make sure that that itself is clear.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Plagiarism is taking the work or ideas of others and presenting it as your own. If you have a sub chapter on topic X and somebody else has a sub chapter on that too, that doesn't make it plagiarism. E.g every 2nd grade math text probably has one chapter on addition and one chapter on multiplication. That doesn't mean they are plagiarizing each other, it's just the natural way to split up the material. What would be plagiarism is if you got the idea to have a sub chapter on topic X from reference Y but you did not cite reference Y and you made it sound like you personally came up with the idea of a sub chapter on X on your own. As long as you've cited your sources properly you should be fine.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/09
| 426
| 1,850
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work in the research group of one of the professors in my college. My professor forwards me emails which he receives regarding some webinars/seminars being organized in college/companies or articles related to our work. However, those emails are forwarded and don't contain any message personally written by him.
In such a situation, should I thank him for every such mail? (which I receive thrice per week) or will such frequent thank-you emails be deemed funny and spam by him? but if I don't respond in any way, I fear he will think I am ignoring his emails and my behaviour might be taken as rude.
What is common practice in such a situation?<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest *not* for each of the emails. He probably just has a forwarding list and does this as a matter of course. Since you describe it as happening in a research group, he is probably trying to make sure everyone sees things that might advance the work of the group generally.
However, if you find any of them particularly useful for your own work, thank him for those, individually, and say why.
You could, in fact, return the *favor* when you see something that works for you and might for others in the group. Send them to the prof. and let him pass them on if he agrees on the value.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you get a rather important one or something that can relate to your work, I would thank the professor that sent it to you. But you don't need to do that every time. Although he might have a forwarding list, it always makes people feel good when you thank them for their work. Many professors really appreciate a meaningful and descriptive thank you letter. So if you do send them a thank you email, make it meaningful and descriptive and not just a quick blurb.
Hope this helps.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/10
| 666
| 2,809
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am wondering if it's too late to ask the faculty about the availability of a summer research internship position? When would be the best time for this?
More information as requested:
* I am looking for the positions in the US from May 25th onwards.
* I am also a graduate student and I'm thinking of a summer internship with an eye towards the possible continuation as a post-doc.<issue_comment>username_1: No, it's not too late to *ask*. But whether it is too late to get one depends on the local situation and so we can't help with that.
So, ask. If you don't ask you won't get one.
There is a Chinese proverb: The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is right now.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: General answer: **it is never too late to ask** for anything, nor there is almost no downside to asking. So go ahead and ask around.
Even better news: [some summer internship programs](http://sfp.caltech.edu/programs/surf) are moving online and bumping up number of participants.
More good news: Summer programs (like the one Caltech runs) are structured, so they have deadlines, but if you are in a position where you can work for free, you can always (year-around) inquire about possible volunteering opportunity for specific labs. Even better then to reach out to professors who's work is interesting to you
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There's always someone looking for interns.
My recommendation is to ask researchers that work in fields that interest you if they are able to supervise a research project over the summer. **I would recommend you prepare a nice CV that you can attached to your email**, so that they don't have to ask you for it and delay the process un-necessarily.
**I would also recommend to check their websites**, since many of them say explicitly "not currently taking research interns" and therefore if you do email them anyway, they might get annoyed and it could hurt your chances of working with them in the future (it probably won't harm you, but in some cases it can, so it's better not to risk it).
If you need help choosing a supervisor, you might ask friends if they have recommendations, or you can browse university websites after clicking on the department you're interested in, and finding the "department members" page.
If you are really keen and have the time, **I might recommend to browse some of their papers**, for example on Google Scholar or from the publication list on their website. They will be impressed if your email indicates that you know at least something about what they do, and is not just a generic request to work with someone about whom they have not the slightest clue.
Last of all, good luck with your search for an internship!
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/10
| 5,873
| 23,929
|
<issue_start>username_0: My thesis advisor expects me to 1) write the paper rebuttal and 2) finish any remaining experiments by coming in on the weekends, for free. I am now working full-time in industry, and no longer being paid by him. Is this ethical?
Part 2 of my question:
I would be happy to do this if it had been my fault that we didn't submit my paper until the week I graduated. However, my history with this advisor has been:
* 1 year before Jan graduation date: We agreed that in 1 year I could graduate given the finishing of certain key experiments. He also insisted that I be here for the rebuttal of the paper after its been submitted.
* During this year, we agreed that I was on track for this.
* 3 months before Jan graduation date: I brought up my Jan graduation again, and he protested saying it would take longer than I thought to write, submit, and wait for revisions to come back (different than being on track like we had agreed I was!)
I of course was dissapointed that he didn't tell me this sooner, that I wasn't on track. I relented to a compromise where I graduate in March instead of Jan.
* Dec: All of the key experiments had been completed and I insisted on submitting in Jan or by the end of jan so that I could still be here for the rebuttal (3 months to write, submit, and get reviews back). He agreed that would be enough time.
* Jan: He now wanted me to do several more, additional experiments for the paper. I tried, but the experiments were not going well. I kept trying to mention that the paper needed to be submitted. He relented, and we ended up submitting at the end of March.
Now, he doesnt even have the time to give me feedback on a draft of the rebuttal until after I put everything together (meaning I may be wasting my time on things that he will ultimately throw out or veto)
Therefore, I feel he has fanagled things so that he can get the most value out of me without regard for me as a person, and that includes this new period of being asked to do work with no mention of pay. Is this unethical and should I ask him to pay me for my work on the rebuttal?<issue_comment>username_1: The truth is that most individual pieces of research are done "for free", in the sense that there really aren't any immediate consequences if that particular piece doesn't get done. Most professors would probably still keep their job and get paid pretty much the same if they published half as many papers as they actually do. The same is true for graduate students and postdocs in terms of their current job, though if they want future academic jobs they'll need papers.
In this case, if you did the work, you would publish a paper. If you didn't do the work, either there is no paper, or maybe your advisor, if they thought the research was important, would try to write up the research without you and publish it themselves. (I think it's reasonable to say that, if you abandon the work, you give up authorship rights.) If you don't care about the research and the authorship on a paper, there is no reason for you to work on it. But, in that case, I don't really understand why you bothered to finish your PhD in the first place. Why didn't you get a full time job and quit your PhD two years ago?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll answer the second question first
>
> My thesis advisor expects me to ... finish any remaining experiments by coming in on the weekends, for free. I am now working full-time in industry, and no longer being paid by him. Is this ethical?
>
>
>
**Yes, this is obviously unethical** and you should not do it. If he wanted an hour for you to show someone else how to do something, I'd consider it as a favor but running entire experiments is not cool.
As for your first question:
>
> My thesis advisor expects me to ... write the paper rebuttal ... for free.
>
>
>
If you are in a similar field in industry, I think it would generally be expected to follow up on papers in submission as an active scientist. You can of course say no, but realize that means the paper probably won't happen. A paper rebuttal isn't quite the same as being asked to write a whole paper.
Regarding your comments, ethically, he cannot remove you as an author without your consent. The journal would want to see your permission before the author list being changed. Unfortunately, there's not much you can do against a bad actor who retracts, and resubmits somewhere else without your name.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: This person is no longer your thesis advisor. He or she is now at most a collaborator, and this observation should be your starting point.
In addition, compensation is not only in the form of money: there could be compensation in terms of promotion or future career to you if you complete this work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You are thinking about this like an industry employee (which you are, so that's a reasonable stance).
Your advisor is thinking about this like an academic (which they are, so that's a reasonable stance).
Some perspectives:
**Academic work is personal work and community work**
You don't work *for* someone in academia as much as you work *with* someone. It seems like you are feeling a lot of conflict with your advisor right now, but I'd step back a bit and think about whose research this is. Certainly at some level your work benefits your advisor, but isn't it your own work, too? Do you not want to see your results published?
Is your advisor making decisions about suggesting further experiments that pushed your timeline beyond what you hoped because they are getting free work out of you, or are these steps to make the paper better and importantly to make it *publishable* (see below)?
**In academia, it is normal to work on projects from a previous position; in industry it is not**
Almost every academic will, at any time they move positions (including graduating as an undergraduate/graduate student, between temporary positions like post docs, and when getting hired as a professor and any moves afterwards) have some unfinished business at their previous place of work.
It's not reasonable to expect every research project to fall neatly into the academic calendar, conveniently finishing right at the conclusion, especially given the unplanned timelines surrounding peer review. Therefore, people tend to spend part of their time in their new position finishing up things from their past one, while being paid only by the new institution.
This gets "paid forward" in the future when the same happens during the next transition. A frequently asked question here at Academia.SE is some version of "which institution/affiliation should I list on this paper, new or old?" because of how often this happens.
**Unpublished work is worthless to you and the academic community**
Maybe your work is in a thesis in some draft form already, but all of the work you've done that isn't published is doing nothing for you or for academia. Maybe you're fine with that, because you aren't an academic anymore, but ultimately whatever funding agency funded your research and the university you worked for did so because they wanted you to produce published results, not just to give you the PhD title. If you think there is value in the work you've done, then that should be an incentive to get it into a form that can be shared.
On the other hand, you may decide that publishing is not actually of any benefit to you. If you don't feel intrinsic worth in the project, and if you don't plan any return to academia, then probably one more published paper won't mean anything tangible for your CV.
**Given these differing perspectives...**
I don't think there is any fixed answer. Should you *do work* for a past advisor without compensation? No. Should you collaborate with people you've worked with in the past to share your research with the broader academic community? Probably yes.
Ultimately it's up to you to define where those boundaries are. Personally, I would think it to be irresponsible to fail to follow up on basic authorship duties like responding to reviewer comments, editing manuscripts for submission, etc. These activities shouldn't replace paid employment, but they can be completed in a few free hours during a transition period. Coming in on several weekends to run experiments sounds like a bit much - maybe there is a compromise solution where you can train a new student to run those experiments, add them as a coauthor to the paper, and continue helping with the manuscript(s)?
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> My thesis advisor expects me to 1) write the paper rebuttal and 2) finish any remaining experiments by coming in on the weekends, for free. I am now working full-time in industry, and no longer being paid by him. Is this ethical?
>
>
>
Generally, it's OK to have unrealistic expectations, and it's also OK to say no to unreasonable expectations. An ethical issue might arise if there's a power imbalance, and you would face repercussions from disappointing his expectations. Therefore, the ethical assessment of the situation mostly depends on the power balance between you and your advisor:
* A **particularly problematic** situation would be if he still has the option to defer your graduation in some way, for example, if the PhD defense was still in the future. In this case, his expectation would be a power abuse (even more so if he hinted at the possibility of deferring your graduation).
* A **particularly unproblematic** situation would be if your graduation is complete and you have made clear to him that you don't plan to ever come back to academia. In this case, there is no power abuse, as he doesn't have any leverage.
* If he doesn't have any immediate leverage now, but might have some in the future (e.g. if you return to academia and need his recommendation letter), his expectation is **a bit problematic**.
>
> should I ask him to pay me for my work on the rebuttal?
>
>
>
That would surely be okay, but be aware that this would transform your relationship into a business relationship. If you plan to approach him in the future for non-business issues (like writing a recommendation letter), there might be some consequences for that.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: A fine point is that you have submitted your thesis. A completed PhD thesis counts as published academic work, although different than a journal article. More importantly, it is publicly available for access and use to anyone interested without you being in a position to check or prevent it. Anyone can do it with just a citation and do not need to contact you or ask you to contribute to a project.
You do not depend financially on your supervisor or your institution and finalising a paper is down to your good will. You are not supposed to work unpaid, and if you do so it must be your own free choice and/or because you wish to achieve something for your own benefit. Your commitment ended formally with the completion of your PhD. Getting paid or not is not a universal yardstick for personal, or even professional, interactions though.
Simply put, it boils down to whether you want an academic publication or not, and as compensation I don't see you being able to wring more than an hourly paid contract under the most favourable conditions. I doubt such a demand would be seen favourably or as the best practical solution from the point of view of the department.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I think one thing that is missing from this conversation is whether the supervisor is able to pay or not. As much as I hate it when students that have worked for me continue to work on a paper after they run out of funding, there it is often that or no paper.
I have never had money lying around in the lab to choose to hire someone at will. Any staff money I have will be tied to a grant and anyone paid that money will be expected to work on that grant - not (or not only) whatever project is remaining from their last grant. I mean, I currently have piles of cash for experimental materials sitting around that I can't spend because the university is closed down, and researchers about to run out of funding. But I'm not allowed to spend the spare experimental money to cover the researchers, because thats not how grant money works (not in the UK at least).
Secondly, if I do have money, are you the most deserving of it? While I might think your project is the most interesting, or the one that would be most beneficial for my career even, am I going to give the money to someone who has secured a position somewhere else, and is being paid, or to someone who hasn't submitted their thesis, or hasn't secured a job? I'd feel a whole lot worst asking someone who has no current income to do work (even if that work is primarily to benefit them) than someone who has paid employment.
In the end, is unetheical to demand someone do something unpaid? Yes. But is it unethical to say "If this paper is to be published, then x, y and z need doing and you are the only person who can do it, and I'd really like this to be published"? No. Suboptimal, but not neccessarily unethical. Being paid may not be an option so it may be: do the experiments, publish the work, or don't and don't publish the work. Or accept another author on the authorship list (in addition) who will do the experiments.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: What is ethical or not ethical is subjective.
---------------------------------------------
What is legal or not legal is less subjective.
----------------------------------------------
First, have you checked whether or not the contract to which you and your present employer in industry are legally bound, allows you to do outside work for free or for compensation?
Many (or most) full-time jobs do not allow you to work for others in return for money.
Some (or many) full-time jobs do not allow you to work for others even if its for free.
Here is the first paragraph, of the first article, on the first page, of my post-doc contract from a few years ago:
The situation is often much worse in industry, which can be a **good thing and a bad thing**:
* If you want to get paid and your contract says you cannot do any other paid work, then perhaps this is a bad thing for you,
* **But here's the silver lining:** the contract in my screenshot wouldn't allow me to do free work for someone else either, as I was "expected to devote the whole of my attention to the duties in my paid workplace". For me this came in as a handy excuse when I got asked to do things that I didn't want to do (but I understand it might not help you as much here).
---
Now let me try to answer your two questions, and give you some advice:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Is it unethical to expect one's PhD students to work after graduation
> without compensation?"
>
>
>
As you may have noticed, different people have different opinions here. You may also be seeing more material here from the people saying it's unethical, since the people that think it's ethical are afraid to speak up. Or maybe they're not "afraid" to speak up, but they are reluctant to, because, for example, comments like these that get 18 upvotes:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/i3WjD.png)
I am not saying it's ethical, or not ethical, but I would advise you to take people's subjective opinions on this with a grain of salt, because it is not going to help you find a happy ending to this situation.
I really want you to walk out of this happy, so I hope that you consider taking my next piece of advice, which is to spend less energy thinking about whether or not its ethical, and to think about **what you can do about the situation if in your mind it is unethical.** The fact that ***you*** consider it to be unethical, is important enough for me. So he is "unethical", what shall we do? This is what I suggest (after you've checked your contract with the current employer and assuming you're not restricted):
* Carefully read the [brilliant answer of username_4](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/148951/93303). Consider doing the "work" not for money but for the reasons Bryan gave.
* If you still don't want to, consider **walking away** from this without authorship (your PhD will surely be available online and citeable on Google Scholar, and you are a solo author on it).
* If you don't want to sacrifice authorship on the paper ***and*** you want money for doing the work---- it's not really "work" ---- If you want money for the *effort* your more senior and more experienced adviser feels is needed for this paper to get published, you can try to ask him, then:
* Read [Ian Sudbury's](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/148995/93303) answer to help manage your expectations.
* If you still want to get paid, after a genuine kind-hearted professor like Ian, who comes here to give advice ***for free*** all the time, has spelled out the "professor perspective", you can consider to very gently and un-aggressively ask to get paid for the work. You will not likely be paid much, and you are likely to burn a bridge, something that [you have said you do not want to do](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148938/is-it-unethical-to-expect-ones-phd-students-to-work-after-graduation-without-co/148995#comment396038_148938).
* If you have reached all the way here, and find that you won't get paid, yet you want this paper to be published, we enter the legal and semi-legal realm:
+ Are there any laws, or rules, to which he is bound, obligating one co-author to pay another co-author for the effort they put into getting a paper published? **Should you have to pay him for the work he's doing to help you publish this after he's already finished his duty to supervise you until degree completion** (I agree this might not apply here, but it's interesting to at least think about)?
+ He is bound to the rules of the university, but universities will almost never side with you in situations like this, nor will they enforce their own rules if its not convenient for them to.
+ For the paper to get published, he is bound to the rules of the journal, but journals also may not enforce their own rules if its not convenient for them to, and [the last sentence of Azor Ahai's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/148947/93303) sums up what will probably happen here.
+ So, since powerful organizations like universities and journals often have no concept of ethics, you may have to consider a legal perspective. I live in Ontario, Canada and we have small-claims courts, municipal courts, provincial courts, federal courts, and maybe [100 tribunals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_tribunals#Ontario_tribunals) such as the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (covering the Employment Standards Act) and the Labour Arbitrations Tribunals, among others. I'm listing these in case the place where you live might have analogous courts/tribunals. Some of these will have jurisdiction over different legislation than others, and some will adhere to different instances of case law (previous decisions that count in *some* but not all courts/tribunals). I wish I could help you further with this, but by far a better place is [here](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/ask).
>
> Should graduates ask for compensation for work?
>
>
>
There is nothing you should or should not do, and human behavior is far too vast for us to accurately predict what will happen if you ask, so I am going to take a conservative approach and say that in general, you are better off not asking for compensation in academia. It is given to you without question, in the instances when it is absolutely necessary (for example if your country requires all PhD students to have a stipend), and otherwise it is given only by the more generous half of the academic population.
---
Finally, I do want to apologize that this is happening to you. I empathize with you and sympathize with you. I will reveal that my (subjective) opinion is that your supervisor may have been unethical. A perspective I hope you do not miss, is that of [Buffy](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148938/is-it-unethical-to-expect-ones-phd-students-to-work-after-graduation-without-co/148995#comment396063_148938). Their comments are being shut down, but there is actually a lot of truth to them. However, while Buffy is right that you should "count your blessings" such as the fact that this supervisor at least allowed you to get your PhD rather than using it as a dangling carrot to get you to do years of more work (I've seen it happen), a perspective I haven't seen here yet is that he allowed you to finish your PhD faster so that he would not be obliged to pay you for the work he knew he was going to later almost force you to do.
The world is not just, and you and me can continue trying to make it better, but for now, at least let me say: ***Congratulations on finishing your PhD and immediately getting your job in industry!!! It is rare, and you are amazing.***
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Regarding your question about payment and ethics: I don't see ethics involved. And as you just started in industry, you are not facing poverty or a long stretch of time without any payment. Finishing a paper after starting an industry job is not unheard of. You get your name on the publication.
My advice: Try to finish the paper with as little work as possible. Try to deny doing any additional experiments. These can be done by another scientist and they can write another paper based on further experiments. The rationale is, that you don't waste your work, but you limit the amount of additional work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_10: **It is not ethical to ask someone to work for free.** Even accepting to work for free is ethically questionable, because other potential employees are also affected. It is very difficult to compete with someone who works for free, even on the quality of the work.
That said, this does not mean a request for compensation is advisable. In all likelihood, your request will not go down well and be denied. Moreover, it may not even be allowed under your current employment contract.
You don't mention whether you are employed as a researcher. If you are, then collaborating with your former adviser is simply part of your job - and you should arrange with your employer to do so during regular work times. You can motivate this to your employer on personal development grounds, but it is more likely to be successful if there is also a benefit to your employer.
If research is not part of your current job, you'll need to decide whether finishing this project is of any use to your career path - and whether it's worth spending your personal time on. That's not work, that's a hobby. If you're going down this route, you should clarify this with your former adviser in order to manage their expectations.
A final note to relate this answer to some of the others: don't be fooled by the notion that university professors work for free. University professors don't work for free, they are highly paid professionals who make money to do teaching and research. Collaborating with other academics on research projects is simply a part of their job. In general, **professional researchers are not working for free when they are collaborating on research projects.**
EDIT: Changed 'academics never work for free' to 'university professors don't work for free'. Turns out academic is an identity and not a profession, so of course some academics do work for free, and are damn proud of it! Three cheers for the independently wealthy! Make academia elitist again!
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/10
| 1,450
| 6,590
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been applying to doctoral positions in mathematics with a strong background. BSc and MSc in math, and a MSc in computational math/engineering. I've got research experience in my field and connected fields, a paper in preprint and more to come (with novel results), solid references, teaching experience, participated in international competitions representing my university/country, good grades. Still, most of the time I don't even get an interview. I definitely understand that there are people who are better than me, and I'm not mad about it. However, often when they publish who got the positions, and it can be someone who did their BSc over 6-7 years, or who had an adjacent degree (such as computer science or physics) but studied more mathematics, or who hasn't done any teaching or research otherwise.
A few professors I know have told me several times that it's not really fair, so what I have left are social skills. I just don't know what to say. I've had my CV, statement of purpose, application letters reviewed and they said it was really good.
How can I write an application that broadly speaking appeals to such a recruitment committee? What are some interesting forms of describing my ambitions? What catches the attention of a recruiter in terms of research ambitions? I have clearly stated my research topics, as well as why I want to do research in it and how, but I don't know how to spice it up.
Just to be clear, I'm in Europe, so I didn't drop out of any PhD program to get my master degrees. Also, most of the positions were open positions, so I just sent my application and then they will decide on what advisors should get new students.
**EDIT 1:** I'd like to clear out that I have a BSc and MSc in mathematics, and an additional MSc which is much more applied and incorporates a lot of physics and computer science. Thus, I do have the required courses to apply for a pure math position, which I even have checked up on on their websites.<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds more like an issue of relevance and application strategy rather than a lack of your part, such as social skills.
To answer the question as is, showing that you can balance independent/ individual work and being part of a group of people - not necessarily a research group but that you can network on your own, seek and offer advice and take initiative in communication - is a good approach. With the experience you mention, I believe you can find tangible examples on both aspects.
However, not getting interviews is a different issue. Both applying for a PhD and selecting a PhD student has a significant personal element. At the very least, both you and the potential supervisors must choose whether you want to work with each other for at least 3 years and produce something never done before. The supervisors may rely on past experience to make a decision. Also, it is not necessarily the objectively best candidate ("strongest") who will be accepted, but the fittest (with or without quotes) given the approach and culture of the department and the academics. Your background can be both an asset and a hindrance. A mixed or checkered background may be a better match in multidisciplinary or far-fetching projects, and may also reveal something about the person (e.g. adaptability, perserverence, wider experience etc). A "pure X" background provides obvious advantages in expertise, but might look narrow or irrelevant at first glance. That is why your research proposal is so important: it is where you demonstrate which fields you want to focus on and your research criterion and insticts. It is important to keep in mind that a very focused proposal may hit an obvious wall, no matter how well-written it is or how good the candidate: the supervisor may simply not be interested (regardless of area of expertise!) or think that this is the only thing you are interested in and will not consider his suggestions or a possible change of course. Flexibility is quite important, and often disregarded.
It is like fishing in murky waters and so situational that common patterns are difficult to spot. Based on what you write, I would advise you to examine critically if your past applications showed that you were a good match for the project. Did you show relevant skills? Did you identify the important points correctly (e.g. was there a hint of multidisciplinary work that you missed, or did your proposal come across as too narrow)? Did your cover letter and proposal highlighted your strengths with regards to the project? Did you judge the relevance of the supervisors' past research correctly? If you have contact with an academic that can advise you (personal tutor, friendly professor etc) it would be a good idea to discuss the research proposal and the current situation in the field (e.g. you might be "out of fashion", if everyone is currently running behind a certain bandwagon).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In addition to Titus' answer which I believe is complete to the question posed.
You mention that students who get the positions are coming either from a straight Maths background or have other adjacent degrees, still with more Mathematics studied. Is it possible that you are missing some of the so called core Mathematics courses? It is mentioned in the question that you graduated an MSc in Computational Mathematics/Engineering. This leads me to believe that you could be missing some advanced knowledge from higher courses in fields such as Algebra or Analysis. Some professors/groups may prefer students who have acquired this type of knowledge over students with more experience in research, as there could be less training involved and candidates could "straightforward" jump into work.
Moreover, although it may not be a correct assumption, I believe you have oscillated a bit between fields over the last few years. From an application perspective, this could possibly imply some sort of inconsistency that could negatively impact your applications. Obviously you could turn this around in an application to look positive, but in the end it comes down to the committee to decide if they rely on a student who constantly changes his mind/preferences.
Best advice I could add, given all the good thoughts you've already given, is to contact some of the professors you are/were interested and ask what they are expecting from an applicant and ask for feedback for the interviews you got rejected. This may clarify in which position you are and what actions you could take.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/10
| 1,005
| 4,135
|
<issue_start>username_0: As I wrote few days ago, maybe someone remembers, I am waiting for a date to be set up and to present my scientific research on the Congress.
I have never done this before, they give me 7mins to show my introduction, aim, material and methods, results, discussion, conclusion and literature.
The research is huge but my main problem is being nervous and too emotional. Does any of you have any tips how to make myself more relaxed and somehow bring myself to state "its gonna be ok"?
My main problem is my **devotion** to the subject since there is some molestation and neglecting recorded and law violation. It is very hard for me to stay "normal".
I would appreciate any advice
Thank you, all.<issue_comment>username_1: The solution to worry is work. Write your speech. Practice it at least three times. Treat the practice as if you were actually giving the talk.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: (For context: I am a mathematician in the U.S.) For many reasons, I make my research students "rehearse" their presentations many, many times. It is of course all the more challenging to have a ridiculously short time in which to say anything. So, yes, crazy choices must be made. A more experienced person could coach/advise you on what to leave out.
Crazily-enough one of my students has won some presentation prizes for super-short talks by ... as she and I said to each other... "leaving out all the math". Definitely as opposed to trying to cram toooo much in.
Do not think in terms of giving a lecture for students. The only sane way to give such a short presentation is to think in terms of addressing people who already know enough so that the *new* parts of your work can stand on their own. It is obviously impossible to explain almost anything at all. No "background" on basic grad-level material. No time!
So, absolutely, find a more senior person to "rehearse" with. Your own peers may not have a clear-enough idea of what should be included to really help you. "Experts know what experts know."
(And, to be clear, rehearse the talk over and over and over and over... with your coach/advisor/critic... until you can do it in your sleep, etc.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **Practice makes perfect.** First practice your speech over and over again in the privacy of your own office, with no-one watching. Make sure you have the length and speed of your speech right, so that you are not rushing through it. Once you feel you have it right, practice it several times in front of some trusted colleagues, and make any necessary changes based on feedback. Practice it enough times to get used to presenting while nervous, and get used to the feeling of "butterflies in your stomach". Ideally, this repetition will allow you to commit most of your speech to memory, and get you used to speaking to an audience on a topic that is sensitive to you. If you are to speak in a large venue, it can also help to go there in the morning before anyone is there (assuming you can get in) and get yourself used to the space. Try standing where you will stand and looking out over the empty venue. That way it will be a bit more familiar to you when you do your speech.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Probably too late for your talk, but you might profit for your next time: Learn from other presenters. When you visit the conference, a lot of talks will be 7 min in length. Try to concentrate how others are presenting their work:
* How do they split their rare minutes to introductions, maths, results, and outlook?
* How deep do they dive into their topics and their specific terms, methods etc.?
* If you like a talk, ask yourself whether it was the topic, the presenter, or something you could adapt to your next talk. Similar if you dislike a talk, can you identify why you disliked it and whether you can avoid such things for your talk?
If you know people on the conference and they attend your talk, you can ask them to provide constructive criticism. Either in talk or via email.
This will boost your confidence and thus keep you calmer next time.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/10
| 2,702
| 11,531
|
<issue_start>username_0: I think this question holds for any kind of class, but if it actually makes a difference, it's a graduate level class.
Today I was drafting an email asking about uncertainties in a paper I'm supposed to do a presentation on.
When posing the questions, I added what I think is the solution to the question.
**However, I am not sure wether or not I should actually include the attempt of answering my question on my own.**
**Pros**
* It shows that I actually tried to find a solution before writing them
* It could make answering the email easy because they maybe don't have to explain much if I'm correct
* Just asking the questions without any extra text (e.g the solution) makes the email itself seem blatant
* It could reveal even more misunderstandings on my part, increasing the value of their answer
**Cons**
* It just bloats the email, maybe making it less appealing to read and answer
* They might not care what I think because they "have to" write their own answer anyway
* (If the answer is **way** off, it might throw a bad light on me)
**Neutral**
* Might depend on the person I'm asking
If it depends on the person I'm asking, how would I actually recognize wether he/she wants me to add my thoughts or not?
Therefore, I am in confusion wether or not to add my attempts to the email or not.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes absolutely include it. That's the only way for the instructor to see where the gaps in your knowledge are. If you think it makes the email too long, then put a concise summary at the top and then the details below.
Edit: consider also that in the above post, you attempted to answer your own question. Look how much context that gave to the question. Imagine if you'd posted the title and the bolded statement only. We would not have understood your thought process. You might not have received many useful answers, just comments asking you to clarify what you were asking
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In a reasonable grad-level teaching situation, the prof/teacher (should!?!) *absolutely* want to hear your thoughts/confusions/partial-solutions.
Sure, there is a balance that you/we/they need to find, about balancing your own work (possibly dragging out too long and wasting your own time due to some misapprehension) and "asking questions".
It is generally better to at least *have* (and express) your own thoughts, even if you've gotten stuck or disheartened. That does also *show* that you've put some effort in, so are not simply being lazy. :)
It is true that organization and formatting of emails is very important in effective communication. Shorter things are easier to organize, of course, but may be inadequate to communicate your message. Then the inescapable burden of organization itself becomes significant... and problems of clarity (or lack thereof) grow.
But, as most of the time, "being coy" is not a helpful communication scheme.
Conceivably your task really is to "figure it out all on your own", but that's a bit misguided in my opinion (being at least a time-waster), and should not be the default way you think of your professor/teacher.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You should definitely include your initial attempts/thinking in the email. Otherwise, it becomes difficult for the professor to see what you are specifically having trouble understanding about the problem. Plus, it is considered rude (at least in my experience) to not show your thinking; the professor may think that you just want the answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The general rule of thumb, in my opinion, is that you should do what results in the least work from the professor in order to answer your query. Professors receive a LOT of e-mail, and it takes up a lot of our time. The faster we can answer questions (while still providing illumination), the happier we are.
In general, this will usually mean providing as much as possible of your attempted solution. This enables your professor to quickly identify your particular difficulty and address it; otherwise, they are just left with providing a generic solution and leaving you to figure out where you went wrong.
Having said that, providing working can sometimes be taken to extremes: I once had a student e-mail me with 3 pages of handwriting and the question "where is the mistake?". This clearly fails the rule of thumb I mentioned above.
A wrong solution almost never throws a bad light on you, although I wouldn't say it was impossible; you'd have to be REALLY off (as in, did-not-listen-to-any-lectures off) for that to happen.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Put the question up front in a terse form in the subject. This allows to know the topic before opening the mail.
Then repeat the question in a longer single sentence para at the start of your email. This allows to perhaps satisfy you immediately without reading the details. And if it is required to read the details at least the prof knows where the story is headed
Then blather the details after with a header, "Details:" or preliminary efforts, or some topical headers.
And don't really blather in that details section. Write concisely and with a structure. But include details. Your pro con here was good.
Executive communication requires to put the "so what" at the front, not after a buildup. And definitely not after a stream of consciousness.
Oh...and the same applies to SE questions. ;)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: As a teacher dealing with student questions (whether by email or in person) what matters most to me is not length but specificity. Questions which are vague or overly broad are a pain to deal with regardless of whether they are long or short. The shortest (“I don’t understand …” or “How do you do …?”) are often the worst, but long emails that end with “What did I do wrong?” aren’t all that far behind.
A good question is one which is specific. The more specific the better. In making a question specific, you will need to provide details (i.e. make the question longer) but the specificity will also help you identify stuff that is extraneous to your question so that you don’t provide more information than is needed.
As an added bonus, specific questions show me, the teacher, that you, the student, are putting forward a good faith effort to understand the material on your own. Though I should be equally willing to help all students, psychologically it is always much easier to engage with a student whom I can see trying. Students who are just fishing for answers and ones who are trying but don’t ask specific questions often look the same (especially via email). Combine that with an external stressor, and I may just give you a brush off that you don’t deserve. Obviously I try to avoid that, but I’m only human and cannot be perfect all of the time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: **Yes**. @DanielK’s excellent answer explains the main logic behind why this is a good idea. But another large benefit that wasn’t mentioned yet is that when you go through the process of explaining your thought process in detail to another person, quite frequently you will end up realizing what the answer is by finding the misconception or having the thing you were confused about suddenly become completely clear and obvious.
I’ve seen this happen many times when students start asking a question and in the process of explaining themselves to me they suddenly understand what the issue is and I end up not needing to say anything.
(It’s also happened to me on the other side of the situation when I was the person asking a question of other people.)
This is the best way for learning to occur. And you won’t even need to send the email! Win-win for everyone.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I'm just going to post an additional remark on your last "con" argument about wrong answers putting you in a bad light.
No competent teacher is going to view you any worse because you gave a completely wrong answer. A teacher's goal, first and foremost, should be making sure their students understand the concepts they are taught. And a core part of understanding is making mistakes.
Very few people are smart enough to be able to understand everything without a single mistake from the very first time they learn about something. It would be completely asinine as a teacher to expect anything even remotely like full understanding from your students from the very start.
I'll even top that: Not even the teacher is expected to fully understand everything correctly, because there are always things that are just that slightly harder to understand than what the teacher is capable of. A teacher who says they know everything is misguided, lying or ignorant of the things they don't know (the unknown unknowns).
You should never be afraid of giving an appropriate wrong answer in school. That's what school is for: learning the correct answers, or learning where the correct answers can be found. A teacher who thinks less of you, or worse, ridicules you for giving a wrong answer is a bad teacher who should not be teaching.
A good teacher won't ridicule you or think less of you. If your answer is wrong, they'll say so and point you towards the correct answer. If your answer is REALLY wrong, they'll say so and point you towards the correct answer, if necessary reminding you to review the basics again. They might do some venting in the teacher's lounge, but they'll keep a professional and kind demeanor towards you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Regardless of the setting (academic, industry, government, hobby, stackoverflow, etc...), when you ask someone else for help, it is always a good idea to explain what you've tried so far and the thought process that lead you there. Be concise, but don't leave out any important details.
After all, you're asking for someone else to give you some of their time to help solve *your* problem, even though they certainly have no shortage of their own problems to work on. Make it as easy as possible for them to help you. It demonstrates respect and gives them useful information that will make any ensuing discourse more productive and efficient– all things that will help persuade them that it's worth investing a bit of time to help you. Really, that is something any decent teacher should want to do as it is quite literally their job.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: As a compromise between the two extremes consider the following approach:
>
> Dear Professor Xavier,
>
>
> I have finished my presentation on mutant transmogrification, but I had a question regarding the nanoregressive turboencabulator principle that I wanted to double check with you. Specifically, it is not obvious to me why Magneto-enhanced particles would disrupt a portal generated by a flux-capacitor.
>
>
> **I have outlined my own approach to this in the attached file in case you'd like to have a look.**
>
>
> Best regards,
> Wolverine
>
>
>
This keeps your main email clean, while allowing one to open a separate document *if* interested, promoting the idea that this is more of a secondary document.
---
While I am a fan of proper exposition, I reluctantly admit that many a time I've lost my audience with what was intended to be a helpfully comprehensive email, and have had much better success at sending short, terse, incomplete-feeling messages, building up iteratively if necessary.
Same experience on stackoverflow, in fact. :|
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/11
| 1,021
| 4,148
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last year I was informed by my PI that the lab was too busy to take on undergrad students. I said that I understood and found another lab that I was interested in to join.
However, I had been working on a project for a year before I left, and didn't get around to sending them any data/notes related to my project after I left. The lab members also didn't ask for any data. So, I'm not sure if maybe my project as a undergrad wasn't that important, or if I was unprofessional. Would it be late now, more than a year after I left, to send in data? Did I leave a bad impression?
I was hoping to ask the PI for letters of rec for grad school, but (1) He has new undergrad students now and I haven't spoken with him for a while and (2) I'm not sure if I left a bad impression when leaving the lab.<issue_comment>username_1: The lab is obligated to keep records of its data, if that is reasonably feasible. If you did not leave the data with the lab, you should make it available to the lab.
In my opinion, it is the supervisor's responsibility to ensure this is done.
This isn't likely to have a significant effect on letters of recommendation.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: So first, it seems a little strange that after an entire year of work, they would suddenly be "too busy to take on undergrad students." Of course I am only speculating, but my guess is that they (rightly or wrongly) didn't think your project was going anywhere and decided to cut you loose. This would also explain why they didn't ask for your data or notes, and why they have since hired new undergraduates. If this is the case, this PI would probably not be a good choice when asking for letters of recommendation.
At any rate, to your questions:
>
> I'm not sure if maybe my project as a undergrad wasn't that important, or if I was unprofessional.
>
>
>
If they wanted your data or notes, they should have asked for them. I assume there was no directive that you failed to follow, such as "upload your results to the portal every week." So no, I don't think it was unprofessional.
Why didn't they ask for your data or notes? Two possible reasons:
* In my experience, first-time undergraduate researchers do things *literally* hundreds of times slower than I can. So, I would likely start from scratch rather than trying to turn the student's product into something useable. Of course, this will vary by field -- I can imagine that some "wet labs" have very time-consuming processes for which undergraduate data would be valuable (if we trust the undergraduate).
* Everyone always has more ideas than they have time. If an idea gets consigned to an undergraduate, it's probably not very high-priority. So, it could be that no one is pursuing that idea, or that a new undergraduate will start from scratch on it.
>
> Would it be late now, more than a year after I left, to send in data?
>
>
>
Personally, I would not offer. As noted above, this is unlikely to be useful; further, it raises the question of "if you thought I needed this, why didn't you provide it a year ago?"
>
> I was hoping to ask the PI for letters of rec for grad school but I haven't spoken with him for a while and I'm not sure if I left a bad impression when leaving the lab
>
>
>
I wouldn't worry about not having spoken with him in a while -- everyone is busy. And I wouldn't worry about the data/notes situation. But I would think carefully about the circumstances under which you left the lab -- generally, we don't fire students if we think they deserve a very strong recommendation. But of course there are exceptions. You can certainly ask "Would you be able to write a strong recommendation?"
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: If they did not ask for the data I would not be worried about sending the data. If the PI were interested, they would ask you for the data.
We cannot possibly know what the PI's impression of you. But if you were to ask for a recommendation letter, you should summarize your achievements in their lab and ask them if they could provide a "**strong**" recommendation letter in the email.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/11
| 1,353
| 5,216
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a master's degree in the UK, titled MSc Advanced Materials Engineering.
I would like to know if it would be correct to put MSc (Eng) as a post-nominal?
There is no clear guidance. By using just MSc in a post-nominal it is of course not implicit that the qualification is in an engineering subject. I would like to make that distinction if it is permitted to do so.<issue_comment>username_1: +: As long as you can back it up when someone asks you, it is fine. You are not cheating by adding parentheses.
-: MSc (Eng) looks confusing at least to me.
I would say if possible, write the degree in full rather than using abbreviations. Otherwise, maybe provide some context on why and where you need to use short alternatives.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You hold an *MSc*, not an *MSc (Eng)*, so use the former.
If you want the reader to know you have an engineering degree, then write *MSc Advanced Materials Engineering*, perhaps even *MSc, Engineering dept., Uni X* for something shorter.
Note that *MEng* also exists, so *MSc (Eng)* may baffle some.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: MSc is a degree *classification* (Master of Science) referring to a specialisation in the field of natural sciences (compare to BSc as a general degree or MA - Master of Arts for Humanities). MEng, on the other hand, is a degree *name* (Mechanichal Engineering). Certain common abbreviations may be allowed, such as MBA (Master's in Business Administration). MSc (Eng) is meaningless to me, I would advise against it and there is a clear distinction between the abbreviations. For someone unaware of the differences, *Eng* might even stand for English.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: A UK university will tell you what is the correct abbreviation for your degree. The commenters above who profess ignorance of the abbreviation MSc(Eng) show their youth. The year before I took my MSc at Imperial College London, the same course would have led to a degree officially abbreviated as MSc(Eng).
Nobody is at all interested in how your degree is abbreviated, however. What they want to know is how well qualified you are for what it is you say you want to do. In some contexts your degree (however it is abbreviated) will be relevant to some professional status, such as certified engineer, but that will depend on detailed specific regulations and not on how you choose to describe your qualifications.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: MSc(Eng), aka MScEng, is an abbreviation for [Master of Science in Engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Science_in_Engineering).
The answer depends on the full name displayed on your degree certificate. The question itself contains an abbreviation (*MSc Advanced Materials Engineering*) so it's hard to say conclusively.
If your full degree name is: *Master of Science: Advanced Materials Engineering*, then the precise abbreviation would simply be `MSc`.
If on the other hand, the full degree name is *Master of Science in Engineering: Advanced Materials Engineering*, then it would be accurate to use the `MSc(Eng)` abbreviation.
**Additional Background**
The Master of Science in Engineering is always a postgraduate degree. In contrast, a Master of Engineering degree (MEng) can sometimes be considered an undergraduate degree. Some universities offer a one year MEng degree on top of a 3-year Bachelor of Engineering (BEng), or an integrated [four-year MEng degree](https://www.southampton.ac.uk/courses/mechanical-engineering-degree-meng). This makes it equivalent to a four-year Bachelor of Science in Engineering, abbreviated as BSc(Eng) or BSE. See for example the [BScEng degree at GCU](https://www.gcu.edu/degree-programs/bachelor-science-engineering), or the [BScEng degree at Wits](https://www.wits.ac.za/course-finder/undergraduate/ebe/mechanical-engineering/), both requiring four years of study.
A Master of Science in Engineering can sometimes be done purely by research, or a combination of research and coursework. See for example, the [MScEng in Electrical Engineering at UCT](https://ebe.uct.ac.za/department-electrical-engineering/postgraduate-programmes/master-science-engineering-specialising-electrical-engineering).
Some universities also used to offer five-year engineering Bachelor degrees, which in my understanding is recognized by the [Bologna Process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process) as being equivalent to an MEng degree. MIT also had a [five-year MEng degree program](https://www.eecs.mit.edu/about/departmental-history/):
>
> In 1993, it established a five-year Master of Engineering (MEng)
> program, under which MIT undergraduates stay for a fifth year and
> receive simultaneous bachelor’s (SB) and master’s of engineering
> (MEng) degrees.
>
>
>
**Conclusion**
Different universities offer different degrees, with different names, which can be confusing. The main point to remember is that MScEng is a postgraduate degree and an abbreviation for Master of Science in Engineering. If that's what your degree says, MScEng, MSc(Eng) or [MSE](https://name.engin.umich.edu/home/academics/graduate-studies/mse-degree/) are valid abbreviations.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/11
| 1,340
| 5,474
|
<issue_start>username_0: For the sake of context, I have been accepted by a UK university for my undergraduate degree (Maths and Philosophy at Oxford), and shall be beginning my degree this fall.
My issue is this - after having looked into the course contents for English, I have been considering changing my degree subject once I arrive. However, when I suggested this to my parents, they were convinced that I would have to return back once my degree is over if I did this, because, according to them, it is much harder for an international student to get a job that will allow them to emigrate as a humanities student than as a STEM student.
As such, my question is this - as far as the UK is concerned, is there a significant difference between one's prospects in academia between the humanities and the sciences? And is it thus any harder for an international student to emigrate if he or she pursues an academic career in the Humanities?<issue_comment>username_1: tl;dr: You **parents are right**. However, it is **your choice** to make.
1. Professional job market is very competitive in the UK. If you are not a UK/EU citizen (which follows from your question), you need a [Tier 2](https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-general/eligibility) visa to work in the UK. To be eligible for this visa, you need to earn a salary above certain threshold (currently £30000 per year). Also, your employer should sponsor your visa application.
2. If you plan to work in academia, the majority of the universities do not discriminate on the basis of your citizenship and will sponsor your visa application if you are the best candidate for the job. However, academic job market is very competitive. To secure a job in academia, you need to have a PhD, and often a good number of academic publications under your belt. Note that PhD students in the UK pay tuition fees and do not automatically receive a stipend (as in some EU countries). You will either need to pay your way through your PhD studies, or to receive a scholarship to support your studies. However, even when you get a PhD, securing an academic job on top of it will take a lot of effort, commitment and luck.
3. Outside academia, not many professions can offer an entry-level salary which is above the threshold required for professional immigration (Tier 2 visa). Among those which can, I can name a few: financial sector, data analysis, insurance sector, IT, some engineering occupations. Most of them are looking for candidates with strong technical (STEM) skills.
4. Humanities are broad, and some people do make good money on top of their education in Law, in languages, in Arts, etc. However, note that for the purpose of immigration it is not sufficient just to earn money. You will need to demonstrate that you can earn money *consistently* and *above the threshold*. A lot of artists work freelance occupations, for example, and it is much more difficult to use such earnings as an evidence for [UKVI](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration) purposes. Typically they would expect artists to apply for [Tier 1](https://www.gov.uk/tier-1-exceptional-talent) Exceptional Talent visa, which is more expensive and generally harder to get.
Having said all this, I now want to answer a slightly different question. You asked about a chance of a student in STEM against a student in Humanities. However, what you really want to know is what is **your** prospects, assuming that you choose a career in STEM vs Humanities. This is a different question. Whatever career you choose, in order to immigrate on top of it, you will need to be excellent in what you do. It is very hard to develop excellent abilities in something you don't like very much. You have many years of studies in front of you; and you commitment and dedication to these studies is crucial to develop yourself as a desirable job candidate. You must love what you do. So my advice is: **choose a career which you really like** and work towards it. Don't make immigration your number one goal. And definitely don't make immigration to the UK your main priority - it is very unclear what the situation is going to be here by the time you graduate.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If you wish to stay in academia, then yor status as an international student has little immediate consequence. Almost all full-time academic positions will hire you irrepsective of your nationality. However, you will face extra insecurity, because a period of unemployment or only part-time employment in the UK will lead to the likelihood of deportation. Even those you have been here long enough for indefinate leave to remain (the UK equivalent of a green card) have found themselves in trouble.
The second part of this question is humanities vs STEM. Here, your parents are right. To see that, you only have to look at how many STEM staff a university employs vs how many humanities staff. My university has at least 8 biology departments I can think of off the top of my head (Molecular Biology, Biomedical Science, Animal and plant science, Oncology, Immunology, Chemical and biological engineering, Neuroscience), each employing at least 40 faculty members and probably the same again full time post doctoral reserach assisstants. So thats minimum permenant 320 faculty members. The school of English (including literature, theatre, linguistics and film/television studies) has a total of 50 permanent faculty.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/12
| 2,061
| 8,594
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last year we started organizing a conference in one of the European countries in September 2020. Everything was fixed and we had a number of registered people. As you all may know, due to the pandemic outbreak, many conferences in Europe were canceled. Since our conference was scheduled for September, we didn't declare it canceled and decided to wait a bit to see how the situation will be as we get close to the summer.
Now, recently we thought about having an online conference instead of a real one. But we don't want it to be a failure as we have no experience with it and we are not aware of the public opinion about an online conference.
**Is it a good idea to change the conference to an online one** or it is better to postpone the real conference until the end of this pandemic crisis?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, public opinion is of little consequence. The times are chaotic and people need to do things differently as the old ways aren't viable (literally).
You have a couple of options:
You can just cancel the conference until some unknown future date (whether you express it that way or not) since the "end" of the current pandemic is over the horizon and not in sight.
You can do what you can do in the short term (probably online) to make the experience as good as you can make it, knowing that it may be a pale shadow of what might be possible otherwise. You can, to some extent, bring people together so that they can share ideas. That is the real essence.
My suggestion is that you plan *now* for the worst case scenario, whether you need to actually implement it or not. But if you don't have a plan in place then it will be more chaotic than it needs to be.
You can, in particular, give a tentative future date for a face to face meeting while warning people that the date is tenuous and an online meeting might be the only resort. A bigger problem, of course, is arranging the proper infrastructure, whether it is for a face to face meeting (reserving a venue) or an online meeting (bandwidth, video/sound equipment, etc). But make a plan now.
With more experience with online meetings we may learn more about the relative desirability of such things. If people learn to adapt then they will turn out to be fine. Otherwise there will be a lot of pressure to go back to more traditional meetings.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Great question; however, I don't think there is any consensus opinion as to how good online conferences are.
You might, however, read [this blog post](https://www.daniellitt.com/blog/2020/4/20/wagon-lessons-learned) by <NAME>. He was an organizer of the [Western Algebraic Geometry Online](https://sites.math.washington.edu/~jarod/wagon.html) conference, held via Zoom this April. It was quite large, with around a thousand participants, and in my opinion very successful.
In his blog post he discusses what went well, what went less well, and what the organizers tried to achieve. In summary, the organizers weren't able to replicate everything good about an in-person conference, but overall they succeeded in creating a very valuable experience for the participants.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: The Association for Computing Machinery (the US scholarly society for computing) has a presidential task force on the subject of virtual conferences, and they maintain a rather detailed [guide](https://www.acm.org/virtual-conferences). This can help understand your options and whether going online is a good idea for your event.
Here are some experience reports in the computer science field: [ASPLOS](https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/243882-the-asplos-2020-online-conference-experience/fulltext), [EDBT/ICDT](https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07668), [ICLR](https://medium.com/@iclr_conf/gone-virtual-lessons-from-iclr2020-1743ce6164a3). The first two have satisfaction surveys. There are pointers to other such resources in the ACM guide.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it is hard to give a general answer, what is best depends not only on what you consider best, but it may vary from conference to conference, and the audience.
But switching to an online conference is exactly what we did (The Perl & Raku conference). And although it's not an username_2 conference, many of the issues that were relevant to us, maybe relevant to you as well.
Our conference was scheduled for June, in Houston, Texas. We did both postpone and organize an online conference. Our conference is held yearly, in rotating cities in the USA (and sometimes Canada). We postponed the physical conference to 2021, to the same location. It did help that the hotel where the conference was being held was willing to work with us, and we could move the contract to the next year without much fuss. Groups who were working on bids for the 2021 conference were asked to work on a bid for 2022 instead.
We also decided to do an online conference. Partially because we had already accepted talks, and we wanted to give speakers an opportunity to present anyway, and partially because we felt that it takes way less resources to organize an online event than a physical event -- there is no venue to deal with, no catering, no travel arrangements for invited speakers, etc.
We did attract less submissions for the online conference than the physical one -- where we normally have 3 or 4 four parallel tracks during a 3 day conference, we now have 2 parallel tracks over 3 days. And that is even taking into account we got more submissions from European speakers than normally: were they are usually not willing to travel to the US, and go to our sister conference in Europe instead, there is no travel time for an online conference. Also, the European conference, scheduled for September, got cancelled as well, and will not do a separate online version. But there have been a number of speakers who signaled that they do not want to present online, and quite a number of people who submitted for the physical conference, did not do it for the online one.
A decision which needs to be taken is, what tool are you going to use to broadcast the presentations? Requirements for us were: the software should work on Linux, Mac, and Windows, with no costs for users; minimal costs for the organizers were acceptable. It should handle a large enough audience. It should be interactive, but moderated (that is, audience is normally muted, but can speak when allowed by the moderator). We decided to use Zoom, and stream on YouTube. Audience who wants to interact must use Zoom, no interaction will be possible on YouTube.
Another issue to deal with with an online conference is the schedule and time zones. With a physical conference, everyone is together and hence, in the same time zone. We will now dealing with people in the USA (from East to West), Europe, and an invited speaker located in Australia. Hence we start the conference at 11 AM Eastern Time, which is early, but, hopefully, not too early on the West Coast of the USA, with the last events ending at 5:30 PM Easter Time, which is past midnight for most of Europe. Hence, when I was scheduling the talks, I put European speakers in the morning as much as possible, and US and Canadian speakers later in the day. The Australian speaker is scheduled at the end of the day, which will be the next day for him. And unlike the physical events, we did not schedule any coffee/lunch/dinner breaks, audience members are scattered over too many time zones to make this work out.
Not everything can carry over. There will be no (obviously) no social events. And while we usually have a few days before/after the conference were (paid) classes are given, we have now restricted this to a single class. We have not worked out whether there will be any BOF (birds of a feather) meetings, and, if so, how we want to facilitate this.
For us, this is going to be an experiment. We do not know whether it's going to be a success, we can only decide that afterwards. And even if it's a success, that does not mean every other online event will be a success (and so it the opposite, if we fail, that does not imply other online conferences can't be a success).
This doesn't exactly answer your question ("Is it a good idea to change the conference to an online one or it is better to postpone the real conference until the end of this pandemic crisis?"), but I hope this answer will help you decide whether it's a good idea for you to change the conference to an online one or whether it's better to postpone your conference.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/12
| 1,158
| 4,945
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in the area of CS/math. My dream (for a long time) is to develop an academic career, and I work really hard (like any of us) to achieve that.
This semester I am taking a class which is semi relevant to my area. This class made me feel like a complete idiot. I have been spending hours on HW questions which other students solved quickly, it takes me a while to even understand parts of the solutions/concepts presented. This is very different from a struggle in research, where sometimes nothing works but at least you know that you are trying to solve something yet unsolved.
I know that the academic career path has so many struggles to come. However, this class kinda made me think that maybe I am not good enough for this type of theoretical research. How come other students invested so much less effort on that?
I guess I am looking for advice on this. Should I take that as a hint for actually not being able to do that type of research? Should I just forget about it? Have you been in such a situation?<issue_comment>username_1: What you may be experiencing is the fact that insight into some areas of mathematics don't translate into insight into others. I had a lot of insight into Analysis (my field) and General Topology, but little in Abstract Algebra. I once took a course (grad level) in discrete math and did terribly, experiencing much of what you describe.
To be successful you need a fairly general understanding of much (but not all) of mathematics and a deep understanding of one or two narrow areas. If you can achieve that then you can be a success.
It hasn't been possible for an individual to understand (at any deep level) all of mathematics for about 100 years. There are likely only a few living computer science professionals that understand all of CS, if that is even possible at all anymore, given what has gone on in the last 10 years or so.
If you are early in your studies then work on breadth. If you are mid to late, then it is time for a deep dive.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don't know the answer to this question, but I do have some idea for questions you might ask yourself.
I would guess that you are doing better in this class than you think you are, and overall you are probably stronger than this particular class indicates.
However, the job market is competitive, and I have every expectation that the current crisis will make the job market worse, permanently. How much worse I don't know. While you're not directly competing against your classmates, they are probably similar to some of the people you will be competing against.
I don't know where you are going to graduate school, so I don't know how good (on average) the other students are. If you are in a situation where only 5% of the students in your program get the kind of job you want, then you're probably in trouble; those 5% are likely to be at least above average at everything. If you are in a situation where 50% of the students in your program get the kind of job you want, then you could very well be part of that 50%.
Of course, it could very well be that, historically, 50% of the students in your program got the kind of job you want, but, because of the new job market, only 5% will going forward.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> However, this class kinda made me think that maybe I am not good enough for this type of theoretical research.
>
>
>
Well, maybe you aren't for **this** type. Isn't that natural? What it does **not** mean is that you are not good enough for **your** main field. You are going through something very normal, so a pragmatic approach might be the best one.
If you are doing this out of personal interest, just enjoy the experience and don't measure with other people. If you are aiming for specific skills, focus on getting the useful, applicable parts you can apply and don't measure with other people - you are not there for that. The field is semi-relevant, so I consider it as either a potential extension or something helpful but not essential. There is also a chance that you are used to learning in a way that is inappropriate to that particular field, and that may hinder you. E.g. some people work very well when a topic is presented to them as a problem to be solved rather than an abstract theoretical construct, and some people are exactly the opposite.
An analogy with learning languages at an older age is very tempting - many people have felt that struggle.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: You're developing a cognitive distortion in regard to your ability. Comparing yourself to another only will increase you anxiety in this respect. I've seen it destroy teachers. One day they're told that they're consumate professionals. Then one observation later they're deemed inadequate and then put under review until they leave because the stress becomes too much.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/12
| 837
| 3,548
|
<issue_start>username_0: My initial reaction would be that it would be highly inappropriate to attend someone's defense unless explicitly invited, and you should never ask someone for and invitation to anything. It should be something very private.
However, it referred to as a "*Final Public Oral Examination*" and the time, date, and location (i.e. Zoom link) is shared by the department and the university. I have been told that some things I would find mean and offensive are actually supportive and kind things to do, so I do not know if my initial reaction is the *"correct"* one.
I want to be supportive, while not going where I am not wanted/should not go. At the same time, I am not sure if there is just some level of unspoken assumptions/norms that I am unaware of.<issue_comment>username_1: They are your friends. What do you think about them? Will they be happy about your support? Or not to be examined in front of friends?
In my opinion, you should ask them before (not too strange since at a Zoom meeting, there is no buffet for them to organize). Maybe they didn't ask you because they worry you find it boring? Don't ask questions at the defense if they don't want you to. Afterwards, congratulate them!
That it is public is a red herring. You are not there as a public person but as a friend.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Traditionally (i.e. several hundred years of tradition) these things are public. Intentionally so. I urge you to go, or at least ask your friend whether they would object - which they should not.
In fact other students in the department should probably also attend, just to get a sense of the sorts of things that get asked.
My own final act as a student was called a Dissertation Defense, not an oral exam, but anyone on the committee could ask any question, even quite off the wall questions. But no one did that. I remember the room as being quite full with lots of professors and even more students. I don't recall whether the rules permitted the public to ask questions, but that is sometimes allowed as well.
The candidate is expected to say sensible things, but not necessarily to provide an answer to every question posed. But think of it more as a sharing of new ideas with the community than a grilling. If grilling was needed it probably already took place in private oral exams covering some aspect of the field of study.
There are a few horror stories about people not getting their degree because of their (lack of) performance at such things. Some of them involve questions by out-of-field committee members that are a feature in some places. But the sorts of questions they are likely to ask are necessarily elementary and it is a real failure to not be able to respond sensibly.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In many cases not only it is not inappropriate but it is welcome and set in regulations. In Denmark, as an example, Doctorate defences are public in the sence that they can (and are) be attended by any member of the public, university related or not.
In principle I completely agree with dissertations being accessible to anyone. However, to be on the safe side, you might want to first ask for your friend's opinion and then to chech with the Department. If neither objects, just "walk in". It would by no means be a faux pas.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: It's normal and shows camaraderie. Some places will ask the audience to leave after the presentation part is over, when the questioning occurs. (Mine did.)
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/12
| 345
| 1,348
|
<issue_start>username_0: How to find and check providers of fake Digital Object Identifier (DOI) numbers? What are the consequences of using fake DOI numbers? How can I know is DOI number actually fake?<issue_comment>username_1: Attempt to resolve the DOI digitally. If the number doesn’t resolve then it doesn’t currently identify a digital object adequately.
Do you mean “how do I identify DOIs resolving to objects that are academic garbage, lack peer review or a publisher exhibiting academic standards of review prior to publication?”
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: DOIs are registered and managed by [Registration Agencies](https://www.doi.org/registration_agencies.html) appointed by the International DOI Foundation. All registered DOI numbers resolve through <https://doi.org/> - if it doesn't resolve it's not a DOI. A DOI can be applied to many different things so the fact that content has a DOI doesn't say anything about the quality or validity of the content. There's a blog post about this - <https://www.crossref.org/blog/dois-unambiguously-and-persistently-identify-published-trustworthy-citable-online-scholarly-literature-right/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The EU-backed [FREYA](https://www.project-freya.eu/en) is currently working on a project called 'common DOI search' to address this issue.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/13
| 804
| 3,673
|
<issue_start>username_0: In university courses, is it possible or good habit to ask help for homework exercises one can't solve? I mean, someone might think it is cheating but on the other hand, should a student be stuck in some particular problem for days?
The course I take is about version control on git and there are questions in an online system. One question has six different true/false questions, where one can choose on different alternatives. The system has informed me that my answer is incorrect; however, it does not explain why my answer is incorrect, and I'm not able to figure that out by myself.<issue_comment>username_1: In higher education, the role of educators is to help facilitate students' learning. One of the main mechanisms for that is to provide students with high-quality feedback on their assessments. Simply delivering lectures is not very efficient. Testing students using multiple-choice questions through automatic tools is also not very efficient. Even giving students a grade without explanation how it was produced is not very efficient.
If you are struggling with a task, you should approach your lecturer/professor, show them your best attempt, and ask for feedback, specifically, an explanation what is incorrect in your attempt and what you should work on to improve your understanding of the subject. And no, "your answer is wrong because computer says no, now go away and try again until it says yes" is not good enough. Politely ask for clarification of the relevant material, not mechanics of the automatic assessment.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My preferred answer to that is initiative and personal contact. Just go to the lecturer/ tutor with any work you have put in the question (that is an important point as it shows engagement and own effort) and make sure you do not leave without an explanation. That includes both the lecturer repeating verbatim a text or a lecture (or fobbing you off) and the student nodding positively but not having understood. As said in a comment, tutorials are perfectly appropriate to ask questions, both during and after the class. I would strongly favour a meeting in person over e-mail correspondence, as many more issues tend to come up and be resolved, and is much faster and clearer. During the Coronavirus outbreak, this means a Zoom/ Teams/ Skype etc call rather than many emails.
Most of all, don't be shy. Teaching staff very often enjoy discussing the finer points, which do not attract much attention.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, you should ask for help. But ask for help from the instructor or whoever else is designated by the instructor to give it. Don't go outside the system just to find "answers".
The point of such exercises isn't to get "answers". It is to get the student to be able to create those answers from the knowledge they get in the course. The instructor already has the answers and doesn't need the student to provide them. So, going to a third source completely destroys the entire purpose of them and also handicaps the student's learning.
However, the instructor need to have a system in place where such appropriate feedback can and will be given. If that isn't happening, then you need to complain higher up the system so that things improve. Ideally, an instructor will give "just enough" help in answering a question so that the student can get over any hurdle and get to a better understanding. This is one reason that third parties are actually harmful. They don't understand or see the whole system and so are more likely to say "too much", thus making learning harder - real learning.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/13
| 973
| 3,576
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am having a hard time creating citations for new literature.
I get a new work (either electronic or printed) and I want to incorporate its citation to my library by means of a citation file (no matter if `.bib`, `.ris`, or whatever). And then I spend *a lot of time* in Internet looking for an **appropriate** citation file.
Could you tell me a website or a method to get a **complete** citation file for any work?
Thanks!
My known options are following (I tried to rank them based on completeness of entries):
1. [WorldCat](https://www.worldcat.org/)
2. [SemanticScholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/)
3. [GoogleScholar](https://scholar.google.com/)
Sadly, at those websites, I find quite incomplete citations, for example, ISBN, DOI, and publisher are often missing.<issue_comment>username_1: I found two useful options
* [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/): a literature manager.
* [EbscoHost Web](http://search.ebscohost.com/Community.aspx): an online electronic library.
Zotero
------
[Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/), the literature manager, has a very powerful function to "**add items by indentifier**". We add a new item based on its identifier: ISBN, DOI, PMID, or ArxivID. Giving only one of these identifiers make Zotero find the bibliographic information of the item—it is **quite complete**, I must say.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/JPwFf.png)
The only caveat is that you must install Zotero. ;)
Ebscohost Web
-------------
As a web possibility, moment the most complete citation files I found are at [EbscoHost Web](http://search.ebscohost.com/Community.aspx).
When clicking on the `EbscoHost Web` link, I have only to choose **all** databases and search for the book. I click on the book, and, then, I can see the link `Export`, where I can download a **very complete** citation file.
**Disclaimer:** I do not know, if this is a *free* service. I have access to this web through my university account.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: **Use any citation file and correct as necessary.**
Having identified a new work that should be incorporated into a personal library, any citation file can be added to the library, as long as it is checked and corrected prior to adding. The checking and correcting process is quick, given that the work is at hand.
With some practise, creating new citation files from scratch can actually be faster, especially with the aid of well crafted macros, e.g., `@string{pro= ": In proceedings of"}`, `@string{fav=International Conference on My Subject}`, `@string{e = "Elsevier"}`, ...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: *Web of Science* allows you to extract (and even bulk-download) bibliographic metadata of scholarly works. (Select the papers, click on "Export...", choose "Other File Formats" and use "BibTeX" as File Format).
Another option is [*JabRef*](https://www.jabref.org/), a reference manager which uses BibTeX and whose [official browser extension](https://github.com/JabRef/JabRef-Browser-Extension) "automatically identifies and extracts bibliographic information on websites and sends them to JabRef with one click."
I also find [*ZoteroBib*](https://zbib.org/) useful. It worked well for me, and it is quick to use in browser.
Fur further options see [Are there any tools to automatically search and download literature in a given .bib file?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21353/are-there-any-tools-to-automatically-search-and-download-literature-in-a-given).
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/13
| 1,718
| 6,866
|
<issue_start>username_0: During an interview recently Dr. Fauci, the top doctor in the US, called himself "a scientist, and a physician". It appears that he only has an MD, but is an immunologist and a highly cited researcher. This is not a special case, there are many examples of labs run by a researcher with only an MD. That makes me wonder: why bother getting a PhD in say, immunology, when it appears that an MD is objectively better. With an MD you are qualified to run a lab despite not having the terminal degree of a typical researcher, and you are trained as a physician or whatever specialty so you always have something to fall back on.
To me this seems like the 5+ years spent becoming an expert in your field by doing novel research doesn't really matter as you can get a research job with an MD that doesn't require any of that. So what advantage is there to getting a PhD in life science fields that overlap with medicine?<issue_comment>username_1: The trick, actually, is to get that job. Without a PhD or other demonstrated *research* experience it might be harder most places. Most MD programs are focused more on patient outcomes than on science per se.
But yes, if you can convince someone to hire you then you can probably learn research methodology along the way. This will include a lot of things, including something of statistics and more on lab process than is probably normal in the MD program itself. Publishing in the scientific literature is also something to be learned along the way and isn't especially typical in the training of an MD.
The advantage of the PhD on top of an MD is that the focus is precisely on the scientific (rather than clinical) aspects of medicine. You learn to do science under the direction of scientists who also have some expertise in biology and other aspects of the wider medical area.
Note, of course, that Dr Fauci is 79 years old. He has had a lot of time to learn the craft and has been positioned in places where it is well practiced.
Note that in some places, an MD is, in fact, a research degree and requires an earlier degree in medicine. But this isn't the case in the US or Canada. See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Medicine>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A PhD isn't just a degree. You also learn new things and acquire new skills while doing the PhD. Those are things you don't get from an MD.
For example, one thing a PhD candidate is supposed to learn on the way to earning the PhD is academic writing. Therefore, they should (in theory) be able to write papers more comprehensibly than someone who just did an MD.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In the broadest of terms, **medical degrees, MDs,** are ultimately for people who want to help patients. Jokes about pathologists aside, the majority of medical do want to see people on a personal basis and heal them.
Now, modern medical programs often have research components; usually small ones, and MDs of course participate in research, but the vast majority do not perform any once they are licensed. If they do, it's often as the person who arranges the treatment, whatever it may be.
As other people have said, **PhDs** are to train you to do research. Outside of psychology, they don't have patient contact. So if you want to do research in the life sciences, but don't want to practice, there is no reason to get an MD.
>
> That makes me wonder: why bother getting a PhD in say, immunology, when it appears that an MD is objectively better. With an MD you are qualified to run a lab despite not having the terminal degree of a typical researcher, ...
>
>
>
A fresh MD is less qualified to run a lab than a fresh PhD. Of course, fresh PhDs don't get labs anymore, but a PhD + postdoc is much more qualified to run a lab than an MD who has been practicing (not researching) for an equivalent time.
Of course, an MD could play their cards right and end up on a research track, but medical school **isn't shorter.** Medical school + residency is longer, and much more difficult than PhD school + postdoc.
>
> To me this seems like the 5+ years spent becoming an expert in your field by doing novel research doesn't really matter as you can get a research job with an MD that doesn't require any of that.
>
>
>
That's not what happens: MDs have to add in research on top of what is already a difficult professional training program. And, often, they don't do it well. I don't want to speak in general terms, but *I* dislike working with research MDs: They are supremely busy, and are less present in the lab because they are in clinic multiple days per week.
>
> ... and you are trained as a physician or whatever specialty so you always have something to fall back on.
>
>
>
While true, you have to maintain your licensure, so add that on top of a busy research job, and doing that looks less attractive.
While you say "fall back on," a practicing physician in almost any specialty is practically guaranteed to make more than a PI in the same field. My last PI was an MD (and one of the reasons I dislike working with them), and as a senior neurologist, probably could have made double in practice in a hospital or privately.
So if you want to do research, why get a degree that would get you more money elsewhere, and take out a loan to do it? PhDs are paid to go to school, even if it's a pittance, and do not take out loans for tuition. MDs must.
Finally, as others have pointed out, keep in mind Dr. Fauci is old, and is from a different time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You are confusing a qualification with an education.
One hope that by the time one reaches the PhD stage one is beyond doing a 4 year, extremely taxing, and financially unrewarding degree, just to get a piece of paper saying you've done it. You do it because you want to *learn*. By the end of a PhD, the piece of paper saying you've got a PhD is almsot immaterial - people are frequently hired into postdoc positions before they've formally graduated their PhD.
I guess that most non-PhD MD reserachers start off writing case reports, and then they migth get involved in some clinical reserach, maybe a clinical trial or two. Over time they find they need to collaborate with people with labs in order to confirm the hypotheses coming out of their clincal research. They might co-supervise a PhD student or a postdoc with a PhD Scientist before moving on to supervise on their own. - The point is they get drawn into lab reserach - its wasn't orignally their primary passion. And they will have a lot of ground to make up - they might be qualified to do it, but it doesn't mean they will be any good at it.
I suspect there are a few rare indeviduals who are born to do research. For the rest of us, research is a skill that has to be taught and learnt.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/13
| 360
| 1,529
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a high school to undergraduate level introduction written for methods and applications of a particular science topic (~5000 words with tables and schematic, like a book chapter).
My goal is to get people especially students interested in this particular topic. My homepage does not have much traffic to help in this. I already have an offer to write a book but that will need some free time which I do not have at this moment.
Where to get it published legitimately? Online ok ISSN or similar required. Any suggestion where this question can be legitimately asked (if not here) is appreciated.
Paid publishers please ignore.<issue_comment>username_1: 5000 words is too few for a commercial publisher to publish as a book, and it sounds too elementary to be published in a journal.
Your best chance is likely to find a paleoclimate textbook author and offer to collaborate with him or her. They might be willing to insert your chapter into their book.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You aren't likely to profit in any meaningful way, even if you were a highly regarded researcher (if you are aiming for a textbook-like experience, rather than a pop-sci book like <NAME>'s).
You could consider editing the relevant Wikipedia pages, and publicizing your contributions. After all, your book is probably based off primary literature. There is also [Wikibooks](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page), which may or may not be relevant in paleoclimate (I have no idea).
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/13
| 373
| 1,553
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been publishing in the past with a certain abbreviation of my name which I am unsatisfied due to draconian rules in my previous institution which wrote my name in the following way: <NAME>. Z. lastname2.
Being my name composed of the following nouns: firstname1 firstname2 lastname1 lastname2.
For new publications I wish to change it to another format such as X. Y. lastname1 lastname2.
I wonder about the impact it might have in my academic profile, this is, whether articles databases would fail to index correctly both of the publications to the same person.
I also wonder what other complications this change of my name abbreviations might carry.<issue_comment>username_1: 5000 words is too few for a commercial publisher to publish as a book, and it sounds too elementary to be published in a journal.
Your best chance is likely to find a paleoclimate textbook author and offer to collaborate with him or her. They might be willing to insert your chapter into their book.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You aren't likely to profit in any meaningful way, even if you were a highly regarded researcher (if you are aiming for a textbook-like experience, rather than a pop-sci book like <NAME>'s).
You could consider editing the relevant Wikipedia pages, and publicizing your contributions. After all, your book is probably based off primary literature. There is also [Wikibooks](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page), which may or may not be relevant in paleoclimate (I have no idea).
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/13
| 2,551
| 11,141
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm doing a PhD and I have two people listed down as my supervisors for the project, who I will call supervisors A and B. I get on really well with supervisor A, he makes constructive suggestions in a constructive way, and I always come out of meetings with him feeling better about my work. In many respects, I couldn't have asked for a better supervisor than A, and I feel I can be quite transparent about how my work is going with him (including discussing soft skills like working effectively from home during the lockdown, managing time and so forth). Supervisor B is several decades older, extremely well-regarded in the department, had numerous awards named after him and has made significant contributions to his area from what I gather. Things have panned out so far in such a way that I've seldom needed to meet supervisor B in order to make progress with my work - technically he is listed as a supervisor for my research project but it's more of a "he pops in when he's interested"-type arrangement.
However, the main reason I prefer to stick with meeting supervisor A is that I often encounter supervisor B around in our department and he has a way with people which comes across as incredibly abrasive and overly critical, often casually undermining people in conversation, asking questions to people in a condescending way or even just making unnecessary verbal "snipes" at people. He is infamous in the department for this, and has supervised many of the academics when they were PhD students, but it seems that nobody has pulled him up on his rudeness because of his authority (when it comes to him supervising students) and his academic reputation. Many anecdotes about him from his former students have originated, for example, in reacting badly and inappropriately to former students of his having children, going on holiday or taking part in extracurricular activities during their doctorates with him. These are normal things that people can expect to do without being penalised by most (sane) supervisors. Supervisor B is incredibly knowledgeable, and has some interesting stories to tell, but is not an enjoyable person to be around and I try to avoid meeting him unless I absolutely have to (once every couple of months versus once a week with supervisor A).
However, because of his reputation, people have alluded that a reference letter from supervisor B would be a golden ticket to get a postdoc/industrial position wherever I wanted, as he is an incredibly well-established name in his field. This leaves me torn as to whether I want to involve him much or not in the project. As far as I am aware, not including him in meetings regularly does not seem to be posing supervisor B (or A) any major issues, apart from a whinge on supervisor B's part once or twice which ended without any repercussions. If I did involve him regularly it would certainly benefit my career in getting publications with him and a recommendation letter from him in the end, but being supervised by him regularly would have a negative impact on my confidence and mental health. I'm a mature student in my area (so I'm rusty with some things), so I already lack confidence in my abilities and could do without someone potentially making me feel worse.
Some may diagree, but I feel that it is vital that a PhD supervisor is someone who you can establish a positive and professional working rapport with. I think it's often an aspect of doing/choosing PhDs which is often not talked about, despite PhD students effectively needing to work with the same person for 3-4 years and there being many "horror" stories of students who have quit or failed as a result of clashes with their supervisors. One of my former professors from during my undergrad also told me that the rapport/personality of a supervisor is just as important as the research area, if not more (although obviously there's no use having a supervisor you get on really well with but whose research area/interests don't line up with yours).
I'd be interested to hear about any input on this - am I dodging a bullet here or simply shooting myself in the foot career-wise?<issue_comment>username_1: Your have a supervisor who is powerful, but not very pleasant. If you tolerate the unpleasant behaviour, and manage to please your supervisor, they might reward you with a golden ticket to a postdoc. If you don't, you are on your own in this quest. Sounds like a great many stories I've read as a child.
I think the answer to your question depends on do why you want a career in academia. If this is about a relatively secure and relatively well-payed occupation, then struggling through a relation with a difficult boss is definitely something that many people experience at the beginning of their career. This narrative is a firm part of office folklore and became a driving force of many popular films, e.g. *The Devil Wears Prada*, etc. This narrative then comes from the secondary culture back into our professional life (via people telling each other things like
>
> the rapport/personality of a supervisor is just as important as the research area, if not more ...
>
>
>
ultimately forming a self-fulling prophecy. We believe in stories about wise and powerful Jedi masters, who train, challenge and choose a new generation of padawans to become masters themselves. We trust that these incredibly knowledgeable people have good intentions at heart and only challenge their students when it is necessary for their own good. We accept that struggle is an important part on the way to progress and improvement. These ideas are a fundamental part of our modern culture (or at least the mainstream western culture). The advises you receive simply reflect this larger narrative of a wise, strict but ultimately kind ("god-wise") teacher.
Now, is it true? Of course, it partly is. But we also know the flip side of the same story: genuinely abusive supervisors, favouritism, and other manifestations of the *old boys' network*. We often hear how people who made wonderful careers praise their supervisors, even admitting that the relations were difficult, but ultimately very helpful. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that these success stories form a survivorship bias, because we don't hear from people whose careers were stopped in their tracks because of abusive and unhelpful supervision. You probably see both sides of this coin rather well now.
But maybe you are looking for a job in academia because it is a huge joy to seek and to share knowledge? Or maybe because research is ultimately a search for the truth, and on this way you depend on your own skills rather than on someone's opinion of you? In this case, you maybe don't need a golden ticket. Maybe a golden ticket can actually rob you of your chance to test your own ability to independently establish yourself in the academic world? Maybe you want to be recognised for what you achieved using your own efforts, not compensated for the difficult times your supervisor gave you? In this case, perhaps, you'd prefer to make your own way rather than to rely on a recommendation letter from your supervisor.
Apologies for the long answer - hopefully it gives you something to reflect on.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your situation doesn't seem dire as you state it. Some of the reputation of advisor B may be unearned, of course. B may just be impatient, not actually evil. But I can't say and you don't indicate that you have evidence except hearsay.
You actually have a good situation in that you get support from A. I think, under those circumstances, as long as you don't have actual evidence that B has tried (or succeeded) in actually sabotaging someone's career, then you would probably do well to just put up with it as long as it is tenable.
But if you personally get abused or know of situations where B has negatively affected someone's career then you should separate yourself as much as possible.
There are a lot of different kinds of advisors, some better than others. Depend on A for the things you need. You can also, perhaps let A intercede for you a bit if B gets to be problematic. But if you can manage to stay on B's good side and earn their respect then it might be worth a bit of trouble.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Something that is not a direct answer but may be worth considering.
There is an issue of independence when a supervisor/ referee is Big Name X. Not only the reputation (positive or negative) follows the candidate, but more importantly the candidate often needs to convinve others that the research is of own initiative and accomplishment. Simply put, it is the difference between sharing someone else's light (professional ability and creativity) versus having your own. You are unavoidably branded as "Big Name X's student" and a lot of your success is attributed to him, his guidance and expertise, although the truth might be very different. Having to convinvce you are not an elephant can be very difficult, and it is something worth discussing with former PhD students of famous academics to get some perspective.
My practical suggestion to be to avoid B as much as possible and to create alternatives. Your description, as pointed earlier, shows unpleasantness but not malice, and such people might be quite helpful if they take a liking at you. A reference from B can be both an asset and a hindrance but as tempting it may sound it is not the only way to get a future position. To be clearer, asking for a reference is reasonable and valid, but don't let the presence of Big Name Reference distract you too much from other avenues, or even by closing doors to less renown but effective referees.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> being supervised by him regularly would have a negative impact on my confidence and mental health.
>
>
>
**If this is true, then your best path is to avoid him.** Actually, your career could be at stake. The most important thing you need in order to get a good postdoc/industrial position is successful research: in the form of papers, a good rec letter from your supervisor, and possibly connections developed at conferences or internships. None of this can happen if you are unhappy, and all of this can flourish if you continue to be confident and healthy.
It is undoubtedly true that a rec letter from supervisor B can have a huge benefit on your future career compared to one from A, *but only if* it does not come at the detriment of your research productivity. If it undermines your productivity at all -- which it sounds like you think it might -- then on balance, it is unlikely to be a good idea.
Of course, this assumes that your statement is true -- it is possible that you could manage to work closely with supervisor B and somehow stay confident and remain in good mental health. However, my gut feeling is that you should not play dice with this sort of thing. I have certainly talked to a number of PhD students in similar situations, who tried working with the advisor despite their concerns, and things went badly.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/13
| 824
| 3,583
|
<issue_start>username_0: Hello I have a question regarding video during exams.
My professor is hosting an exam using Zoom, and I was wondering if there was any basis for refusing to use the camera during the exam. Each student will be able to see each other unlike a [previous question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/147662/technologies-for-remote-proctoring-invigilating) asking about one-way monitoring.
The exam is also open-notes, and open-book. There is also an issue of cheating that is being discussed. The matter is being discussed because three exams already without the camera but the professor says its kind of just to make sure we are not doing anything sketchy. However, I feel its a contradiction because if the class "cheated" doing his past exams, then why give them the grade.
However, I am wondering if that means I can't refuse the camera.<issue_comment>username_1: I think you need to deal with this through your instructor or the university. Personally, I think that requiring you to use a camera has ethical and privacy concerns, but I don't get to judge. What should be the case and how you are constrained are probably quite different.
I wish you luck in such a pursuit, but have little faith that you will prevail. Such things are, of course, disruptive to those living in the same place as the student in many cases.
Complain if you can find a way to do so.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It sounds like your professor plans to monitor video to prevent cheating. Since the exam is open note/open book, this would primarily be to make sure students are not collaborating between each other.
I think there are reasons this situation is unfortunate from the students' side: could students be penalized if their video freezes? (mine does all the time on Zoom calls despite a good internet connection and despite good incoming/outgoing audio throughout...) is it fair to give your class a view into your personal living situation?
It's also quite a difficult time from the professor's side: they're trying to make sure they can administer fair and honest exams while knowing that given sufficient leeway some fraction of students will use that to their advantage.
I think it's reasonable to ask your professor for flexibility, but you should *have your reasons/concerns in mind* and express those rather than only your solution (opting out of video). If you come at it as trying to work between your concerns and those of your instructor, you are more likely to be able to come to some intermediate arrangement.
However, depending on the time until the exam, size of the class, etc, they may not be able to make any allowances in the sake of fairness unless there is a real serious concern. Having your classmates able to see you is probably not going to be sufficient, since they would normally see you in-person as well, unless you already have some disability considerations related to that. They'll all be focused on their own exams anyways and probably won't even have you on-screen.
OP's logic suggesting that *because past exams didn't have video this exam doesn't need video* (paraphrased) doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe this is a particularly important exam (a final?), or maybe the professor has some circumstantial evidence that cheating happened previously that is insufficient to act on, like certain students having very similar answers. There might not be much they can do about the exams they've already given, but they are probably hoping for a better result for the next one.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/14
| 856
| 3,830
|
<issue_start>username_0: Authors are often asked to suggest reviewers for their article. In my own experience, the principal domain experts I can suggest are often the authors whose work I have cited, but suggesting them might present a conflict of interest.
**As an author, should I suggest my sources as reviewers?**<issue_comment>username_1: The fact that you cite their work, and that you use their work to inform your work, does not present a conflict of interest, and it's fine to suggest them as reviewers. Doing so might even be a good idea, since they might be naturally qualified to assess your work.
An exception might apply if your work stands in some way in direct competition to their work -- for example, if you developed a technique for addressing the same problem, and you claim that your technique works better than theirs. I've seen a few listings of conflict-of-interest criteria that include a conflict type "competitor", and other listings that don't. If this applies, I would recommend to look for the conflict-of-interest criteria of the target journal/conference. If you can't find anything, you might want to contact the editors/chairs.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You might argue that there is a small conflict of interest arising from the citation, namely that your paper being published slightly boosts the citee’s bibliometric scores. However, if reviewers were excluded due to this, many of the most qualified reviewers would be among them to the extent that it may be impossible to find any remotely qualified reviewer in smaller, citation-heavy subfields. Moreover, whom you cite is obvious to the editor, so if they really want to take this into account, they can.
Of course, a connection between your work and another that results in a citation may as well as reflect a conflict of interest that is not obvious or comprised by what is obligatory to report (as per the venue’s rules), but that has nothing to do with the citation per se.
That being said, there can be tactical reasons not to suggest authors you cite as reviewers:
When an editor has to select reviewers, your citations are a primary source of inspiration.
(Some authors even carefully arrange their citations due to this.)
Thus, suggesting somebody you prominently cited is redundant and potentially wastes a suggested-reviewer slot which you could have used to suggest somebody who is an excellent match for your paper but whom you did not cite prominently or at all.
I think of the suggested-reviewer list as a list of reviewers who would be very suited to review the paper but are not an obvious choice.
Moreover, many editors make a point of choosing at least one reviewer you did not suggest.
Thus it can be beneficial to leave them some obvious choices to “discover” by themselves.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Citing someone’s work and recommending this person as referee is generally not a conflit of interest: unless there are special circumstances it is not terribly clear how this referee would benefit from your manuscript in any material way. (Simple citations are NOT a material benefit.)
Problem cases typically arise when a supervisor suggests a former student, a recent graduate suggests a former thesis advisor, or the suggested referee has recents publications or collaborations or grants with the current author (or one of the current authors).
If anything there’s no guarantee the person you suggested will actually referee the manuscript. In addition, the first thing the handling editor will do is check the list of references and cull for names of prospective referee so surely there is no harm in suggesting names from that list yourself.
Finally, it is usually the job of the *referee* to declare conflicts and withdraw (if appropriate), not the job of the author.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/14
| 3,161
| 12,746
|
<issue_start>username_0: I often edit a manuscript draft with co-authors by sending drafts of a document back and forth via email. Depending on who I am working with, cloud-based solutions to working collaboratively are not always an option.
After some back and forth a lot of interim drafts begin floating around, so a lot of my co-authors either initial, date, or number a working document when we send it back and forth for edits. Some do none of this at all. I am wondering if there is a correct way to "name" a document when collaborating via email. Is there a consensus on best practices for file-naming conventions when collaboratively editing via email?<issue_comment>username_1: tl;dr: In my personal opinion, the best option is to **keep the filename** at all times.
Here's my reasoning. The filename tells us what purpose the document serves, which information it contains. The meta information (who is the author, when the last edit was made) is saved in file properties or in special fields within the file itself. The history of edits is traditionally maintained using some version control system (VCS).
In your case, you use email as your VCS. The emails are timestamped and your email client allows you to sort emails according to this date. Emails also give you information about the last author. If people send their edits by responding to the email with the version from which the edit was made, the email client keeps the whole tree of edits, just like git, allowing you to find a parent for every version. A tree of emails is a direct equivalent of a git tree. You may want to create a filter to put all emails with this file attached in a special folder to separate them from the rest of your communications. Other than that, email is already a minimalist and incomplete (no automatic merge for example), but working VCS.
Since you already have a VCS, modifying filenames to code the same information is unnecessary and inconvenient, and should be avoided.
PS: And it goes without saying, email is a much poorer VCS compared to e.g. git, so you should at least offer your collaborators to try using a better system for collaboration.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: **Not using version control is bad.**
>
> Depending on who I am working with, cloud-based[, version controlled] solutions to working collaboratively are not always an option.
>
>
>
**You can use cloud-based solutions even when some collaborators are against them.** All you need to do is: Download and email the cloud version to collaborators that refuse to use the cloud, and upload whatever they send back.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: The key to modern version control such as git is knowing the parent documents of a document. You thus need to be able to reconstruct which the immediately previous version is.
So, ask them to mark their version with their new version number and name, at the least, but, ideally, add from which version they have constructed it (or multiple of these if this was a merge)
Thus, at the very least, OP could use -.-.txt.
So you could deduce that that rollingstones-4.2-PK.txt has been derived by PK from (probably) 4.1. As well as rollingstones-4.2-IR.txt has also probably 4.1 as parent, but modified independently by somebody else. When you merge versions with the same number, you can omit the author and just give it the following number, e.g. if rolling stones-4.3.txt is a merge of the previous ones.
If you can afford to and people are disciplined, it would help to mark the immediate predecessor, though: rollingstones-4.4-UM-from-4.3-PK.txt. This is a bit clunky and a poor imitation of modern VCS such as git, but it allows you to deduce the parent(s) of the present version which is all you ultimately need.
To facilitate that, ask people, directly on downloading the latest version, to duplicate it and modify its name immediately to reflect the parenthood of the downloaded version.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: A "modified date plus initials" combo might help, perhaps combined by a journal abbreviation if a template is followed, e.g. "Nature 12-12 BH". Personally, I find dates easier to track than version numbers. In any case, forking the versions must be avoided at all costs.
If Github/ Dropbox/ OneDrive etc are not an option, an online LaTex editor such as Overleaf might be, where each collaborator can work on one single version of the paper. Another solution is e-mailed download links, since one does not need to have an account to access a file (this has the advantage of process ownership and monitoring but includes more hassle). If lack of internet is a problem, I cannot think of something.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: If you want to avoid cloud solutions and use email, maybe choose a VCS which works offline (i.e. is distributed, like git) and has support for email (preferably built-in, like git).
There are many ways to set up such a workflow, [here's an example for git](https://drewdevault.com/2018/07/02/Email-driven-git.html). Essentially: you work in git like normal, and when you want to send someone your changes you can use `git send-email`; after receiving an email containing changes you would like to apply (e.g. maybe after some back-and-forth discussion in reply to a `git send-email` message) you can pipe that email into a command like `git am` to incorporate the changes.
git is well-suited to use over email, since this was its original use-case and is hence the preferred and best-supported way to use it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I come from a field where none of these answers are going to work. Remember, most scientists aren't computer scientists. As a grad student, sending professors arcane rules for naming conventions would probably just be ignored. Everyone has their own usual pattern, and even if they wanted to be helpful, might just forget when it comes time to save. What irks me is people that put spaces in filenames.
As much as I plan to improve this process if I ever run my own lab, here's what you have to do:
**The first author** (or author leading the publication, or the corresponding author, or someone picked to facilitate) **runs the show.**
1. When you send out a draft, state a date for when you'd like to receive comments by (two weeks is a good rule-of-thumb). Don't make your own edits in the meantime if you can help it.
2. When you send out a draft, put a date on it. When people start sending you comments, sometimes people will be kind and edit one that someone has already edited. IME, that doesn't always happen.
3. At the end of the time period, or once you've received everyone's comments, use Word's [document merge tool](https://support.office.com/en-us/article/combine-document-revisions-f8f07f09-4461-4376-b041-89ad67412cfe).
4. Save with the new date, and start incorporating edits and responding to comments.
5. Rinse and repeat.
You will end up with a lot of files, with different dates. I keep the files from step #4 only, once you are confident in the merge. Frankly, space is cheap, and personally I find it easier to open `paper-200303.docx` to find an old comment than revision tools (for Word). When the paper is accepted, you can delete the old versions.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: I would take a stab at [semantic versioning](https://semver.org/), as suggested by the people who run Github.
In short: append a series of three digits to the end of the filename. For example: myfile-1.0.0.txt. When someone sends it back to you, whatever they respond with, you can tick up your next version to some identifier in that format which clearly counts as numerically greater.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the classical "token"/"cookie" system.
The way I used to write papers with coauthors 20 years ago was using an informal token system. If I wanted to edit Section 1 of the paper, even just to fix a single typo, I had to follow these steps:
* Email all coauthors with the text *"I am claiming the token for section 1."*
* Edit section 1
* Email all coauthors with their edited version of Section 1 and the text *"I am releasing the token for Section 1."*
Nobody was allowed to keep the token for any section more than some agreed limit. typically 24 hours, but that often shrank to 2 hours or even 15 minutes as deadlines got closer. In principle, everyone could keep their own local copy of the paper up to date, but in practice, it was helpful for one co-author to periodically recalibrate by claiming the token for *the entire paper*.
As long as everyone followed token discipline, there was no need to worry about file names. There were no version disputes, because the most recent version of Section 5.4 was always **by definition** in the most recent email releasing the token for Section 5.4. In particular, if you branched, it was *your* responsibility to merge correctly, not your coauthors'.
On the other hand, co-authors (including both PhD students and tenured Luddites) who *didn't* follow token discipline found themselves involved in fewer papers afterward.
While my paper collaboration has mostly moved to Overleaf+git, I do actually still use this system on the unavoidable but thankfully increasingly rare occasions that I need to collaborate on a Word document with someone who doesn't have access to Word Online or Google Docs.
**tl;dr: Don't do this unless you have to.**
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: This doesn't strictly answer the question, because it is about adopting **no convention at all.** As others have said, it is usually difficult to get authors to stick to the same system.
Assuming you use a format (e.g. MS Word) which has some sort of "track changes" feature, or a text format (e.g. LaTeX) which you can `diff`:
* Let authors rename files in any way they please
* One person (perhaps unofficially) takes responsibility for maintaining some sort of continuity of the document (i.e. keeping the structure and flow OK)
* If the document versions diverge, this person uses the "track changes" feature to pull them back together
* And then emails the result to everyone saying "I've incorporated everyone's changes"
* Some authors won't work off this version straight away, especially if they were in the middle of writing something or working closely with someone else
+ But eventually they will because they don't want to be left out of the loop
+ In the meantime the "maintainer" just keeps adding their new changes to their "master" document
+ *The key is that **they don't need to do any work** to switch to the master version.*
Authors that aren't off doing their own thing will know which version to choose (the one that says "everyone's changes are in here!")
This has many other benefits like saving most authors time and hunting through emails, removing the danger of changes being lost, stressing authors about continuity problems, and having someone who is looking at the big picture of the document and can discuss that with other authors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: If you must share files in such a way (and often you just have to, despite the many wonderful version control, cloud file-sharing and collaborative editing tools out there), I suggest a format such as
mainfilename-timestamp-initials.
E.g., `cure_for_cancer-202005011030-jb.tex`, where the timestamp is for 10.30am on May 1, 2020.
That makes it easy to sort multiple versions of the same file lexicographically (i.e., by file name). But of course, you've then got the challenge of getting collaborators to follow the same convention.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: In my experience, the single biggest problem is that the file's "last modified" metadatum often ends up reflecting the time it was "last saved/downloaded". That means that establishing where it fits into a workflow can be a nightmare.
My solutions, which do not require computing expertise (I work in a humanities discipline, so one cannot assume everyone is comfortable using the suggestions in other answers), are as follows:
* **enter dates of recent revisions and associated author monograms in the page header manually** (e.g.: "JB 31/04/2019; revised JRW 02/05/2019; JB comments 03/05/2019") -- this makes the information easy to find and ensures it is included on every page of a printout (yes, I like to comment on versions by annotating a printout by hand!); and
* **all file names commence with the date of the version in** *yyyymmdd* **format** (e.g.: "20190503\_JB\_comments\_re\_20190502\_JRW\_Methodology"), in order to facilitate quick sorting and unambiguous identification of recent versions on computer filesystems.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/14
| 790
| 3,403
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying for an academic position and have been shortlisted. My one potential major stumbling block is in terms of publications. I have a number of them, but none of them are A grade publications. More worrying though, I have virtually no citations. These publications range in age from 6 months to 4 years ago. How might I address this in the context of an interview?<issue_comment>username_1: You seem to be near the beginning of you academic career. In that case I wouldn't worry about it at all at this point. Certainly it isn't something to mention in application materials, but you are beyond that.
But if you are asked in an interview, the answer that you could fairly give is that is one of the precise reasons that you find the post doc desirable, so that you can get more experience writing, develop collaborative relationships, and earn some of those sweet sweet citations.
Well, fix up the language a bit, I suppose, but something like that. Unless other people in your position have got lots already it shouldn't be an issue. And it may be, also, that your work is a bit esoteric and so citations aren't easily achieved, thought that says little about the actual quality of the work. I'll have to guess, since it isn't my subfield, that medical informatics has a deep future.
You are currently in competition with only a few people. It would seem odd to me that you'd be so closely matched that selection would come down to citation count.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is important that this is an entry level position, since a lack of publications is not that harmful and may be seen as normal. Lack of citations is entirely out of your control - it may theoretically be improved by publishing in more visible journals, social media networking/ promotion etc, but eventually the majority of academic work is cited the proud number of 0 (zero) times.
On the number and quality of publications, it cannot change in the short-run but you can present it in a more representative or favourable way. You can discuss the quality of your work ("first-rate" work published in "second-rate" journal is a very real situation, either for getting it out more quickly or due to the maladies of refereeing), focus on having a pipeline of research and ongoing paper output (which always matters) and talk about how you plan to improve. Since, for better of for worse, the names and numbers will not impress, you could bring forward what is relevant, innovative and generally a strong point, and what this continuation of publications show about you as a post-doc and researcher. Finally, there is a fine balance between self-awareness, self-promotion and self-defeating.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Just last month I came across a blog post by a Management prof who offers a few really well thought out answers to this question. Granted, this is a different field, but you may find the general approach and some of the ideas valuable.
The post is called "[Making your case for impact if you have few citations](https://harzing.com/blog/2017/11/making-your-case-for-impact-if-you-have-few-citations)"
But in general, as other people have said here, if this is your first academic job, don't worry about it too much and have an argument for why your current and future work is likely to generate good research impact.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/14
| 882
| 3,502
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am new University student, in software engineering program.
I was FALSLY accused in plagiarism in my second semester and it resulted in a 0 on the assignment of course. I believe a student copied my code while on an online study group I initiated, but because I was pregnant and gave birth a couple of days after the accusation, I didn't have it in me to fight it, as I needed to appeal and the whole process would have taken probably a couple of months and I couldn't take the stress.
So I just took the punishment and "admitted" I plagiarized. Needless to say, it was the most stressful, terrifying time in my life, I thought my academic career is over for good. Of course, I learned from my mistake and I stopped helping people through study sessions all togather as I have my family I need to think about, and as I have two babies and I am exhausted all the time it is very easy for me to not pay attention to things. But since then, I am absolutely traumatized and can't stop trying to think whether or not this might have happened to me before and I just happned to not get caught and the thought about this possibility is absolutly killing me and I find my self up at night thinking about it and it is really starting to destroy my life.
My question is, and it's only an hypothetical question as I only started with the study sessions that semster and stopped immediatly after being accused, what happens if god forbid someone coppied my code in a different course before and we just were not caught for some reason? do universities usually go back to check old submittions for plagiarism?
I am absolutly terrified, so much so that I am considering dropping out.
I know my fear is not rational but I can't control my thoughts and it's driving me crazy, I need some reasurance. I am terrified to work so hard for my degree, just to have it revoked by the university at a later point.
By the way, I take full responsiblity for my mistake, I realize that I should have never put myself in a position where I was at risk to accidently share my code with another student.<issue_comment>username_1: Don’t worry,
Just don’t do it or anything like it again.
You were punished for that infraction and they expect better of you now. As a lecturer I don’t go back through all old submissions as I don’t have time..
Just do your best from now on and don’t give up.
Best wishes.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: [Since my comment was well enough liked to be kindly salvaged from a deleted answer by @Dawn, I will expand it to a response]
Please, no, don't drop out!
Especially if it was your help to a student that caused you to be tainted by that black mark of plagiarism.
Your story is very sad, because I am in favour of helping people, but clearly, someone else gained and you lost.
Personally, I would suggest going to the ombudsperson and explain that, due to the stress of childbirth, you felt under duress and have admitted falsely to plagiarism.
In our times, there is so much emphasis on fairness and creating a welcoming environment to all kinds of people in all kinds of situations, so academic services and profs should by now understand better how stressful pregnancy is. Any self-respecting university should give you a chance of reopening the case.
Even if not, basically look after yourself in the future, you should not pay the cost for helping others.
**But, first and foremost, don't drop out! Certainly not for this.**
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/15
| 1,615
| 6,770
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a math postdoc, I received my first invitation to referee a journal article today, and I accepted the invitation. I've already read a preprint of the submitted article (which has been available on arXiv for a few months and coincides with the submitted version) in great detail some time ago and therefore I already have to say a lot about the article's content and presentation. I was given two months to write a report.
My question, which might be stupid, is now:
Can I write the report "too fast"?
Or, more precisely:
* Does it make a bad impression to the editor if I submit the report too fast (say after a week or two)? Since the editor is an influential and important person in the field, I don't want him to think of me as a bad referee, but I fear that he might think "The report came in so fast that the referee clearly did not put much effort into it. I'll better not ask him next time".
* Even if I've read the article before, is it better to "let it sink" for some more time and not rashly send the report to the editor? At what point should I feel confident that the report is ready?
**Update:** Thanks everyone for the good advice! I sent the report after around 10 days, and it was really appreciated by the editor!<issue_comment>username_1: Fast is great! Just be warned that it means editors will like you and send you more requests so you’ll have to learn to say no. If you also say “no” quickly and suggest alternatives, then you’ll still leave a good impression with the editors.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Statistical outliers always attract attention.
**a)** Your speed will be judged against the content and professionalism of your report: Were you speedy or just in a hurry to finish with the damn thing?
**b)** Even if your speed is not useful to the Editor (because, maybe, there is a second referee, so what will matter for the publication process is the lowest speed, not the fastest), still, if a) above is positively concluded, then your speed *will* be appreciated and remembered.
**c)** *Always* "let sink" anything you write. For how much it depends, but my experience says that if I have a week, I give it a week, so that I am distanced not only from the content but also from syntax and overall structure.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There's no drawback (from the editor's/author's point of view) to you submitting a quick review, but you should mention to the editor that you've already seen the paper before. It [can be suspicious as a case of the author reviewing his/her own paper](https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400):
>
> The reviews themselves were not remarkable: mostly favourable, with some suggestions about how to improve the papers. What was unusual was how quickly they were completed — often within 24 hours. The turnaround was a little too fast, and <NAME>, the journal's editor-in-chief, started to become suspicious.
>
>
>
See the source for more.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Once your report is detailed and accurate, with substantive and balanced comments, submit it, irrespective of how quick the turnaround is.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: A rapid "accept" recommendation with nothing else might seem unusual (but not always, e.g. if the paper is very short, or the work is in your particular area of expertise). But a week is not rapid, if you happen to immediately have spare time.
Regardless of anything else, I advise **giving concrete reasons for your recommendation**. I suggest including a short summary of the paper, so the authors either know that you understand what's going on, or the authors can identify your misunderstandings.
I've sent off some extremely quick recommendations at times, particularly when it's my area of expertise:
* I think my fastest was in a matter of hours, when I could immediately see that there was simply no hope of it being published in the journal they sent it to. It wasn't even in the same ballpark.
* I've sent off a quick "revise" recommendation when the authors were unaware of a fundamental paper in the area, which would require rewriting a fair chunk of their work.
* Sometimes I send a quick recommendation explaining "this is all I have time for right now", and include as much as I can in a short time. If the editor doesn't like my response, they can enlist someone else.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: The waiting time for a review comprises of:
* The reviewer taking care of more urgent/important tasks in their job as a researcher.
* The reviewer doing the actual review.
Since almost everything takes precedence over reviewing, the first part usually takes up most of the time. On the other hand, it is highly variable by nature and it may as well be non existing. For example, if the review request comes at a time where the reviewer is just in a gap between two projects, needs a break from something, or waits for their self-running experiment to finish, it is conceivable that they attend to the review the moment they receive it.
As the first component does not impact the quality of your review, the duration of the review is not useful proxy for its quality. Editors should be aware of this. As an author and reviewer, I have seen sloppy reviews that took excessively long.
Thus the only way a review report can be too fast is if it is shorter than the time needed to diligently perform the actual review.
What this is depends on the field and the length of the paper:
In my field, an initial review is about half a day’s work, but in fields that require extensive proof-checking, it can be in the order of magnitude of a week.
In the latter case, handing in the review after a day would indeed be “too short” in the sense that it will probably arouse unwarranted suspicion.
But even then, you can simply state that you were intimately familiar with the preprint, which actually speaks for you being chosen as a reviewer.
While the quality of your review may improve by revisiting it with some temporal distance (as suggested by another answer), I find at least for myself that the quality increase of the review is not worth it. I rather save that time and energy to diligently review the revision (or other papers). On the other hand, for your first few reviews, this is probably a good idea.
Finally, for whatever it’s worth I reviewed a paper within a day several times, and so far I have not received any complaints. Most journals solicited reviews again after this to the extent that I feel that I became a sort of emergency reviewer who is chosen when the originally chosen reviewers failed to deliver and the journal did not want to keep the authors waiting any longer.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/15
| 2,903
| 12,301
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have found some information online regarding the differences between going for a PhD with an employment contract or a stipend, in Germany. The differences are mostly related to the time you can research stuff not exactly in line with your thesis, social safety and mandatory working hours. The salaries do not seem to change much.
In my case, I was offered the option to choose between stipend and employment contract for a post-doc position, not a PhD, in the German state of Saxony. I couldn't find much about this topic online. My field is physics, I'm 29, unmarried and no children. This is my first post-doc.
What are the fundamental differences? I'm particularly scared of the mandatory working hours associated to the employment contract option. I do work a lot, often from home, but I really value the freedom I currently have of simply skipping a day at work and working on a weekend, etc.<issue_comment>username_1: One of the biggest differences is that if you are on a stipend, you will not be building up any pension benefits (and other social benefits). This makes it a lot cheaper for your employer to hire you at the same net salary.
This is not a big deal if you plan on staying in Germany only for a few years. But if you do decide to stay, the missing years of pension build means you are missing out on quite a lot of money.
(This even the case if you don't plan on retiring in Germany, as the missing years can make the difference in having reached the threshold for having build up a "vested interest" in your pension fund.)
In practice, there is very little difference in working conditions (in an academic setting) between having a full contract, and working on a stipend.
So, if the choice is between a stipend or a full contract, with both leading to the same net income, then the full contract is (almost) always the better choice (for the employee).
The stipend option is only really interesting if the net income from the stipend is actually higher to compensate for the lost benefits.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Normally the only thing that is truly mandatory in the contract is the total number of hours.¹ And in academia even that is mostly a fiction which just happens to magically add up precisely at the end of the contract. The rest is up to your employer. If your boss insists on everyone being in the office 9-5, then you'll have to do that, but I've never heard of that. Normal rules I've seen in academia range between "be there when you have an appointment" to "try to at least show up for some time each day you are officially working". Also keep in mind that a normal TV-L contract has 30 days off each year which gives you a lot of room.
But since you are in negotiation for a contract and the details vary between places and bosses anyway, just ask. Ideally per mail, then you'll get something in writing and no-one can complain later.
¹There are a lot of small details here, like no more than 10 hours per day, mandatory breaks, etc. But nothing to worry about.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Recommendations:
* Calculate whether the scholarship offer is a fair offer (see below).
* If not, the employment contract is the only feasible option.
* Check whether the institution insinuates that a scholarship is basically the same as the employment contract wrt. to your contractual duties. If so, that is (at least to me) a big red flag about an inclination to institutional abuse of power. And that means that you should also think carefully whether you want an employment contract with that institution.
* At least, check the customs of your group-in-spe and how much freedom postdocs have there. Your group leader may be in a more or less good position to give you more freedom than the institution normally does.
---
Note I use "scholarship" here for the German Stipendium. AFAIK, the English stipend/scholarship do not directly translate to the German Stipendium.
---
Others have already told you that the **social insurance** treatment is very different. I'd like to expand a bit further on this.
IMHO the best (fair) starting point for comparison is to consider the scholarship equivalent to the employer's gross (Arbeitgeberbrutto) of an employment contract for which no income tax is due.
* Scholarships for scientific work are **not subject to income tax**
Check with my tax office that the particular contract that is offered fulfills their criteria for this, though. One of the criteria is to check whether the contract is actually a scholarship and not an employment contract.
* **Health and long-term care insurance** is mandatory whether you are employee or not.
Not being an employee and being young and without family, you may be able to get a cheaper private health insurance than the governmental one.
You can also go with the governmental health insurance (called "voluntary" or sometimes "voluntary mandatory" tariff, there will be no health check for this). In that case, your fee will be the same percentage as employer + employee percentages together, **approximately 1/6 of your income**. But while for an employee only the wage is counted, in the voluntary tariff *all* sources of income count (small time freelancing as a side line, interest/dividends, rental income?).
If you are coming from a foreign contry, you may be able to bring a health insurance with you. Health insurance for young academics going to work abroad for a while can be surprisingly cheap.
* **Unemployment insurance** is for employees only. You don't have to pay, but you'll also not be eligible for benefits later on. Currently relevant: these benefits include the Kurzarbeitergeld (short-time compensation). OTOH, a scholarship is not bound to working hours, so the scholarship is anyways paid also if you cannot work due to your workplace being closed because of SARS-CoV-2.
I'd argue that you should put *at least* a comparable amount aside into an additional emergeny fund.
* **Pension cass** is not mandatory. If you want, you can make voluntary contributions, though, and in that case you can largely decide how much you want to pay into pension cass. Such contributions will count both as contribution years as well as according to the amount paid in.
Again, if you choose not to contribute it is probably a good idea to put at least a corresponding amount (between 1/6 and 1/5 of your income) into your own retirement fund.
The pension cass is also responsible to decide whether a given contract is an employment contract or a scholarship - you can ask them for clarification. If they find it is not a scholarship\*, there will be a big stink though, since you just exposed your institute-in-spe trying to commit social insurance fraud.
Whether these points put you at an advantage or a disadvantage will depend on your actual circumstances.
(I've had the luck to get a scholarship as PhD student that was actually fair according to this calculation - but it was the *only one* scholarship program that paid so much that I'm aware of. When I write "I'd argue": acually I have been arguing when that funding agency was cutting the scholarships that a fair comparison would tell the scholarship holders that while it is ultimately their own decision, they *should* consider the social insurance percentages as ballpark for how much they should put aside for rainy day/pension)
* You will not be covered by the **work accident insurance** mandatory for employees. Part of this is not a disvantage: as long as your institute has employees, the place anyways needs to be safe according to work accident insurance rules.
But: you have a work accident there will be differences to you. Your treatment will be paid by your normal health insurance. But work accident insurance patients may be treated preferentially wrt. waiting times (OTOH, there is no free choice to which doctor to go initially). This includes any accidents you have on the direct way from home to work and back.
---
There are usually some **specific advantages** for scholarship holders over employees:
* Many scholarships have associated training programs on various topics
* Many scholarships give you additional project/book/travel money that noone but you can spend. In that respect it's like a mini-grant for you only.
* You are more free in your scientific work than an employee.
Of course, many professors leave great freedom to their employed postdocs, but not all do. A scholarship legally means that you *must* be free in this respect.
@mmeent has a point that some institutions have a bad reputation of abusing scholarshiops, though: not only of not paying what would be fair according to the calculations above, but also by insinuating that the scholarship holders are bound to directions of the institute like employees. In other words, abuse of power.
* Since you are not an employee, e.g. the copyright of software you write stays yours - it will not be automatically transferred to the university.
* Same for inventions.
Again, many institutes are happy if their postdocs take software they wrote with them and go on taking care of it rather than risking more abandonware - I had one such institute that put the software under a FOSS license for this reason and I still take care of the software almost 10 years later. But I've also been at an other institute where the standard license is best described as "no bit leaves the house".
---
Since you may change to academic employment: at least within Germany the wages depend on your relevant work experience. Scholarship may not be counted automatically by prospective employers, but you can ask your institute to certify (write a letter) that they consider your scholarship as equivalent to you working.
---
### Employment contract
>
> mandatory working hours associated to the employment contract
>
>
>
In the past, this again was something that was pretty much up to your PI/professor (and when I had the scholarship the professor didn't make a difference between scholarship holders and employees - he argued that this would only create more and unnecessary friction among people who substantially did comparable work).
However, there is a newish court decision that employers *must* properly document the working hours of all employees. Properly tracking working times of PhD students and postdocs will create huge difficulties with overhours. Whether anything will happen in practice is a totally different question.
From the "work a lot" aspect, you'd probably be fine as employee as well because if you have overhours, you are supposed to take them off as soon as possible. This includes taking days of during the week. What is more difficult is that your employer may not be allowed to let you work the times you do now (long hours, evenings and Sundays may be problematic)
* **pension cass** contributions are mandatory for employees. However, if you do not reach the required minimum of 5 years of contributions, you cannot get a pension and instead you can get the employee half of the contributions paid out as a lump sum. If you have more than 5 years of contributions, you will be eligible for the corresponding pension payment once you reach pension age. Regardless of where you are (within the EU, "your" pension cass will also pay out the German part)
* As an employed post doc, academic freedom does not apply to you: you are bound to the directions of your employer.
Many academic PIs let their postdocs do their own research, but some PIs or institute directors like to excercise their power...
* In Germany, a fixed term contract can **not** be canceled by either party once the probation period (6 months) is over. (An agreement where both sides agree to void the contract is always possible, though.) The employee has the right that the employer agrees to void the contract, though, if they have a better offer. But they need to actually have such a better offer.
---
\* there is some concern that since the pension cass will receive mandatory contributions if they find it to be an employment contract they are not exactly unbiased in these decisions in general (that's not only about scholarships, also about other contracts such as freelancing).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/15
| 1,122
| 4,644
|
<issue_start>username_0: I will be graduating this Fall with my undergrad (GPA: 3.66) and am planning to go to grad school in math. Given my early history of poor grades (2 Ds, 1 F), I am planning on only applying to the masters programs. Ideally, I would like to get admitted to my current university's masters program (top 15 US school in math). To help boost my application, I have taken some first-year grad math courses. Additionally, I have been doing research under fairly famous applied math professor (h-index above 50. Though I have heard that h-index is not an objective factor). While I have read that in some grad courses they hand out all A's, is there a way to prove to the admission's committee that I actually deserved the A's? Lastly, what do masters admission's committees look for in applicants?<issue_comment>username_1: (US centric answer) Any faculty member at your current university can probably tell you the likelihood of being admitted to their MS program. I'll just guess that it is pretty high.
But I think you may be making a mistake to apply to *only* MS programs, unless you intend to apply to institutions that don't grant doctorates.
For a doctoral institution, I'll suggest that the competition for a slot isn't terribly different for those intending to get only an MS and those seeking a PhD. The reason is that in the early part of the program the students take the same courses, putting the same load on available resources. It is only later that this changes. (A tradeoff, perhaps, is that while MS students often pay tuition, doctoral students often serve as TAs, providing a needed service to the university.)
My suggestion would be to cast a broader net and don't assume that you would automatically be rejected from a doctoral program. Acceptance would depend on many things, including the view the current faculty has of you and what they would say in a letter.
The old, terrible, grades may have less impact on your future than you think, provided that your trajectory is ever upward and you have demonstrated in later courses that you didn't actually fail to learn essential things from the early ones. Not everything is weighted equally, and potential for success is rated very highly.
Cast a wider net. You may catch something nice.
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Masters programs would be easier to get into, since they often don’t burden the department with a graduate stipend, that means you’ll be responsible for tuition most likely.
I would apply to PhD programs if I were in your position. If you performed well on your upper division courses and have a gpa over 3.5, then you’d have a good shot of getting in. In this case, you are more likely to get a stipend and a tuition waver. That means you’d get paid to go to school and if you feel that the PhD is too much, you can also leave with a masters degree.
Edit: didn’t have time for a fuller answer earlier.
Don’t worry about the “free grade” in the graduate courses you took. Truly, all that is important there is that you have demonstrated experience and success in a graduate course, and indeed, at an apparently good Institution. No one is going to look at your grade and say “whatever, it’s just a grad course.”
Most grad schools look to your upper division courses as a measure of how you’ll perform in graduate school. I did terrible in my first couple of years in undergrad; I also failed a class or two, but I did well enough in the latter half to end with a 3.5. I was admitted into a good graduate school (in 2008).
As to your peofessor’s h index, that’s actually rather good. It means that he has at least 50 publications with 50 citations. While there is no objective measure of the quality of research, this means that he is well known in his community, his work is frequently cited, and his recommendation will carry with it some weight.
Grad schools look at several things. You need a good GRE score to get past general admissions, but no one cares past that. Your GPA matters, and yours seems good enough (better than mine was). After that they want to know how you did in upper division courses like Analysis, Algebra, etc, since you’ll be taking more intense versions of these classes, and they want you prepared.
Also having experience with graduate courses is a plus, I took a grad number theory course that helped me, and almost as importantly as the rest, they look at your recommendations. You will be part of the school’s community for the next five or more years as a PhD student, and they want to make sure that you can work with someone on research topics.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/15
| 1,771
| 7,563
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a post-doc in the UK. Today, In online lab meeting, my boss said that the name of my two postdocs are in two different grants and our technician is in both but he did not take me into account as his postdoc. He then asked me, are you going back to your country? I told no please don't kill me and everyone simply laughed. I am in 18th months of my employment as a postdoc with him and my contact is until December 2021. His today statement has been a huge pain by which I have lost myself totally. I admit that after few months of my employment, from his body language and all reactions I realized that he is not happy with me, he is not taking me seriously, he is not eager to listen to me...
Do you think it is logical if I ask a private chat with him and request him at least he please pretend that he is happy with me until the end of my contract? because by each lab meeting I become such a frustrated and desperate that I have found myself in a pure darkness of hopelessness. In the morning turning the Teams app to see my colleagues who they are all happy gives me a feeling of death. I can not change myself, I can not increase my intelligence, seeing them when boss cherish them makes me hate myself and all my day like a nightmare
***Update***
From all of your comments I can say, my boss is not happy with me. I have started to find a job, I hope I find somewhere needs me. This job is really cruel and you would be eliminated from the system if you are not good enough. Thank you everyone for giving the time to help me.<issue_comment>username_1: I would ask for a meeting, but not for the reason you suggest. You may be misinterpreting messages. I'd ask him if he was pleased or not with your work and what you can do to improve it in his opinion. If it seems like a good idea when you are having such a conversation mention that you think he is displeased and don't understand why.
Don't overthink that they laughed at your comment. It was a somewhat strange thing to say even if you were panicked.
And you should certainly talk to a personal health counselor about your emotional state. That isn't healthy, but professionals can help you deal with it.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree that OP should talk to supervisor to clarify the situation and comment. Note that Western culture often permits a level of sarcasm/irony which is not common in other countries, and where it is considered highly aggressive communication. Nonetheless, OP's supervisor and group are supremely insensitive. Clarifying the situation makes sense. OP should consider changing groups/topics/workplace. This is not a nice group to work in.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: They laughed at your "please don't kill me" because that's something you would say as a joke/icebreaker. It would be more impolite not to laugh...
To me it sounds like you are struggling with English and Western culture. This seems to be a misunderstanding, you just gave an anxious retelling of a conversation that would happen among a group enjoying each other's presence.
You should surely not attempt the communication you are considering. That sounds awkward and out of place.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I had a similar experience in my PhD so I will try to give you advice based on that.
* As others have said, it would be good to set up a meeting with him and directly tell him that you are feeling that he isnt happy with your work and ask him how you could improve it. This is a professional way to deal with the bosses who arent happy with the employee's performance.
* When there are cultural differences involved (as you said, everyone is from the UK and that Greek-German lady is somewhat local already), sometimes when you are the "different" one, it makes you feel so lonely and isnt easy to tell people about your feelings and plans. Have you ever told anyone about your plans to stay? Have you ever expressed directly an interest to participate in a grant? If you havent, maybe you could try to tell your professor that you would like to stay more in the UK and ask if he has any offer for you.
* When you are saying "I am not good enough to be kept and wherever I go I would end with the same sad story," it shows that you have self esteem problems and they will interfere at any moment of your life. Please try to take care of that, in any way that you can, be it therapy or not.
* Is there anyone in your lab who is friendly towards you? Not necessarily a researcher but maybe some secretary, HR, etc? Maybe you could try to talk to someone and express your feelings about feeling excluded as you are from another country? (Not complaining about the professor but asking for some assistance as you have some cultural differences.)
* Also, can you talk to any other professor whose work is somewhat to yours and who probably would be willing to take you into some of their projects later on?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: When he asked "are you going back", he may have been trying to show (to you and to the others) that the reason he didn't mention your name in the plan was because you might not be there anymore. I think it is very unlikely that this was intended as an insult. Just the opposite. He was showing that he was also considering your future, same as the others. He just (incorrectly) thought you may be returning to your home country soon, like many people do. Clearly you haven't discussed your plans with him, and he doesn't even know that you plan to stay in the UK, so it is definitely unreasonable to expect him to make plans that depend on you staying.
I agree with username_1 that when you said "no don't kill me", it was a joke. Maybe you didn't mean it as a joke, and maybe it was a very painful moment for you, but everyone will assume you were intentionally making a joke. Even if you just said "please don't fire me", it still wouldn't make any sense to think you are serious when you say that, unless it is normal for him to suddenly fire people during meetings. Assuming that is not how he operates, it must be a joke. They laughed to be nice, to show that they appreciate your funny comments and that they appreciate your ability to keep a sense of humor even on difficult topics. You should understand that they support you. If they did not like you, they would not laugh at your jokes.
I think you should ask to talk to him. Tell him you are thinking about your future and you would like his advice. This is a completely normal request. During this conversation he will learn about your plans, and you will learn what he thinks your best options are.
Also, assuming you are right that he has been avoiding interaction with you, having a normal conversation will help to normalize your relationship with him.
During the conversation, I would stick to the topic of what you should do with your future. I would not try to discuss your relationship with him. That can quickly become more awkward and/or more confrontational, and there is a risk that he might avoid you even more if the conversation gets weird like that. I would also not ask about the possibility to keep working with him. *You should not stay somewhere that has made you miserable.*
You feel horrible right now, and when you feel horrible it is natural to interpret other people's words and actions in overly negative ways. Talking to him directly will give you a chance to learn what he actually thinks. The truth is probably not as bad as all the bad things you are thinking right now.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/16
| 1,518
| 6,687
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a grad student and one course I'm taking is graded by another grad student. Today, nearly halfway through the term, we finally got feedback on all our previously submitted homework dating back to the beginning of the term. I've done everything correctly, but the grader has frequently marked me down for not including steps in my work which are so obvious I would never, as a grader myself, consider marking sophomores down for passing over them without comment, much less fellow grad students. And on a couple of occasions he's marked me down for reasons which are plainly factually incorrect.
I can see statistics for each assignment's grades and it looks like I may be the only one getting dinged like this; other students are generally getting either perfect scores or scores low enough that it should indicate they've actually gotten things wrong. I begin to wonder whether the grader has it out for me. At the present rate I could end up with a B+ or A- on my transcript for this relatively easy course where I'm turning in practically perfect work.
The fact that I'm only finding this out halfway through the term does make things worse, but even if I'd known beforehand that he'd grade this way, honestly I don't think I could possibly have predicted the particular trivialities he's insisting on. So the only way I can imagine ruling those out is by turning straightforward single-page TeX'd assignments into ten-page exercises in stating the obvious. And then there are the problems where his stated reason is simply wrong.
During the pandemic, courses are being held remotely, and the site we use for submitting homework and viewing feedback includes a way to request a regrade. But it appears that request goes to the grader, and if this is a pattern of unfair treatment I'm not sure about confronting him about it. Yet I don't want to disproportionately hassle the professor, who I've never met before this class but who has commented positively on my comments in class.
How should I address this in a way that doesn't escalate things/burn bridges/whatever but does address the problem?
**Edit**: a couple people are misunderstanding. This isn't about me looking for 'leniency' on 'harsh grading.' I've done the work correctly, and the grader has taken exception to my style or something; he apparently hasn't been dinging other students similarly. I didn't intend to adduce examples, but perhaps given the misunderstandings it's necessary, so here are two. I showed a particular vector space was n-dimensional and exhibited n linearly independent vectors, and concluded they were a basis; I was marked down for not explaining why. I wouldn't expect sophomore linear algebra students to tediously reiterate every single time that any set of n linearly independent vectors in an n-dimensional space form a basis, much less grad students. In another instance I was marked down for saying the singular value matrix is diagonal, with the grader complaining that it's only diagonal if it's square. That's simply an overly restrictive use of the term; what I said was correct and clear.<issue_comment>username_1: Of course, you are perfectly entitled to get graded fairly. Talk to the prof, and when you do, concentrate on the factually wrong grades if they are the substantial part of your complaint, because that's where you can provably address the factual incorrectness of the marking. Make absolutely sure this is really the case; if you get that wrong, people won't listen to you on the other things.
If the professor looks at that, you could add as an afterthought that you generally feel that the grader is overmeticulous, and whether you are really supposed to submit at that level of detail?
Generally, much will depend upon how well you do on other courses.
I would completely put aside the thought whether the grader has it in for you, as you have no way to prove it, unless you have hard evidence for that (e.g. some proof of a conflict of interest or something else). I would avoid going down that route, though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Did you contact the grader directly about the factual incorrectnesses?
I had to grade quite a few things already, and sometimes, when there are many students, mistakes happen. (Actually, I even made mistakes when there were few students...). If the grading indeed is wrong, and the grader refuses to change it, then I think you should talk to the prof as you now have additional reasons to do so.
The reason why I would suggest to first contact the grader is the following: I have been contacted by different students about incorrect gradings. In some cases, they were absolutely right, and I changed their marks. However, in other cases, they misunderstood something, and thanks to them contacting me, I was able to explain it to them, thus helping their learning experience. If the grading is actually correct, and you go straight to the prof, I believe that is when you might be burning bridges.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I've done everything correctly, but the grader has frequently marked me down for not including steps in my work which are so obvious I would never, as a grader myself, consider marking sophomores down for passing over them without comment, much less fellow grad students.
>
>
>
You may be correct in your approach. However, it does not matter. You simply disagree with someone's marking criteria. As long as they agree with departmental practices and are clearly explained in advance, students simply abide by them. Important arguments in that issue are factual mistakes and inconsistencies in marking, i.e. -1 and -5 for **exactly** the same mistake in two different scripts. The former is there, according to the OP, the second is not.
I am not aware of the formalities in changing a mark, as they range from very easy to almost impossible. Also, I am not sure if you are supposed to know (or know with certainty) who marked your script. I would suggest you contacted the module leader mentioning factually that there are erroneous corrections in your work at specific parts, who were correct (I would also keep it short and to the point). If the module leader is not available, administration is the natural channel. I would not contact the grad student (whatever that stands for) directly, as changing a registered mark is beyond their authority.
I do not think a point can be made on the demands on students' answers. An examiner can ask for overly detailed answers or specific methodologies, no matter how time consuming or annoying it is. There may be real merit behind it in assessing someone's knowledge.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/16
| 1,010
| 4,387
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work for a technology company and our company is interested in inviting some professors to review some of our recent technological innovation. It'd be more like writing an endorsement, or a preface for a book (and of course the professor needs to be comfortable with our work), so we can promote our products to the clients.
We don't have strong academia connections, so we might have to write some unsolicited emails to approach professors. Are there some tips regarding this kind of emails? I understand professors receive thousands of emails every day, so I want to make sure our email doesn't get buried.
Also, should we bring up compensation numbers in the first email, or this should be left for future discussion?<issue_comment>username_1: It's absolutely OK to write an unsolicited email to a Prof. Academics are contacted for all sorts of things, and your email will definitely be read. In writing your email, it's important to remember two things - 1. professors engage in things that they find interesting; 2. they fiercely protect their reputation.
So, since you are asking for tips, here are a couple:
* Find those professors who are interested in maintaining and developing links with industry (as opposed to those who are focused primarily on advancing the theoretical foundation of their discipline). If you look at their profiles, such profs would mention consulting work, executive education, industry-sponsored research, and membership in professional bodies. These are the guys/ladies you want to talk to first.
* Describe your product/project in terms of its intrinsic interest or novelty - that's what most academics will find interesting. From an academic's viewpoint, writing a preface or endorsement for your report is just a byproduct of learning something new and interesting about the field they care about.
* That said, be upfront about the fact that you want something from them and that you are not seeking to influence their judgment in any way.
Whether to mention compensation in the first email depends on where you/they are country- and culture-wise. But to be on the safe side, I would not mention money in the opening email but use words like "consultation" or "expert opinion" to signal that you are happy to pay for their time and expertise.
Good luck! ))
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is possible that the university has a section or even "subsidiary company" through which academic staff is "outsourced" as consultants to industry. What I just wrote looks horrible, so I will try to elaborate.
There might be a conflict of interest issue when an academic works for both a university and a private company, depending on the situation. That can be overcome in legal ways via separate companies etc, and I am not experienced enough to delve on that issue. Suffice to say, it happens and in ways that are the whole package: right, moral and legal.
In addition, some universities have a specialised agency (or provide the opportunity) to liaise academic staff to companies. They act as the intermediary, negotiate terms with the company, undertake the contract, arrange for payment and terms etc, and therefore there is no violation of some kind. In essence the university arranges for a fractional or consulting contract and centralises the process. I do not know enough to provide details, but the University of Oxford comes to mind. This is an option worth exploring and means a company will be negotiating with the university instead of a private individual.
I will not go into the moral aspects of academia - industry relations, but I see nothing wrong on the outline of the cooperation the OP suggests. It is something fruitful for both sides, and most academics would at least consider it. The obvious option is to email a spacific person, if the profile fits, and a to-the-point factual but not overly detailed email that intends to lead to a face-to-face discussion sounds fine. Another avenue is the Head of Department and/ or administrative contact, which might be difficult to locate for the uninitiated to the supreme mysteries of academia. There is typically a point of contact on the Staff list, and if the OP is looking for a list of people that is also worth considering. It is situation specific, however - some departments/ people are slothful, while others hyperactive.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/16
| 994
| 4,193
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a sophomore at a public university in the U.S. I'm thinking of taking a year off before my junior year, but I'm worried I'll have to explain the gap in my transcript when I apply to math grad school down the road. How concerned do I need to be about this?
The real reason I don't want to "go back" to school in the fall is that an online experience doesn't appeal to me at all. My home environment is a bit difficult and I think I'll have a miserable year overall. I expect I can still get decent grades, but I'd much rather have had four good years on campus, even if that means I have to graduate a year late.
Essentially, I'd like an answer to tell me how admission committees usually view gaps in transcripts and try to give me an idea of how this might play out for someone who voluntarily leaves college for a year because of classes being online. Some more specific questions that have crossed my mind are the following:
1. Do application forms explicitly ask you to address gaps in your transcript? If not, is there an expectation that applicants will explain these anyway?
2. Will an explanation like "I didn't want to take classes online for a year" fly? While my home environment is also a factor here, I would be really embarrassed to bring that up in an application.
3. How important is it that I have something to put on my resumé for the coming year? What I'd really like to do is a lot of reading on my own in math. But if it's something that would make a significant difference to my application, I could try to find work instead. (I don't really expect I'll get anything beyond a typical low-wage unskilled position, assuming it's even possible to find jobs. Failing that, would volunteering be taken seriously?)
4. Would expectations of progress in math be higher for someone who has a year-long gap in his transcript and has therefore had five years to graduate?
If it makes a difference, right now my impression is that I could probably be competitive for a spot at a top-ten school.
If it's felt that my question doesn't fit with the site rules, I'd appreciate advice on how to improve it.<issue_comment>username_1: Students take gap years for many reasons:
A « special » holiday
To earn some money
To volunteer Woof etc
So a gap year based on a Covid decision is just one of many and this is not an exhaustive list.
Your acceptance for a program will not be based on the use of the gap year but your grades and your attitude ie what you bring.
Best of luck.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: With the COVID pandemic affecting a lot of ways of life, graduate department adcoms are more likely to be understanding of certain abnormalities in transcripts and such when they review them, at least in the immediate upcoming cycles. These can include having to take classes P/F, as some schools have switched to that grading model as a result of having to go entirely online. In general also, I don't believe that taking over four years to finish undergrad will be a liability either; even in normal circumstances, things can happen that graduate department adcoms will also understand, such as major changes, having to retake classes after a dismal year, etc.
That said, you will have a gap in your CV come application time, hence the term "gap year." While you could take a break and "do nothing," a better use of the gap year/semester would be, as you said, to find work or attempt to do a (preferably research) internship. Most are in the summer, but there are a few, especially in industry, that will take on students for the regular semester. You mentioned your home environment is difficult, so especially if the pandemic situation improves enough, why not take the time to try and gain experience that could be relevant come time to apply to graduate programs? If anything, do something that you could brag about to adcoms or your friends rather than spend the semester doing nothing.
Overall though, I do feel that taking a gap semester/year could be beneficial in this case. Especially if you have just gone through a relatively stressful semester, you could use a longer break before going back into school.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/16
| 1,728
| 7,233
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've had discussions with professors in conjunction with my postgraduate application. Many were very skeptical at the fact that I completed one BSc and two MSc within 4 years. This would normally take at least 5-6 years in my country. I explained that I did it because I was very interested in my subjects. However, they thought it was strange and concerning since I had a small portion of "bad grades". This can be explained by a combination of heavy workload, bad family situation, and poor mental health during one or two semesters. I did not mention the latter parts due to social stigma. As a result, professors said I may have "learned more", i.e. gotten straight A's, if I'd have studied a year or two longer like most people. Other than this I have a very good record, which made this seem strange to them.
I live in a small country that has a lot of ex-Soviet professors, many of which believe that a student must have straight A's and a standard educational history to succeed. However, in my country universities are very diverse in terms of expectations and grading. Every university has their own grading scale and level of education. My university, for instance, likes to fail 50% every module to weed out bad students. Sometimes, up to 85% fail, because they give undergraduate students graduate modules because "life's tough, just learn it".
So, depending on where you study, your grades will be wildly different, and it can be hard to convert between places. There's even massive variation within my department alone, where they have the same module but different formats depending on who takes it. This means that an architect taking linear algebra who gets an A may be counted as a C for someone who studies physics, for instance.
Given this knowledge of the educational system, what could be the reason that professors dislike accelerated education? If asked at my university, where it is common, they'd just say good job. When asked at the universities I applied to, it's almost unheard of. How can one highlight the advantages of having taken a fast educational route?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Given this knowledge of the educational system, what could be the reason that professors dislike accelerated education?
>
>
>
There is not a good reason, and most professors do not hold that view.
>
> How can one highlight the advantages of having taken a fast educational route?
>
>
>
I have not have much success with that, and I am not sure you should try.
The advantage of accelerated education goes to you personally, not your supervisor. If you complete you degree at a younger age, then you work for more years between that degree and your retirement. As a result, you achieve more and earn more. Graduate school supervisors will not care much. It's true that students who have successfully accelerated their education are hard workers, but they are not the only hard workers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: From the point of view of a professor who does not really know you and who only sees that you finished exceptionally fast, the crucial question is how that result came to be.
From the cultural differences between the two universities in Germany where I studied 20 years ago (one "Western", the other "Eastern"), I can easily believe that two universities may be so different that the professors feel uncertain in their judgment (or feel certain but are way off).
Here are possible reasons for your record:
1. You are one of the very few really exceptional students. => they want to (prospectively) hire/get into their group
2. You are an exceptionally clever student wrt. to optimizing their *grades* very well by reducing the workload per grade to a minimum. The implicit concern is: get good grades with low overall knowledge, and that is someone whom they may rather not have in their group.
3. In case the professors are not sufficiently close [culturally] to the courses and university you attended so that they can accurately judge, there may also be the concern that your achievements have been due to your courses/grades being "softer" than what they are used to.
I'm in Germany, and whenever there is such a concern (i.e. a student showing up with grades that are not in the list of equivalent grades that are automatically accepted), the procedure here is to ask the student to take an exam locally to prove their knowledge/performance.
4. For the sake of completeness, there may also be professors out who do not want to have the exceptional student in their group since they feel endangered by such a student.
Whether such professors exist or not, if they exist it is better for the student to not end up in their group.
---
Here's my take on what you write about your achievements
>
> 1 BSc + 2 MSc in 4 years
>
>
>
IMHO hard to judge without further details. Relevant details may be
* how different the fields of your two MScs are?
I'm chemist. Had I found out during my Hauptstudium (≈ MSc) that I'd like to actually become a chemical engineer instead, that would have been feasible without *that* much additional workload.
OTOH, I'm acutally analytical chemist and in fact do statistical data analysis. I don't think I'd have been able to study maths with specialization statistics alongside my chemistry studies without that taking substantial amounts of additional time - here the overlap between the curricula is already too low.
OTOH, there exist exceptional students that can do *much* more than is considered usual. I met a biologist who while doing her PhD as a side-line studied law. She explained to me: knowing what you want (she knew which specialization she wanted to take when she started), already having the general experience of another university degree plus also more experience with life in general/being more mature than a student fresh from school in her experience made a whole lot of a difference. In addition you may decide for which courses you want good marks and which just to pass and focus correspondingly.
* how feasible it was to assemble your choice of courses yourself?
One of my universities had their students basically assemble the coursework themselves. The other handed out fixed schedules.
* whether it was possible to take exams without attending the course?
Again, the university with the fixed schedules would have administrative heart attacks if someone enrolled somewhere else wanted to take some exams. At the other university that was maybe not super frequent, but it was not unknown, neither.
I think you can see that what is hard work but doable at one university may be not possible at all at another. And that would mean that a professor from a university culture where such things aren't even considered may conclude that your record was obtained via reasons 2 and/or 3, so not favorable.
>
> As a result, professors said I may have "learned more", i.e. gotten straight A's, if I'd have studied a year or two longer like most people.
>
>
>
... IMHO hints at the professors considering 2 and or 3 rather than 1 the likely reason (or considering that even the exceoptional student 1 could and should have learned more)
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/16
| 855
| 3,753
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'd like to do research with one of a few professors within a certain group in my (American) university's Computer Science department. [I'm having some trouble contacting them](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/147052), but I'd like to understand what I can do, as an undergraduate student, to increase my chances of getting research with one of the profs I am interested in.
The group they are in teaches only a few undergrad classes, which, as of next semester, I have completed all of. Yet I was, through a series of extremely unfortunate class schedules, unable to be taught by any of the professors I want to research with, although next semester I will be taught by their colleagues in the same group. I talked to a couple TAs and other profs, who said to "just get better at the research topics in question", although this seems like altogether unhelpful advice given the gap between a first year undergrad and a professor's research.
There are no classes that really delve into the exact research that the professors I would like to research with do, although the class I am taking next semester covers the *basics* of what the group is about.
What can I do to understand what the "prerequisites" for being a research assistant to the professors in question would be (beyond just "get better")?<issue_comment>username_1: The "prerequisites" are really going to depend on the field that your professors of interest are publishing in. Which will lead me to the next point: if you're interested in this field, read some publications from these professors or other professors/experts in this field, then stop by their office hours or talk to them and mention your interest in the field and what you can do to gain more knowledge.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Since the qualities that an individual professor is looking for is intensely personal, there is no substitute for actually communicating with them. Mine would be different from the person in the next office, certainly.
You need to solve the communication problem before you can get anything specific. I suggest that you might want to contact the department office (or chair) and explain that you are having trouble contacting the professor in question and ask for advice.
But there are a couple of things you can do. You say you have already taken the courses that this group normally teaches and probably represents their interest. Normally, I'd advise doing what you have already done. So, I'll assume that you are basically prepared. But you haven't indicated whether any of them are actually interested in supervising undergraduate research. Perhaps it is a very rare thing with them. And you aren't known to them in any case, not having taken the key courses with anyone in the group.
Perhaps your attempts to contact them have been ignored for some reason or combination of reasons. But you might consider the following:
Write up a simple CV, describing the relevant courses you have taken and any research you have done around those topics. This should be a page or less.
Write up a simple SoP (Statement of Purpose) saying what you might like to do and how you think you would be successful doing it. This should be (perhaps) half a page.
You don't want to say too much, or you'll be ignored again, but you need to make an introduction to them. It is hard now, with the pandemic, but the ideal way is to go visit in person and deliver these two documents.
A third thing you might do is get a letter of recommendation from the professor you took the key courses, in which that prof introduces you to the others.
To summarize, treat this as you would an application to an educational program.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/16
| 1,016
| 4,339
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been working on some independent research for a few years now, and I'm finally at the point where I'm seriously considering publishing a Computer Science/Mathematical Algorithm in an Academic Journal.
I presently work as a Software Development Engineer at a major tech firm. I have never published a paper before, though I do have my Masters and have gone through the process of writing a research paper before.
My specific questions are:
1. If my research paper is completely unrelated and independent of anything I do at work (nor am I even in a research type position), what - if any - obligations do I have to my work place? Do I need to seek their approval before publishing a research paper?
2. If so, do I need to supply them with my research paper - or merely
provide an abstract/description of the research to them?
3. Will an Academic Journal require me to submit evidence that there is no
workplace-conflict as an Independent Researcher?
Thanks :)<issue_comment>username_1: >
> 1. If my research paper is completely unrelated and independent of anything I do at work (nor am I even in a research type position), what - if any - obligations do I have to my work place? Do I need to seek their approval before publishing a research paper?
>
>
>
You would have to read whatever NDA you signed, as this is specific to your situation. IANAL, but I think the most likely answer is there is no problem with this. You aren't allowed to divulge company secrets, but this is something you worked on independently (somewhat of a hobby).
>
> 3. Will an Academic Journal require me to submit evidence that there is no workplace-conflict as an Independent Researcher?
>
>
>
The short answer is no. The long answer is that many journals would require you to disclose if you have any *conflicts of interest* that would affect the validity of your results. For example, if your paper is about the effectiveness of a particular algorithm used at Uber for matching riders to drivers, and you work at Uber, you would need to disclose that as a conflict of interest. However, as you have already said that your research topic is unrelated to your work at your job, it probably would not constitute a possible conflict of interest.
Submitting *evidence* would be even less likely, I wouldn't worry about that unless asked.
However, note that you will have to choose an affiliation when you submit, which means you probably will want to think about how you want your name to be listed. This is just for informational purposes. Perhaps you can be listed as affiliated with your company, or maybe you can arrange to have no affiliation.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Talk to your employer:
* they have a legitimate interest to check that the paper does not conflict with their legitimate interests.
That may be the case e.g. if the paper contains an invention and they may own copyright on a software implementation in the paper (at least where I am, copyright can go to the employer even for work done outside working hours) or otherwise touches their business secrets.
* OTOH, they may be very happy to know that you do research, and it may open career choices for you if you let them know that you are interested in research.
* Before showing them, decide for yourself what you answer if they ask you to publish under your work affiliation. I.e. would you like or dislike this?
I'd hand over a printout saying something along the lines of "Hey, I thought this may be of interest to you - I've been doing research in my spare time, and here's the resulting manuscript which I plan to submit to $journal."
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Given the research is independt of your work, it is a hobby project. Anyone can (in theory) write and publish an academic article as a hobby project.
Supposing you do not have a particularly draconic legislation in your country, it is fundamentally your own business what you do while not working (assuming innocent hobbies here, not criminal acts, however defined in your country).
This all assumes that your work and hobby are indeed completely independent.
That said, if (but only if) you do have a healthy relationship with your workplace and boss, you might want to tell them, just as a matter of courtesy.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/17
| 1,120
| 5,069
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my area (computer science), many researchers have employed some algorithms to solve the problem where most of them used their own private datasets.
I collected several public datasets and have benchmarked the performance (the accuracy) of the state-of-the-art algorithms on several public datasets. I have not seen anyone have done this so far.
However,
1. The benchmarked algorithms are existing algorithms. None of them is my own proposed algorithm. Most algorithms have been used for the researchers' private dataset.
2. The datasets I used are public dataset which has also been used in other studies but there are some algorithms that have not been employed for these datasets. Those algorithms have not been investigated on these public datasets.
The purpose of I'm doing so is:
1. To investigate the accuracy of the existing algorithms employed in my area across various datasets.
2. To show that the accuracy of a particular algorithm is not consistent across various datasets and there is a need for a combination of algorithms.
Is what I have done can be considered as one of the contributions of my thesis before I proceed to the next contribution which is to propose a combination of algorithms?<issue_comment>username_1: What you propose sounds like an in depth **experimental review**. You would certainly be able to get a paper out of it and, if you made the datasets easy to access and easy to use, you could gather a respectable number of citations. There’s a good [example](https://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2013/papers/Wu_Online_Object_Tracking_2013_CVPR_paper.pdf) (and [another](https://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_iccv_2013/html/Pang_Finding_the_Best_2013_ICCV_paper.html)) of this in the Visual Object Tracking community. Both of these are novel because of their objective evaluation or novel dataset. Done well, there is no reason why this can’t be considered a novel contribution to research. By that argument, they would count as a PhD contribution. But you should **ask your PhD supervisor** to confirm. They will know your field and your school and the normal rules that apply.
On the other hand, if you plan to create and evaluate your own algorithm, then putting together an evaluation
framework is necessary anyway. Having comparisons with existing methods will only strengthen the contribution of the new algorithm, so it is simply a matter of whether you write your work up before or after you have your own algorithm.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Disclaimer:** I do not have a CS or related professional or academic background. I decided to write an answer based on my more general point of view and my experience on algorithm/ programming practices in areas they are applied. Please consider carefully.
As already said, you should discuss this with your supervisor in very certain terms.
What I am writing must be taken with care, as I come from a different area with different conventions A replication of existing algorithms on existing datasets (something mechanical, a repetition of prior knowledge) can be in a PhD but is not considered original work. Applying an algorithm is a new context ("method A in context B" type of research) can be considered novel but under certain circumstances, e.g. if there is no prior application in that type of data, if the algorithms are not widely used in the field, if the earlier applications are old/ the dataset has changed (there is a factual reason to rerun the algoritm) or if there is an alteration with something you defined or borrowed from elsewhere. The most well-founded cases are the first and the last - the others can be debated - and even then it depends upon the difficulty and how new and widespread the algorithm is. In terms of a technical contribution, you definitely need something new to be introduced, most preferably something you came up with.
It think that the exercise is very useful in a PhD, for benchmarking or evaluation framework, but would hesitate to consider it a contribution, especially technical.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I would urge just one (more) point of caution. When you are benchmarking other people's work "objectively" be careful to be sensitive. There's a danger that you can offend someone in your field by clumsily suggesting that their claims of performance are not all that great. It may be that you could work with that person in the future or that as a PhD student your study may not be as objective as you might think.
All I'm saying is that it is important to discuss this approach with your supervisor or someone experienced whom you trust.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't challenge results or be scared to say something that might take the shine off someone else's contribution, just that you should tread carefully.
I myself am hoping to do something similar, i.e. pick up algorithms that people have "benchmarked" and run them against more benchmarks on the way to hopefully combining them in novel ways. Good luck.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/17
| 390
| 1,791
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm submitting the extended version of my published conference paper to a journal that has a special issue specifically related to that conference.
Besides adding 30% of more material to the article (as the computer science routine), do I have to change the article name?
On one hand, everything is the same besides having more experiments and more formulations or extra explanations, and it is obvious that the article and the paper are the same works.
on the other hand, how people may decide to cite which one later on?<issue_comment>username_1: Usually, there is no formal requirement that the title has to be changed. In fact, if the journal paper is just the long version of the conference paper, I would recommend **not** to change it, so that the connection between the two papers is obvious to people who see the paper in a list of references.
As soon as the journal version of the paper has appeared, it is generally assumed that this is the version that should be read and cited, rather than the shorter conference version. By keeping the title unchanged, you tell readers that there is no need to read the earlier one as well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not see a problem with keeping the same name. Often there are multiple versions of a piece of work: early drafts, working papers, submission drafts, conference versions, publications etc. A change of name is necessary if an additional element is explored in the paper. The suggestion to double-check with the editor is good, but I believe they will not object.
I would also advise to put a visible note everywhere on the Internet that there is a published version of that paper, available at XXXXXX. That way, the readers will not stick or cite the conference version.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/17
| 8,306
| 35,425
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduate student who teaches their own class. I have a supervisor who I report to for everything, including final grades. We have a meeting every semester at the end to review our final grades and for my supervisor to see that I did everything correctly.
In my second semester, my supervisor looked through my grades before they were submitted or published.
At the end, she said: “Let’s look at your borderline students.”
She noticed that a student had a borderline C, say 73.5%, which is barely above the passing threshold of 73% for this course, and had us look at his final exam. The student got 66.5% on the exam, and she said to me: “Are you sure you want to pass him?” At the time I was thinking: “Well, the student did earn the passing score.” However, my supervisor kept suggesting: “Are you sure?” I looked up to my supervisor who was the one who taught me to be a teacher, and like anyone at their job listening to their superior, I felt pressured to say *yes,* because you do what your supervisor tells you to do, and I was told to take off points from his final exam to lower his final grade to 72.36%. The sole reason for this was not to let the student pass. My supervisor also mentioned specifically not to keep it higher than 72.5%, because students will ask for a bump.
So, in the end, I ended up giving him that 72.36%, a C−, which is a failing grade: They cannot move on the the next-level class.
The discussion happened before the grades were submitted or published, so the student never knew he originally scored 66.5% on the exam. There were no other students with borderline scores.
I felt extremely guilty because I knew who this student was; they didn’t do much of the work, they didn’t always come to class, but they knew the topic and did the bare minimum to pass. I went back to my office right after our meeting and was tempted to change it back to a C. But knowing my supervisor, I knew there was a chance I could’ve gotten in trouble because my supervisor might’ve noticed.
I feel extremely bad for doing this, I felt like I was pressured to do this and couldn’t turn back.
Was the supervisor's decision ethical, academically, and legally sound?<issue_comment>username_1: **TLDR:** it’s not technically illegal, but as for whether it is ethical and/or academically appropriate, **it’s complicated**. (That’s why the answer below is longer than I normally like answers to be — sorry for that.)
---
Your story reflects a tension that exists between two different notions that one might define for what it means for a student to “deserve” to pass a class:
1. The student satisfies an objective, formal set of criteria: that is, the student jumps through a predefined set of hoops (exams, homework etc) and produces a set of grades that according to some numerical averaging scheme gives a number that’s higher than some predefined threshold like “73”.
2. The student performs in a way that actually satisfies the professor that the student understood the material at a minimal level that will enable them to keep progressing in their studies by taking and doing reasonably well in follow-up courses, applying the knowledge they learned , and finishing their degree without the degree being a worthless piece of paper.
Students invariably interpret “deserving” to pass in the first sense of satisfying a formal set of criteria. But anyone who’s been teaching for more than a couple of years has encountered cases where a student just barely satisfied the formal criteria for passing, but left the professor with grave doubts as to whether the student actually learned enough to deserve to pass in the second sense of making the professor feel it is “right” to pass them. In some cases the professor will seriously wonder if the student has learned *anything at all*.
The point is that this formal system of exams and grading and passing thresholds is imperfect and can be “hacked”, and some students (a small minority, to be sure) in fact get by by making supreme efforts to hack it and obtain passing grades by faking a semblance of knowledge rather than acquiring actual, genuine knowledge. The result is that at the end of the day the professor might look at a student’s grades, look at their exam, and see an inconsistency between what the grades tell them should happen and what the professor believes in their heart should happen.
(Note: this inconsistency can happen in both directions. In your story the grades said to pass and the supervisor thought the student should fail, but in other cases the professor might want to pass someone who has a just barely failing grade.)
Now, this poses a real dilemma for professors, and they develop different strategies for dealing with this problem. Some possible ways include:
1. **Grade on a curve.** That is, decide what the passing threshold is only at the end of the semester. This gives you the ability to decide where in the ranked list of students to draw the line between “deserves to pass” and “doesn’t deserve to pass”, so it offers a partial solution to this dilemma.
On the other hand, this method doesn’t let you tweak the pass/fail outcome of an *individual* student in a way that doesn’t affect any other students.
There are other problems associated with grading on a curve. Both many students and many professors don’t like the concept and feel it is ethically and pedagogically flawed.
2. **Do what your supervisor did.** That is, allow yourself to tweak the grade of the student in your question a little bit, “fixing” the inconsistency in a way that causes the formal pass/fail outcome to match with your gut feeling of what is the “right” outcome.
The drawback here is that you are breaking an implicit promise you are making to your students that grading will be done impartially, with each question being graded independently of any other question. This is ethically fraught, and if a student finds out their grade has been tweaked in such a way, they are likely to be extremely upset and aggrieved.
On the other hand, if I’m being completely honest, changing a point or two here or there is essentially a meaningless operation. If a student got 14 points out of 20 on a question, who is to say that that’s a more “scientific” or accurate measurement of their knowledge than giving them 13 or 15 points instead? (I’m imagining a scenario where the student’s mistake is slightly different than the mistake of any other student, so that by making this change you are not creating unequal treatment of different students.) So I cannot unequivocally declare that it is blatantly unethical to go back and review a student’s exam, ask yourself “are you sure that this student really deserves to pass?” and allow the answer to dictate a 1-point change to the grade in a question somewhere, when this is done in a good faith attempt to produce the most just outcome.
3. **Do nothing.** That is, accept that whatever formal criteria you defined for passing in your syllabus represent your best approximation, flawed and hackable though it might be, for what it means to “deserve” to pass. If a student satisfies the criteria, you let them pass and ignore your inner gut feeling.
The disadvantage is that in some cases you may indeed let an undeserving student “get away” with passing when they shouldn’t (which by the way may not be doing them any favors, and may be setting them up for larger failures down the road in their studies and in their career). But the big appeal is that this is an “honest”, objective approach that doesn’t require subterfuge or covert manipulation of grades as your supervisor pressured you into using.
**Summary.** As you can see, decisions about passing and failing students are ultimately very complicated. Every strategy one chooses for dealing with this situation ends up being problematic in some way and causes some measure of injustice. I don’t think there is a unique set of ethical principles by which one can decide whether your supervisor’s approach is right or wrong. At best, one can say that this approach is somewhat ill-advised and violates the principle that in a modern university grading should be done as impartially as possible. Personally I can’t bring myself to condemn the behavior more severely than that; perhaps others might.
If it’s any consolation regarding your sense of guilt about that incident, consider the very real possibility that passing the student in that scenario might not have been in their own best interest.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Since you ask, specifically, about legality, I'll say that it is unlikely that it would be a matter of criminal law anywhere, though, of course, I can't know the laws of every jurisdiction. But it could well be a matter of civil law and if this were known could easily generate a lawsuit against everyone involved.
I think that a person would be very hesitant to apply such a "rule" to the child of some powerful person. It depends, I think, on people either not knowing what really occurred or being so powerless as to be completely unable to prevent it.
But, as I've been saying in comments here, it is a profoundly unethical act and would, in my view be grounds for at least a reprimand, and even termination as an act of moral turpitude if repeated. It turns what should be a well determined process in to a form of chaos where we are just at the mercy of the powers.
An instructor needs to set a standard before the course begins and needs to make that public. You can make it as hard as you like and you can interpret it as strictly as you like, but you can't deviate from it to the detriment of an individual. I have no complaint about generous interpretations as most of us, I hope, consider generosity to be laudable and to believe that students can learn and improve.
I won't condemn you personally, however, since you may have had no agency here and may be as much a victim as the student involved. But I will condemn the professor, who should, at a minimum be reported to the dean for this behavior. Especially since the course is a gateway course and changing their grade to make it failing when it was not also denies them the opportunity to go on and, one hopes, improve.
It was especially pernicious, here, that the induced change in the average was set not only to unethically push the student below the passing grade, but further down so that it would be less likely they could appeal.
My advice to you personally, is to find a better mentor as soon as you can. This person is teaching you to do harm.
And, I don't know how you can make it up to the person you damaged. It may be too late, even to request a grade change. But the dean should be informed and if it is only you that knows that the professor is behaving this way, it is probably your responsibility to so inform them. I won't suggest that you do, of course, since it might have too adverse an effect on your own career, but there is an imbalance in justice that hasn't been corrected.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: This is of course why many systems (but not commonly in the US I understand) insist on blind double marking: that is, all marking is done by two people, neither of whom know the identity of the student they are grading. All of our systems and samples of our marking are inspected by "External Examiners": that is respected academics in the same field, but from a different university. These examiners will also look carefully at the work and marking of students classed as borderline (you need at least 69.5 for a 1st class mark, but less than 68.5 for a 2nd class mark - 68.5-69.5 is officially "borderline") - and various factors might come into play - records of illness or personal problems, etc.
I say all this because it demostrates the lengths some systems go to avoid exactly the situation described, and should tell you something about the implied desirability of academics applying their judgement to something other than the piece of work in front of them.
How to prevent people passing when they don't genuinely understand? Setting assessments where you can't pass without understand is a start. But we generally include a grading criteria along the lines of "Student clearly demonstrates undrstanding", but works as long as you don't know how the student is, but wouldn't work well in an unblinded situation.
Grades can only be appealed on the basis of process - the academic judgement of the grader is absolute, but you'd better follow proceedure to the letter.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: *Any* you *in my answer is general. I am discussing the general ethics or the ethics of your professor’s actions here, not yours.*
You have a formal grading system (exams with points, a grading rubric mapping percentages to grades, some formula to derive the final percentage from the exam and other contributions, etc.) to make grading transparent and thus more objective and fair. The alternative is determining the grade by gut feeling only, which you would probably not be allowed to and which opens the door for numerous unfair biases, be they conscious or not. You can regard this system as an imposed control mechanism, but you can also regard it as a tool to control your own inevitable biases. Like the state’s legal system you want to uphold this system for its own intrinsic value.
The grading system is inevitably far from perfect and there are already plenty of ways to be unfair *within* the system.
However, going *outside* the system is a good indicator that you are being unfair.
This does not only work as a sanity check for yourself, but also for any internal or legal procedures:
Breaking this system could be considered to evidence what is called *consciousness of guilt;* it is similar to destroying evidence.
At the very least it shifts the burden of proof to you that you had good reasons to break the system.
Now, I am not very familiar with the internal and legal requirements for courses in the US, but I would roughly expect them to require that every course has the requirements for passing set out beforehand or similar thus providing a formal and possibly legal foundation for the grading system and with it a point of attack for internal and legal action.
In your case, your professor explicitly and clearly ignored the system because she did not like the result.
She did not even bother to revisit the student’s exam with extra scrutiny – which would still be problematic unless she did it for everybody with borderline grades in every exam and made this transparent.
By lowering the grade even further than necessary for failure, she even took extra steps so the exam would not be revisited (another evidence for consciousness of guilt).
This is clearly unethical by the [Golden Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) or [Categorical Imperative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative):
You do not want to be a student in a system where professors can arbitrarily lower your grades because they think you do not deserve them.
If you conclude that your grading system was too lenient because it let a student pass who should not have, the right course of action is to change the difficulty next time.
Having one student pass a single course they shouldn’t have is not the end of the world.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: My apologies for the length and the style of what follows, but the questioner seems to be concerned about something I myself have struggled with for many years of teaching, namely, how to give just and fair grades.
It is certainly valid, because the grade will stand.
A grade is also a certificate, to the student, to the administration (who will give a degree or admit to examinations based on fulfilling requirements) and to the consumers, such as grant agencies who want to restrict funding to "good" students, or to future employers.
Even in the hard sciences, grading has a subjective component, especially when it comes to partial credit. Not too many people who grade are aware how an unacknowledged bias can influence their decisions and personally, I am worried about this.
Even with the best of efforts, grades are not an accurate representation of a students capabilities. Sometimes, we faculty even use "effort" in our grading decisions, whether we explicitly admit this on the syllabus or not. Anyone who is graded will be influenced on how the grades are calculated and so sometimes grades egregiously fail to reflect the student's capability in -- let's say -- ordinary differential equations and rather their capability to "game the system".
All this being said: In your situation, you were involved in the manipulation of a grade that took out-of-scheme information into account, namely your impression of the student, based on the final exam. If pressed, you and your supervisor can presumably justify your grading decision without admitting the manipulation.
You can argue that the grade is a means to a goal, namely to obtain information on how the student did and whether the student needs to repeat the class. Your impression is that the means failed to reach the goal. Therefore, you substituted for the failure by correcting the outcome. In fact, you could have done the student a favor. (I still remember vividly at the beginning of my teaching career of hearing another faculty describe the situation of a student who had passed Calc 1 and Calc 2 by learning all procedures by heart, but then was unable to perform in Calc 3, because their memory did not suffice. The advise was for the student to start over again. This could have been avoided by failing the student who was gaming the grading system to his ultimate disadvantage.) Now, if I teach the class that comes afterwards, I would be unhappy of having students who only formally require the prerequisites, because much more likely than not, I have to fail them, they will repeat the class, and they are still set up for failure. Or I might not care at all, because the prerequisite is really one of "academic maturity".
You can also argue, as you seem inclined to do, that manipulating grades breaks the implicit or explicit contract in the syllabus that promises students to get a passing grade for doing certain things. Allowing yourself to break the contract allows all sorts of mischief such as punishment for obnoxiousness up to discrimination based on irrelevant criteria such as gender or race.
In a situation like the one you were in (about to pass a student who in your best opinion should not be passed), you were in a dilemma. In an oral exam such as a Ph.D. qualifier, committees tend to use their knowledge of the student's capabilities in coming to a decision, whether they admit it or not, though some institutions go to great length to "objectify" the decision. In a large class, when personal knowledge of the student is sketchy, I personally would be very hesitant of using it, just because I am aware that I might have unrecognized biases. From my personal experience (assigning grades for almost forty years) I do not think your question can be answered definitely. However, it seems to me that the intentions of your supervisor were beneficial, asking you to consider the consequences of your action. Besides, if you are new to the game, failing someone should be very hard for you and it should never get much better. Thus, you might have a bias towards lenient grading that your supervisor recognized. Of course, this starts to be all speculation.
Manipulating a grade away from the borderline is common practice to prevent being exposed to the pressure from the student who sees the passing grade in reach. I consider it to be a bit cowardly, but certainly understandable.
A final piece of advice from someone who agonized over grades. You can only do your best, and after you have done your best, you just stop agonizing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Ethical it is not. It is only ethical to grade a student for their performance. Everything else is personal - and pretty much wrong. In your case, you will discriminate a student for their perceived attitude.
Imagine the distribution of the student grades. It will be some smooth distribution. Now, draw the "passing" line. Is there a significant inflection around it? Well, you can't analyse a single class this way, but still...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Looking at the final exams of barely passing students is a thing. It's done for just the reason your supervisor said: we don't want students moving onto the next required course if they're completely unprepared. My first supervisor did the same thing. Obviously this is when the course is part of a sequence and the first day of the next will absolutely require they know certain fundamentals. And also when the final is comprehensive -- looking it over gives a decent sense.
The easiest, fairest-seeming way is playing with the curve. You get a clump of 5 students near a 71% final percent and pull their final exams. 4 are merely bad, and 1 is from a student with suspiciously good homework and 35% on the final. Oh, well. 71% passes. Then you go down to the students with 69%. Their finals are all shockingly bad. Maybe the scores weren't so low, but the grading system gave far too much partial credit. You're not sure they understood many of the questions. So 69% is a fail. In fact, as your supervisor notes, you set 71.1% as the lowest passing score. That way the 69%'s don't feel as bad.
In theory, you're doing the same thing, but backwards. I assume this is the one student near the cutoff. For whatever reason, you can't raise the curve, so you cheat a little to lower the score. It's icky, but the end result is the same. It sounds like standard practice in your dept (but I've never heard of it being done). If another student with a lower final % didn't receive the same treatment -- that's more dubious.
In my case, I've never done heroic, slightly questionable efforts like that. I'll let them pass by the numbers, but often write to let them know they failed the final and why that matters. But since they got a terrible grade, they were often planning to retake or switch majors.
My other bit of advice, which is too late: don't look at who the student is until you've definitely decided either way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Echoing some others' remarks: no, this is unethical, immoral, and unfair. The course materials should have described the rules of the game, and if someone scored certain points according to those rules, then, ... well, they did.
Yes, it is true that "grading systems" do not reliably reflect "mastery of material" (whatever that supposedly means, anyway!), but that is insufficient reason to change the rules of the game after people have already signed on.
Yes, it is true, especially, that single numbers do not readily reflect what we'd like them to. Hm. Ok, so if we do want them to reflect something-or-other, such as "adequacy to follow the subsequent course", etc., then serious rethinking of the grading scheme is necessary. (This is apart from "gaming the system", but, yes, "gaming the system" is another consideration!)
But, in any case, from my viewpoint (in math, in the U.S.), changing the rules at the very end is crazily unfair, ... Don't do it. (Especially not if there is potentially some personal aspect...)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: The things you should consider:
* How much has the student and/or his family invested in this training? Not just money, but effort and time.
* What has your decision cost the student? Include the ongoing costs.
* Did the published criteria for passing the exam include your feelings?
As a teenager, I had my maths exam decreased due to the teacher not liking my writing (minor disability, tremors in fingers). This in turn nearly made me miss out on an apprenticeship. Fortunately for me, the teacher wrote this on the exam, and I was able to show this to my prospective employer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I disagree with those who say this is a complicated issue, this is flatly unethical. I cannot speak to legality, but I would say that this is more than likely illegal if the student is a part of any protected group.
There was a standard set at the beginning of the course. That standard said, "if you score x% at the end of the course, you can move on." Unless there was a specific provision built in for scoring a low final exam score, then you broke the contract made at the beginning of the semester. The proper approach moving forward would be to express your discomfort with breaking the rules you set, and escalating to a higher level supervisor or HR department if you feel that strongly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: I would like to offer a dissenting perspective. Sure, it's bad optics and all that, but in the end of the day, **making a correct, just decision cannot be all that unethical**. And borderline cases are, by their nature, those where **both letting the student pass and failing them are correct and just.** Some elaboration:
* grading is an extremely noisy procedure, especially if it involves human judgement. When grading final exam (in math), I quite often can justify giving anywhere between 25% and 75% of credit for a partial solution, at my discretion. BTW, I *do grade inconsistently* unless I make special effort to check myself.
* therefore, when people are saying "the rules are set in advance", that's wishful thinking. The rules might say "73% is are enough", but the only thing this means for sure is that if a student submits perfect solutions to >73% problems, they've passed. For weaker students bordering on a fail, this is a moot point - they earn a lot on partial credit.
* consequently, the scenario of a student who "studied just enough to pass the course, but to their astonishment failed and now feels robbed" has nothing to do with reality. If a student has studied just about enough, in practice they are accepting a gamble, in which luck with the questions, with who are grading, and whether they do it before or after lunch, can have major consequences. To be on the safe side, study a bit more!
* there's no meaningful difference between 72% and 73% that's not erased by the noise. It's amazing that people here see no wrong in allowing 1% of the grade have major consequences, and are so eager to judge the ethics of a poor TA without questioning why the system that forced him or her into this situation is allowed to exist in the first place.
* in view of the above, reviewing student's work in the borderline case, to try and decrease the noise effect, makes much sense. The measures like "the overall impression of the exam paper" and "the overall impression of the teacher on the student" surely are bad optics and have shortcomings, but practically they may be valuable inputs, much, much more significant than the difference of 1% in the score.
* if in the end it's still borderline, then so it be, both failing and passing are just. It's not your fault you are forced to make decisions of major consequences in the situation where you can't decide meaningfully.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: Another point I feel is very relevant to the issue was only addressed by one poster. It is what is going to happen after the student passes? I believe this was primarily on the mind of the supervisor when this decision was made.
It is the specifics of this that need to be answered in order to really pass judgement here. Was the student about to graduate and then go into the workforce with subpar skills? Was the student about to go into an extremely difficult course for which the current class is a prerequisite? I feel like either of these cases could give a professor pause to examine the performance of the student. This is also dependent on the academic standards of the university/school in question.
In summary, I side fully with people saying this is not a black and white issue. I come from college education in hard sciences/mathematics, and I feel like this opinion will likely be the majority in these departments. Personally, I feel like my primary ethical concern is to produce qualified individuals. If there is some ethical dilemma where this concern conflicts with another, then producing qualified individuals is likely to be the winner.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: My syllabus says explicitly that my grades are assigned by my best judgement of what the student learned, and the numbers are a strong guide to that judgement, not a replacement for it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_14: It depends on the syllabus and protocol. In principle, it is widely accepted that borderline cases can be revisited. As long as the process for doing so is still based on academic merit, reasonably consistent between candidates in similar borderline situations (this is **not** to say that the outcomes must be the same), and carried-out without fear or favour, such practice seems ethical.
In fact, I happen to know of one examination protocol that **requires** the examiner to change the raw marks if the total of all components sums to just below a grade boundary (as a result, it is impossible for anyone to get a total mark one point below the amount needed for the next grade up). The rationale, as I understand it, is that numerical scores are not absolutely infalliable, so, where the total is borderline, the examiner is required to go back and reconsider carefully whether he/she may have been slightly too harsh or slightly too generous, and ask himself/herself "overall, is this candidate worth a pass?". That is to say, a holistic re-evaluation is almost encouraged.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_15: I and a friend of mine had a strikingly similar experience.
This happened in the first year as a graduate TA.
My friend, let's call him J, and I, along with other first year TAs were assigned as graders for Calculus II.
We were given quizzes and exams together with some rough grading guidelines, and we were responsible for coming up with partial credit schemes for problems for which students had show work. The professor generally trusted our work and didn't really bother us... until the end of the semester. After reporting the final grades, the professor called for an emergency meeting. We had to come back to campus around dinner time to re-examine the final exams. The professor asked us to pick out the exams of all those students who barely made a C. She then reviewed these exam in detail and questioned our grading decision problem by problem. We were being way too generous, in her opinion.
Eventually, she got tired, and unlike us, she actually need to eat dinner.
So she left and require us to finish regrading before we can go home. Even though she did not say explicitly, the message was clear, we had to turn as many C's into D's. Note that for this course, D was basically a failing grade at least at the time because most courses that require Calculus II as prerequisites would require "C or higher" anyway. So basically, we were asked to fail as many students as possible. We got the message, and redesigned some partial credit scheme. Eventually, we turned a huge number of C's into D's (I don't remember the exact number, but it was certainly well over 100).
After that, we felt terrible about it. Not only our professional opinions were not taken seriously, we also felt bad for the students, and most importantly, we felt we became a part the academic mafia.
So far our story is almost identical to OP's, right?
I wasn't a person with strong moral foundation, so I felt bad for awhile and then just ignored that. My friend, J, however, just couldn't let it go. A week or so later, J confronted the professor on her shady behavior and eventually reported this unethical procedure to the department head, which is what most of the answers (so far) are suggesting the OP should do (at least morally speaking).
In my story, however, my friend J didn't do very well. My reporting, J didn't become a hero. Indeed, J turned out to be very wrong.
It turns out, the department head already knew about and approved the professor's re-examination/re-grading of the final exam. The professor felt our grading was too generous for a long time, but she didn't/couldn't correct in time. It was only after the final exam she realized that a few new TAs' generosity would allow hundreds of students pass Calculus II without actually being sufficiently competent. So the final exam was the only chance for her to correct that.
It also turns out, she did what she did only because the department head had been nagging her about this overly high passing rate.
It also turns out that the department head started to worry about passing rate being too high only because the physics and engineering department had been complaining --- the math department produced a huge number of students who cannot handle maths used in advanced physics and engineering. Indeed, the physics department threatened to open their own "advanced mathematics" course to replace Calculus II.
It also turns out that physics and engineering department complained about their students' poor math foundation only because the dean of the college decided to address the high major-change rate for physics and engineering --- many students study physics for a year or two and then get discouraged and switch to some "easier" major mainly because they stuck on mathematics.
I can keep going along this chain of events. At every step of the way, someone made a right decision: Surely the dean has to address unusually high turnover rate. Surely the head of physics department has to demand that their students have good mathematical training. Surely the head of math department has to worry about grade inflation. And surely the professor for Calculus II has to consider *learning objectives* and not just counting points.
Of course, as new graduate TAs, we couldn't see any of these higher level objectives... we were only worrying about partial credit assignment one problem at a time.
So I guess my point is...... well, actually, I don't have a point. But my and my friend's experience could serve as a reference. The OP should consider the possibility that he/she (especially if he/she is a new TA) may not have access to all the information. There is a small possibility that the professor is trying to correct a disconnect between grading scheme and learning objective.
I'm sharing this story because I thought about this experience a lot lately as I start to see the difficulty in translating abstract learning goals into concrete grading schemes, and the OP's situation is almost identical to what we experienced. In my story, my friend J wrecked his career: soon after that incident, he lost his TA position. With no one taking him as RA, he was forced to drop out.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_16: If you think it is ethical, you should tell the student about it. If you think it is not ethical, you should definitely tell the student about it. What’s the worst that can happen?
(I know people who would take you to court or have their parents take you to court. I also know people how would meet you in a dark alley way. Don’t do things that you wouldn’t want the other person to know).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/17
| 577
| 2,507
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to apply for a PhD position in Computer Science in a particular subarea (in Europe). Now I've been observing the PhD vacancies for quite a while. The number of PhD vacancies in the subarea (together with some personal criteria) is about one vacancy per two weeks. Given the infrequent number of PhD positions, what is the best thing I can do on top of applying? I was thinking of doing the following (or a combination of the following):
* Contact the professors I know in the subarea or related areas.
* Contact professors I do not know in the subarea or related areas.
* Contact PhD students of research groups I am interested in in the particular subarea.
* Apply to all the interesting PhD positions.
* Send out open applications for funded PhD positions.
* Focus on projects related to the subarea I am interested in.
What is your advice? What strategy did you use to start at a PhD position?<issue_comment>username_1: I would guess in coutries where PhD positions are usually handled in similar way to jobs would be, it it would generally be unusual for a supervisor to have a funded position available that wasn't advertised, but that said, it can't hurt to contact people you are particularly intersted in working with. If you do, make sure that you include in your email exactly why you want to work with that person - make them believe you are not just sending them a standard email.
I doubt that students in the area will be able to help you greatly.
And of course, if you are targeting a country where PhD positions are usually advertised, then yes, of course you should apply to advertised positions!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Funding agencies in many European countries have calls for funding individual PhD positions. You can try to find a group that you really want to work with, and try to convince them to support such an application.
This has several advantages. If you succeed you will have greater independence and academic freedom during your PhD. It also looks very good on your CV later on in your academic career. If you have written a very good application, but do not succeed in securing the position, it may still impress your intended host, and they may consider you for any upcoming positions. (Think of it as a very elaborate open application.)
The downside is that the successrate for these calls tends to be low, and writting an application tends to be a lot of work (although also a useful learning experience).
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/17
| 1,562
| 6,839
|
<issue_start>username_0: Universities require a doctorate degree to apply for a faculty position which involves both teaching and research. Even if the professor did not receive any formal training in pedagogy, it is expected that they will pick up a few things over time.
If a graduate student who does not have a doctorate degree, nor has any formal training teaches a course, wouldn't it be unfair to the students? In many situations, there are no quality/standard checks in place before a graduate student is allowed/asked to teach a course.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is ethical, but it can't be done in a vacuum. You don't just throw an unqualified person at a group of students and expect anything good to come from it. But, where this is done, there are normally some controls in place.
For example, a graduate student given *sole* responsibility for a course will probably have TA'd in the course previously, working with a regular faculty member. It is also likely that there will be a regular faculty member responsible for some oversight. Most such courses are elementary, where the graduate student can be assumed to be thoroughly familiar with the material, at least, if not with pedagogy.
Also, there is normally a selection process in which some thought is given to who should teach these courses. Again, normally, the students will be somewhat experienced and will have seen a lot of professors and will likely get some sense, imperfect of course, on how to go about it.
But, I think it would be extremely rare for a grad student to be completely responsible for the course design and delivery. Likely the syllabus and learning materials are chosen by others. The exams may be graded collectively if there are a large number of such "sections" of a course. Student complaints would be taken seriously.
And some grad students do get a bit of practice in lecturing, at least when a prof assigns them the task of preparing and delivering a lecture on some topic in a course they are taking. I had this (unsettling) experience as an undergraduate, actually.
In the US, it is rare, in fact, for a new Assistant Professor of mathematics to have any formal training at all in pedagogy. I think this is different in EU, as colleagues there have expressed a bit of horror when they learn of this. New faculty struggle along and hopefully don't do too much damage.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Since cultural differences may be important here: I'm in [germany](/questions/tagged/germany "show questions tagged 'germany'").
As you say, the teaching staff in academia learns teaching mostly in a form of training on the job. Pedagogy training for university teaching staff is a rather recent advance here, and I'm not sure how widespread that is done (read: likely still rare).
Within that system, you have to start at some point: said professors would lack teaching experience if they had not started accumulating this experience as grad students.
Here, grad or PhD students start their "teachin career" by first teaching "low impact" courses: settings where bad teaching doesn't do too much harm.
E.g. a single experiment in a labwork practicum. Or a seminar that discusses homework (i.e. the excercises that all students should already be able to solve on their own). As they accumulate experience (also experience with oral presentations in general), they advance step by step: teaching internal seminars to the group, at some point teaching a single lecture for a colleague. Someone teaching a whole but still small course (typically on subjects related to their research specialization) is typically advanced postdoc/PI level. All these are still under the official supervision of the professor. Finally, teaching university courses without any supervision (i.e. in their own responsibility) is typically achieved after habilitation.
**What about quality checks?**
The professor stays responsible for the teaching. So while they can ask a grad student to help with the teaching, they must make sure that this teaching will be at an acceptable quality.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: In the UK, there are teacher training programs and courses for teachers at a school level or university level.
However, one can still teach without those qualifications, if one has relevant experience of the material - more likely at university or college level but not so likely at school level.
To teach in schools, the school is likely to check on your background as any convictions related to minors will mean they will be concerned for the children in their care...
The UK has a government website where those registered are listed with certain details, so that may help schools or universities looking to employ in some cases.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you ever run a large department or institution or similarly large organization, you will discover that every decision that you make (and you will make lots of decisions, every single day) has many consequences and is strongly interrelated to many other decisions you have to make. Some of those consequences will be good (say, saving money, or allowing an inexperienced employee to gain experience with some essential professional skill), and some will be bad (say, compromising the quality of the work product generated by the employee-in-training).
With each decision you make, imagine someone coming along, pointing out a single bad consequence Y of a single decision X taken in isolation of all the other consequences and interrelated decisions, and asking “is it ethical to do X when it leads to bad consequence Y?”
This is what you are doing. Yes, it’s ethical. In fact ethics has nothing to do with it. You are applying absolutist logic (“professors have PhDs, therefore only people with PhDs can ethically teach undergraduates”) where it doesn’t apply. Allowing graduate students to teach is simply a natural device that can be used to achieve multiple positive goals within an academic institution. It inevitably involves making some compromises about certain things. But that’s true for all decisions made anywhere by anyone.
Look at the big picture, and you’ll see that universities function well overall even though they are regularly engaging in this supposedly ethically problematic practice. And if you think you’ve got a better system figured out, try to found your own university and show everyone how you can produce well-educated undergraduates as well as highly trained graduate students, on a budget that’s competitive with other universities’ budget, without using the problematic practice. Then we can have a discussion about ethics. But remember, to do this you’ll have to take all the details of the entire organization into account, not just a single consequence of a single decision.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/17
| 1,700
| 7,424
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm looking for tools to create a data dictionary for my project's data. We have a large database of many variables, and I would like to create a data dictionary that describes what each variable means so that I can share it with collaborators and other researchers (including on the [Open Science Framework](https://osf.io/)). I'd like other researchers to be able to use the data dictionary to understand the data we have, find the variables they need, etc. I'm not sure what tools/software/systems are available for this purpose, and whether I should just create a large spreadsheet to do this, or whether there are more specialized tools that people like for this purpose.
For a sense of what my data dictionary might include, here are suggested guidelines for what a data dictionary should include according to the Open Science Framework (<https://help.osf.io/hc/en-us/articles/360019739054-How-to-Make-a-Data-Dictionary>):
* Variable name
* Human-readable variable name
* Variable type (string, numeric, integer, etc.)
* Measurement unit
* Allowed values
* Definition and description of the variable<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is ethical, but it can't be done in a vacuum. You don't just throw an unqualified person at a group of students and expect anything good to come from it. But, where this is done, there are normally some controls in place.
For example, a graduate student given *sole* responsibility for a course will probably have TA'd in the course previously, working with a regular faculty member. It is also likely that there will be a regular faculty member responsible for some oversight. Most such courses are elementary, where the graduate student can be assumed to be thoroughly familiar with the material, at least, if not with pedagogy.
Also, there is normally a selection process in which some thought is given to who should teach these courses. Again, normally, the students will be somewhat experienced and will have seen a lot of professors and will likely get some sense, imperfect of course, on how to go about it.
But, I think it would be extremely rare for a grad student to be completely responsible for the course design and delivery. Likely the syllabus and learning materials are chosen by others. The exams may be graded collectively if there are a large number of such "sections" of a course. Student complaints would be taken seriously.
And some grad students do get a bit of practice in lecturing, at least when a prof assigns them the task of preparing and delivering a lecture on some topic in a course they are taking. I had this (unsettling) experience as an undergraduate, actually.
In the US, it is rare, in fact, for a new Assistant Professor of mathematics to have any formal training at all in pedagogy. I think this is different in EU, as colleagues there have expressed a bit of horror when they learn of this. New faculty struggle along and hopefully don't do too much damage.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Since cultural differences may be important here: I'm in [germany](/questions/tagged/germany "show questions tagged 'germany'").
As you say, the teaching staff in academia learns teaching mostly in a form of training on the job. Pedagogy training for university teaching staff is a rather recent advance here, and I'm not sure how widespread that is done (read: likely still rare).
Within that system, you have to start at some point: said professors would lack teaching experience if they had not started accumulating this experience as grad students.
Here, grad or PhD students start their "teachin career" by first teaching "low impact" courses: settings where bad teaching doesn't do too much harm.
E.g. a single experiment in a labwork practicum. Or a seminar that discusses homework (i.e. the excercises that all students should already be able to solve on their own). As they accumulate experience (also experience with oral presentations in general), they advance step by step: teaching internal seminars to the group, at some point teaching a single lecture for a colleague. Someone teaching a whole but still small course (typically on subjects related to their research specialization) is typically advanced postdoc/PI level. All these are still under the official supervision of the professor. Finally, teaching university courses without any supervision (i.e. in their own responsibility) is typically achieved after habilitation.
**What about quality checks?**
The professor stays responsible for the teaching. So while they can ask a grad student to help with the teaching, they must make sure that this teaching will be at an acceptable quality.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: In the UK, there are teacher training programs and courses for teachers at a school level or university level.
However, one can still teach without those qualifications, if one has relevant experience of the material - more likely at university or college level but not so likely at school level.
To teach in schools, the school is likely to check on your background as any convictions related to minors will mean they will be concerned for the children in their care...
The UK has a government website where those registered are listed with certain details, so that may help schools or universities looking to employ in some cases.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you ever run a large department or institution or similarly large organization, you will discover that every decision that you make (and you will make lots of decisions, every single day) has many consequences and is strongly interrelated to many other decisions you have to make. Some of those consequences will be good (say, saving money, or allowing an inexperienced employee to gain experience with some essential professional skill), and some will be bad (say, compromising the quality of the work product generated by the employee-in-training).
With each decision you make, imagine someone coming along, pointing out a single bad consequence Y of a single decision X taken in isolation of all the other consequences and interrelated decisions, and asking “is it ethical to do X when it leads to bad consequence Y?”
This is what you are doing. Yes, it’s ethical. In fact ethics has nothing to do with it. You are applying absolutist logic (“professors have PhDs, therefore only people with PhDs can ethically teach undergraduates”) where it doesn’t apply. Allowing graduate students to teach is simply a natural device that can be used to achieve multiple positive goals within an academic institution. It inevitably involves making some compromises about certain things. But that’s true for all decisions made anywhere by anyone.
Look at the big picture, and you’ll see that universities function well overall even though they are regularly engaging in this supposedly ethically problematic practice. And if you think you’ve got a better system figured out, try to found your own university and show everyone how you can produce well-educated undergraduates as well as highly trained graduate students, on a budget that’s competitive with other universities’ budget, without using the problematic practice. Then we can have a discussion about ethics. But remember, to do this you’ll have to take all the details of the entire organization into account, not just a single consequence of a single decision.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/18
| 784
| 3,333
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I'm currently finishing up my master's thesis and my supervisor seems to be happy with my work. The subject of PhD came up a couple of times during meetings and while I did say that I think it would be nice to do a PhD, I also said that I'm still thinking about it and considering other career options (not necessarily in academia). Then the last meeting she suddenly announced that the PhD registrations are now open and that I'm able to register. This caught me off-guard so for the next meeting I want to talk about that. In the meantime, I made up my mind and decided not to do a PhD after all, at least not for a year as I'm having another project running outside of academia.
How do I tell this to my supervisor? I'm afraid that she will be disappointed and that the remaining months of my master's thesis won't be as enjoyable. I have no reason to think this as she has always been friendly and praising my work. But you never know if she just was nice to get me to do a PhD. Probably overthinking this last part though.<issue_comment>username_1: Without knowing their personality it can be difficult to say for sure. My experience is that being honest early (unless you have reason to already believe they are a particularly manipulative person or similar) is best. You can just say something like,
"Thanks for suggesting signing up for a PhD and supporting my work thus far. I have weighed up some options and decided my next step will be to spend a year focusing on a non-academic project I have running, and can't do concurrently."
If you think you would like to work with them on a PhD after that you can say so. If you are not sure, be honest with that too.
The hard truth is that students aren't that hard to find - good students take time to find though. While she might be disappointed you aren't continuing, she would be more disappointed by being 'led on' and not having time to find a good match for their project and funding available.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: "I have another project running outside academia and would rather try my luck in the private sector at that stage in my life. I have thought about this carefully and I will not be considering a PhD right now, but I might consider it in the future. Thank you very much for the opportunity and your support, it is deeply appreciated and I would be happy to keep in touch".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me note that you can apply to this program (and others) without making an early commitment. You can use the intervening time to explore the outside project. It would be an advantage to you to have several options in a few months.
You can then thank her for her advice, say you will apply, but that you also need to explore other options both in and outside academia. Ethical people would understand that.
Make a final decision when you must, but keep all options open, and even seek new ones, in the short term.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I do not think that saying registrations are open means she wants you as a Ph.D. student. I would not think in this way unless my supervisor has said that explicitly. This can be just a gentle reminder.
Your supervisor may be disappointed but would not consider this personally because this is your life and your own career plan.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/18
| 377
| 1,655
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have just finished my initial proposal and I currently work on the motivation letter. The Politecnico di Milano deadline for Ph.D. is next Friday, May 29,2020. My referee and former supervisor is so quick, when I ask him to respond the email sent by universities, he responds within a few hours but I want to make sure that if it is possible if a referee send the recommendation letter 4 or 5 days after the deadline.<issue_comment>username_1: You should double-check the application instructions and if nothing is there, then call the admissions officer in the school. My guess is that there is not a problem, but it is better to be safe.
Often, this is not an issue. Referees are contacted via email by the university and they submit their applications themselves electronically, either by following a link or by email. The requirement for the application is usually limited to name the referees, not submit the references themselves. These days, it is uncommon for "sealed, stamped and signed" references in paper to be submitted, and including open references in applications is also not usual (although I have done so personally). I know it happens, though, but all in all reference submissions are often not bound by the same deadlines as the applications.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is totally up to the school/department, so you should contact them.
For example, ETH Zurich does not accept any late submission, just out of principle, but many schools/departments accept late referee submission if they don't start processing the applications right after the deadline and behave more flexible.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/18
| 621
| 2,616
|
<issue_start>username_0: Prior to the COVID-19 lockdown, I attended a generously-funded research meeting that included a hotel stay, free dinners and bar drinks. There was a dedicated bar section just for us.
I always wondered: At these funded events, should I tip the bartenders and hotel staff, or can I assume that the University takes care of not only the bill but also the gratuity that is expected by the service staff?
I landed up tipping on most times, but the few times that I did not, it felt a bit awkward -- walking away with a beer without tipping the bartender seemed rude<issue_comment>username_1: In the end, you are asking whether you should pay out of your own pocket for work. No. You should not have to pay out of your own pocket anything in order to perform your work duties; and despite what some would say, this kind social events are very much part of work (see elsewhere on this site). Either the organizers should step up, or you should get reimbursed by your employer, like for any travel-related expense.
Now, you might very well be in the situation where the organizers and your employer have both failed. You should first realize that this is their failure, not yours. And if you do tip despite all that, you should recognize that you are going above and beyond what is required of you to help other workers (the hotel/bar staff) who are criminally underpaid make it to the end of the month. But this is an act of charity, not something that is expected of you professionally.
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is typical for catering contracts to include some sort of 'service fee' that serves like a 'tip', and you can assume that the staff are paid a better base wage than tip-supported employees typically are. Even regular restaurants often have a non-optional 'tip' added on for larger parties (thresholds vary but "8 or more" seems common).
That said, employees in these businesses are not high-income earners, and probably make less total take-home pay per hour than their tipped equivalents (bartending, especially, can be a relatively lucrative position in the service industry at the right venue).
If you appreciate their service, if they do something above and beyond, if you're in a generous mood, or if the cost makes you feel less awkward, feel free to tip; it won't seem like you are throwing money around or anything negative like that.
If you don't have cash and especially if you aren't asking for anything special, you can have a clean conscience that you haven't committed a faux pas by not tipping in this circumstance.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/19
| 1,806
| 7,618
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in a situation where I do not know how to tell my mentor I am not comfortable with a research fellow on our paper as an author. I came across a "call to submission" for a paper, in essence, there is a special edition of a journal over a specific topic. I wrote the complete manuscript thinking it was presumptively thesis material but it felt short of novel methods warranted by my academic committee. However, my department eagerly anticipates it is good-quality publication material due to its findings. Anywho, I wrote this paper independently and included a colleague who edited parts of the data analyses as an author. He, unbeknownst to me, sent it off to a research fellow at our institution for his comments as a co-author. The comments are toxic, gaudy, and do not display an adequate understanding of the topic. Worse, however, is that the research fellow is cordial with my mentor, and e-mailed him his comments, selling the manuscript off as his. He has a moderate amount of paper at the institution, and I want to interview there for further training opportunities and do not want to compromise my bottom line. His comments include:
1. Asking me why hadn't I spelled out multiple abbreviations that are literally spelled out and defined in the sentence or paragraph before.
2. Putting an asterisk by his name and mine saying we share first co-authorship.
3. Requesting multiple self-citations over introductory statements known to all, the self-citations are very low-quality non-indexed review articles in openly predatory journals.
4. Crossed out my name as corresponding author and put his contact information, as he was "invited" by the journal (our whole department got the same call to submissions paper).
5. When I quote other previous experiments in a similar domain, he has written: "stop changing your hypothesis".
6. Says my graphics quality "if submitted to a conference, would automatically result in denial of the manuscript regardless of the content"
7. Is literally editing multiple metrics out and is replacing them with metrics that I have not used and are in fact, the wrong analysis for this experimental design.
Am I overreacting? I feel as if I am in a bad spot. What is the best course of action to remove this individual from the paper without trying to get my mentor involved? I need to ask my mentor for a letter of recommendation in a few months, too. I am a lower ranking than the fellow as well...<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Am I overreacting?
>
>
>
Not at all. I'm sorry about what you're facing. To me, it borders on harassment, but at the very least this is not *collaborative* behavior from a coauthor.
Additionally, it may be unethical to involve someone in your research without the approval of all co-authors. However, this may be normal in some fields -- where the advisor essentially calls the shots with who to invite into a project.
>
> I feel as if I am in a bad spot. What is the best course of action to remove this individual from the paper without trying to get my mentor involved?
>
>
>
I'm missing some context here -- why do you not want your mentor involved? I think you should have a serious conversation about this with your mentor. This can't be ignored or you will continue to be unhappy. Say that you are uncomfortable with the coauthor and he is demeaning and demoralizing. You need to make it clear that you do not want to work with this person in the future.
If not your mentor, then can you think of anyone else in the department who might understand? You need to get someone "on your side" -- someone who sees that what is happening is a problem. Perhaps someone who can give your mentor a call and put some pressure on them.
In terms of intellectual contribution, it may be that the research fellow has already made some -- I can't tell for sure from the context. So, prospects are difficult for this particular paper. However, what you want is to be productive in the future, and put this behind you, which means that follow up work with this person is out of the question.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Putting an asterisk by his name and mine saying we share first co-authorship.
>
>
>
That alone, on a draft shared for comments, would have been enough to anger anyone. In my opinion this RF is trying to carve a space in the paper by discrediting the quality of your work, which is unprofessional. The quote is also irrespective of any actual problems with your work - assuming the RFs suggestions have some merit - and any self-respecting academic would flat out refuse, unless it comes with an extensive research plan.
The behaviour you describe is so crude that actually improves your position. However, the personality of your mentor and your relationship with the mentor does weigh in. If you have a good working relationship with him, the issue can be resolved with a polite, honest and most importantly calm chat. The fact that he shared the draft without you knowing is not problematic, in my opinion, as academics do so very often. The liberties taken by the RF, however, may hide something more than a request for feedback - they go beyond a bad report. You cannot know, and you should not jump to conclusions, but you should be cautious, suspicious even.
Some arguments that are generally valid, but for them to work you would need to stand as a professional academic, not a student:
1) Adding a co-author dilutes everyone's, but particularly your, contribution. Both you and the data-editing colleague can argue that you are not willing to add a 4th co-author (field specific), and for an entry-level academic first authorhip is very important and you are not willing to share.
2) The paper is mostly finalised and the suggestions are not substantial enough to warrant co-authorship, plus a debate on the most factually wrong comments (irrelevant self-citations etc). There is not enough work left and you are not willing to consider a change in direction due to time constraints and the distraction it will cause you.
3) Brush off presentation comments by saying that they will be corrected in the finalised version and insist that polishing up does not warrant a co-authorship, especially first authorship (similar to (2))
4) (very context dependent) Express some surprise on the nature of some comments and point out to their relevance. If you want to be cheeky, ask why the RF would be interested in participating in a paper he himself criticised so harshly.
It is important for you to be the one that frames any discussion as discussing feedback on a draft and you have not even considered co-authorship. If you are presented with the idea, e.g. in an off-hand comment, just say "no". If pressed further, politely yet firmly keep refusing. This is where your mentor must take a position and either drop the issue or force you to accept a co-author. If the latter happens, I see two options.
The first is to withdraw your participation in the draft. You are perfectly entitled to do so and maintain agency of your work, but I understand this is difficult from someone in your position and may cause further frictions and issues. The second is to accept (grudgingly), but by stating very clearly and in a non-negotiable manner that the RF will be responsible for any additional work and you will not be adding anything more to the paper, especially results/ experiments. Even if you receive some drafts or emails, you can politely repeat your stance. This is confrontational and also not desirable, but at least you will not be exploited.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/19
| 2,267
| 9,604
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have read this question posed a lot for **math and science doctoral degree**, but my question pertains to pursuing a **social sciences doctoral degree**. I'm currently working as a Management Analyst in local government. I've decided to pursue a PhD in Psychology at a nearby university. Being accepted is a big "if", but if I were accepted, my goal would be to retain my position in government as long as possible and find ways to connect my research to social behaviors pertaining to civic engagement and public health. I'm also in my early 30s, which means I'll be doing this during the decade when most people are settling into their careers. The eventual goal is to pivot to academia and pursue a career in lecturing and research.
My hope is that the overlap would ease the tension between holding down a relatively demanding, full-time job and would benefit my research. With that said, I'm wondering if I need a reality check here. Has anyone else endeavored anything like this? How difficult is it to balance both?<issue_comment>username_1: As you have already learned, it is very difficult. Normally a doctoral program (in the US, where I assume you are) is a full time "job", but for most of the students that includes a fair amount of work as a TA to avoid tuition charges and provide a meager living. If you already have an established lifestyle and a family to support then giving up your job for this probably isn't feasible.
I'm assuming the US, here. Normally you start a doctoral program with coursework leading to comprehensive qualifying exams, followed by research leading to a dissertation. Normally universities impose a time limit on your studies, perhaps seven or so years. But things vary. If you already have a psychology masters it could be a bit different. Possibly some other masters would make a difference. Most students will have an undergraduate degree in psychology or a closely related field so the coursework is somewhat advanced. If you don't have that, it might be harder, both to get into a program and to fill in any gaps in your background.
But supposing that tuition is not a problem for you and your current job pays you well, then it might be possible under, perhaps, a modified study plan provided that you don't need to work as a TA (caveat below). Since you say it is a nearby university, you should find a way to communicate with them. In person is best, but hard now with the pandemic. Ask whether it is possible to start out with a lighter than normal course load so as to see how you can manage it. You have to get prepared for comps and you have to take care about any time constraints.
Thus, it might be possible to manage it up to the point where you start serious dissertation research. After that it may be less feasible to do both, but you will also have a better sends then of the tradeoffs and sacrifices you need to make.
But the best advice would come from the psychology faculty of the institution you would like to study at. They will point out any constraints and possible pitfalls.
---
Note, however, that for some programs, serving as a TA is a requirement for the degree, it being considered an important aspect of the education. In such a program you would almost certainly have something like two full time jobs.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You can consider doing a part-time PhD that can be completed any time between 4 and 7 years (actual times may vary). This is an option provided for people with external responsibilities, such as having a full-time job. It is certainly feasible, but it includes the supervisor and the department agreeing. Also, the situation around fees and funding needs to be clarified, as the department may hesitate to provide funding to a part-time student with a full-time job and allocate it instead to a full-time PhD student with no other means. You might still be able to secure paid work (teaching or marking), a stipend/ bursary or for fees to be waived or covered by something else. This, of course is country and department specific. Technically, combining a full-time job and a part-time PhD is doable.
That said, even a part-time PhD requires a significant time commitment provided continuously, or at least in specific productive periods doing the PhD. In brief, research is a strange beast that cares little for your personal circumstances and cannot be put easily in boxes or timetables. It requires clarity of thought, calmness, time (often time to waste!) and personal commitment, which the conditions might not provide despite your best efforts. Even if the goal is not an academic career but simply completing a PhD, the demands are still high and you need to consider how to balance work, further responsibilities (social life, family, caring etc) and possible changes in the future (e.g. moving away, starting a family). I dare compare it to someone like a fencing or chess champion: a high level athlete, with all the dedication that demands, who cannot support oneself from that activity and needs to put as much time and effort in a full-time job. It is not a leisure hobby or a past-time activity. I do not know how you imagine research to be, and everyone has a different story according to their field, personality and circumstances. The more stories you hear, the better.
The advice I give to anyone is to think very carefully about the reasons for starting a PhD. Such a commitment is not undertaken because "there is nothing else to do", "I want to be a student again/more", "all my friends have one" or "I want to be a Doctor". It is a very demanding, long endeavour, unlike most experiences and requires a clear, persistent and strong personal desire and motive. I am not trying to dissuade or indirectly criticise you, and have no reason to doubt your composure, personality or abilities. I am only emphasising the need for careful thought, because quite early on, and after the first experience, you will need to decide what level of quality you will be able/ willing to reach in your work. The level of quality greatly depends on what I discussed earlier, so it becomes a virtuous or vicious cycle. At the end of the day, nobody knows your conditions better than yourself and you are the ultimate judge on how to combine the two.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't want to repeat the points made in other good answers.
If you want some [work-life-balance](/questions/tagged/work-life-balance "show questions tagged 'work-life-balance'"), keeping the full-time job and doing a PhD at the same time is impossible. In most cases, having a consistent [work-life-balance](/questions/tagged/work-life-balance "show questions tagged 'work-life-balance'") while doing a PhD alone is very hard.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/D150S.png)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: As other commentators have stated, a full-time PhD candidate is usually expected to study full-time hours, which is nominally 36-40 hours a week, but it often turns out to be longer. Most universities impose rules on their PhD candidates that require approval from the Department for the candidate to take an outside job for more than some minimum number of hours per week. For example, when I did my PhD candidature, the rules said that I needed Department approval if I wanted to work more than 10 hours per week in an outside job. If I had asked to work a full-time job during my candidature, I am quite certain they would not have approved it.
As with all university administration matters, you will need to look up the rules at your particular institution. Your university will have a set of written rules for the PhD candidature, and that will tell you if there is any formal restriction on outside work during the candidature. Ordinarily, if a candidate is working a full-time job, they will be expected to drop their candidature back to a part-time load. This is desirable both for the university and for the sanity of the candidate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I was in a somewhat similar situation, getting accepted to a U.S. PhD-program in the social sciences while being a senior analyst at a local government. I arranged for a reduced schedule for the first few years while doing coursework, taking exams, and ultimately the orals. It worked reasonably well, but it came with a cost both in terms of my "old" job where I was less available, and also as far as being less focused on my new program, forming networks, being part of group research projects, etc.
After my orals, I quickly moved back to full time, which made it at least a challenge to hit a good and persistent research stride. It took longer to finish, I was more scattered in most endeavors--including my young and growing family, and certainly, while my professional and academic interests overlapped substantially, I didn't have the same research output as some of my more academically focused peers had.
Which brings me to my final point about your motivation. I kept my leg in the professional world and didn't jump fully into the academic one, and am now back in a regional agency, which suits me quite well, but I often wonder how different my academic experience would have been if I *had* jumped in 100 percent and had gone the more traditional route. You say you want to pivot to academia--that seems to me to be an indication that you may start out by keeping your job, but be prepared to choose if things get tricky, and get a more focused academic experience.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/19
| 811
| 3,586
|
<issue_start>username_0: I often face the following situation:
I am reading a technical paper, and I can't figure out a calculation shown in the paper, whose details are not given. There is no reference in the paper about the exact calculations. It is not possible to get an answer from the author(s), either they are dead or they don't answer even if I did (even if they did, it takes a lot of time for them to respond). I can't write to my advisor; for him to help, he also needs to read the paper and practically this is neither ideal nor realizable in a short amount of time. I can't write to my friend because I don't have any friend who works in the same field as I do. I won't ask the question in one of the stack exchange websites, because it is often the question is too field-specific and technical that I don't receive any helpful answer in a considerably short amount of time (assuming that I will get a helpful answer, which is not the case most of the time).
So, in the end, I try and try to understand what the heck author did in that part of the article that I couldn't understand, and it takes a considerable amount of time for me to figure that out (if I can).
**Question:**
Assuming that I am not the only one who faces such problems, where can we get help in such situations?
Note: I am working in a field of Physics.<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming that you've exhausted a reasonable degree of effort to try and understand what the author is doing, you can always just contact the author directly. There is usually contact information on the paper for the corresponding author.
There have been a number of papers that I have read and needed to reach out to the authors for to get a better understanding of what is going on in their paper. Professors are people too. As long as you have demonstrated a reasonable degree of effort prior to reaching out, asking for some clarification from them is a reasonable thing to do.
In the case of an author having passed away... then you will want to communicate this to your supervisor and explain why you need help to understand the paper. If you cannot figure it out for yourself, do not have any peers you can talk to, or are unable to contact the original author, then you have your supervisor as a work colleague.
If that all fails, then you will just have to try and drudge through understanding the computation. While I understand you want the answer quickly, all things worth while do not come quickly, and you'll need to cultivate and demonstrate resilience in the face of that struggle.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From the question and your comments it seems like you are actually capable of reading and understanding the paper, it would just require effort on your side. It would therefore be easier *for you* if *someone else* would exert that effort.
Allow me a bit of a harsh reply, then.
It is not the job of the author of said paper to provide a pedestrian introduction - they wrote a paper that is apparently both readable and correct.
It is not the job of random people at SO to answer very field specific questions about a specific paper at someone's request. One might get lucky, but asking SO requires patience. And luck.
It is in general not the job of your supervisor to read papers, and give you a Reader's digest version of it. It is, however, the job of your supervisor to help you overcome specific hurdles you encounter when trying to understand a paper, ie. a specific calculation you cannot reproduce.
So: Use the resources at hand, and start reading :).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/19
| 2,150
| 9,764
|
<issue_start>username_0: The question is clear:
Do reviewers go over the calculations (i.e do the calculations themselves) in the paper? For example, it can be the derivation of an equation, or some numerical calculations.
**Edit:**
What I am trying to understand is that if I am reading a paper and seeing some derivations, should I assume that someone (possibly reviewers) other than the authors went through those derivations in detail.
**Edit 2:**
The question can be narrowed down to STEM fields only.<issue_comment>username_1: This depends on the field, the paper, and the reviewer. If the result of a calculation seems to be "expected" by an experienced reviewer they may feel no need to go over the calculation in detail. An exception would be when it is a core result on which other things depend. Another exception is if the result surprises them in any way.
And of course, some reviewers are much more meticulous than others and some fields require a lot of care because things can get subtle.
But the author should, on the one hand, assume that they do, so that they don't get caught in error during review, but also assume that they don't so that they don't get caught in error later. (Confusing, I know).
Ultimately it is the responsibility of the author to be correct and accurate and some errors do slip through review and don't get caught for a long time, if ever. People (authors and reviewers) do make mistakes, of course, but the combination of care from both tends to catch most errors.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are two **types** of result I'd light to highlight:
1. Numerical results that depend strongly on computational methods;
2. Theoretical results expressed algebraically.
Besides, there is the **significance** of results (which obviously depend on the referee):
1. Results seen as relevant
2. Results seen as irrelevant
Irrelevant results will usually be under the microscope if and only if the referee is a true expert in the field, but almost always go unnoticed (if they get published at all). The referee will probably consider them to be unworthy of being correct or incorrect, since they are irrelevant and don't even deserve his/her time. The doubt, in this case, doesn't hurt.
Now, if the results are considered relevant by the referee, then they will be judged as either *expected* or *surprising*. Expected results will probably not receive too much attention, but surprising ones might raise alarm bells. If the referee is an expert in the field and the result is algebraic, it is likely that he/she will analyze the steps in the calculations rather thoroughly, and even attempt reproducing them if they look feasible. This a desirable situation of a *fair report*, that is, the paper has fallen on experienced hands and the report by this referee will probably be favorable and useful - or full of question marks with respect to what was done in the paper if the referee didn't understand the calculations, which should help enhance the paper's readability. An *unfair report* might occur if the referee is less of an expert, since he/she will not attempt to reproduce the calculations and might question the paper's results with less substance. It is not uncommon for a referee that is not an expert to be convinced by the author's arguments, even if he/she himself doesn't go over the calculations.
We now come to the final case of a relevant, surprising paper whose results rely heavily on computers. In the absurdly vast majority of the cases, these are never reproduced. The expert referee might have some previous calculations pointing in a certain direction and compare what the paper says with his/her calculations, and he/she will probably include this in his/her report. He/she may strongly disagree with the paper due to reasons based on his/her own research, and even recommend that the paper should not be accepted, but he/she will probably never try to redo what the paper does. Sometimes the expert referee will ask for further evidence of the correctness of the results by suggesting another test to be included in the paper, and this often helps a lot in giving the paper more power or finally proving the main result was wrong.
The point is that you should always check everything when submitting a paper, and that if your paper deals with very unexpected results, then your tests need to be especially stringent, and your writing as clear as possible. Ground-breaking papers are the most important ones with respect to creating new research directions, so they really need to be subject to a lot of criticism and replication attempts - but the referee will almost never be the one to try replicating them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It would be unusual for a reviewer to replicate numerical calculations in a paper, but in some cases they might do so, particularly if the supplementary materials include computer script allowing them to replicate the results easily. (If the author has not supplied the reviewers with the computer script for the calculations, they can hardly expect the reviewer to program it from scratch.) A reviewer might decide to try to reproduce numerical calculations if the numbers in the paper "smell funny", but often they will just assume that the authors have correctly implemented their calculations as described in the paper.
As to the derivation of equations, these would usually be checked if they are part of the work in the paper, or if they look unusual. Papers that involve mathematical proofs or derivations of equations are generally reviewed with scrutiny on these proofs/derivations, and a good reviewer will be able to identify if there is an error or a part that is unclear. Derivations of results are usually only included if they are either original work, or if they are useful in understanding the material in the paper, so in either case a good reviewer will check them.
Ideally, reviewers should give a comprehensive review of the paper, and they should also include a statement setting out any limitations on the scope of their review in their report. (This is particularly important in multidisciplinary papers where an individual reviewer may only review one aspect of the work in his or her specialty area.) Unfortunately, most reviewers to do not provide a statement about the scope of their review and so, in the absence of comments on it, you will not really be certain whether a reviewer has checked a mathematical derivation or numerical computation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The answers given before are quite good. I just want to add a few points based on my own experience that may be relevant.
The author of the question did not specify the field. It is safe to assume however that it is of scientific nature.
Let us begin with pure mathematics. Most of computations in pure mathematics are theoretical computations. Here you want to check thoroughly the computation. As you do the hard work, sometimes you realize the bigger picture sometimes you don't. This means that the theoretical result may be simplified, with painless or easier computations. But in general, you do not know yet. So you have to go through the computations. As a personal example, this happened to me when I read Bigelow's paper on the linearity of the classical braid group. This involved a certain detailed computation. Later on the result was understood on another level that greatly simplified the original computation.
Even in pure maths, it may happen that a computation is an example. The author wants to illustrate some of the theory he's building, or is making a certain point. Even in this case, as a reviewer, I immediately go over the example and try to process the computations, especially if the rest of the paper is very theoretical. Why ? Because examples are the flesh of the theory. Without examples, there is nothing to eat. Examples help understand what motivates the author and conversely every fine author should strive at giving illuminating examples that guide the reader. So if the example involves a computation, I will go over it.
If the computation is related to an aside comment, it is a different issue. But it is relative to the field. If a pure math paper numerically computes some CPU time to convey a rough impression of complexity, this is one thing. If it is a computer science paper, it's an altogether different issue.
A computation may mean very different things for a mathematician, a computer scientist or a physicist.
Ultimately, the decision is up to the reviewer's best judgment. And it should do justice to the paper submitted in the sense that the relevancy/motivation to go over the computation is directly related to the originality of the paper.
This is particularly relevant to cross-field literature or interdisciplinary paper. As a mathematician, I occasionally stumble across common errors or bias in papers in neurosciences. In general I want to be able to reproduce the computation just as my co-author wants to reproduce the experiment.
But equally often, I do have to state that I can review only a few aspects of the paper, since I am not qualified in some other fields. With respect to this particular issue raised by interdisciplinary papers, username_3's last paragraph is sensible.
A final word: errors are common. But somehow, over time, big (and not so big) errors are corrected or neutralized. I mean most errors that have resisted the reviewer's critical reading are either inoffensive or disappear. This is not meant to imply blind reliance of the reviewers or peers. But you should not be excessively guilty either on relying on them, especially if their field of expertise is far from yours.
FDW
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/19
| 853
| 3,668
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student and today, a PRL paper has been published in which a part of its main section reports the same results as our arXiv preprint, that was submitted also to PRL (and to arXiv) at the end of 2019. They submitted their work after ours; however, our paper is still under review since the referees asked us for experiments to validate the theory and numerics. Furthermore, his work does not include experiments, is also mostly numerics and theory, and their analysis is not as exhaustive and detailed as ours. There are sentences in their work and even the plots that are pretty similar and some of them almost identical, and they even use the same name for a characteristic quantity that was used for the first time in our preprint. The thing is that they have only cited our preprint at the end of the paper as "Note added", not in the main section or even in the supplementary material where they also use almost identical sentences. I am 100% sure that they were aware of our preprint since day one since they read it in ResearchGate. It seems they wanted to include this result in their PRL at any cost, hoping that nothing happens since it is not a clear case of plagiarism and they succinctly added the note at the end of the Letter to cover their backs. Moreover, they did not publish any arXiv preprint of his work.
PRL is supposed to publish "new physics" and its standards are really high, so I cannot understand how PRL has permitted this publication.
I feel that this is a really bad practice, and I am strongly disappointed and sad, not just for my work, which in my eyes is a complete injustice, but for science. Indeed, the group that publishes this work used to be a big name in the field, so I feel that we cannot do much to solve this. My PhD advisor thinks that probably the only thing we can accomplish is an erratum from this group in PRL.
What do you think is the best way to proceed? Do you think it is possible that PRL retracts the work?<issue_comment>username_1: (too long for a comment)
I would contact the authors of the suspected plagiarism and demand an explanation in the politest possible way. Try not to imply that you're certain your paper was plagiarized, but ask instead if, by citing your paper, whether or not they are aware that your conclusions are so similar. I would also add that you have sent the paper to the same journal, which being a PRL should be rather obvious due to the length limitations.
If you are sure their submission date to PRL comes after you submitted your pre-print to ArXiv, and that they were also aware of it, then you have proof that you were the first to make those results public. I believe if the authors do not respond well to your email you have good chances of contacting the PRL editorial board and, using your pre-print as proof, claim that you were plagiarized.
The best case scenario is to be able to solve your problems with the authors of the other paper, but to be honest I'm not sure most human beings would respond well to this situation. Maybe you'll have to get in touch with the board. If I were you, I would **definitely** not leave things as be, and would insist until the matter was solved (even if legal measures are needed).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: When there is clear-cut copying as you describe, you can contact the journal editor and show them what was copied. The journal should investigate and retract the paper.
What is most important to you is that you complete the revisions and get your paper resubmitted. The other paper has no effect on the acceptance of your paper because it was submitted later.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/20
| 632
| 2,573
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a manuscript to a Taylor & Francis journal. Three days later they asked me to remove author identifying information from the anonymous manuscript before they could send it for review, I think they were referring to a self-citation. I resubmitted the manuscript 2 weeks later, and this time I didn't receive a confirmation e-mail. The status of "submitted to journal" hasn't changed for six days. Is there something wrong resumitting the manuscript 2 weeks later just to remove author identifying information? Is it too much time for "submitted to journal" status?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is there something wrong resumitting the manuscript 2 weeks later just to remove author identifying information?
>
>
>
No, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not an unusual amount of time for any academic to take to do anything, and it's not like anybody would have been inconvenienced by the time taken. They just wouldn't do anything with the manuscript in the meantime. And it would be really stupid of a journal to reject a potentially valuable paper just because the author took some time to complete an administrative chore.
>
> Is [six days] too much time for "submitted to journal" status?
>
>
>
See above: it's not unusual for any academic to take more than six days to respond to anything. It's possible that they just haven't gotten to it yet, or that they are working on the paper but haven't updated the status in the system. (See also [What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like))
I would say that if you have not seen any updates after another 1-2 weeks, it would be reasonable to contact the editor and ask if they successfully received your revised manuscript.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your timing is fine and the journal might simply have not updated the details. These are strange times for all academia, and editors, referees etc are probably overwhelmed with preparations for next year. Even in normal times, this is well within a reasonable time frame.
I suppose you have already removed all information from the front page, including names, contact details, institutions, acknowledgments etc, so there might be a link, a watermark or an email address somewhere. A self-citation would have to be quite explicit to cause such a request. "We expand on X and Y (1734)" is quite different than "We expand on our/ the authors' previous work in X and Y (1734)".
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/20
| 726
| 2,882
|
<issue_start>username_0: We have received a set of reviews for an article that we had submitted to a journal. The decision by the journal editor is a *Major Revision*. That means, there is a possibility that the article could still be *rejected*.
Two of the reviewers (out of 3) have commented that the data and code to be made available publicly. Sharing of code and data is a very common practice in computer science conferences; it is not very common for journals.
I have the following confusions:
* Should I make my data and code public straightaway?
* Should I mention in the response letter that "Our code and data will be made available at *this* link after the article is *accepted*"?
(There is a relevant question [here](https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/14416/as-a-reviewer-can-i-justify-requesting-data-and-code-be-made-available-even-if) that looks it from the reviewers' perspective.)<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is there something wrong resumitting the manuscript 2 weeks later just to remove author identifying information?
>
>
>
No, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not an unusual amount of time for any academic to take to do anything, and it's not like anybody would have been inconvenienced by the time taken. They just wouldn't do anything with the manuscript in the meantime. And it would be really stupid of a journal to reject a potentially valuable paper just because the author took some time to complete an administrative chore.
>
> Is [six days] too much time for "submitted to journal" status?
>
>
>
See above: it's not unusual for any academic to take more than six days to respond to anything. It's possible that they just haven't gotten to it yet, or that they are working on the paper but haven't updated the status in the system. (See also [What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like))
I would say that if you have not seen any updates after another 1-2 weeks, it would be reasonable to contact the editor and ask if they successfully received your revised manuscript.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your timing is fine and the journal might simply have not updated the details. These are strange times for all academia, and editors, referees etc are probably overwhelmed with preparations for next year. Even in normal times, this is well within a reasonable time frame.
I suppose you have already removed all information from the front page, including names, contact details, institutions, acknowledgments etc, so there might be a link, a watermark or an email address somewhere. A self-citation would have to be quite explicit to cause such a request. "We expand on X and Y (1734)" is quite different than "We expand on our/ the authors' previous work in X and Y (1734)".
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/20
| 2,775
| 11,832
|
<issue_start>username_0: I should defend my PhD in the UK near the end of the year.
Unfortunately I fell into the class of horribly supervised PhD students - with an ill-defined research project and an absent supervisor who steered me into so many different topics of my field that I'm convinced my results chapters lack depth and analysis.
For that specific reason I seriously doubt the originality and the importance of my research work, which will be thoroughly assessed during the viva.
Can the internal and external reviewers be receptive about **objective** arguments related to poor supervision during the 3-4 years of research? Or are they bound to discuss only the contents of the thesis?
PS - This is not an opinion-based or a stress-induced question where I expect "don't worry" answers. I'm well aware a PhD is a self journey and one should cope with difficult supervision. The question pertains to the viva only.<issue_comment>username_1: Your viva is about *your* achievements. Your supervisor should not be discussed at all.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I'd suggest that the viva is possibly the worst time to do this. Almost anything you say could be interpreted as whining and trying to deflect responsibility for any shortcomings. Many things you might say would be countered in the minds of the reviewers whether expressed by them or not.
Whether you bring it up yourself or just reply to questions or comments with complaints about your advisor or others would seem, to me at least, as unprofessional.
If you have issues about the performance of your advisor, make it a separate issue in an appropriate venue after the degree is in hand.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me rephrase what you're trying to do: You want to complain about your supervisor, in front of your supervisor and in the presence of your supervisor's colleagues. That seems like a generally bad approach in almost any context, but it is a particularly bad idea if the point of the meeting is to assess *your* qualifications as a researcher: In other words, everyone in the room is there to evaluate *you*, not your supervisor.
You might of course have a completely valid point about the quality of supervision, but the viva is not the place to bring that up. Doing so very much smells of calling "Look over there" when what's "over there" has nothing to do with the current context of the conversation.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: Everyone is correctly saying don't do it, but my answer is stronger than "it's unprofessional" or "it's irrelevant". I think it increases the chances of failing. In the system I know (Ireland, similar to UK in viva style), there is a very small chance of failing (perhaps < 3%) but the viva is not a formality. When an external examiner is considering failing the student, they have to overcome many obstacles in their mind, one of which is that the supervisor and student both consider the document defendable, and another is that failing is anomalous. By talking about poor supervision in the viva, you tend to break down both of those obstacles.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: It would not be "pointless", **it would be incredibly counterproductive**. Any concerns about the supervision should have been brought up with the supervisor (or in severe cases escalated to the head of department) during the course of your PhD.
In your viva, you should present your own work from its best angle. You are there to discuss your scientific achievements. Also consider that negative results are part of science, so you can do science even if your starting point was an "ill-defined research project". (Science consists in a *process* progressing towards results of interest, rather than just in the end results themselves.)
Publicly criticizing someone when you're supposed to discuss your scientific achievements will only reflect badly on yourself and cast doubts on your work ethic and your fitness to be awarded a PhD.
(If your supervisor is indeed a "bad cookie", their colleagues may already have noticed and will value your independence and motivation to have worked to the best of your ability considering the circumstances. They will also likely pick up on "bad supervision" and hopefully will not only assess the end result, but more generally the journey you had to take to produce these results.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: Yes, it's pointless unfortunately. It's a bit late at this stage: you should have raised it with the relevant people and/or tried to change to a good supervisor as quickly as possible into the PhD.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: TL;DR: Do not complain outright to your examiners about the supervision. If they are any good, they will work it out for themselves.
The purpose of a viva is several fold:
1. Make sure the student did the work they have written about in the thesis.
2. Make sure the student understands the work they did.
These first two control for situations where the supervisor basically did the PhD for the candidate, and just used them as hired hands to do technical or leg work.
3. Probe the students broader understanding of the field and how their work relates to the field
4. Make sure the student understands, or can be made to understand the limitations and the shortcomings of their work.
5. Check that the written thesis is a fair representation of the abilities of the student.
Often examiners come into an exam unconvinced by the thesis, but the exam convinces them that the student is capable, but that they just didn't write the thesis very well.
If you feel the thesis work is not good (whether that is the fault of the supervisor or not), the viva is your time to shine. So, make sure you are confident of exactly what the strong and weak points of your thesis work are. You say you doubt its originality. Don't doubt, know. If someone else has done this before, know who, and exactly what they did and exactly where your work is similar and where different. Don't think you work lacks depth and analysis; know which ideas are not fully developed, and the directions in which they could be taken if you had more time. If you abandoned ideas uncompleted, be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of this, and say if on balance you made a mistake in abandoning or not.
Most of all, be prepared to say where you were wrong in the past. Not a general, handwavy kind of "oh I wasn't very good then", but specifics: I thought this, but actually that was the case. At the time I felt topic X was not going anywhere, but I've since come to learn that A, B and C could have allowed me to progress it.
It is highly unlikely you will outright fail. But you may well be asked to make quite substantial corrections if the thesis really is as bad as you say (students, and some supervisors often have an inflated view of what is necessary in a thesis). Think ahead what these might be, and have some ideas for them already worked out.
All this demonstrates your quality as a scholar or scientist, independently of what your relationship with your supervisor has been. Which, in the end, is what is being tested in a viva.
Traditionally it is the job of the external examiner to really probe the work, and the job of the internal examiner to a) act as umpire between the external and the candidate b) be aware of the context in which the work was done. You might be surprised about the extent to which the internal is aware of problems with supervision (especially if they are from the same department). But also, good examiners will get a feel for the supervision in the exam, in science vivas especially, the exam is as much an examination of the supervisor as it is the student. You won't pass with substandard work because your supervision was poor, but you might be cut some slack in making it better.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: If you want to have an academic career and/or if you would ever like a letter of reference from anyone on the PhD committee or your supervisor, I would recommend to wait until you have a permanent job secured, or at least a tenure-track faculty-like position which is stable for several years, before revealing the things you said about your supervisor here.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Others have addressed the main part of your question; I want to refer to the following:
>
> ... I seriously doubt the originality and the importance of my research work, which will be thoroughly assessed during the viva.
>
>
>
**Thoroughness.** Let's start with the third part of this sentence: I don't know how defenses/viva's look like in the UK; but I do know PhD candidates tend to over-estimate the level of scrutiny, or the nature of the scrutiny, these events involve. I believe that PhD research work *should* be thoroughly assessed, but for better and for worse - that often isn't nearly as serious as one might expect.
**Importance.** Importance is at least partly subjective, and it is well known that most fields of research have "fashions" regarding what's important and what isn't. I'm not saying every PhD work is of the same importance or significance - but this is not an aspect you will be considered to have "failed" in. Your opposition panelists may well ask you about applicability, and may express some disappointment if you don't have a good answer for them. But it is quite acceptable to respond with "Potential uses of this work are X Y and Z, but, in hindsight, it is not as consequential than we had initially hoped." If you can add something like "But if we change ABC to be DEF, this will open up the possibility of HIJ" - that's also good. Doesn't matter that in all of your work you stuck to ABC.
**Originality.** Now this is the problematic part. If you mean that your work is "not original enough" in the sense of not being inspiring/surprising/insightful/groundbreaking - that's unfortunate, but assuming you've done a sufficient amount of decent-though-not-great work of this kind, you'll pass. **If, on the other hand, you're saying some of your work has actually been done by others, only with slightly different notation/terminology/field - that is a serious problem and could cost you more than your PhD.** If that is the case, you must find a way to announce / disclose this state of affairs this at once - and under no circumstances reach a point where your opposition brings this up. Even if it means putting your degree in jeopardy, it's the better and safer alternative. You haven't given details so I can't be more specific in my advice on this matter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: The other answers excellently summarise why negatively commenting on your supervisor is a bad idea in your viva, however reading between the lines of your question:
>
> "... supervisor who steered me into so many different topics of my field that I'm convinced my results chapters lack depth and analysis".
>
>
>
It sounds like you might be worried that you could be questioned in significant depth on topics that you don't feel like you have a fully detailed understanding of.
The bad news is that this is a large part of what a viva is about, assessing your understanding of the material you've written about. The good news is you don't have to 'attack' your supervisor to handle these questions well.
Think about why your advisor pointed you at those topics; why they relate to the research you've done; what the limitations of these approaches were; and why you didn't pursue them in further depth. A well phrased answer explaining the limitations of the supporting topics, the connection to your research focus, and where that connection ends, can show a mature understanding of the broader field and help you tie back more tangential questions to your own research.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/20
| 2,053
| 8,553
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student in a pretty large lab, and have come from a more theoretical background than the other members, so sometimes they ask me to help out with theoretical parts of projects. Generally I like this, but a postdoc recently asked me to help out with his project, and I tried to help but it has gone poorly. We've gotten nowhere, I find his problem ill-defined and don't actually understand what he wants from me, and he even seems to want me to take lead on the project. At this point, I'm not interested. Recently he emailed me asking for progress and I told him I hadn't had time to work on it, because I had 3+ other projects that I'm working on.
Then he suggested emailing my supervisor to ask if my supervisor could "give me more time to work on his project". I don't want this. Also, I briefly talked to my supervisor about this, and he agreed that it wasn't worth allocating time to if I wasn't interested. How do I communicate to this guy that my supervisor doesn't dictate what I spend time on, and I'm just not interested in following up at this point - politely? I literally just don't know what to say.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Your project is nice, but I now decided for myself that I can't invest more time in it. I'm too busy with other projects which have priority for my current research interests (so, talking to my advisor won't fix the issue).
>
>
>
And just repeat that same basic point when he tries to argue/discuss with you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the issue you are facing is an important life lesson I had to learn (just an opinion). I think the real root of this issue is you feel bad. You don't like the idea of letting the other person down, and it makes you feel obligated. Maybe what I am stating is obvious, because if you weren't interested, and you felt comfortable saying no, then you would have by now.
The first thing I learned, is that when I pretend I am interested in something that somebody else is doing, they expect I truly am. I get their hopes up. They are starting to plan with me included in those plans. In other words, it's a waste of their time, and the sooner you say no, the better is is for them. So don't feel bad. You are helping them out and are helping them find somebody who actually is interested and will contribute sooner. And if you are friends with this person, you risk making the friendship/professional relationship go sour if you don't contribute like they expect you to. They might see you has phony or lazy which isn't true.
The second thing, is your time is important and it always will end up looking worse for you the more you try to cover things up. The more you lie or potentially act interested, the more he is going to push for ways to either keep you interested or communicate with people to keep you involved. He needs to know it's a firm no coming from you. You can say something like:
"Hey I really thought I had time to take on this project, but I don't. I have other things stressing me out that I need to take care of, and I apologize if I wasted any of your time".
Be firm. Don't act like you are thinking about it. If he asks what the problems are, just say it's personal. It's your life and he needs to respect that. You can also just straight up say:
"I thought I was interested, but I'm not I'm so sorry. I have a lot of other things going on and I would just be wasting your time".
Don't like either? That's fine, but realize if you try to say "my supervisor said it was a bad idea" he might reach out to your supervisor or ask you to reach out, then what do you say? Then it becomes obvious it's really you that just flat out does not want to work on it anyways and ends up looking worse for you. I would try to be as direct and honest as possible.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Yeah the takeaway I'm getting from this ("I tried to help but it has gone poorly. We've gotten nowhere, I find his problem ill-defined and don't actually understand what he wants from me") - you're not impressed with his work. You don't want to lend more of your time because you've (reasonably) become convinced that you'd be carrying the weight in the relationship, there's not much in it for you, and you have plenty of your own fish to fry. Good for you! This happens a lot in life and now's a great time to practice the firm no.
One good tack is to tell him that you've become overwhelmingly interested in {something else; e.g. bitcoin, interstellar travel, whatever} and you have a *huge* passion for pushing forward with it because it's the future, and you're sorry but he should find someone else; your heart and mind have become 110% committed to {this another, vague thing} - doesn't need too much detail other than a statement of passion for new thing. It's a brush-off but people are really accepting of it; they get the message that you cannot be convinced otherwise, it doesn't rub their nose in you leaving their thing behind, and they remember you as this passionate, driven, smart person who's shooting for the stars. I'm sure you have several real things you are (more) passionate about than working with him, so just use one of those. This method doesn't require you to provide any negative commentary about his project or his progress on it.
I kinda invented this by accident one time (I really was wildly passionate about 'new thing'), noticed how well it worked (even if 'new thing' is pretty far-fetched, people respect passion even if they quietly pity your foolishness; 'I'm inventing a new currency to replace bitcoin!') and it comes in pretty handy here and there.
Footnote: It's just about conceivable that he'll try to guilt-trip you, in which case F that guy frankly, you totally dodged a bullet.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As PhD students, and in academia in general, we can take projects and their outcome very personally and empathically. This is good when it leads to excitement and motivation but can also lead to disappointment and guilt. I think it is good to learn to be more pragmatic and accept that
* Eventually deciding that a problem is ill-defined,
* Prioritizing time towards promising projects,
* Working with the people whose research interest are most closely aligned to yours
are all natural aspects of research. Feelings don't have to play a major part in these decisions. Learning to manage your projects objectively and in a level-headed manner is difficult enough. I would advise you to try not to personally burden yourself of the additional emotional weight of this other person's research progress.
On the flip side, a more senior person in academia (post-doc / professor) also has to learn to compose with the interest of their collaborators. If the person has any sense, they will not try to involve you if they understand you have no interest. A collaborator's interest might come and go depending on the advancement or results of a project – this is normal.
That being said
* Answering politely that you are busy with other projects, as recommended by other answers, is totally fine. Giving a realistic assessment of the time you can allocate to the project is the right thing to do, even if that time is null. This will allow the person to rethink the management of the project.
* Optionally, you can develop further and explain the reasons why your interest has shifted, why you think the problem is ill-posed, and what troubles you in the direction that the project has taken. While requiring more work and reflection on your part, this is a very kind thing to do, and shouldn't be see as negative. Constructive criticism can help the person's thoughts on that project, and could also help them understand how to lead a more successful collaboration next time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Why don't you simply say verbatim what you wrote in question: "I'm not interested"?
You won't make it better to anyone by sugarcoating it, trying to invent excuses or giving false hopes. It is not your project. You're not obliged to be interested in it. If other party is stubborn enough enough, this will only give them reasons to invest more into trying to get you on board and the more they invested, the more they will be dissatisfied in the end.
"I'm not interested. I don't want to take time from my other tasks. Sorry, I can't help you anymore."
You can explain project's problems to be extra nice, but make sure to stress that it isn't checklist for "fix that and then I'll agree" while doing so.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/20
| 1,537
| 6,524
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently defended my PhD thesis and was awarded a pass with some minor corrections. I am due to submit the final version of my thesis very soon.
The examiners were both very happy with my thesis, which explains the final verdict. However, as the saying goes, no one understands a thesis better than its author, as the person was invested in it for years. When polishing the papers to send for publication, my supervisor and I found a major issue with the thesis, which although it does not invalidate the overall findings, it would change a significant portion of the methodology in my thesis. While I am currently addressing these issues for the publication of one of the chapters, as well as my job market paper, this issue has to led to severe depression and has made me feel inadequate as a researcher. I worked incredibly hard and had a particularly difficult PhD process; so it is difficult for me to find that at this stage (post defense) I am submitting a thesis that is predicated on a methodology that should have been approached entirely differently; and frankly while in my corrections, I have in essence remedied the problem so that it fits my analysis, changing it as I had intended it to would imply changing a substantial portion of the thesis. This in turn has caused a feeling of despair and inadequacy.
I spoke to a friend who is currently working as an associate professor and he comforted me by saying that irreproducibility, inaccuracies, and mistakes, be it major or minor are very common in vast majority of PhD theses and that I should not beat myself up for this and that the said PhD title is well deserved. However, I thought I ask for some second opinion.<issue_comment>username_1: The thesis is a "good" one if you have passed and will be awarded your degree. Don't overthink it. You have learned something from producing it that you can leverage into future work. That is, in lots of ways, a big advantage. If your advisor is also happy and wants to work with you on any future extension, you have a positive outcome, if not a perfect one.
That the thesis "might have been better, if only..." is true pretty frequently.
My suggestion is to take the advice of the reviewers and get done. Then write a future paper extending and improving on the thesis. Don't make it harder than it needs to be. Your dissertation shouldn't be thought of as your life's best work, only its first.
Don't let the *perfect* be the enemy of the *good*. (apologies to Voltaire)
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Almost all PhD students go through a phase right before their viva where they realise that the entire thesis is wrong and there is a significant, fundamental problem that brings everything down. That is rarely the case and it is quite possible you fall into that category. It is more common that the thesis has already known weaknesses in the form of incomplete parts that are not theoretically or empirically tightproof. To some degree, that happens in all theses. All of them have some sort of problem, shadow or error, although not to the point that the entire work is invalidated. There are also the cases of famous academics where they discovered years later that their work was all wrong or had been done decades ago by someone else but was forgotten in the meantime.
If there is indeed a problem and the examiners have not given you corrections on it, you have no reason to alter your thesis or spend an indefinite amount of time to improve it on your own. That would be dangerous. If you find that dishonest, you can add a paragraph explaining the ***potential*** issue that requires further research. You can then wrap up your thesis and turn this real or perceived issue into a new research question, which will give you a new paper.
(Not that this is the case with you, but I remember this time when I was reading a thesis from a world famous university only to realise that most of the equations were wrong. Fun times.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to @Titus and @username_1 answers, consider describing the known shortcoming(s) in Threats to the validity section of your thesis.
There is nothing wrong to have shortcomings or limitations. Explain the shortcomings and motivate why your results are still good enough.
By being upfront, you shield yourself from the potential critique that you have misled your reviewers and readers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Even if it is hard to consider when you are doing/have just completed your PhD, **the thesis is not your *magnum opus*, but rather less-than-perfect showcase of your skills** that was assessed as good enough by your peers to consider you as an autonomous researcher.
In a way, I would say that **it is closer to a swimming certificate** that proves that you can now swim by yourself in the deep end.
It doesn't mean that your technique is perfect, nor that you are an Olympic athlete. It only means you can now be considered as an autonomous junior swimmer that knows the basics, but of course will still benefit from guidance from experienced swimmers to get better and perfect its technique.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Yes it's OK. For example, the PhD thesis of Dedekind was actually rather average (not saying that yours is) and showed no signs of his future achievements in mathematics. Everyone develops differently anyway.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: This is regarded as point of reference as most of the topic will be in detailed explanation of the fact. Some error and shortcoming of your own findings is almost normal for 95% of cases. It should not involve any misinterpretation of the facts. We can substantiate with new finding and negate almost all shortcoming in your future work will be the best attempt. All might not be in your hand or in your capacity to do, so justify it to you some other means whatever you feel satisfy you. Do not depress, world is not perfect.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: Is it really possible to have a thesis without shortcomings and inaccuracies? In all, it is a human product. With your thesis, you put forward/test an hypothesis, a premise or statement, and that should be defendable given the work you have done. But it is never perfect and always open to interpretation and opinion.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: If you kept correcting everything you found wrong in your thesis you would literally be revising it for the rest of your life.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/20
| 2,362
| 9,710
|
<issue_start>username_0: Context: I have a (IMO, very interesting, and rather significant) mathematical conjecture. I communicated this conjecture to a professor at my university; he is a respected expert in the topic. He says he has not seen something like my conjecture before, that it is very interesting, and that he would like to share it with his close colleagues. I tell him yes, and that I have some related conjectures.
Now I'm shifting nervously on my couch wondering what will happen.
In the past, even single theorems on this topic (partitions) have been published in journals as high-roller as the *Annals*. **My question:** In the event that my conjecture is proven true (by my professor, or one of his colleagues which he sent the result to) and is sent to a journal, even if I did not majorly assist in the proof (I am a first-year undergrad student, I can only do so much!) is it reasonable to request I be listed as an author, since the conjecture is mine and I am the one who shared it?<issue_comment>username_1: Discovering a new and very interesting conjecture is a cool achievement and not an easy thing to do. Congratulations!
About your question, it’s quite possible that your having come up with the conjecture would warrant coauthorship. But it’s possible that it wouldn’t - it’s impossible to say until the conjecture actually gets proved. The issue is that for some mathematical discoveries, the mere statement of the theorem is the more difficult and substantial part of the discovery, in the sense that once the statement is known, finding the proof is not terribly difficult; whereas for other discoveries, it is finding the actual proof that is the difficult part that’s considered more impressive and worthy of recognition.
And sometimes it’s both: for some conjectures, both the people who discovered it and the people who proved it became quite famous for their respective achievements. One such example that comes to mind is the [alternating sign matrix conjecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_sign_matrix).
So, for example, if the professor and his colleagues spend the next five years working on a proof of your conjecture and come up with an amazingly complicated 100-page proof, I’d say your claim for being a coauthor is weak to nonexistent (although you should of course be credited for discovering the conjecture). But if your conjecture results in a relatively easy proof of a few pages, you can reasonably ask to be made a coauthor of the paper (or more likely than not you won’t need to ask, they’ll just offer you coauthorship as it would likely be seen as an obvious thing to do). A rather similar situation happened recently with a conjecture in linear algebra that was discovered by three physicists. They communicated their discovery to Terry Tao, and this ended with a joint publication by the four authors that was posted less than two weeks later. See [this recent article from Quanta magazine](https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutrinos-lead-to-unexpected-discovery-in-basic-math-20191113/).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I mean if you can help prove the conjecture then it is a fair ask. I am a life-sciences researcher so I don't know a lot about maths. The more appropriate approach might be collaboration. If you can work with him and prove the theory then it's a win-win for both. Unfortunately one cannot claim authorship for merely asking the same question.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: [username_1’s answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/149393/1277) excellently addresses your title question. I think it’s also elaborating on a couple of aspects of how the context you describe affects it.
Most importantly: **I think the scenario you sound worried about — where the professor and/or colleagues solve the conjecture quickly and write it up, without your involvement — is extremely unlikely.** If that happened, it would be quite unethical of the professor. If a conjecture has been publicly announced, then it’s certainly generally considered fair game for anyone to work on. But if an interesting conjecture is communicated to you privately, especially by a student or a junior colleague, then it would be — at least — pretty bad form to work on it further without keeping the person who suggested it involved.
What I would be doing in your professor’s situation — and I think most academics would do something roughly along the lines — is something like the following: First of all, I would try to figure out how hard the conjectures are. Do I know them, or do I easily see that they follow from other results I know? (Presumably not, based on the reply you received.) If not, ask around some colleagues in case they recognise the conjectures, or see a clear relationships between them and known techniques/results; and also think a bit harder about them myself, and perhaps do a bit of literature search. (It sounds like your prof. is at this stage.) Depending on what I can find/figure out at this stage, then:
1. If someone recognises the conjecture as known, or as an obvious consequence of existing results (where “obvious” means roughly “if you show someone the results and the conjecture side by side, it’s easy to see that the conjecture follows from the results”), or, conversely, if the conjectures are false for similarly known reasons: Then I’d write back to the student to tell them, and congratulate them on (re)discovering an interesting fact, and suggest keeping in touch about research project possibilities in the future (depending on what kind of projects the department’s programme offers). In this case, we’ve all had a fun problem to solve together, but nothing is publishable. This is honestly the most likely scenario — not just for a student suggestion, but for most questions anyone comes up with. That’s just how research is!
2. If it looks like the conjectures are not obvious but are approachable using techniques within the student’s reach/background: I would suggest that the student works on this as a research project, under my or a colleague’s supervision. (Again, this will depend partly on how “student research projects” fit into the department’s programme/curriculum.) I’d aim to stay fairly hands-off, and giving no more guidance as the student needed. If this goes well, it could well be publishable, with the student as first or sole author.
3. If it looks like the conjecture is best approached using deeper theoretical tools, beyond what the student can be expected to master in a short time-frame, but is reasonably approachable using those tools, then I might work on it myself or with colleagues, but certainly also keeping the student involved in the discussions (both to introduce them to the techniques involved, and give them the opportunity of contributing if they get up to speed enough on the techniques). This might well result in a paper, probably including the student as an author. (If the conjecture was interesting enough to spark such a project, then it’s most likely enough of a contribution to merit authorship.)
4. If I and colleagues can’t easily see how to approach the question at all, I’d congratulate the student on finding an interesting and difficult problem. I’d keep it at the back of my mind, and if I later have an idea on how to approach it, I’d proceed as in case (2) or (3). If it’s interesting enough, I might also mention it to colleagues further afield, and would mention that I got it from a student. This is the only case that could reasonably lead to a solution without the student as co-author: if researchers one or two degrees removed from you hear the conjecture, see a solution, and write it up. Hopefully, I would find out (directly or via the grapevine) that they had solved it, in which case I would suggest they at least acknowledge you by name, and possibly invite you as a co-author. In this case, the criteria from username_1’s answer for whether you deserve co-authorship or just acknowledgement would apply.
In all cases: if the conjectures are interesting and novel enough that a solution could be publishable, I would *certainly* make sure to keep the student in the loop about anything subsequently done with them; and I think most academics would consider it unethical if the professor didn’t do so.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Check out [Beal's Conjecture](http://www.ams.org/profession/prizes-awards/ams-supported/beal-conjecture).
The conjecture was formulated by an amateur mathematician named <NAME> who wrote to ~50 number theorists & journals. He got some responses affirming the novelty of the conjecture, and the conjecture is now named after him.
If someone proves (or disproves) the conjecture now, though, I doubt he'll be listed as the author. He'll certainly be cited, but if he's not involved in deriving the proof/counterexample, he won't be an author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: As the professor seems excited, your changes are high that you somehow get credit. I see three routes:
* They will find some older source, stating (and maybe even proving) your conjecture. You don't get any further credit.
* They will be able to find a proof or at least a partial proof. Then you should be co-author, as the initial idea is yours and similar as the proof, a building block of the paper.
* They won't get a proof. Then you should consider to write a short paper and publish the conjecture. Then you get your name on a paper with your idea, the professor will probably help you writing, adding some flesh (citations, explaining the context, literature review) and publishing. They both of you should be author of the paper, too.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/20
| 737
| 3,059
|
<issue_start>username_0: My first semester of college was extremely rough GPA wise. I am an otherwise almost straight 4.0 student (up to -0.02), but my first semester of college I got a 3.46 because of both adjusting to a new environment and an extraordinary amount of personal/familial issues that came up simultaneously (it really was an inordinate amount - I even got 4.0 during Covid-19).
Would it be wise to notate this separately on my CV/grad school application? If so, how would I do so? I don't see how to do it without making it look like an excuse and it would be taking up valuable space (although more of a problem on the CV than on the application).
To clarify, I understand that for most applicants, this would be ok. However, I am trying to get into extremely competitive programs (ex. CS@Stanford/Google), hence the concern.<issue_comment>username_1: I think you can probably safely ignore your first semester grades if you've done much better later. At most a single phrase, somewhere, about quickly learning and recovering from early mistakes is enough. Your latest work is also more advanced and is what most reviewers will look at in most applications.
If you don't mention it at all, but are later asked, just something like the phrase above is enough. I stumbled. I got up. I learned to do better.
Not big deal and certainly not a career killer.
---
There is another factor that you should think about.
There are people who sort of breezed through their education, getting good grades without apparent effort. They have a nice record, but may never have learned how to deal with a challenge. They might just collapse when the going gets really hard. And they might not have learned very deeply, finding exams to be no big obstacle and so didn't really internalize the education or reach any deep insight.
There are other sorts of people who learned early on that learning was hard work and rose to the challenge. They may, in fact, be better situated for new and bigger challenges since they know what it really takes to succeed in difficult situations. I was like this. I did relatively poorly early on in my (primary and secondary) education but eventually learned what it took to succeed and was self-driving from then on, accepting any challenge.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I got a 3.46
>
>
>
In general, a 3.46 is reasonably good. Given your otherwise excellent performance, it is not necessary to make excuses or explain. In fact, I recommend not doing so, for two reasons:
* Grades are only one part of your application. You are clearly a "check" in that box, so there is nothing to gain by dwelling on it. In fact, this is likely to come across unsympathetically ("I'm a millionaire, but listen to my explanation about why I'm not a billionaire....")
* The explanations/excuses you would offer (transition, personal conflict) are not particularly compelling, and are largely aligned with what the reviewers would have assumed in the absence of any such explanation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/21
| 855
| 3,569
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was taught cursive in elementary school but was discouraged from using cursive by an English teacher in in a non English speaking country. At least I took his/her comment that “not many people use cursive these days” as a sign not to use cursive. Later I practiced and adopted a “connected print” style, because I feared there might me legibility issues for standardized tests. In college, naturally I continued the use of connected print. However, this is slow and laborious, so if you use this in handwritten exams, your mind is distracted from thinking about the question.
How can I choose which style to use? Does it depend on the professor? Is there any evidence that professors prefer either style?<issue_comment>username_1: Professors are people, and people have various preferences. Ask your professor if it’s preferred to use hand writing for assignments and you will get your answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Most professors prefer handwriting that is legible.
I have seen some (asian weirdly, all other nationalities tend to a larger style and there are 90+ nationalities in the establishment) students with handwriting **so** small it is difficult to read but perfectly formed though.
Some write cursive others like small caps but all are fine when neat and legible.
The issue is always the “spider scrawl” that is not legible and so poor that even the author can’t read it later.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: While there may be some odd professor who has an actual preference for a handwriting style per se, the more relevant factors are whether your writing is easily readable and whether it does not distract you too much.
I therefore suggest to do the following:
1. Produce samples for each of your two handwriting styles. Impose a time limit. Also, make it a mental challenge, for instance try to reproduce a piece of information from the depths of your memory or translate a text into another language. Make the challenges for each sample as similar as possible, but not identical to avoid a bias towards whatever you do second, e.g., do not recite the same poem twice, but use the odd verses for one sample and the even ones for the other. Ideally let somebody else surprise you with the challenge.
2. Show the samples to a friend who is not intimately familiar with your handwriting and let them judge their readability. If they consider either sample considerably more readable, choose this.
3. Should both samples score equally in the previous step, go by the handwriting style which you felt to be least distracting. If there is a significant difference in the number of mistakes you made for one sample, take this into account.
Whatever the outcome, stick to this style from now on to train and optimise it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: **There is a cultural component to this as well, so this may vary between countries.**
In France for instance children are taught to write in cursive. When I was a kid we had calligraphy classes, now it is just the cursive.
So when someone in France thinks "handwritten document", they expect cursive.
Of course, if the document comes written the US way (print handwriting) it is fine. If it comes in ALL CAPS then it is weird.
**The most important part is for it to be readable** (except if you are an archeologist, or a medical doctor - which seems to be a world wide tendency. A scary one if you ask me because I cannot think of another job where WIRIWIEAICKM (What I Read Is What I Eat And It Can Kill Me - but I digress)
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/21
| 529
| 2,425
|
<issue_start>username_0: My Computer Science department uses a three-course sequence (A, B, C) in which A is optional. Because both A and B are on-ramps, their contents overlap a good deal, and students who take the slower, gentler approach see several of same topics twice.
My colleagues and I have diverse views on the value of this approach. While we appreciate the subject review that students get in this model, some of us would like the courses to be more complementary. A theoretical basis for our planning would help. **Are there established best practices for sequences of courses with overlapping content?**<issue_comment>username_1: It would by and large depend on what the courses B & C require/offer.
If B is mandatory, you can consider removing repeated content from A for simplification.
However, I personally prefer a refresher on previous content, because "repetition is the mother of all learning".
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Actually, there may be an entirely valid pedagogical reason for this. If some of your students come with little background, say in programming, then they need to get experience with it to be successful later. I assume these early courses are heavy, at least, in programming.
It turns out that people learn, primarily from reinforcement and feedback. That means repeating things, to some extent, so that lessons are deeply learned and insight arises from both practice and the feedback that ensues.
Many students come to a CS degree already having learned quite a lot about programming, though they may also have misconceptions. But the A course is likely intended to take the other, relatively inexperienced, students up to the level of those with a programming background earlier. Thus, students start B at more or less the same level of skill and insight, making that course easier to deliver and making more students successful.
But taking out the overlap would probably be a mistake and give worse results, as students would, then, get less reinforcement of those topics. You don't *learn* something by seeing it only once. And it is harder to learn a lot of topics if the first time you experience it, it is in a sophisticated context. Introducing important topics gently and then reinforcing them later is a learning technique that many people use. It is called a Spiral Approach, where each turn of the spiral takes you deeper into the topic.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/21
| 822
| 3,028
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am talking about academia and research.
Suppose, a person doesn't have either professional or academic credentials or experiences. Suddenly he decides to study engineering because he wants to change his stagnation both financially and socially. So, he enrolls in BSc in an engineering program at the age of 40. He completes his BSc at the age of 44, completes his MSc at the age of 45-47, and then completes his Ph.D. in engineering at the age of 49-55.
* Does this Ph.D. degree have any material value for this person?
There are multiple factors to think about.
Firstly, this person never had any corporate and academia related job experience. It is hard to believe that he would be able to get along with these work environments. It is generally hard to mould someone's brain and personality at the age of 40+. So, I believe that he will find hard-times finding a job.
Secondly, most people are forced to retire at the age of 65-68. If he starts his job at 49-55, he has only 16-13 years of his life left for earning money. The amount he earns with his Ph.D. is highly unlikely to compensate for the earnings he sacrificed while getting his degrees.
So, my view would be: this person is not gaining much with his Ph.D.
What do you think?<issue_comment>username_1: [You can answer this with salary survey data.](https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=51) Based on the data, it would be reasonable to assume a CS academic would earn $95,000/year a few years after their PhD. This would rapidly make up for any lost earnings from not driving a taxi during a PhD, so we can determine that the answer is *yes* without figuring out the taxi driver's earnings or the PhD stipend.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> The amount he earns with his PhD is highly unlikely to compensate for the earnings he sacrificed while getting his degrees.
>
>
>
Is money the only motivation? If so, you may want to consider options between "remain a taxi driver" and "do a PhD." You may want to post on Workplace.SE for help finding the level of education that will maximize your lifetime earnings.
I would suggest, though, that there are important factors other than prestige and money. Specifically, passion for the subject matter. So, I would suggest that you should take a few CS classes before planning out the rest of your life.
>
> It is hard to believe that he would be able to get along with these work environments. It is generally hard to mould someone's brain and personality
>
>
>
I suspect you will have to overcome these challenges when earning your degrees. By the time you have a permanent position, you will be familiar with the culture.
>
> taxi driver is actually a loser with or without a PhD.
>
>
>
Taxi drivers perform a useful service; I would certainly not call them losers. That said, you are 40 years old and therefore (hopefully) less than halfway through your life; it is too early to give up on yourself.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/21
| 1,170
| 5,155
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am towards the end of the first year of my PhD where most of my time went towards doing courses and a small research project in our lab. I plan to continue in academia after my PhD and aspire to get a good faculty position sometime in the future. Is there a stark difference in the way one should approach a PhD if they want to go in academia versus if they aspire for an industry research position ? What do universities look for in a PhD which might be very different from what a company looks for in the same candidate and what can I do at my level to tailor my PhD research towards the direction I want to go in.<issue_comment>username_1: If you want to stay in academia, these are some of the elements that prospective PIs/Institutions will be looking for: 1) published material; 2) conference participation; 3) ability to attract funding; 4) prizes/awards (although this should be of low priority if you are an early-career researcher, given how unlikely it is to get a prize at that stage). You should also focus on showing that you can have original ideas and that your PhD wasn't simply doing what you have been told to do. Other thing that is important, and I cannot stress this enough, is networking. No matter how ridiculous or incorrect it may seem, the people that you know will make a difference in getting jobs and positions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You approach it as training for a job, or even better like you are already an academic. In the same way a caprentry apprenticeship teaches someone solid woodwork skills, a PhD teaches someone to conduct research in a rigorous, appropriate and professional manner. You need to hold yourself to high learning standards, not only on the object of research but also on how to do research: problem solving, networking, gathering information, writing etc.
The big difference is tied to what PhD supervision is technically about: it leads to the completion of a thesis. It does not lead, or have to lead, to publications. You would be interested in conferences, spend a lot of time learning to write academic papers (even the writing style of different journals), network and gather professional information and transport your thesis to publishable journal papers. An industry oriented candidate does not have to worry about such things, unless there are explicit requirements for graduation. This means less polished work in academic, but not necessarily in absolute standars. Of course, publications are of little practical use to a non-academic and serve only for prestige.
***Clarification:*** I suppose the above is a contested point. In my environment, the requirement for getting a PhD for both traditional monograph and paper theses is to pass the viva or defend it. It is not subject to having academic publications, although that is often a parallel pursuit. If there are different practices elsewhere, e.g. you do not get your PhD without X journal publications, I would be very interested in a discussion. For what it is worth, while I identify the professional advantages of a paper-based thesis, I prefer monographs as I find their bottom-to-top process to better reflect the critical development of an idea and of the person writing it. I just like books, I suppose.
Does this mean a difference in quality and, more importantly, in the criteria? This is debatable. A supervisor should hold both at the same level. However, the demand for an industry oriented candidate to understand every theoretical nook and cranny and mechanic of their work is not there at the same degree. The weight is on proper application, not on proper application and thorough learning and understanding. Crudely, if you know how to setup X correctly and press the red button, you are OK - you do not need to know how X works, why X works, the working principles of X and wht happens if you press the green button. Both candidates, however, get results by pressing the red button on X. Nevertheless, in terms of scientific rigour both works should be at the same level, which means correct and honest. What changes is the candidates. This is the second major separating point, because the latter is crucial for a future academic: if he has failed to do both, he does not know how to do his job in the most literal terms. This is also why the expectations on people who want to stay in academia are much higher from supervisors and other academics. On the other side, this is also why many academics, or even PhD students, appear to scoff at or "go easy" on industry oriented people: some demands are not there and they are not seen as future colleagues.
A final caveat: none of the above is absolute and I am very willing to discuss the grey areas. Student and supervisor attitudes change during a PhD, and opinions do vary. I tried to provide a general outline of related issues and highlight behaviours that I have seen come up. My strictly personal opinion is that a PhD is much about learning and both types must learn the same. However, the pursuit of quality publications is something different and perhaps beyond the strict scope of a PhD.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/21
| 1,421
| 6,305
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergrad at the University of Maryland College Park who just finished a computer science bachelors a few days ago. Unfortunately, I didn't realize how much I liked theory (algorithms, combinatorics, graph theory) and math until this past semester. As a result, I plan to work for a few years while self-studying upper-division math and getting the necessary TCS research experience (I plan to reach out to professors at the local university once I'm ready).
My question is whether or not my undergrad academic performance is salvageable from the perspective of grad school admissions. Although I ended up with a 3.895 cumulative GPA with relatively good grades in TCS-related classes (e.g. A- in discrete math, A in algorithms, A in number theory, A in cryptography, B+ in advanced data structures), I have 4 W's (withdrawn designations) on my transcript across different semesters. Moreover, these W's are all in math classes (euclidean & non-euclidean geometry, numerical analysis, combinatorics & graph theory, machine learning). However, with the exception of the geometry class, I dropped all of them since I didn't meet the official prerequisites. I had originally requested prerequisite overrides to register for the courses, but left due to not being able to catch up.
Also, due to COVID-19 I opted for the pass/fail grading system this past semester. Therefore, even though I took theory of computation and combinatorics & graph theory and scored an A, A- respectively, these classes show up as P's on my transcript. Thus, I'm wondering (a) if a master's will help my case and (b) if one is necessary. If at all possible, I'd prefer to apply directly to PhD programs after getting some research experience.
Additionally, would having a publication by the time of application change any of those answers? I know theory programs in machine learning and computer vision basically require publications these days in order to be considered, but I'm not sure if the same holds for subfields like combinatorial optimization and graph algorithms.<issue_comment>username_1: Honestly, I don't think you would have any problem getting in to a good doctoral program now. One sanity check would be to talk to one of your professors at UMCP and ask them if they think you'd be acceptable into their program.
Rather than spend time away from academia to "learn what you missed" you can easily do that with courses at the start of a doctoral program in the US, which is typical in any case. You have a year or so after you start such a program (with only a BS) to form a specialization.
Given the current pandemic, I think people will be understanding about such things as dropping courses, especially if the material can be learned in graduate level classes. And if the P/F system was imposed on you, then they have no choice but to accept it. Letters of recommendation can be used to give a more accurate picture of your performance and capabilities.
In short, I think you are well placed to apply to doctoral programs and suggest that you do so, perhaps in parallel with industry work if that actually appeals to you. Better to have as many choices as possible right now.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I *strongly* suggest that you talk directly with the theory profs in your own CS department. First, they are the people who actually taught you and are best placed to understand the circumstances of your withdrawals. Second, they are the people who make graduate admissions decisions for your department, in your target subfield. (Third, they are the people most likely to provide you with recommendation letters, so making contacting with them early can only help you.)
Opinions on W's differ, but as far as I can tell, most people treat them as no-ops. Students drop classes for all sorts of reasons. Some faculty *might* wonder why you waited until after the drop deadline to withdraw from these classes, especially if the W's were spread over several semesters, but that would be a minor concern, especially if you retook the same classes later and did well. But it really doesn't matter; the W's are already on your transcript. **You can't do anything about it, so you shouldn't worry about it.**
COVID-19 hit everyone, everywhere. Every graduate admissions committee still has to figure out how to make admissions decisions with a full semester of grades missing, or at least obscured by a myriad of different pass/fail and Credit/No-Credit options. Different people and places are going to interpret this semester's (and the next several semesters') records differently, some with more sympathy and others with more strictness. **You can't do anything about it, so you shouldn't worry about it.**
A master's degree is a somewhat risky option. At least in the US, PhD applicants who have graduate experience are held to a higher standard than applicants who do not. Students applying from masters programs are compared with each other, not with undergraduates, and considerably more of those masters-level applicants will have research publications. **To first approximation, publications are a de-facto requirement for masters-level PhD applicants.**
Persistent rumors notwithstanding, publications are **not** a de-facto requirement for undergraduate PhD applicants, even in hot fields like machine learning, even in top departments. Research *experience* is necessary to get into a top PhD program; research *papers* are not. Yes, a significant fraction of new PhD students in ML have publications, but an equally significant fraction do not.
All that said, a strong research publication is definitely a advantage in PhD applications, especially if the recommendation letters make it clear both that the work is good and how the student made it happen, and the topic of the paper meshes well with the research interests of the faculty where you're applying. Good research results can overcome all sorts of other weaknesses in your application.
On the gripping hand, nothing in your question suggests that you have any weaknesses in your PhD application. Your GPA is high enough to draw the attention of human reviewers. At that point, your research statement and recommendation letters matter far more than anything else.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/21
| 780
| 3,401
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a paper where I am using the same dataset that was used in the previous work which I co-authored. I have written the data and the methodology part of that paper. In the new paper I am using the same dataset but a different approach and different methodology.
When reusing the data, do I have to write a normal “data section” as in the previous paper, or I should rather give very general information and refer that first work if readers want to know more about the dataset?
Both papers will be part of my PhD thesis.<issue_comment>username_1: The “data section” has several purposes:
1. It allows the reader to understand everything that builds upon the data, i.e., the analysis and conclusions based on this.
2. It allows the readers (and particularly the peer reviewers) to assess the validity of your approach. For example, did you use state-of-the-art measurement techniques, did you avoid trivial biases, etc.?
3. It allows the reader to reproduce your entire study, should they be inclined to do this.
Points 2 and 3 can be covered with a citation in your second paper: For example, ideally the peer review of your first paper already validated your data collection and everybody who wants to reproduce your paper has to expect to follow citations anyway.
However, you do not want somebody who simply wants to understand what you did (Point 1) to have to follow your citation and flip back and forth between the papers.
Therefore, the usual approach is to cite your first paper and summarise the qualities of the dataset that are relevant for understanding the current paper.
Some details can also be mentioned ad hoc later, e.g.: ”That one odd datapoint is due to …”
Now there are some extreme cases, where the relevant information on your data spans the order of magnitude of a page or more. In that case, it might be reasonable to favour avoiding redundancy and rely on the reader reading at least parts of your first paper. At this point, it depends on to what extent the journal or your field require papers to stand on their own and you’ll have to consult somebody familiar with this (i.e., the journal or your supervisor).
>
> Both papers will be part of my PhD thesis.
>
>
>
The journal and the readers won’t care or even know, so this has little impact. If your thesis is cumulative, you might consider marking the redundancy somehow (if the regulations allow for this). In my cumulative thesis, I replaced citations of my other papers that were part of the thesis with references to the respective chapters. Thus the reader of the thesis would know when redundancy was afoot.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If the context is that of a three-paper dissertation, my opinion would be to refer to the earlier paper which has the thorough description. You should ask your supervisor to be sure, but a collection of essays allows that. A monograph type thesis is much preferable.
If the context is that of a journal submission, then each paper must be stand-alone and the data must be described in according detail. A self-citation is allowed, and some common phrases will save you time, but you cannot self-plagiarise and some rewriting is necessary. You can have one paper being more detailed than the other but the less detailed paper must still contain enough information. So yes, you should describe your data twice.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/21
| 1,372
| 6,063
|
<issue_start>username_0: For context, I am a graduate student in my academic department — agricultural economics. I wanted to bring up the idea to the Department Chair that introducing some applications like JupyterLab, GitHub, and R to our future graduate students could be a great move to not only support the move to online learning, but allow students in our department to get additional skills that are widely used in industry and currently not offered by our courses, but for which I know a number of our professors use routinely.
As a graduate student, I don't have the authority to suggest how the department should conduct itself and I do not want to come across this way either. So I am curious how I could go about offering this idea as a suggestion while still being respectful of my place within the hierarchy of my department. I have a good personal relationship with the department chair as well, but I still want to be cautious of how I approach this.
I should also say that i'm done my course work, so it does not impact me at all if the Department chooses to follow through or not on the suggestion. I am however thinking about the development of future students which is the only reason I am actually considering making the suggestion.<issue_comment>username_1: I suspect that you will have little impact in "asking". And you may not be considering the actual requirements of implementing a change, since you are asking experienced professors to do something new and even if they are willing, they will find it awkward to change, causing disruption. The chair will probably recognize this disruption and will not be wildly in favor.
But if you want to make a change (a) start small and (b) use evidence based reasoning. And the evidence should be local, not just what you see and read from the experience of others (see disruption, above).
Starting small would be to suggest it to a professor who might be open to it, finding difficulties in the current pandemic situation. Work with them to show a positive experience and work out the kinks. Now you also have an ally who can help you spread the word.
The chair would be more willing to listen to a small group of faculty who have already had some positive experience than to a grad student with a "wild idea".
---
Note of caution. Some departments are *very* set in their ways and don't like to hear that they could be doing something "better", already believing that they are perfect in every detail. Others are more open, of course, but test the waters before you dive.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> As a graduate student, I don't have the authority to suggest how the department should conduct itself
>
>
>
That’s incorrect. You absolutely have the authority to *suggest* improvements to the program curriculum, and in all but the most incompetently run of departments, your suggestions would be welcomed, and given at least fleeting consideration; in a really well-run department they may in fact be considered quite seriously. Whether they would be adopted or not in a separate question, but if they are not adopted, it’s not because anyone thinks you don’t have the authority to suggest them. Regardless, no one would think you’re overstepping your role as a graduate student by making a suggestion (as opposed to making a demand or coming across as someone who thinks they’re entitled to run the place).
>
> I wanted to bring up the idea to the Department Chair that introducing some applications like JupyterLab, GitHub, and R to our future graduate students could be a great move to not only support the move to online learning, but allow students in our department to get additional skills that are widely used in industry and currently not offered by our courses, but for which I know a number of our professors use routinely.
>
>
>
It sounds like these professors you mention already see the value in what you want to propose. Why not try to enlist them as allies and supporters of your idea, while offering to do the grunt work of promoting it? For example, you could send them an email where you outline your proposal, say you are contacting them because of their interest in these software applications and that you intend to present it to the department administration (not necessarily the chair - see below), and ask whether they are willing to be included in the correspondence and to be mentioned as possible endorsers of the idea. Stress the fact that they wouldn’t need to get involved in the effort in any more substantial way than that if they didn’t want/have time to.
>
> I have a good personal relationship with the department chair as well, but I still want to be cautious of how I approach this.
>
>
>
That’s good, and the department chair may be a good place to start. But it’s worth keeping in mind that the department chair is usually an extremely busy person who is stretched thin between managing a whole bunch of completely different aspects of the department. In particular, at all departments I’m familiar with (including the one I was chair of for several years), the chair would not get directly involved in detailed thinking about the graduate program curriculum - that’s simply too “micro” for the level of detail the chair is able to handle. Usually there will be other people below the chair — a graduate vice chair (sometimes called the graduate program chair or graduate chair), graduate program committee etc — who make those sorts of decisions (maybe with the department chair ultimately being asked to sign off on any major decisions).
I suggest that before you officially propose the idea, do a bit of l asking around informally to find out who are the person or people who are in charge of thinking about these sorts of issues within the department. This way you won’t waste people’s time and your own time getting bounced around from one person/committee to another, with the attendant risk of the communication being misdirected or misinterpreted at each step along the way.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/22
| 3,579
| 14,810
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm considering doing a PhD in Software Engineering and Information Technology.
Associated with a particular concept of interest (immersion), got many ideas running through my mind that having them explored would bring, at my sight, both business and educational value. So, the ideas:
* Consolidation work.
* Understand the current state of the art in immersive technologies.
* Create taxonomies.
* Design and implement immersive solutions.
* Investigate the real-world value of immersion.
* Etc.
Spoke with two PhDs. One told me a valid thesis can be a collection of articles that have to be published; in other words, what I have in mind is definitely good and possible as long as the articles are published. The other PhD told me this would be something too general and I need to specify more to have a valid and good thesis; in other words, grab one idea and specify even further.
So, what I would like to understand is if I could create a thesis taking what I've got in mind with the 5+ ideas and have it be considered a valid and good thesis? If yes, under which molds / structure / methodology?<issue_comment>username_1: This varies a lot from field to field, so take this with a grain of salt. Before I started my PhD, I envisioned doing lots and lots of stuff. Unfortunately (or fortunately actually), that isn't how academia works. Developing a (good) project takes time. Also, more often than not, easy and good ideas have already been explored which means that, if you want to work on a particular topic, you have to build on top of what other people have already done. For instance, during my PhD, I developed 4 different projects over a period of 4 years. And that is considered above average in my field. Talk to your supervisor once you have one (or if you already have one). They are there to guide and will provide with the answers that you need.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As long as you have a good list of publications by the time you graduate, I don't think a defense committee is going to stand in your way because the research wasn't "connected" enough. Especially considering that the different aspects you want to explore are definitely related.
But you're putting the cart before the horse I think. You're very unlikely to be able to make a complete exploration of such a broad area as you've described above. So don't think of that as "your PhD project," think of it as "this area is my research interest." Your PhD work may only delve into and develop a very narrow sliver of that research interest, and then your later academic or corporate work would be related to other aspects.
Also, research questions tend to look a LOT different when they're finished compared to when they started. You start on one line of inquiry and get side-tracked, or pushed off course by various difficulties, or you just find something exciting opening up along a parallel track. As a PhD researcher is more or less your job to be open to those course-corrections. It's very rare to enter into a PhD with a certain research question in mind and exit the PhD with the sense of "Yup. Nailed it." More likely you accomplished only 10-20% of what you set out to do, or maybe even 0% because you switched to something totally different. That's good! The free-wheeling path of discovery (on a good day) is the essence of academic research and separates it from more goal-oriented corporate work, where answering THAT question your boss needs answered is more important than following your nose and personal interest.
So, I think both answers you received aren't as different as you think, they're sort of two sides of the same coin. Yes, your PhD research doesn't need to be part I, II, and III of the same research question. It could be multiple loosely related works. However, they will still probably have a reasonably consistent thread between them, and be more exact than the *very* general notions you've bullet-pointed above, simply because your research direction and research interests will gain clarity and focus through the PhD process.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: To get a PhD, you will have to specialize. This takes time and effort so if you want to make a contribution that is valued in your field and serves your future career, you will probably have to select one topic and run with it.
That said, some of the best research comes from merging ideas from different topics. Look at [<NAME>](http://www.nathanmyhrvold.com/). He is an extremely successful researcher but he engages in fields from astronomy to paleobiology to Nuclear reactors. Working on one topic allows him to get ideas for another one.
What I am trying to say is that as a PhD student you will have to specialize to be effective, but don't give up the other topics that you are interested in. They might serve you to keep your academic career running after your PhD. They might even give you ideas for solving problems during your PhD.
As for starting your PhD, do not worry too much about which one of the five topics to work on. I am guessing this will solve by itself within the first year if not sooner. First of all, your professor will probably have an opinion. And once you start to dig deeper, you will have a better idea about it yourself. The PhD research topic does not need to be defined from day one. You will have some time to understand what is it that feels most interesting and promises most for your future career.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm agreeing with your second PhD consultant and Buffy generally.
Firstly, I'd ask you why (really) are you thinking of doing a PhD in this area ? A PhD is primarily a license to teach in the area of your research topic as well in those areas of technology that support it. If you like the idea of working in an academic environment then a PhD is a must. If you are simply seeking a higher qualification, or want to gain specialist expertise and then return to the commercial/consultancy world then I do not think a PhD would be the way to go. I say this because the human environment in academic life with their invisible social hierarchies and extreme individualism will probably not suit you. You could consider a DSc or DEng if its in the science/tech sphere - this is done with an industrial supervisor with some input from an academic supervisor. Discuss this aspect with someone who knows your nature well.
But let's say that you decide to do a PhD.
Whatever topic you select on immersive technology you'll always have to do things like background introduction to immersive tech and extensive literature search on your own topic of choice. That will cover current state and current taxonomies. (I doubt if there's any sense in your creating taxonomies for a developing field, especially where preferred academic and commercial lines of enquiry may not yet have been fixed - that's someone else's job.)
These are things that you'll get no marks for - though you will be denied a PhD if these parts of your thesis are deemed inadequate!
Secondly, your spending time in your thesis speculating on the *commercial* attraction of this technology or even of your own particular study is a waste. Like many of us starting out on a PhD, you don't have a clear idea on what a doctoral thesis is. **A doctoral thesis is an original, independent and substantive addition to the existing knowledge in a particular field of study that is deemed worthy of publication in peer-reviewed journals.** It is evaluated principally on its academic merits, i.e. the scale of its addition to knowledge and understanding in its area of research plus its communicability (organization and esp. readability of the thesis). **A PhD thesis need not have any social or commercial application whatsoever, at least not directly.**
Of course, commercial application may be very important to you. Yet from the point of view of research coherency you must make a decision on what exactly you are concentrating your efforts on and stick with that. Otherwise you may be changing the direction of the study too many times to make any serious inroad into any aspect of imm tech.
So your idea of melding together existing knowledge and designing & implementing some solution to an as-yet unidentified problem is not a runner. (Yes, we all know people who have somehow got a PhD using their gift for synthesizing other people's work with a modicum of their own. Often these people finesse their way to tenured jobs in academia and colleagues find out too late how hollow their real abilities are.) You have to define your design & implement objective. Then you have to find an academic supervisor who is *genuinely* interested in supervising it - and with whom you can truly mix minds.
Then there is the funding question and then the real hard work, days & evenings, often Saturday and Sunday, summer and winter. You'll be surrounded with 20-30 other self-centered researchers like yourself and, without an academic leadership that insists on it, cooperation will be minimal. So don't just decide after seeing an agreeable supervisor. Look at the others in their research group too. You are going to get to know more about them personally than you ever want to - and they will see your professional and personal limits equally clearly. Your social life will be poor while doing your academic research unless you are at ease with the type of people in university, their foibles and prejudices. All existing relationships will take a hit - not just because of the relative lack of money but the unreasonable hours, the deep thinking alone in the evenings and the mood swings that go with successes and failures. If you have college work to do like demonstrating/teaching that will be another drain - unless of course this is something that you truly enjoy and are good at - $15 an hour is no compensation if it drains you.
If you aspire to an academic career, you'll take all this on. But if any of it isn't for you, then just look for a job where you can learn about this technology and have scope to do your own work on it.
Either way, good luck to you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Your question is a sensible one. Here are a couple of points which may help:
1. Every thesis is **about something**. It must be coherent and focussed on responding to a single problem or question (this can be broad or narrow, but it must be coherent);
2. It must make an **original contribution** to research. Typically the best way to show this is to show what others have done and why their attempts at answering the question specified in (1) above are insufficient (normally done in the introductory chapter(s), but can be re-stated throughout the thesis);
3. A GOOD thesis is both **readable and useful**. You need to be able to tell the story of your research, and engage your reader in the process and demonstrate some potential for impact. If you can't communicate what you're doing your research will have less impact.
The points above may seem obvious, but they are fundamentally what a PhD is about.
Your question about thesis by publication actually pertains to two different aspects of completing a research degree (i.e. research masters or PhD):
1. Structure; and
2. Assessment (examination).
A thesis by publication entails a **topic structure** where sections of the thesis appear as (often edited) stand-alone articles. These are normally 'topped and tailed' with an introduction and conclusion which demonstrate a coherent response to a problem or question (1 above) and highlight both originality and potential for impact (2 above). They will hopefully also help to make the thing readable (3 above).
BUT
Formally committing to submit your thesis 'by publication' in most cases also commits you to having those publications accepted for publication in journals of an acceptable standard before you can complete the degree. This therefore forms part of the assessment (or **examination**) of your degree.
While having a 'by publication' topic structure can be a good fit for some projects and lead to more **publications during candidature** (which we like) - it can sometimes commit research degree candidates to more constraints when it comes to examination than they really need.
My advice would be to **consider this carefully before committing to a PhD 'by publication'**. Sometimes you can achieve the same thing by simply **negotiating with your advisory panel** a topic structure which will allow you to develop your thesis chapters in a form very like publications - which you can then go off and publish - without committing you to having those published in exactly the same form as appears in the thesis.
This may sound like a minor point but can lead to major frustration in cases where candidates are basically ready to graduate and have completed their thesis but are having to mess around with **journal submissions** when they could be out there publishing anyway **with a degree already under their belt**.
Something to think about, anyway.
Some resources are included below (most will come up in Google Scholar with a link to the full text), and good luck with the project!
* <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2010). *How To Get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors* (5th ed.). London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education;
* <NAME>. (2003). *Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation*. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan;
[Note - there are a million books on how to write a PhD of the 'PhDs for dummies' variety. Most of these are crap. The two books above are the best. **Timeless classics** :-)]
* <NAME>. (1999). *How to Organize your Thesis*. from <http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/chinneck/thesis.html>;
* <NAME>. (2008). *Publish or perish?: Investigating the doctorate by publication in writing*. Paper presented at the The creativity and uncertainty papers: The refereed proceedings of the 13th conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs;
* <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2009). *PhD by publication: A prospective as well as retrospective award?* Some subversive thoughts. Nurse Education Today, 29 (6), 590-594. Available at <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691709000185>;
* <NAME>. (2013). *Understanding the PhD by publication*. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Oslo, Norway;
* <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2012). *PhDs by publications: an ‘easy way out’?* Teaching in Higher Education, 17 (1), 105-111;
* <NAME>. (2013). *Completing a PhD by publication: a review of Australian policy and implications for practice*. Higher Education Research & Development, 32 (3), 355-368;
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/22
| 1,691
| 6,928
|
<issue_start>username_0: TA (a PhD student) of one of my classes was looking for an undergrad to join in one of his projects. This was not directly related to the field I want to work in grad school, but there is no group or faculty in my preferred area, so I wanted to join in anyways (because it is another area I enjoy and I had lots of free time). We started working on it with him, had weekly meetings, I helped with theoretical aspects, and I did all implementations (replicating the other papers that did not provide code so we can compare plus our own experiments). I also did a lot about designing the experiments (which is the only way of proving your work in this area).
This got accepted to one of the top conferences. While I obviously didn't expect to be the first author, I was kind of suprised when I saw that I was the last author, and the professor (PhD student's advisor) was the second last author. For context, it is CS (but not theory), and the author list in our paper is clearly not alphabetical. Now, my questions:
* Isn't this unusual? I thought it was better for a professor to be the last author? When I asked the PhD student about, he just said it was the professor's decision.
* Should I still include this in my PhD applications (it's my only publication so far)? I feel like the admissions committee would ask about why I am the last author.
* When asked, should I mention the possible reasons? I never asked the professor, because, after this project, the PhD student left the program and started a PhD program from scratch somewhere else. Since I had mainly worked with him, and since it was not my primary interest area, I decided to not start a new project. (I don't remember if I conveyed this to the professor after the author list was sent or before, it might have had an effect).
Finally, I have checked this professor's Google Scholar page, and in fact he has acted similarly at least 3 times before (3 publications, each with some of his PhD students, in each one, one of the PhD students is the last author). I believe this (and his other PhD student leaving) are supporting facts for me, I still feel like it could come across as whiny<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Isn't this unusual? I thought it was better for a professor to be the last author? When I asked the PhD student about, he just said it was the professor's decision.
>
>
>
It may be unusual, but if the professor wanted to give you the "seat of honor" it's probably because you deserve it. I wouldn't worry about this.
>
> Should I still include this in my PhD applications (it's my only publication so far)? I feel like the admissions committee would ask about why I am the last author.
>
>
>
Of course! Having any publications at all as an undergrad is a substantial accomplishment. If they ask why you're the last author, you can just say it was the professor's decision and explain your contributions in detail.
(Later on, you may produce further research that supersedes this, but there's no harm in leaving this citation on your CV, too.)
>
> When asked, should I mention the possible reasons?
>
>
>
Focus on what you contributed to the paper, rather than speculating on what the professor's reasoning was.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are at least three basic author order schemes:
1) Alphabetical
2) In decreasing order of contribution
3) Split into junior and senior contributors, with juniors coming first in decreasing order of contribution, and then seniors in increasing order of contribution. [Often with just one senior spot]
In Computer Science, I've predominantly seen 1) and 2). An undergrad being at the end of an author list that is clearly not alphabetically ordered is a dead give-away for order type 2), and hence does not require particularly explanation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Just for background, I'm in the field of computer science and am both a PhD student and a faculty member (*going on 3 years now*).
If there is anything I've learned about authorship, one's position all depends on the composition / mindset of the research team (*w/ heavy influence from the lead / PI*).
>
> Isn't this unusual? I thought it was better for a professor to be the last author? When I asked the PhD student about, he just said it was the professor's decision.
>
>
>
Not unusual. My adviser prefers that she be the last author when she advises. I prefer that authorship should reflect the amount of effort exerted (*another topic*) on research tasks discussed in the paper. Another co-faculty prefers that writing should have greater weight (*in terms of effort*) versus actual tasks performed for the project. I honestly think its a mindset -- regardless of what the rest of the "field" is doing.
>
> Should I still include this in my PhD applications (it's my only publication so far)? I feel like the admissions committee would ask about why I am the last author.
>
>
>
Yes! Don't leave it out as you're just starting out. When you're asked about it, it'll be your chance to brag!
@username_1 already gave good points to answer this. But to add my personal experience -- I benefited from publishing a paper my (*undergraduate*) adviser told us we should try to push out. We didn't think much of it because none of us wanted to go into the academe at the time. Later (*after deciding to pursue research*), I found out that the paper would help me get into a higher rank.
>
> When asked, should I mention the possible reasons? I never asked the professor, because, after this project, the PhD student left the program and started a PhD program from scratch somewhere else. Since I had mainly worked with him, and since it was not my primary interest area, I decided to not start a new project. (I don't remember if I conveyed this to the professor after the author list was sent or before, it might have had an effect).
>
>
>
If you're asked then its your chance to brag! In general, being an author implies you had a hand in the work. I forget how many interviews I've paneled, but I really could careless about the position. We just have to accept that there are different notions of authorship position. I'd rather focus on learning about your contribution to the project and what the whole research group managed to find out.
This is just my personal opinion, but don't let authorship order get to you too much. Inclusion as an author is a bigger issue. Also, as you progress with pushing out publications and working with other individuals, reflect on what authorship position / order means to you and how other individuals might have influenced your thoughts. Lastly, keep in mind to develop your voice in research team discussions. Things can get awkward if not everyone's on the same page, but I feel the easiest way to get through this is to lay things out so everyone knows what everyone else is thinking.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/22
| 882
| 3,658
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am citing a figure I have taken from a journal. In my figure legend do I only include the number citation or do I need to state the figure is taken from somewhere else?
i.e Figure shows a cat [1]
*or*
Figure shows a cat. Taken from [1]
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: I think the most appropriate method is to give the information in the caption of the figure.
>
> Fig 1. An example cat figure from the paper "Interesting Cats" by
> Johnson et al. [1]
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: When you plan to reuse a figure taken from a journal paper, you should first ask permission to the copyright owner which, in most cases, is the journal publisher. Every publisher has its own procedure to make such a request, but usually you will be at least asked to specify where you want to republish the figure (in this case, specify PhD thesis).
The publisher will typically grant permission to reuse *for free* and it will also specify how it wants its copyright to be stated. Here are a couple of real examples:
>
> Reproduced with permission from [1] ©IOP Publishing. All rights
> reserved.
>
>
> © 2018 IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from [1].
>
>
>
If your citation style is non-numeric, substitute the appropriate citation style.
In my experience, many people frequently overthink this procedure, as though obtaining the permission to republish could involve going through an obstacle course race, and sometimes they plan to spend hours to redo a figure which is just a few clicks away.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: **Permission**
Contrary to what the accepted answer says, it is not always necessary to get permission from the copyright holder (or author) to reproduce a figure (or quote a block of text). Check your local legislation, but most countries have a provision similar to the American "[fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)" whereby reproduction for the purposes of scholarly criticism is allowed without any need for copyright request.
Notice, however, that something is not scholarly criticism just because it appears in a PhD thesis. I cannot give any good legal advice but if you are not saying anything more than what the author said in the original source, or if the figure could be omitted without significantly impairing the ability to understand the text, you are probably in the red; on the other hand, if you point to parts of the data that were not analyzed in the original publication, or if you discuss the figure as representative of a previous state-of-the-art (and describe the known shortcomings), you are probably OK.
Furthermore, it is possible that some publishers will require permission even when not legally required. I doubt thesis committees take a close look at this, but journal editors might. I cannot tell either way since I have only ever published one paper with the inclusion of a preexisting figure (from someone of my research group and published in the same journal, so an exceedingly favorable case for an editor to overlook a transgression).
**Citation/use**
I use "(rest of the caption). Taken from [1]" when I reproduce a figure from a former publication without change, and "(rest of the caption). Adapted from [1]" when I add modifications to the figure (arrows pointing to interesting points of data, zooming on a part of the figure, rewriting physical symbols to match the conventions in context, etc.).
I cannot say how common that practice is, but it is what I used for my PhD thesis (which went through my advisors and committee), and I decided on it after imitation of other papers.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/23
| 635
| 2,696
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted two papers in a top-tier applied mathematics journal. The first one is a short paper and the second one is a full paper. After 7 months the short paper and after 8 month the full paper got major revision. For the short paper I submitted the revised paper after 5 months. Finally, this paper got rejected after 7 months after I submitted the revision. Therefore it was under review for (7+5+7) months i.e. around 1.5 yr including the time I took for revising the paper. For the second paper I submitted the revised paper after 5 months. After this 5 months have passed. Therefore it is under review for (8+5+5) months i.e. 1.5 year. Will it be ok if I politely ask the editor about the acceptance chance of the full paper. One week back I asked the editor, he told me that they are waiting for one review. After that they will send the decision. Is it ok to request the editor whether he can confirm its acceptance chance ? If they want to reject reject now only, so that I can send to other journals. I will be applying for some jobs now. I need to know this information urgently. I am concerned because from the first round reviews I am very much hopeful about its acceptance. If I pressurize them they may reject it.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think the editor could confirm the acceptance chance without communicating with the referee. Perhaps you could ask the editor to expedite the process by asking the referee to cut short the report and submit it immediately if it's going to be negative.
You might not wish to do this if you want a more thorough report in the case of rejection.
You could alternatively ask the editor to send a reminder to the referee, whether the referee agreed to return a report before a particular date, and confirm that they had not lost contact with the referee (since a long time had passed).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you did not let the editor know about your “special circumstances” in the earlier email, then I think it is okay to email again to inform them and ask if the process can be expedited at all. This is not uncommon when someone is coming up on a tenure decision, for instance. Editors can push a bit harder to get information back from referees when the situation calls for it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: You could ask for the "acceptance chance", but what do you expect them to say? The editors don't know either - without the reviewer reports they can't give you an estimate, or if they do it's likely to be wildly inaccurate.
You're probably better off requesting they hurry up [because you are applying for jobs and you need the results urgently, etc].
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/23
| 1,846
| 6,915
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have done a Bachelor's (4 years) and my GPA is quite low. But I have research experiences (more than 3 years) and few publications in some good journals. I want to do a Ph.D. in biology or a related field. Is it possible to get a position (e.g. in the USA or Europe) when research experience is the only strong point? Or should I go for a Master's first?<issue_comment>username_1: It's certainly possible -- in fact, in the USA it's more common to start a PhD directly after a Bachelor's than after a Master's. In Europe, having a Master's first is a more typical requirement, but I have known some people to start PhDs straight after their Bachelor's (in physics, in the UK). Having significant research experience and published papers will certainly help your application a lot.
Why not apply for PhD and Master's positions at the same time? That way, you may get accepted to a PhD, in which case great, if not then you will likely have the Master's to fall back on.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I have done exactly that, I had a Bachelor from Switzerland and did a PhD in the UK. I think it is more common in the US than in Europe. In Europe you might be more successful in getting a PhD position in a field where your research experience is relevant. I ended up with a PhD position in a group I had previously collaborated with. They had to invest a lot less time into my training and I got a PhD out of it, so it worked out for everyone.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Some programs that don't accept people without a master's degree into their PhD program have a "bypass" mechanism where you can essentially decide after completing the first part of your program that you want to treat your completed work as the first part of your PhD program rather than completing the requirements for the Master's degree. (For example, here's the description from the [University of Alberta nursing programme](https://www.ualberta.ca/nursing/programs/graduate-programs-and-admissions/master-of-nursing-program/mn-bypass.html).) You usually need to have performed up to some standard and have the agreement of your supervisor, but the requirements are generally not onerous. ([This web page](https://academicpositions.com/career-advice/master-s-first-or-straight-to-phd) says this is a Canadian thing; it existed at my previous institution (a top research university in the US) when I was there 15 years ago, but seems to have disappeared since then.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm starting a PhD program in January. I won't have technically finished my Bachelor's at that point as due to some scheduling issues I'll still have one module left.
If you get the grades and can persuade the supervisor you'll be a good fit for the role, anything is possible.
I'm in the UK.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In Denmark, at least at the University of Copenhagen, they have a [3+5 and 4+4 PhD programs](https://phd.ku.dk/english/process/flexible/):
>
> In the 3+5 system, you start on an integrated Masters and PhD process straight after graduating with your Bachelors.
>
>
>
It exists at the [Aarhus University](https://phd.scitech.au.dk/for-applicants/phd-study-structure-and-income/) as well, see section "I'm doing/have a Bachelor's degree". The other Danish universities may have something similar, you can google.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Why not? In Australia, only Bachelor is officially required for PhD. There is no such thing as a master degree requirement in the country.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: In the UK a PhD (or DPhil) typically starts after a 4-year undergrad program: **so yes, it's normal to do a PhD right after your undergrad.**
At a top-level research institution in the USA (at least in the sciences, and biology is what you said you want to pursue) a Masters is something that you would normally only get if you dropped out of a PhD program: **so yes it's normal to do a PhD right after your undergrad.**
In Canada, for some reason the majority of the people think they have to do a Masters before a PhD, but there is no university in Canada that requires a Masters to do a PhD in biology. In fact NSERC funding for your PhD will last only 3 years if you have a Masters, and 4 years if you do not: **so yes, there is a way for you to start your PhD right after your undergrad**.
People have mentioned that it's normal in Denmark and Australia too.
Some European universities (for example some, but not all, universities in Germany) you might require a Masters.
Now for some advice:
--------------------
>
> But I have research experiences (more than 3 years) and few
> publications in some good journals. I want to do a Ph.D. in biology or
> a related field. ... should I
> go for a Master's first?
>
>
>
***You have more publication experience than some people have after their first post-doctoral position.*** A "few publications in some good journals" is what PhD students aim towards for graduation.
Masters programs can take 1 to 3 years (longer if your experiments don't work out). Why not instead do a 3-year PhD program in UK or most of Europe, or a 4-year "direct" PhD program in USA or Canada, and get **Doctor** beside your name for the rest of your life?
If you're going to do research for the next 6 years, would you rather:
* Earn a Masters salary (e.g. ~$25,000/year in Canada) for 2 years, then a PhD salary (e.g. ~$35,000/year in Canada) for 4 years, ***or***
* Earn a PhD salary (e.g. ~$35,000/year in Canada) for 3-4 years, then a ***post-doc salary*** (e.g. $40,000-$70,000/year in Canada) for the remaining 2-3 years?
These days, it is getting harder and harder to get a stable job while our bodies are still in their prime condition for raising a family (or doing whatever else we enjoy). There still are PhDs getting permanent or tenure-track jobs in their 20s, but it's becoming common for people to reach 40 by the time this happens, because there's more humans to compete with than any time in our history. **Do you really want to delay your life by 2-3 years by getting a Masters, when your goal is to get a PHD?**
I am of course not listing the advantages of doing a Masters rather than a PhD, since you said you want to do a PhD eventually, and you seem to be a very strong candidate for a PhD position, so with no other information, I am certainly happy to encourage you to go straight to a PhD position. If you do want to know the reasons why one would choose a Masters rather than a PhD, the reasons do exist, but to explain them might double the size of this answer, and I would only do it if there was some reason why you were still considering a Masters even though you now know that it's not abnormal to go straight to a PhD: perhaps in that case you could describe what you want and the reasons for it, in a separate question).
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/23
| 581
| 2,510
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m now writing a masters thesis in mathematics. I’d like to introduce basic definitions and theorems in the beginning. By basic I mean truly basic, like the definition of a connected graph and the theorem about Eulerian paths (such a path exists if and only if even degrees).
The lecture notes written by my professor is really nice so I’d like to use his definitions (I’ll cite, of course). In this case can I cite his lecture notes?<issue_comment>username_1: While there is no real harm in citing it, it is unlikely to be necessary. *Common knowledge* is one of the exceptions to the requirement for citation. Many things that you first see in a course fall under this cover, even if they are new to you.
But you seem to be more speaking of copying the notes, rather than citing them. That may be a different issue if they can be considered to be copyrighted. In that case you want permission from him.
Do a little research in a textbook or two. Do those definitions, or something essentially similar to them appear there? I suspect they do. If so, there is no need to be concerned. And also note that one of the exceptions in copyright law (most places) is that for some things there is only one effective way to state something, so it's expression can't be copyrighted.
And it wasn't your professor who originated these ideas.
But an acknowledgement to your professor for introducing you to these ideas would be a courteous thing to do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Lecture material like the equations you mention is considered common knowledge *(I had not noticed that another answer uses the same expression)*, unless is comes with a non-textbook citation (e.g. if a model from X (YYYY) is discussed). It does not need citation but you should rephrase the uncited verbal parts to a reasonable extent to avoid giving a lazy impression. Copy - pasting equations is just fine, however, and if a citation is included you should use the citation directly. The only occasion that would warrant a citation that I can think of right now is if the lecture contains novel, unpublished research by the lecturer, in which case it would be acceptable. However, you should be absolutely sure that this is the case, and in addition that the lecturer wants that novelty to be cited. My strictly personal attitude is not to allow or encourage the lecture being cited (but they are free to copy the equations), and I treat it as very poor judgement when it happens.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/23
| 851
| 3,690
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a graduate student in Theoretical chemistry/Chemical Physics at one of the higher-ranked R1 universities in the US. After a year of taking graduate-level courses in Physics, I have realized that an academic career in theoretical physics is something that I really want to pursue. Soon I would be graduating with a MS in chemistry from my current graduate program in August and I plan to re-apply to graduate school again, specifically to programs in Physics. Here are a few things that aren't clear to me about executing this transition:
1. Will it be possible for me to make this transition given my academic background in chemistry?
2. Can anyone who's been through this before, made a similar transition.... give me a couple of pointers?
I don't know if most or any of this matters but, here are a few details.
**Academic Background**
Prior to joining my current program I went to a college in India to get my bachelor (3 years) and Masters (2 years) in chemistry. I did have rigorous coursework in basic mathematics covering most of the essentials in Differential Equations(ODE and PDE), Linear algebra, Multi-variable calculus, etc. In terms of Physics, I have taken courses in classical mechanics, optics, electronics, and basic E&M. Beyond this most of my advanced knowledge in quantum physics and statistical mechanics comes from personal reading. From both my degrees I have had slightly more than above average to really excellent grades.
After I came to the US in the past year I have taken about 6 graduate-level courses ranging from quantum mechanics to quantum optics, offered by the Physics department at my university and some reason to believe that I have had a fairly decent performance in them.
**Research Experience**
In terms of research I do not have any research publications yet. But, I have worked for a year in an experimental lab during my masters in India and two summer research internships in experimental condensed matter physics and chemical physics(theory). Also currently, I am working on a summer research project in theoretical condensed matter physics with one of the faculty members at my current university in the US.
I am mainly looking to transition into a Ph.D. in either condensed matter field theory or something more aligned towards quantum physics(like quantum information or ultra-cold physics).<issue_comment>username_1: Your situation is not much different from other people seeking to pursue condensed matter theory. There's a lot of overlap between theoretical chemistry and condensed matter physics, so there's no real scientific barriers. The regulations of individual universities may matter, but we can't help you there.
People who brand themselves as chemists tend to pick RSC or ACS published journals. People who brand themselves as physicists tend to pick APS or AIP published journals. Otherwise, it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think your background in chemistry should not be a disadvantage. I know a guy with a background in computer science transitioning to physics too. Besides GPA, LORs, SOP, and GRE general, I think a high score in GRE physics will definitely help too. If you aim for high-rank schools, try to get GRE physics for more than 900. Do you currently enroll in a university in the US? Is there any physics professor there whose research you are interested in? Why don't you email them to express your interest and visit their office if possible? You can work with them on some small projects too. It helps you to test the water and see if you are really into a Ph.D. in theoretical physics.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/23
| 2,226
| 9,027
|
<issue_start>username_0: An article claiming to solve a great long-standing mathematical open problem was published in a conference proceedings, and was refereed on MathSciNet positively, i.e. the reviewer makes an impression that the proof is valid. However, some details hint that this may not be the case:
1. the result of this caliber should go to a top-tier journal and get a significant resonance in the mathematical community;
2. the preprint has been available on [arXiv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv) for 15 years before its final publication and underwent eight redactions (with the last redaction about eight years before the publication);
3. I talked to an expert in this area around 10 years ago and their opinion about one of the earlier drafts of the preprint was that it is erroneous and the author doesn't want to admit his mistakes.
Now some other articles (published in first-tier journals) use this questionable result. And many other people are still working on solving this long-standing problem, and may have doubts about the status of the problem, in view of this publication.
So my question is: how much of the responsibility lies on the MathSciNet reviewer who "validated" the proof? My understanding is that it is their duty to reveal the mistakes in the published article, so that the other authors do not base their work on it. Is there a way to "nudge" the reviewer to make amends to the review?<issue_comment>username_1: You state, without qualification, that the paper is erroneous. Actually, that may be true or not. And even if it contains errors, it is also possible that they are immaterial to the main result. You blame it on the reviewer. But the reviewer may simply be mistaken in their analysis - especially if the result is deep and subtle. People make mistakes. Authors do. Reviewers also. It isn't evil intent.
And it certainly isn't the job of a review writer, after publication, to make a claim without evidence that a paper is flawed.
It is the responsibility of the reviewer to try to give a valid report on the paper as best they can analyze it. If they are wrong, they have made a mistake, but I doubt that any reviewer would "cover up" for an author, stating that something was true, when they knew it was not.
But it is also the responsibility of the reviewer to include in any report that they can't follow the argument to its end, if that is the case. But that is about all that they can do and all you can ask for.
But, the proper response to an erroneous paper is to publish a correct one. That can be done by anyone. If you are sure the paper has errors, publish your own analysis.
But in the end, mathematics can be just *hard*.
I'll note that some papers have errors that haven't been noticed after fifty years or more. No one really doubts the result, though a thorough analysis might prove them wrong. Automated theorem provers/checkers can catch some of that, but not all. But the human mind has limitations in how much detail it can manage and some proofs go beyond the natural limits.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> how much of the responsibility lies on the MathSciNet reviewer who "validated" the proof?
>
>
>
None. The [instructions for reviewers](https://mathscinet.ams.org/mresubs/guide-reviewers.html) don't ask the reviewer to check the validity of the proofs; by a time a paper gets to MathSciNet it has been peer reviewed already. The purpose of a MathSciNet review is to explain what's in the paper and why someone might want to read it.
It is fine to write to [contact AMS](http://www.ams.org/about-us/contact/reach) and ask them to retract a review, if (1) you are a well-known expert in the field, capable of speaking (to a reasonable extent) for the field as a whole; or (2) you are able to conclusively demonstrate that the paper has an error.
If neither of these is the case, while your desire to do something is admirable, realistically there is probably not any effective action available to you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: (Disclosure: I review for MathSciNet.)
>
> how much of the responsibility lies on the MathSciNet reviewer who "validated" the proof?
>
>
>
In my view, very little if any, and by using the word "validate" I think you overstate the case. Reviewing for MathSciNet is not meant to be like refereeing, and reviewers are definitely not asked to check the correctness of a paper as they would for a referee report. The purpose of a MathSciNet review is mainly to summarize what the paper contains, so that prospective readers can quickly tell if the contents of the paper are likely to be of interest to them. I don't think you should take the existence of a MathSciNet review as any sort of "seal of approval" on the correctness of the paper.
The reviewer is certainly *allowed* to mention errors or shortcomings in the paper if they should happen to observe any, but this is not a requirement or an expectation.
And keep in mind that unlike an referee report, MathSciNet reviews are public to the world and signed with the reviewer's name. If a reviewer says something negative about a paper, especially a very high-profile paper, they might face blowback in a way that an anonymous referee wouldn't. Maybe you think they have an obligation to do it anyway and face the consequences, but it's a significant ask.
Useful reading is the [Guide for Reviewers](https://mathscinet.ams.org/mresubs/guide-reviewers.html) that MathSciNet points reviewers to.
>
> My understanding is that it is their duty to reveal the mistakes in the published article, so that the other authors do not base their work on it.
>
>
>
I would only agree insofar as to say that *if* the reviewer is actually aware of a specific mistake in the paper, they should mention it. Even so, that would only be out of a general civic duty to the community, not any responsibility explicitly laid on them by MathSciNet. And for me, a vague sense of unease that something is not quite right with the paper would not rise to that level. If the reviewer does not happen to find a specific error, I do not think they have a responsibility to go looking for one. Certainly in my time as a reviewer and in talking to others, I've never had an impression that this was expected.
>
> Is there a way to "nudge" the reviewer to make amends to the review?
>
>
>
Their name is attached to the review, so of course you are free to contact them and say something. But as I mentioned, I think what you're asking is beyond the scope of what's expected of a reviewer. If you think the reviewer actually knows of a specific error and has covered it up, that would be another story, but as I said I don't think they have an obligation to carefully check a paper in hopes of finding errors.
Moreover, MathSciNet doesn't really encourage reviewers to revise their reviews after initial submission. There is no automated system to submit revisions. So even if the reviewer wanted to make changes, they'd have to contact the MathSciNet editorial staff and convince them that changes were warranted.
>
> Now some other articles (published in first-tier journals) use this questionable result.
>
>
>
Well, it's the responsibility of those authors to satisfy themselves of the correctness of results that they rely on. They cannot reasonably take the mere existence of a MathSciNet review as positive evidence of the paper's correctness.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> So my question is: how much of the responsibility lies on the MathSciNet reviewer who "validated" the proof? My understanding is that it is their duty to reveal the mistakes in the published article, so that the other authors do not base their work on it. Is there a way to "nudge" the reviewer to make amends to the review?
>
>
>
1. None. Unlike what your title implies MathSciNet reviews are not referee reports nor are they endorsements. As stated in the guidelines, the reviews are there to help some decide if they wish to read the paper.
2. Incorrect. The primary duty is to provide context to the paper. Moreover, as noted in the instructions, the review is not meant to start a debate as the original author cannot answer.
3. This assumes or implies that somehow the review motivated citations to the paper, which would be extraordinary.
If you believe you found an error, you should supply evidence of that error in a comment to the original journal or another journal. This is the most constructive way of correcting a wrong paper. An alternative would be to use PubPeer.
Frankly: why the excitement? People cite wrong results - including papers that have been officially withdrawn by journals - all the time. See [this table](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/) compiled by Retraction Watch of the Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers. #2 on that table has over 1000 citation since the article was retracted.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/23
| 700
| 2,317
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got a postdoc position at age 34 years in China. My documents are verified and I got the invitation letter. My employer applied for a work permit which is in process. I am waiting for that to apply for Z visa. But it is delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and travel ban. If it is delayed further I will be more than 35 years which is supposed to be maximum age limit for postdoc. Can I still get the position?<issue_comment>username_1: In general Chinese universities are rather ageist, and treat age restrictions very seriously. It is likely that you would not get the position due to your age. However, there are many workarounds you can discuss with your potential advisor, such as getting a position as a 研究员 or 副研究员 (like a staff researcher or staff scientist) that don't have age limits, but also might not have the federal government salary support that foreign postdocs are eligible for in China. You would have to discuss with your potential advisor to see if such an option is available to you.
Having said that, the pandemic changes the rules for everything, so there is a possibility that in this special circumstance an exception might be made, you'd have to discuss with your advisor and see how willing they would be to spend political capital to secure the exception for you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is the University that has the age limit, not the Chinese government who issues the visa. For example, the postdoctoral research fellowships offered through the PIFI scheme at the Chinese Academy of Sciences have an age limit of 40 years ([current announcement](http://It%20is%20the%20University%20that%20has%20the%20age%20limit,%20not%20the%20Chinese%20government.%20For%20example,%20the%20postdoctoral%20research%20fellowships%20offered%20through%20the%20PIFI%20scheme%20at%20the%20Chinese%20Academy%20of%20Sciences%20have%20an%20age%20limit%20of%2040%20years%20(current%20announcement).%20%20If%20your%20lab%20is%20still%20offering%20you%20the%20position,%20and%20you%20don%27t%20have%20other%20reasons%20you%20would%20be%20rejected%20for%20the%20visa,%20it%20should%20go%20through.)).
If your employer is still offering you the position, and you don't have other reasons you would be rejected for the visa, I expect it should go through.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/24
| 857
| 3,746
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have applied for a second round of 100% rejections and needless to say I am not feeling great about it. What I am especially angry/frustrated about is that neat little sentence every rejection letter has:
>
> We recommend getting more research experience and trying again next year
>
>
>
HOW?!
I have applied for R&D jobs in my field for a year and a half while working. I can't get an interview, when I contact the companies the reply is "you don't have a masters". Well that's convenient isn't it? Universities won't accredit me because of lack of experience and I can't get the experience because I don't have the credentials.
I'd abandon the goal all together but I am too stupid and stuborn to accept giving up an unreachable dream.<issue_comment>username_1: Speaking from a biomedical perspective, typically students who are interested in master's or PhD degrees gain research experience by working in labs in their undergrad institutions. If you did not do that, an alternative is to apply for lab technician positions at university labs, which does not necessarily require anything beyond a bachelor's degree. Training a scientist is hard and most companies would not want to gamble on someone who does not have an advanced degree already, only to see them leave after a couple of years of training at their expense.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I have been a CS professor at both large and small schools, so let me say a bit about getting into the program from both perspectives.
When I was working at a small school, we didn't have a large graduate population, so we accepted anyone who was qualified - regardless of research experience, etc. Anybody who was well-qualified (eg good grades and reasonable application package) also received a TAships covering the full cost of their degree. I still managed to get some fantastic students through this process. (Who didn't have research experience or were not from a traditional CS background.)
I am currently at a larger school, and we get something like 5x more applications than we are able to accept. So, most students get rejected, even highly qualified ones.
Based on this comparison, I'd suggest that you may need to look at a smaller school. Try to find an opening to work on a problem that might help you with a grad school application in the future.
In particular:
1. Find smaller schools with professors doing work in the area that you are interested in. Smaller schools can have very strong professors for many reasons. (Look particularly for recent publication activity.)
2. Read all of their recent papers.
3. E-mail ask research questions about their work. These questions should be genuine and should reflect a strong understanding of the work. You could even, for instance, ask if a project would be a suitable extension of the published work. (eg your method X works under conditions Y and Z. Would method W broaden the applicability of the approach? Or, would method V improve the performance when condition U also holds?)
4. Implement and try some of these ideas in practice. (You could even do this before doing #3.)
5. Use this to improve your graduate application. There are several ways to do this. First, if you have good communication with a professor, they may directly be able to help you get admitted to the program. But, this can also be part of your statement of purpose (SOP). I've read lots of awful SOPs. Your application will stand out if you can talk about a research problem you are interested in, why it interests you, and why it is a fit with the department/professors.
There are lots of variations on this approach, but I've had students use parts of the approach on me, and it worked.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/05/24
| 1,178
| 4,645
|
<issue_start>username_0: Many positions in academia are precarious, when it comes to employment common behavior in academia would never be acceptable in industry. This applies equally to PhD students as well as to junior academics:
1. PhD students are not guaranteed employment at university
after working there for 5 years.
2. PhD students are paid little considering their degree: In
Germany e.g. it is common practice for professors to only pay
half-time posts.
3. It's common practice for young academics to work well beyond 40 hours even for PhD students that are
only paid half-time posts. Work regulations regarding maximum worked hours and weekends are often ignored.
4. Junior academics are unlikely to land an unlimited full-time job at a
university. Directly after graduation this is impossible and even after years of more precarious work as a postdoc only a fraction get unlimited employment.
5. With exception of CS and engineering very little universities care about providing an exit strategy for junior academics and PhD students after academia. (While change in industry is possible in quite a few fields, proper (additional!) training would be much needed.)
These issues are well known. Fundamentally academia is producing too many PhD students and too little full-time positions (not just professorships) for their respective fields which causes much of the mentioned problems.
I feel like the passion almost all young academics and PhD students have for their subject brings a lot of naivety when it comes to employment conditions, which is exploited.
**Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change these working conditions or a push to establish labor unions?**<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Why is there no labor union in academia?
>
>
>
Some universities have unions, others do not. The scope of the unions varies.
>
> Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change this?
>
>
>
Many people support changing academia, so the premise of this question is wrong. The reality is that change is hard, especially when the old system obtains lots of cheap labor.
>
> how successful have they been in the past?
>
>
>
Unionization usually results in an increase in pay and job security, but the change is small.
For problems 1-5, the solution is simple: Don't get a PhD. As long as many people try to get PhDs, economic forces will encourage these problems to persist.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The first question is whether PhD students are union members, or can be. Very often they can but are not. In the UK, a work contract that is separate from the student component is not required to join a union, and membership can be free. In the Netherlands, I think that a PhD student is considered a full-time university employee, with everything that entails for union participation, labour rights etc. Local union braches have participated in dispute resolution at a department level, although PhD students do not receive too much attention.
Beyond that, the situation is too country specific. As a blanket statement, and inaccurate in many cases, PhD students see themselves as students and are not informed or interested in becoming unionised, universities find the flexible dual employee/ student status convenient (again, this does not apply if a PhD student is contractually considered an employee) and unions do not have much to gain, in their opinion, and focus on more important disputes.
I also disagree with the way many points are framed because it is either wrong or a misrepresentation, particularly (1) and (5). I recognise important problems in the position and compensation of PhD students in academia, summarised by "cheap fresh meat" or "scientific proletariat", but this is one of the poorest descriptions I have encountered. A PhD holder is not automatically a good academic or a good colleague.
***EDIT*** - [An exemplary discussion](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109259/improving-work-conditions-of-student-assistants-phds-postdocs-etc?rq=1) from 2018 on the same broad issue.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> These issues are well known. Fundamentally academia is producing too many PhD students and too little full-time positions
>
>
>
More precisely, academia is not making money. We're not even trying to make a profit, where would the money come from?
>
> Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change these working conditions or a push to establish labor unions?
>
>
>
Union of what? Union would only make senese if there is money to pay salary, but it isn't the case in academia.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/05/24
| 1,563
| 5,937
|
<issue_start>username_0: Perhaps a bit of background on myself is useful in this case. I've obtained a bachelor's and master's degree in pure mathematics and applied mathematics, respectively. Although I would like to do a PhD on a topic that is somewhat related to these fields, I suspect I will not be able to obtain a position due to my GPA (7.0 out of 10) and limited amount of contacts in academia (I've graduated almost two years ago).
Despite of the limited perspectives for an academic career, I still have loads of ideas for research, and I'm eager to publish articles as an independent researcher in my spare time. More often than not, however, the research ideas only partially pertain to my area of expertise. Usually, I would like to apply some statistical methods to do research in some social science. For instance, I'd like to do a statistical comparison on the holocaust victims of different countries, or on the methods through which the media can influence governments.
While I may be quite good at formulating research questions and doing statistical analyses, I often lack the relevant domain expertise to substantiate the article with relevant information, and relate it to prior research in the area. Therefore, I would like to work together with people who are more knowledgeable in these fields, and write papers together.
Being outside academia, however, often makes it difficult to find people who'd like to collaborate with me. Thus, I wonder whether there is some international community of independent scholars. Preferably, this community would be backed by some website through which I can find like-minded researchers who'd like to work with me. Ideally, the website would have some kind of SE-like interface, through which on can propose ideas for articles. Then, others can respond to the idea, and "matches" between researchers can be made.
Having a background in mathematics, I know of the so-called [Polymath](https://polymathprojects.org/) Project for massively collaborative mathematical projects. This is related to, but not exactly, what I'm looking for. For one, it is restricted to mathematics. Moreover, it is not especially geared towards independent researchers, and the concept is not to have some kind of match-making system for researchers and their ideas.
**Questions**
1. Do you know whether an international community of independent researchers exists?
2. Is it backed by the website I've just described?
3. Are there any projects like this currently under development, or have they existed in the past?
4. If it doesn't exist (yet), do you think it's a good idea to create such a community and website, and do you have suggestions to make it a thriving, long-term community?<issue_comment>username_1: No, there is no international community that convenes independent scholars together.
But, yes, it would be a good idea. [LENS lists more than 14.000 scholarly works published by independent researchers](https://www.lens.org/lens/search/scholar/list?institution.must=Independent%20Scholar&institution.must=Independent%20Researcher&institution.must=Independent%20scholar&institution.must=Independent%20researcher&institution.must=Independent&institution.must=Independent%20Consultant&institution.must=Independent%20Researcher,%20USA&institution.must=Independent%20Scholar,%20Independent%20Scholar&institution.must=Independent%20Scholar%20&institution.must=Independent%20Researcher,%20UK&institution.must=Independent%20consultant&institution.must=independent%20scholar&institution.must=Independent%20Consultant,%20UK&institution.must=Independent%20Scholar,%20UK&institution.must=Independent%20Researcher%20&institution.must=Independent%20Researcher%20-%20Australia&institution.must=Independent%20Researcher,%20India&institution.must=Independent%20Scholar,%20USA&institution.must=Ph.D.,%20Independent%20Researcher&institution.must=Independiente&institution.must=Profesional%20Independiente&institution.must=Investigador%20independiente&institution.must=Investigador%20Independiente&institution.must=Investigadora%20independiente&institution.must=Chercheur%20ind%C3%A9pendant&institution.must=Auteur%20ind%C3%A9pendant&preview=true), which indicates a demand for such a community.
---
That being said, there are *national* groupings of independent scholars: [ISAA](https://isaa.org.au/), or the Independent Scholars Association of Australia, is one example. In addition, there here used to be *local* groups in the U.S. dating back to the 1980s. However, I am not aware whether any of them still exist.
See [p. 35](https://doi.org/10.2307/40249434) from the Jan-Feb. 1985 issue (Vol 71, No. 1) of *Academe*, a magazine from the *American Association of University Professors*:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1apIk.png)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: [IGDORE](https://igdore.org/), a large organization for independent scientists, hosts an online forum titled [On Science and Academia](https://onscienceandacademia.org/). This is by far the largest online meeting place for independent scientists to my knowledge. IGDORE membership is not required to participate. I am not a member of IGDORE, and I have seen others with traditional university affiliations participate as well.
I've found the website useful to meet like-minded people, and I believe they would be receptive to requests to collaborate on a particular idea.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There are organizations for independent researchers. Such organization is **NCIS**, the **National Coalition of Independent Scholars**, which is a US based organization providing resources (scholarships, a personal website, email, community...etc.) for people (internationally) pursuing independent researcher goals.
You can read more on their website: <https://www.ncis.org/membership-benefits>
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/24
| 571
| 2,457
|
<issue_start>username_0: Hi Google Scholar changes my profile into Thai language, how do I change it back? My Google account language is English. I contacted Google several times but never got any response: Google seems don't have any client service, disappointed...
---
Thank you very much @Anton @GoodDeeds @ <NAME>.
I tried the way shown by Anton and find my own language setting is already English. I also know the way to manually change the display languages by GoodDeeds. The problem I encountered is that whenever other people searching my name in Google, my Google Scholar profile will be popped up, which shows only in Thai. I hope to find a way to let Google Scholar automatically display the languages in English as what they did before. The main purpose is to help others to read my profile in English. This problem happened about one year ago, I contacted two or three times Google through certain online feedback form, but was never replied and the problem was never corrected. I will probably try to use Twiter or Facebook to contact Google<issue_comment>username_1: Visit your GS profile, and go to settings section, where you will be able to handle Languages. Direct link is: [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_settings?hl=en#1)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You can change your language preferences in your settings, as has already been mentioned in the other answer. In general, however, if you come across a profile in a different language (for example, via Google Search), or if you are logged out / don't have an account, you can change the language by modifying the URL of the profile page.
To do this, just add the query parameter `hl=en` at the end of the URL (replace `en` appropriately for viewing in a different language). For example, change
```
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=
```
to
```
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=&hl=en
```
for viewing the profile in English. Usually a language is already specified in the URL via this parameter, so you could either override it by appending a new value to the end or fix it by modifying the existing string.
Also note that following an URL that already has a language specified will override your settings. So if you click on a profile from Google Search that contains the `hl=fr` parameter, the profile will load in French even if you have set your language preference to English, and this can be fixed as described above.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/24
| 456
| 1,903
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing my paper's (social science) methodology part and it consists of several steps that I express mathematically. However, I have a feeling that one of the steps might be better explained if I also add some kind of an example to it right after formulas.
How acceptable is it in academia? Generally, does it mean that I have to explain my methods in a way they do not need an extra explanation?
I intend to publish this paper (maybe this is irrelevant, adding as extra info)<issue_comment>username_1: Visit your GS profile, and go to settings section, where you will be able to handle Languages. Direct link is: [here](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_settings?hl=en#1)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You can change your language preferences in your settings, as has already been mentioned in the other answer. In general, however, if you come across a profile in a different language (for example, via Google Search), or if you are logged out / don't have an account, you can change the language by modifying the URL of the profile page.
To do this, just add the query parameter `hl=en` at the end of the URL (replace `en` appropriately for viewing in a different language). For example, change
```
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=
```
to
```
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=&hl=en
```
for viewing the profile in English. Usually a language is already specified in the URL via this parameter, so you could either override it by appending a new value to the end or fix it by modifying the existing string.
Also note that following an URL that already has a language specified will override your settings. So if you click on a profile from Google Search that contains the `hl=fr` parameter, the profile will load in French even if you have set your language preference to English, and this can be fixed as described above.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/24
| 1,242
| 5,437
|
<issue_start>username_0: Many conferences in my field use two-phase reviewing: in the first phase, 2-3 reviewers review the paper; their reviews are made available to the authors; the authors are given a chance to respond; and then in the second phase, the reviewers read the authors' response and the program chairs might optionally solicit additional reviews.
If a paper receives poor reviews after the first phase, so that it looks like the paper is likely to be rejected, is it ethical to withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere, without making significant changes?
I read [Ethical implications of withdrawing a paper during the rebuttal phase and submitting it somewhere else](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/148375), which asks about a similar question, but I am interested in the specific case where the authors were well-intended (they submitted to the first conference with the legitimate hope it would be accepted) but do not plan to make significant revisions before re-submitting -- a case that is not covered by the answers there. For instance, it is not uncommon to submit to a selective conference in hopes that it will be accepted, discover that the reviewers don't consider it strong enough for publication there, and then consider submitting to a less selective conference. (So it's not that the paper is flawed, but it isn't strong enough in its current form.)<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on the nature of the feedback.
**Clear no:** If the reviewers noted severe shortcomings such as objective technical flaws or omissions of significant related work, not addressing the feedback seems a clear-cut ethical violation, as the authors would now misrepresent the soundness/novelty of their work despite their better knowledge.
**Gray area:** If the reviewers struggled to understand the paper due to presentation issues, one might argue that not addressing this feedback would lead to a wasteful use of a scarce community resource (reviewer time).
**Clear yes:** A type of feedback that would not require addressing is non-actionable, subjective feedback ("Your technique only does X, but I would prefer to see a technique that does Y").
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There is absolutely no ethical concern or constraint at all here. The reviews you get in academia for such works are a gift to the community and to you. You have complete control over the paper until you give up your rights to it. The reviewers aren't paid by the conferences (or journals). If I as a reviewer help you improve a paper you have submitted to conference A and it later appears at conference B instead, everyone has gained. And you aren't bound to take my advice. There is no contract to that effect. If I review your paper, I get no rights to take over its content or ideas.
Moreover, it may be that the paper without change is actually appropriate elsewhere and the reviews were colored to some extent by the nature of the conference.
Most *academic* conferences aren't held as profit making concerns and nearly everyone involved is a volunteer (some support staff may be paid). It is a service we do th the idea of scholarship itself, nothing more.
If I give you a gift, it is yours to use as you like or not and welcome. You have taken nothing that wasn't given freely.
Over the course of your life you have gotten a lot of advice. Some of it you even solicited. But much of it you probably ignored. It was advice, nothing more. Use it if it is valuable.
---
While there are no ethical concerns, there are some practical ones. The sets of reviewers in the various CS conferences overlap somewhat. And if you got particular reviewer for one, there is a non-zero chance the same person will come up again, especially for topics with few available reviewers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I am a reviewer for a top-tier conference in my field to which thousands of submissions are received every year. **It is NOT ethical to resubmit without revisions when you know from the reviewers that the manuscript has flaws and needs further work.** The review burden is really heavy on us and **we do it for "free", not as a gift to you as @username_2 said, but for our hope to "help improve science"**. If you take the reviewers' advice, ignore it, and submit the same manuscript somewhere else, you have (1) wasted reviewers' time and added an unnecessary burden to their already hectic life, (2) betrayed your conscience as a scientist whose main goal should be to build and improve upon our current knowledge. I have noticed, in many cases, all it takes for the authors to improve their paper is to spend a few hours of work to improve their benchmarking and analysis. Yet, they opt for resubmission of the same manuscript to a lower-tier conference. That is not helpful to scientific community and certainly not helpful to you as a person to grow as a scientist and reach higher. I suggest you reading this post in reddit for getting the perspective of a reviewer (I am not the author of this post): <https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/fkgfax/d_confessions_from_an_icml_reviewer/>.
**Even if you choose to withdraw (which I can understand), please do consider the reviews and improve your paper. Don't follow the "publish or perish" culture that is poisoning the academia right now and always submit your work when, to the best of your knowledge, it is complete.**
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/24
| 538
| 2,508
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently, I have submitted a manuscript for publication consideration into a journal (impact factor: 2). However, I realized that in the final PDF proof the cover letter is missing.
I think I have forgotten to include it.
Does this mean that the article would be rejected or will not be processed?<issue_comment>username_1: It is doubtful that they would reject it out of hand, but possible they won't process it as an incomplete submission. If the submission was through an online system, see if you can update your submission. You might also contact the editor directly and ask for advice, providing you can get contact information.
But, failing that, I suspect that it will be noted and you might be contacted.
If it is rejected (desk rejected), it would probably be done quickly and then you can take further action. You might be told why it was rejected and you might then be able to resubmit.
I suspect that such things happen frequently enough that the journal has procedures for dealing with it. You may learn something quite soon, perhaps directly and perhaps via the submission system itself.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is very unlikely for the paper to be rejected solely for the reason of the missing cover letter.
---
It is highly likely that you are going to be contacted (using an automated system or personal email) about an incomplete submission or the submission process itself will continue without the cover letter at all.
I would say, missing a cover letter might have an impact on the following:
1. The potential delay between the journal realizing that the submission is incomplete, communicating that to you, and you resubmitting.
2. The cover letter can help to assign the associate editor/track editor and, to some extent, select the reviewers. If the cover letter is not present in the submission, it might either take slightly longer or lead to some time/choice inefficiencies that could potentially be avoided.
3. Sometimes, the cover letter contains substantial necessary information. Say, there was a previous submission to this or another journal some time ago, and you want to inform the editor about that and point out some crucial details that are new in this submission. Or explain why the presence of additional/supplementary materials for your paper is necessary for the review.
In that case, leaving out the cover letter simply does not help to build your case in the best possible way.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/05/25
| 806
| 3,463
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have started my 1 year postdoc in math three months ago, of course after 1 month the university was closed and I have to work at home, due to Corona Virus. Recently, I want to apply for another postdoc position in another country. One of the required documents is a letter of recommendation from current mentor. I do not know whether it is reasonable to ask a recommendation letter from my current mentor, because I have just worked with him for a short time. Does he give me a recommendation letter?<issue_comment>username_1: If your contract is only a year long, your mentor is likely expecting you to be applying for jobs very soon. I don't think they would be surprised; in fact, they should encourage you. I would not hesitate in asking for a reference.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: One-year postdocs are weird. At least in the US (I guess you may not be based on the timing of this question), if you are looking for another academic job, then your next round of job applications might be due sometime between 2-5 months after you start your postdoc, and you probably want to ask for letters at least 1 month before the first due dates. This means, global pandemic or not, your postdoc mentor can only get to know you so well before it's time to ask for a letter. (And just because there's a global pandemic, doesn't mean you can maintain communication with your mentor.)
My advice is: **ask for letters from people who can best evaluate your work**, for the kinds of jobs you're applying for. So the answer to your question depends a lot on your situation and your relationship with your current mentor.
For research letters for academic jobs, you should ask a selection of people who can give a good overall picture of your research spectrum to date (maybe you've only worked in one focused area, but maybe you've worked on several different things, and you don't want to end up asking only people who can talk about aspect X of your research and all ignore aspect Y). I assume you are still young, rather than having postdoc-ed for 10 year now---once you've been out awhile and have a larger body of work, you want to focus on your most important and your recent work.
That said, there are a couple rules of thumb to balance against this:
* It's standard to ask your PhD advisor for a letter, at least if you're a recent PhD. If you've done multiple years of postdocs, it's also common to have at least 1 letter from a postdoc mentor, but it also doesn't look weird to not have one because postdoc mentors may or may not know your research better than senior collaborators, experts elsewhere, etc. The point is that you don't need to ask a postdoc mentor to write you a letter just because they are your postdoc mentor.
* It looks better if your letters come from both a variety of institutions and well-known experts in your field, to show that your work is well regarded by (at least a small part of) the community. So if all of your other letters would be coming from your PhD institution, then I would definitely try asking your postdoc mentor (or think of some other experts, who you may or may not know personally, but are familiar with your work--e.g., maybe they've cited your papers or asked questions at a talk you gave). As long as you have a decent relationship, and your mentor is familiar with some of your work, I would expect your mentor to be willing to write a letter.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/25
| 2,655
| 10,947
|
<issue_start>username_0: After experiencing a lot of stress during my last undergraduate semester (and an episode of depression), I lashed out at a professor. I had made several rather foolish attempts to impress her and then "freaked out" and wrote to the Department Chair, complaining not only about the unanswered email but also about her "tone" causing me anxiety.
I later met with the dean to explain that my anxiety disorder was out of control when I had written to the chair. I also e-mailed the professor to apologize -- I mentioned my anxiety disorder, but also reiterated my request for a letter of recommendation (which in hindsight may have made me look insincere). The professor did not respond. I then went to every level of administration trying to get my grievance dismissed (and the chance to sincerely apologize to the prof.) but no one would reach out to her. Instead, I was told that "she was not obligated to respond to me but that I shouldn't take her lack of response as a sign of "ill will." Long story short, the university eventually sent me a cease and desist letter.
Ordinarily, I could understand a professor resenting a student who complained the department chair/dean, but my behavior was caused by a mental health condition, and I was genuinely remorseful and did everything I could to rectify the situation. So, I want to ask: is it unreasonable to hope for forgiveness? Is there any way to repair this relationship?
\*The professor was living out of state during this time, so I couldn't schedule a visit during office hours to discuss the project/the letter etc. Email was our only means of communication.<issue_comment>username_1: It may help to remember that professors are only human. You might be looking for "forgiveness" or "justice," but professors are neither priests nor judges; they are researchers. Now they are moving on with their lives, and so must you; for better or worse, this incident is done.
Bearing in mind that professors are human, I think many of your questions can be answered by looking at this case from *your professor's* point of view.
* The best case outcome (for her) is that you do not create any more problems. You really have nothing to offer her, since she is retiring and will not be hiring students, etc.
* The worst case outcome for her is that you continue your erratic behavior and create more stress and wasted time.
Given this, her behavior is quite logical. If she does not engage and leaves the cease-and-desist in place, then she is guaranteed to get the best case scenario. If she re-engages with you, she risks another incident (and the first question her dean and/or counsel will ask is "why did you re-engage??!?!")
>
> she was not obligated to respond to me but that I shouldn't take her response as a sign of ill will.
>
>
>
This sounds about right. Given your genuine remorse and mental health issues, she likely understands and wishes you the best. At the same time, she has nothing to gain by engaging with you further. I would probably have a similar reaction.
>
> Even if you forgave them, would you write them a letter of recommendation if their work was good?
>
>
>
This may be a bridge too far.
* As discussed above, the professor has nothing to gain by engaging with you further. Writing you an LoR definitely falls under the category of "engaging further."
* You may feel that your academic work "deserves" a LoR, and this should be separate from your personal issues with the professor. However, this is not how it works: faculty members are not obliged to write LoRs, and many of them see it as a "favor."
* If she did write a letter, she would have to describe the above incidents. These incidents are highly relevant, and it would be inappropriate for her to pass over such important information. Thus, even if she were well-meaning, it would be difficult for her to write a letter that would strengthen your application. Given this, you're probably better off without her letter in any case. She has likely come to the same conclusion, which further explains her silence.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: **TL;DR**: There is one principle in asking forgiveness. If the other side decides to grant it, they will do it under the premise that, from now on, things will change. You have to convince them that this incident will not repeat. This takes time which you didn't give them.
By pushing them into situations which you are interested in (adopting you as grad student, helping you in the conference/project, etc.), you are essentially pressurising "your" prof into doing what you want; when that didn't happen, or the response - which might have been irritable, we do not know - was not quite as gentle, you fired off an official complaint.
Essentially, from the perspective of the prof, you turned part of your anxiety into theirs (no one likes to be getting a letter from the dean with a complaint with potential disciplinary consequences, not even if they are about to retire). In addition, from their perspective, you imposed your agenda on them with the outlook of negative consequences for them if they didn't comply. It does not matter that the complaint was about their tone - maybe their tone was a response to your pressuring, we do not know. So, in their mind, there will be a link between them not complying with you and your complaint, whether it was intended by you or not.
Now, having anxiety disorder may have caused this whole avalanche to be not under your control and people nowadays have a higher degree of understanding for this.
A genuine apology can be accepted when it's clear that you have understood the problem; not only of complaining to the department, but in fact, of creating pressure on the prof to further your agendas.
By immediately connecting your apology with the LOR request, you nullify the effect of the apology: you signal that you still pursue single-mindedly your interests and the apology appears just to be wallpapering over this. I quite understand that this may not be the case, or a consequence of your anxiety; but this is how it comes across. This is a "Yes, but" apology, in the sense that you "get done with" the apology, put it behind you and continue with business-as-usual. Such an apology fails to convince that things will not continue as in the past and a situation like that will not repeat.
After an apology, you need to give it a lot of time to heal. As with a damaged limb, it takes time before you can use it again, if at all.
[Note that I have only talked about the human factor and not at all about the legal ramifications of the matter which creates considerable additional potential complexities.]
**What to do**
I think in the present case, you lost the lead and I do not see much point to pursue it further. I am not sure in the particular situation whether you had any serious lead in the first place, as your favourite prof clearly did not want to work with you. You have tried to convince them for a bit, but overpersistence is impressive only in movies. In real life, it creates the opposite effect, especially in our times where people have far more opportunities than time to pursue them. Why should they embark on a collaboration that they can expect a lot of difficulties and pressures from?
In sum:
* Important for you is to understand the other person.
* They have an agenda, too, and you need to respect it.
* Do not turn your anxiety into theirs.
* Do not turn your problems/agendas into theirs.
* An apology is message that you accept that you did wrong, not a ticket for a second round. Maybe there will be one at some point, maybe not.
Reduce the frequency drastically by which you ask people to do stuff for you (You have not only pressured your prof, but also the department with your repeated requests - "continuously trying" - to take the grievance down). Only send every (4th, 5th, 6th, depends on frequency) mail you want to send. Note that your department has already put you on arms length with the cease and desist letter - you need to convince them that you will not proceed with your current strategy; the only way to do so is by "doing less", especially "pressuring less", not "more". Do not try to inundate them with explanations how you understood the problem now.
Accept that you will have to select a different person to work with if you do not wish (or are unable to) to change departments for a fresh start.
And, apart from above short-term advice, of course, as you probably will already do so, getting professional support to help you overcome anxiety will be the medium/long-term strategy to prepare you to avoid such situations in the future. Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: While I cannot relate to your story in the academia setting, it is something I can in my personal life, which for myself I attribute to behaviours like rumination, which in turn all stem from emotional dysregulation.
As others have stressed, since every subsequent engagement with the professor has led to more stress and anxiety for you, that isn't the solution going forward, for you or the professor.
I would use this situation now as a valuable opportunity to practice the skill of letting go of a conflict, even if it was not intended to become one on your part, and you would like to make some sort of amends.
**I don't think the academia SE will ultimately be helpful because with an anxiety disorder, it isn't defeated by logic or reasoning, the real work is in engaging with your emotions. In fact, I would go as far as to say that posting this question is probably another way for you to ruminate over the issue, feeding the anxiety.**
That being said, if you have a therapist, now would be the time for a session, and if not I recommend you find one, because they're best equipped to help you process this and equip you with skills to manage the anxiety.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: What does the professor have to gain by further engaging with you? You have proven to be trouble, to the degree of her getting an official investigation for no good reason at all. You continue raising a ruckus with everybody who does not give you just the kind of response you are angling for. It's not a matter of having good will or bad will towards you as a person: professors have enough pupils that developing relations to a person's character is just not on the agenda.
Stop digging yourself in deeper and carrying a big sign with flashing letters "here comes trouble" in front of you. Get professional help. And make sure that you consult that professional help first whenever you feel the urge to contact official channels. Asking for a "letter of recommendation" at this stage in your relations is somewhere between ridiculous and blackmail. If you manage to have a few years of normal relations with your prof, there may be some sense in trying, but certainly not now.
Upvotes: 5
|
2020/05/25
| 1,903
| 8,175
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc supervising a PhD student in Computer Science.
Unfortunately, I have a lot on my plate and I cannot help him with the solution of the technical problems (they require a lot of time to solve them). The PhD student often gives me some tasks and I execute them to help him go forward with his research.
What are the suggestions you have? Should I talk about it with my Professor and maybe find a more suitable advisor for him?
Honestly, in my experience, I did not meet many PhD students who receive technical help from a Postdoc, but I could be wrong of course.
I would just like to do the best for him and for me.
Thanks for your ideas.<issue_comment>username_1: Strategically, it might be a good idea to prioritize helping the PhD student. You might gain some second authorships on papers, credit for PhD student supervision (which you will need for your next career step), and make a potential collaborator for life. It's a win-win situation.
>
> Honestly, in my experience, I did not meet many PhD students who receive technical help from a Postdoc, but I could be wrong of course.
>
>
>
It's a sign of a well-managed group if PhD students have access to experienced people who can give them technical guidance. In a small group, that person can be the PI. In a big group, PIs often hire post-docs to do that job for them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From the perspective of a masters student, so bare that in mind. I think the question you would want to ask yourself is the following: "Does the student *need* your help with technical solutions or *want* your help with technical solutions?" Assuming it's *need*, and depending on the situational context, and assuming that it is not an urgent matter, then you could try to help that student by helping them to think through the technical aspects of the problem or perhaps providing a resource that you are familiar with because it sounds that you are at least familiar with the material. If the student is in the *want* category, then you will need to think about a way to make that student understand that expedience is not always the best path forward.
This could also be a learning opportunity for you as well to figure out how you can be a better advisor in the relationship and in this moment. It could be as simple as telling the student that, if they put some serious effort into the problem, that you believe in their capabilities to solve their problem - a boost of confidence from a peer can really go a long way for a student.
But the student-advisor is a relationship that cuts both ways, and like any relationship, requires a significant degree of communication and transparency to make things work. If you took on the responsibility to advise the student, then I believe you have an obligation to that student to communicate openly with them. But again, I think from a students perspective, the advisor is there to help students work through a struggle and adapt a researchers mentality.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: IMHO a key question here is what level of technical problems we're talking about.
* A PhD student is fully qualified professional (via their MSc or BSc) in their field.
+ Thus, the student should be expected to solve the level of technical problems that they could also encounter in their (hypothetical) every-day-life as working professional on their own. One actually expects someone who pursues a PhD to be above average in their field.
This does not mean that they should not ask, but they should do what is required after high-level, general guidance.
+ There may be exceptions, e.g. if delicate machinery is involved so the institute guideline is that a student will not touch the instrument without someone experienced supervising them until they have suffient experience.
This seems not to be the situation here - but it may be worth while checking with the student whether they come from a group where they weren't allowed to do anything on their own.
+ OTOH, if we're talking interdisciplinary projects, a student cannot be expected to perform at such a level in a field that is not theirs and in which they neither have working experience.
In such a situation there should be a plan how to get them to the level that is needed, and how much they need to be taught (and by whom) vs. how much they need to catch up by themselves. This is something that should be discussed with student and official supervisor.
+ Also many e.g. laboratory\* techniques are best learned in dedicated teaching sessions. This is in no way restricted to PhD *students*, it's the same with experienced professionals/researchers who want to learn new techniques.
\* I'm chemist, but I'd tend to approach e.g. version control along the same lines.
* I've occasionally encountered phD students (who no doubt will become great managers) that trained their supervising postdocs extremely well. To the point where everyone else was commenting about student's tame postdoc who'd jump as soon as student would command "jump".
>
> The PhD student often gives me some tasks and I execute them
>
>
>
rings a bell in that respect.
One sentence/idiom that've found helpful in avoiding to get into such a relationship is refusing to do *their* work with "Thinking [working] yourself is what makes you clever [experienced]."
* (I may say, though, that I more frequently encountered shy students who did not ask and would be stuck for far too long.)
---
Once you know what *their* work is (should be), you can happily do *your part* but refuse to do *their work*. If your part is still not doable due to your overall workloady, that is something you need to bring up with your supervisor (the classical advise is when they tell you e.g. to teach the student techique xy, to acknowledge by "Sure. What other task should I postpone or drop instead?".
---
IMHO supervising (including teaching) PhD students is a normal part of a postdoc job.
Still, discussing what in detail is expected of you in that respect is something you can and should discuss with your professor, but at the moment the question does not sound to me as if the student should get some other supervisor (who'd as like as not be just as drowned in work as you are).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: As I said in one of the comments, I was in that student situation somehow. My suggestions would be:
* Try to help the student to integrate in the group (if you're somehow part of the same research group)
* Try to help the student with tasks that could take you a day or two, that would otherwise take him/her ages... (just because he/she doesn't have the necessary experience). It's very frustrating. This will be like a non-zero-sum game, from the game theory perspective; the student will obviously win time and confidence, but you can also gain experience (and maybe you will even understand things better), there's also the gain of the group because it should be in the group interest to have very qualified people.
* Try to communicate with him/her. Communication is always the key. Of course you will always have a lot on your plate (and so do other people) but "teaching duties" or student supervision should not be neglected either. This should be a serios task on its own. Successfully supervising a student shows that you can manage your time properly, that you understand your field, that you can take responsabilities.
* Try to leave your personal problems at home (husband/wife/kids related issues). It's simply not professional not to be able to separate the job problems from family problems.
* Try to discuss with your Professor to find someone else (maybe more prepared or maybe not that busy as you) to replace you if you think you cannot handle the situation. Definitely it's not okay to just leave the student drown; otherwise I am definitely sure that the student will just leave the group in the end anyway.
Of course all I am saying is valid only if the student demands are reasonable. You should not do his/her work, you should just help him/her here and there with some advice, some details.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/25
| 1,889
| 8,117
|
<issue_start>username_0: After graduating in February, I was waiting for my work permit to start my one-year postdoc position. Finally, after 2 months delay (due to COVID-19), I have got my permit today and now I can start the paperwork to have my position finalized. However, now my postdoc advisor informed me that there's a change in the financial situation due to an industrial funding partner retracting their contribution and I can be supported for only 6 months. So, now I am clueless on what to do about this.
What should I do? I am going to start applying to positions again from next week. Any other advice for me?<issue_comment>username_1: Strategically, it might be a good idea to prioritize helping the PhD student. You might gain some second authorships on papers, credit for PhD student supervision (which you will need for your next career step), and make a potential collaborator for life. It's a win-win situation.
>
> Honestly, in my experience, I did not meet many PhD students who receive technical help from a Postdoc, but I could be wrong of course.
>
>
>
It's a sign of a well-managed group if PhD students have access to experienced people who can give them technical guidance. In a small group, that person can be the PI. In a big group, PIs often hire post-docs to do that job for them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From the perspective of a masters student, so bare that in mind. I think the question you would want to ask yourself is the following: "Does the student *need* your help with technical solutions or *want* your help with technical solutions?" Assuming it's *need*, and depending on the situational context, and assuming that it is not an urgent matter, then you could try to help that student by helping them to think through the technical aspects of the problem or perhaps providing a resource that you are familiar with because it sounds that you are at least familiar with the material. If the student is in the *want* category, then you will need to think about a way to make that student understand that expedience is not always the best path forward.
This could also be a learning opportunity for you as well to figure out how you can be a better advisor in the relationship and in this moment. It could be as simple as telling the student that, if they put some serious effort into the problem, that you believe in their capabilities to solve their problem - a boost of confidence from a peer can really go a long way for a student.
But the student-advisor is a relationship that cuts both ways, and like any relationship, requires a significant degree of communication and transparency to make things work. If you took on the responsibility to advise the student, then I believe you have an obligation to that student to communicate openly with them. But again, I think from a students perspective, the advisor is there to help students work through a struggle and adapt a researchers mentality.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: IMHO a key question here is what level of technical problems we're talking about.
* A PhD student is fully qualified professional (via their MSc or BSc) in their field.
+ Thus, the student should be expected to solve the level of technical problems that they could also encounter in their (hypothetical) every-day-life as working professional on their own. One actually expects someone who pursues a PhD to be above average in their field.
This does not mean that they should not ask, but they should do what is required after high-level, general guidance.
+ There may be exceptions, e.g. if delicate machinery is involved so the institute guideline is that a student will not touch the instrument without someone experienced supervising them until they have suffient experience.
This seems not to be the situation here - but it may be worth while checking with the student whether they come from a group where they weren't allowed to do anything on their own.
+ OTOH, if we're talking interdisciplinary projects, a student cannot be expected to perform at such a level in a field that is not theirs and in which they neither have working experience.
In such a situation there should be a plan how to get them to the level that is needed, and how much they need to be taught (and by whom) vs. how much they need to catch up by themselves. This is something that should be discussed with student and official supervisor.
+ Also many e.g. laboratory\* techniques are best learned in dedicated teaching sessions. This is in no way restricted to PhD *students*, it's the same with experienced professionals/researchers who want to learn new techniques.
\* I'm chemist, but I'd tend to approach e.g. version control along the same lines.
* I've occasionally encountered phD students (who no doubt will become great managers) that trained their supervising postdocs extremely well. To the point where everyone else was commenting about student's tame postdoc who'd jump as soon as student would command "jump".
>
> The PhD student often gives me some tasks and I execute them
>
>
>
rings a bell in that respect.
One sentence/idiom that've found helpful in avoiding to get into such a relationship is refusing to do *their* work with "Thinking [working] yourself is what makes you clever [experienced]."
* (I may say, though, that I more frequently encountered shy students who did not ask and would be stuck for far too long.)
---
Once you know what *their* work is (should be), you can happily do *your part* but refuse to do *their work*. If your part is still not doable due to your overall workloady, that is something you need to bring up with your supervisor (the classical advise is when they tell you e.g. to teach the student techique xy, to acknowledge by "Sure. What other task should I postpone or drop instead?".
---
IMHO supervising (including teaching) PhD students is a normal part of a postdoc job.
Still, discussing what in detail is expected of you in that respect is something you can and should discuss with your professor, but at the moment the question does not sound to me as if the student should get some other supervisor (who'd as like as not be just as drowned in work as you are).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: As I said in one of the comments, I was in that student situation somehow. My suggestions would be:
* Try to help the student to integrate in the group (if you're somehow part of the same research group)
* Try to help the student with tasks that could take you a day or two, that would otherwise take him/her ages... (just because he/she doesn't have the necessary experience). It's very frustrating. This will be like a non-zero-sum game, from the game theory perspective; the student will obviously win time and confidence, but you can also gain experience (and maybe you will even understand things better), there's also the gain of the group because it should be in the group interest to have very qualified people.
* Try to communicate with him/her. Communication is always the key. Of course you will always have a lot on your plate (and so do other people) but "teaching duties" or student supervision should not be neglected either. This should be a serios task on its own. Successfully supervising a student shows that you can manage your time properly, that you understand your field, that you can take responsabilities.
* Try to leave your personal problems at home (husband/wife/kids related issues). It's simply not professional not to be able to separate the job problems from family problems.
* Try to discuss with your Professor to find someone else (maybe more prepared or maybe not that busy as you) to replace you if you think you cannot handle the situation. Definitely it's not okay to just leave the student drown; otherwise I am definitely sure that the student will just leave the group in the end anyway.
Of course all I am saying is valid only if the student demands are reasonable. You should not do his/her work, you should just help him/her here and there with some advice, some details.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/25
| 419
| 1,796
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have noticed that sometimes when you submit an article to a journal it will ask if there is someone in particular who you do not want to referee the paper.
I was wondering what the reason for this option was. Is it simply to avoid a conflict of interest or if you really do not get on with the person to the point where you do not wish them to review something you have written? If you put someone down as someone you do not want to be a referee, will the journal think you are scared of that person's critical appraisal of the document and actually send it to that person or will they genuinely avoid sending it to that person for review?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that sending the paper to a person you indicated that you didn't want as a referee after they ask for that information would be unethical. No reputable journal would (or should) do anything like that.
I don't know precisely why any particular journal has any particular policy, but perhaps they have just had enough experience with people making such suggestions on their own, that they now make it routine to ask. It is a courtesy, nothing more.
But the author(s) can have any motive they please here, from "I don't trust the person" to "I'm keeping this private from them for a while". If they don't ask for a reason, don't provide one.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This happens when the author (or applicant in the case of a grant) believes that some likely referee might not act fairly for some personal reasons. In my experience this is usually some history in these disputes. There might also be conflicts of interests.
Often there is guidance on who can be excluded, and the person must provide some measure (sometimes merger) of justification.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/26
| 1,028
| 4,053
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a paper that has never been submitted elsewhere. Now my advisor thinks that this Elsevier journal called *Chaos, Solitons and Fractals* (CSF) is a good fit. A cursory search shows that this journal has had [a history of misconduct involving the chief editor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Chaos,_Solitons_&_Fractals). When I brought this up, my advisor told me that this happened over ten years ago and the journal seemed to be doing okay after the relaunch. He tells me that his peer had a good experience with them and peer review seemed to be at work.
Obviously, I don’t want to argue over things like this with my advisor. After all my paper might not even get published there. But I am also worried about ruining the credibility of my work given the reputation of this journal. Should I go with it? Is it okay to publish in a journal with such a history?<issue_comment>username_1: Why not? A quick look at the [controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Chaos,_Solitons_&_Fractals) indicates that the disagreements were entirely around the editor-in-chief publishing his own papers in the journal, papers which were lightly reviewed + indulged in a lot of self-citation. This means:
* It's only the editor-in-chief's papers that are affected; none of the papers by other authors published in the journal are;
* Once the editor-in-chief changed, it's no longer a problem.
So even if the editor-in-chief was in the wrong (which is not certain), it should be fine for you to publish there.
If it still concerns you, note that Clarivate Analytics / Web of science still has the journal indexed, i.e. they think the journal still meets their standards, and it has an impact factor of (as of time of writing) 3.064 which is good for the field.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I have absolutely no idea about the journal in question, so I will provide a more general answer on how to guide the issue. I agree with the comment by @<NAME>.
You are a co-author, which means that you need to agree with the choice of journals. No matter how experienced the advisor is, and regardless of being correct (he may be perfectly right!), he does not have a carte blanche.
I would suggest a very thorough search around that journal, especially on the publications of the last 10 years. Rumours and hearsay, or even solid reporting, can only provide so much information, so try to dissern any pattern between the journal, authors and institutions. Something might be out of place, such as the turnover time of certain papers. If you have a personal connection with someone who has published there, it is worth asking. An email to an unknown, however, may seem strange unless you find a hook such as a social media post.
Also, flat-out refusing to submit is counter-productive. You should try and find 2-3 journals with relevant interests and comparable reputability, which may not translate to an equivalent impact factor. You can press for your favourite, especially if you have cited papers from that journal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't know to what extent the journal has recovered its reputation (I was aware of the controversy, but it's not remotely in my area). However, a good place to look is the [Scimago journal rankings](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=25347&tip=sid&clean=0), which gives you quite a lot of information. In particular, looking at the graph of "cites per doc" vs "external cites", you can see that the steep rise in citations during the period 2003-09 was largely driven by an increase in internal citations. These dropped off completely in 2010, and in recent years there has been a rise in citations driven almost entirely by external citations. That looks to me like a sign of a journal which is strengthening its reputation.
But, as others have said in comments, the best course is to discuss it further with your supervisor, who is likely to have more specific insights into how it is currently regarded in your field.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/26
| 568
| 2,610
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it professional enough to share personal worries with your research team and your supervisor where you are pursuing doctoral studies away from home and your hometown has been affected by a natural disaster like a tornado or a super cyclone in the context of your reduced productivity and lesser focus? What would be the recommended mode of sharing such information - in person or over emails?
If they do not react to your statement, does that mean that they see such a case as an excuse only and fail to understand the effect it has had on the doctoral student?<issue_comment>username_1: If these are people you must work closely with then it is wise to let them know. But everyone will react differently. Most, but not all, people recognize the impact of such things on productivity. Most, but not all, will give you some "room" to recover.
But it is better that you inform them, to avoid their making assumptions that might be incorrect.
Perhaps you can think about informing different people differently, depending on your assessment of them and your relationship. For some, an email is enough. But for your advisor, a meeting might be better if it can be arranged.
And don't worry if they don't react. Some people just have an impoverished emotional life and don't connect to others. Some people just have poor people skills. That can even be for medical reasons.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would call it not only professional but close to mandatory. A supervisor has to be informed of special circumstances or reasons for specific behaviour in order to manage the team effectively, set realistic goals, assure the people are comfortable and to show basic human decency. You do not have to share something that makes you feel uncomfortable, and do not have to provide a lot of detail on personal circumstances. I think it is best to do so at an early stage, saying there is issue X and you would appreciate some consideration, rather than have to explain possible poor performance later after frictions have appeared.
Suffice to say that many academics have friends and family outside their country of work and are personally aware of what it means to be away from them in a time of need. I cannot imagine many supervisors who would not be sympathetic to such a discussion, or would not appreciate the honesty. In practice this may not mean more than a pat on the shoulder and some more relaxed time, but even that can be important. If the conditions allow, a leave or temporary interruption of studies can also be warranted.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/26
| 1,187
| 4,846
|
<issue_start>username_0: I completed an internship at a company. During the internship I worked on a generic and publically well-known problem statement and delivered its solution to the company.
After the internship, I wrote a research paper under the guidance of my college professor on a similar problem statement (a kind of subset of the problem statement) with a very different solution as compared to the solution delivered during the internship. The paper was accepted at an A+ international conference. When the company got to know regarding the paper, they demanded an acknowledgment towards them in the paper.
But I feel that the only role of the company was to give me the problem statement. The paper was made possible only because of me and my professor's hard work. And the solution developed by me during the internship was also due to my skill and hard work.
So, how legitimate is the demand of an acknowledgment by the company, should anyone demand such acknowledgment in someone's work? Am I obliged to acknowledge the company in my paper? As an ethical practice I can show gratitude towards the company by mentioning in the paper that "the company gave me an opportunity to work on the statement etc". But it should be my decision that I want to or not?
What are the consequences if I don't acknowledge the company.<issue_comment>username_1: At least in my field, Acknowledgements are generally regarded a fairly informal mechanism. There are few rules dictating what must and mustn't go in there. However, given that mentions in the acknowledgements don't dilute formal credit, I see no reason not to be as generous, gratuitous and grateful as possible in an acknowledgements section. Its not like adding an author, it costs you nothing and makes you look like a better person. Why wouldn't you?
Also there is probably an argument that you spent time thinking and learning about the general problem domain while being supported by the company.
I recommend adding something like "The author acknowledges BigCorp PLC for first bringing the problem to the authors attention and [financial?] support for work on related approaches", to the acknowledgements.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> What are the consequences if I don't acknowledge the company.
>
>
>
**You just burn bridges if you do that** (you basically behave *socially* wrongly). **For future conferences, it will hurt your professional reputation**
FWIW, any European funded [H2020](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development#Horizon_2020) project contractually *requires* such an acknowledgement (at least in some footnote). AFAIK, [NSF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation) or [NASA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) or [ESA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency) funding -of semi-academic work- has similar rules.
>
> But I feel that the only role of the company was to give me the problem statement.
>
>
>
In Europe, that role alone is worth many thousands (or even millions) of €. Reports like [ITEA3](https://itea3.org/) roadmaps (or future [HorizonEurope](https://ec.europa.eu/info/horizon-europe-next-research-and-innovation-framework-programme_en) call for proposals) are exactly defining problems and inspiring funding of research proposals. The people writing them are paid, sometimes full-time. I guess that Indian people writing [Indian DST](https://dst.gov.in/call-for-proposals) call for proposals are paid too. Very probably, if you are happy enough to get funded for your research by them, you'll be contractually obliged to acknowledge such funding institutions.
In addition, research motivated by industrial needs is, in this decade, more professionally popular than unfunded research.
Suggestion: **acknowledge both the company and your professor** (unless he is a co-author).
FWIW, I tend to believe that lack of institutional acknowledgement in past submission related to [RefPerSys](https://refpersys.org/) (a not-yet-funded research project in AI) have been negatively evaluated.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd like to add to the so far excellent answers:
* Increases the reputation of the **company**, because they contributed to your research - even if you think in this case it wasn't much.
* Increases the reputation of the **field**, because the paper shows there is interest for it in the private sector. This might not be important in this subject, but a lot of fields seem to have to practical applications. Showing at least one company was interested disproves that assumption.
* Increases **your** and your **professor**'s reputation, and shows you are both available for practical research.
And - as already pointed out - this has no negative side, no cost, nothing.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/26
| 2,086
| 9,127
|
<issue_start>username_0: I pay close attention to how my rating scores/comments are like on the RateMyProfessor website. Very rarely I reported inappropriate comments (which violated site guidelines) for removals, and the average score has been decent (4.8).
Since last week, after I reported a comment (with improper language which violates the site guidelines), very suspiciously the same student (who is angry about their bad grade) has been trying to (even until now) leave 10+ **intentionally untrue, deceiving** comments with low scores.
My average has now been brought down to below 4.0. I've been frustrated because this severely compromised all **true** comments left by previous students. I reported this to the site and am still waiting for a response. Any suggestions?<issue_comment>username_1: As the comments suggest, just ignore it. You will always have disgruntled students even if you do a great job. Some will blame you for their own shortcomings.
But the best "defense" against such negative comments is the positive comments from those who think you served them well. If those appear also, then a reader can easily judge it for what it is.
If you want to "sabotage" such things, just point other students to the site, without comment. You don't need to "defend" yourself when your other students naturally do so themselves.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Let's assume that your primary concern for caring about your rating is that you want students to see you in a positive light for some reason that you hold dear. Further assume that this is personal for you, and you recognize that RateMyProf reviews do not hold much weight for your chances of tenure.
There are two very common scenarios that happen when the *average student* visits RateMyProf. It is typically your average student that will put weight on RateMyProf, and it is typically the average student that will spend time writing a review for you on RateMyProf, so keeping the average student in mind is important. I believe then that there are two types of profiles on RateMyProf that very accurately reflect how professors are when they put their teaching hats on (of course, sample size is huge here):
1. **You generally have a high score, positive comments, and a few comments that suggest you probably got a PhD in tormenting students in classrooms.**
The students will notice that the majority of comments and ratings suggest you are a great teacher, you care about your students, and most importantly you are good at teaching the *average student* (this seems to be the case you fall under). Students will accurately be able to flag the relatively small number of negative comments and assign those as problems on the part of the student writing that negative review. After all, there really is nothing to gain by students from writing a good review for you other than that they appreciated you as an instructor. On the other hand, in this scenario, the incentive to write you a bad review is driven by spiting you, and it's pretty easy for the average student to recognize when that is happening.
2. **You have a low to low-medium score, a record of bad-subpar reviews by the students, occasionally there are some shining reviews among all of the bad ones**
Students viewing this type of profile will probably be correct in their assessment of your inability to teach to the *average student*. Students looking at a profile like this will likely identify that, for some reason or another, your teaching style is not suitable for them and that students are probably being more truthful about their negative reviews then the outlier of the previous scenario. It is much more telling when many students write bad reviews, because it indicates a pattern of poor communication instead of an outlier. On the other hand, students looking at this type of profile will notice some of the 'glowing' outlier comments and probably recognize that those students are the ones that are either harder workers or are relatively gifted to their peers and would have succeeded anyways. To the average student, those great comments don't hold any value because it does not apply to them.
There are other scenarios that are more difficult to distinguish, particularly those of average score, because the lack of polarity makes it difficult to assess what is going on. But based on my experience as a student that has used RateMyProf to help me choose courses, and from many conversations I have had with friends in the fraternity/sorority system as well as other student organizations, many of the *average* students can accurately assess (with a sufficient sample size of reviews) whether a professor is going to be a good or bad educator/instructor for the average student.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You didn't ask a specific question, but I can give some suggestions that I hope help put the matter in perspective.
1. You are frustrated. Frustration is an emotion that's both legitimate and understandable in the situation you describe. Allow yourself to feel that very real emotion—but, while respecting its reality, recognizing that you can make choices independent of feeling the emotion.
2. You have acknowledged that the site's average rating does not have serious consequences for your career, and I suspect you also understand that the effect on readers of the site are also limited. So the stakes are not high here, which can be reassuring.
3. You have engaged with that site's official procedures for curating comments. You can't control the outcome of that engagement. So let them do whatever they do (obviously responding helpfully to any queries they send back) and otherwise turn your mind to things that you value and can affect.
4. You can't control what other people do, even a student who is acting maliciously. As above, you can choose to turn your mind to things that you value and can affect.
5. Letting go of things you can't change might feel unsatisfying. That's a perfectly legitimate way to feel. Regardless, you can choose to spend energy on other things. Easier said than done, sometimes, I know! but recognizing that *emotions don't have to be solved or overcome* is, I find, a great help in making choices when negative feelings are around.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Create your own review.
=======================
Briefly explain your teaching philosophy. Perhaps make an addendum: very briefly mention the disgruntled student's reviews. (I don't think it would look good to mention the exact rating though.) This is optional and just shows the data (rating) is falsely skewed.
If the RateMyProfessor staff haven't taken down that student's 10+ comments, they're also unlikely to take down your own comment. If I was a student looking at a professor's page, I would want to know the rating and 10+ comments are ingenious.
You might want to also check out the "I'm professor [you]" button.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: This comment by @<NAME> should be an answer, so I am humbly quoting in mine.
>
> Stop worrying about RateMyProfessor and the like.
>
>
>
Also, "welcome to the Internet. We have cookies".
The same thing often happens with anonymous student feedback, where students try to "get their own back" or even deliberately harm the lecturer. The solution is, again, the same. You ignore it because you must not pick a fight with the Internet, not because you allow yourself to be bullied or slandered, but because your reputation and professional worth does not hang on some unsubstantiated comments thrown at random. Everyone knows and understands how "reviews" work, and besides, you do not want someone naive enough to believe them to become your student.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: *A slightly different perspective, even if the end result is the same of other answers.*
Is that site well-designed?
===========================
You reported the untrue and duplicated comments.
* If the site admins act on it, it means that **the site works**: the problem is solved.
* If the untrue reviews stay there, it means that **the site is completely bogus**: it's not to be trusted **at all** with anything.
So you should not care either way. Not "because Internet", but because **if this problem isn't solved, the site itself becomes irrelevant**.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: Here's a perspective you may not have considered: maybe your disgruntled student did you a favor.
I used to ask students every semester to give me scathing reviews on RateMyProfessor saying nobody should take me except math-loving workaholics. That way slackers shopping around for an easy TA would be less likely to pick me. Also, anyone that saw the reviews and took my class anyway would spend the first month expecting the worst and diligently keeping up.
So, what did they say-- you're a hard grader? Can't teach? Bad students will see their future and be scared away. Good students notice that all your bad reviews are in *one contiguous streak*, keep reading, see the good reviews, and take you.
It's a great filter!
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/26
| 887
| 3,812
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am using one-sample log-rank test in my paper. I use the implementation from this website <http://www.ms.uky.edu/~mai/splus/LogRank1.r>. I wonder whether I should cite this and how I can cite a function on a website in Latex.<issue_comment>username_1: If you use a script written by someone else, it is best to acknowledge them in some way. Citations are common, and many R packages define citations explicitly. Some authors will write papers documenting the code and publish them in journals, allowing you to cite the documentation rather than the code directly. However for one-off functions like your example, these options are usually not available. The information can be included in a footnote, or you can create a full citation.
You can cite an online resource in bibtex using the @online record and include the URL and access date. I would recommend the following bibtex record for this resource:
```
@online{zhoucode,
author="<NAME>",
title="LogRank1 function",
url="http://www.ms.uky.edu/~mai/splus/LogRank1.r",
addendum="Accessed: 26 May 2020"
}
```
In the latex document, you can cite this using `\cite{zhoucode}`
This should not be the only method by which a reader can access the source code. For reproducibility, it is best to make your analysis scripts publicly available for review so that future researchers can repeat your calculations exactly, and it is best to include a footnote in your text that links to a stable repository of your code. This can be accomplished in a number of ways.
* @louic in another answer recommends publishing the script as supplemental materials (with the script writer's permission) which if available is the best option because the materials will always be available with the paper. This may not always be possible or reasonable depending on journals or the amount of code.
* Some scholars use [Github](https://github.com/) to host their materials and analysis scripts. Github is stable, publicly accessible, and maintains a history of changes made to your analysis scripts allowing review of the process and not simply the end point. Other public code repositories such as Bitbucket and sourceforge exist but are less popular in my experience.
* If you preregister your experiment and analysis through [the Open Science Foundation website](https://osf.io/prereg/), they allow uploads of analysis scripts. Preregistration is useful in its own right, but uploading your analysis scripts makes them available to others in a stable repository linked to your work.
* Have [the internet archive save the page](https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360001513491-Save-Pages-in-the-Wayback-Machine) and link to the archived copy. This solution is far worse than the above recommendations because it doesn't show how the script was used by you, only what the source code of that function was. While other methods should be used, this method is better than nothing.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **Never cite a website as only source of information**. Websites are likely to disappear in a few years time (especially academic ones unfortunately), or worse: the location stays the same but the code on the website is updated or changed.
In addition to that, the one who implements the algorithm is (more often than not) not its inventor. Maybe the algorithm has a name, or is published elsewhere?
A paper where this implementation of LogRank is explained would a better source for the citation. A reader should be able to access the exact code you used. The only good solution is to include the source code in your paper's supplementary information (with the author's consent). You can still cite the website if you like, but now the paper is reproducible if it disappears or changes.
Upvotes: 1
|