date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2020/08/14
| 1,612
| 7,013
|
<issue_start>username_0: On this site we often get questions along the lines of:
>
> I submitted my manuscript to a journal. *X* happened. Does this indicate that my manuscript is about to be rejected/accepted?
>
>
>
Here *X* is everything but a final decision letter, for example:
* a specific sequence of statuses in the editorial management system,
* the duration of a particular stage of the editorial process,
* a request for a revision,
* some editorial communication.
Is it generally possible to divine the fate of a manuscript from such events? If not, what are some relevant exceptions to consider?
*This is half of a canonical Q&A acting as a dedicated duplicate target for a certain type of question whose answers often boil down to the same point. I don’t claim that all the specific questions are without value as they can provide specific insights. However, I think that addressing this problem on a more general level can be helpful as well.*<issue_comment>username_1: ### Summary
There is no way of deducing the fate of your manuscript with reasonable certainty except a decision letter that says so. In particular, if your manuscript is certain to be rejected, there is no reason for the journal to spend further time on it instead of immediately telling you.
### Main Argument
In the vast majority of cases, you can apply the following line of thought:
The point of almost the entire editorial process is to find out whether your manuscript shall be accepted by the journal (or whether it has the potential to be accepted after modifications).
If at any time the editors decide that your manuscript is or is not suitable, the process is over.
At this point, there is no reason to delay informing you about this decision.
In particular, after rejection has been decided, it would be a waste to spend any further resources on this manuscript, such as further reviews or editorial assessment¹.
Therefore if your manuscript has been accepted or rejected, you will get to know this immediately.
From another perspective, you can always ask yourself: If the fate of my manuscript were already certain, would the journal act as it does?
### Revisions
Similar thoughts apply to requests for revision.
If the editors think a revision is impossible, they will not invite you to submit a revised version, as this revision would have to be assessed and thus waste resources if it already is clear that the manuscript cannot be accepted.
In fact, journals rather tend to phrase rejections overly strongly to avoid authors engaging in futile rebuttals, resubmissions, etc.
Journals have nothing to gain from hiding a negative assessment between the lines.
For example, if the editors think that acceptance of your manuscript is possible but requires a specific change, it would be foolish not to tell you this, lest you waste journal resources with a submission that does not make this specific change.
On the other hand, if the editors decided that they probably want your manuscript, it would be foolish to scare you away – though the editors may put a strong emphasis on changes they think are possible and necessary.
### Exceptions and Similar
You have to judge yourself whether they apply to your case or the information benefits you:
* The one thing that needs to happen between the decision and letting you know is the **preparation of the decision letter**, which particularly includes phrasing the rationale for a rejection or the conditions of a potential acceptance.
In many cases, this is a matter of minutes as it only requires the editor to combine a few canned sentences or the reviews already do a good job at explaining the problems of the manuscript or the changes needed.
But even if the editor spends effort on writing the decision letter, the best time to do this is right after the decision, as they are already focused on your manuscript.
For these reasons, the preparation of the decision letter is a very short stage, and moreover, most editorial systems do not inform you about it anyway.
Still, if you see this stage without any previous peer review, you can be rather certain that you are facing a desk reject.
However, it could also be that the editor wants you to perform certain changes to the manuscript before peer review.
Either way, once your manuscript entered this stage, you will get to know its fate very soon.
* Certain events allow you a **better estimate of your manuscript’s chances**, but never a definite answer (for the aforementioned main argument):
For example, for some journals, making it to peer review is a major hurdle, and if your manuscript passed it, the chances of your manuscript considerably increase.
Similarly, if a manuscript goes from peer review to editorial decision and then **back** to peer review, this suggests that the reviewers have conflicting opinions about your manuscript, which may be good or bad news, depending on your a priori expectation of acceptance.
Also, there can be other reasons for a return to peer review, such as one of the reviews containing no valuable information at all, or all reviewers stating that they cannot evaluate a crucial part of the manuscript.
* The editors or reviewers **intentionally delay** your manuscript, e.g., because of a grudge against you.
This is hopefully very rare, but even if this happens, you will usually only get to suspect this a posteriori, if at all.
If you suspected this a priori, you probably should not have submitted to that journal in the first place (or vetoed that editor).
---
¹ If those reviews have a potential of swaying the decision, it was not a decision in the sense of this answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If your manuscript goes directly from *Submitted to journal* to *Decision in progress*, skipping peer review entirely, then that's a bad sign and implies a desk rejection. There are rare papers that go directly to acceptance ([such as the Watson & Crick paper that described the structure of DNA](https://www.nature.com/articles/426119b)), but they are rare. It's also possible that your paper cannot be reviewed for whatever reason - e.g. if you submitted the wrong figure, corrupted source files, etc.
Aside from this case, there's no way to tell without the decision letter. Certain other events could give you some indication, but any predictive power is very weak, and there will remain a good (>30%) chance that all three decisions are still possible.
**Edit**: there is one exception to the above. If [your editor sends you reviewer comments before a decision](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/192455/do-authors-prefer-to-see-reviewer-reports-before-a-decision), and if those comments are unanimous in their recommendation, then it is highly probable that that recommendation will also be the decision. It's possible in theory that editors will accept a paper that reviewers recommend reject for, or vice versa; but the great bulk of the time they will follow the reviewers' recommendation.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/14
| 4,828
| 20,570
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am not very experienced as a reviewer, and I often find myself stressing over recommending rejection, even for the articles which I think are clearly low-quality and unsuitable for publication in a strong journal. I imagine how the authors might feel (especially if I suspect they are PhD students/postdocs/early career researchers who have a lot at stake in the publication), and I second-guess my judgement and wonder if it would align with others’ opinions. I also always worry that I might come across as unnecessarily harsh and critical in my reviewer report, especially as English is not my native language, so I have limited ability to express myself clearly and succinctly.
This usually leads to me writing too verbose and too detailed review reports (I think). More critically, it caused me a few times to recommend major revisions in the first review round when I thought that the manuscript should really be rejected but didn’t have the guts to suggest it. So inevitably, there comes the second round, the manuscript is not much improved, and I am left stressing again over recommending rejection. I think in such instances it would have been better to just suggest rejection initially, and more importantly it would probably have been fairer to the authors and would not waste their, my or the editor’s time.
Basically, I am asking how to overcome this anxiety about suggesting rejection and the fear of coming across as the “bad reviewer.” Are my concerns valid?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Basically, I am asking how to overcome this anxiety about suggesting rejection and the fear of coming across as the “bad reviewer.”
>
>
>
For me, one part of it is fairness: I assume that most reviewers act according to their best judgement, and that includes recommending rejection for papers that clearly need to be rejected. If I allowed my judgement to be affected by what is essentially an ego issue (not wanting to be "the bad guy"), I would introduce unfairness against other authors who get more objective reviewers.
>
> This usually leads to me writing too verbose and too detailed review reports (I think).
>
>
>
This can be fixed by organizing your review in a readable way. Start with an itemized list of the main arguments for and against acceptance (only bullet points or a brief sentence per item). Then explain the points from this itemized list in more detail. Specifically, explain what needs to be fixed for the paper to become acceptable. Only after this "high level" discussion, give a full discussion of all the details (most of which will probably not affect the acceptance decision). For typos and grammar issues, have a separate list at the end.
>
> More critically, it caused me a few times to recommend major revisions in the first review round when I thought that the manuscript should really be rejected but didn’t have the guts to suggest it. So inevitably, come the second round, the manuscript is not much improved and I am left stressing again over recommending rejection.
>
>
>
This would be fixed as well if your first review clearly specified the conditions which need to be fulfilled to make the paper acceptance-worthy. If the authors submit a version that doesn't fulfill the conditions, then it's the authors' fault, and you don't need to stress out.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You are not rejecting, you are recommending. The editor does the descision and there should be a second referee. So don't sweat it - be honest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The role of the reviewer is not so much gate-keeper, but rather your role is to help the authors get the paper to a position where it is publishable. So I very rarely recommend outright rejection at the first round.
Once you have written things down what it would take for the paper to be publishable, it maybe the case that this is clearly unachievable and that this author will never get this paper to that level – but that is for the editor and authors to decide.
Reviewers are normally asked to judge two things:
1. Is the paper sufficiently novel and exciting to be interesting to a large enough fraction of the readership of the journal.
2. Is the paper sufficiently rigorous to demonstrate the claims it makes.
If the paper is not sufficiently novel or exciting I say:
>
> To make this paper publishable, the authors must explain the additional advances made compared to Smith et al. and Jones et al. and why their work would be of interest to a reader of the Journal of Things, beyond those connected with the sub field of very small things.
>
>
>
Methodological or interpretive flaws I will simply point out and say they must be fixed.
So for example, I recently had to review a paper for a software tool. It unlikely to get published, but instead of saying “reject” I said:
>
> 1. The tool does not appear to implement any new functionality compared to Jones et al and indeed is missing several of the functions in that tool. The authors should explain why their tool is an advance in comparison, and provide benchmarking data comparing the performance.
> 2. The tool was not installable on my system, the authors should ensure that there is a robust installation routine and that it functions on representative range of systems. {goes on to list the problems with the installation}
> 3. The tool has several bugs and conceptual errors in it that must be fixed before it was published. {goes on to list them}
>
>
> In conclusion, the tool has several usability and functional shortcomings that must be fixed. Even if these were fixed, the authors must explain why their tool is superior, or even equal in performance or features to Jones et al.
>
>
>
Now I was 80% sure that this wasn’t going to happen – the amount of work required to bring the paper up to a publishable standard was probably more than had been put into the project up until that point – but if they wanted to do it, I’d be happy to recommend publication. I never saw another revision of the paper – I don’t know if the editor decided to reject it, or the authors decided it wasn’t worth it –, but I fulfilled my role: to say what it was that was necessary to bring it up to standard.
If the authors do decide to try for a resubmission, without fixing the problems I identified, I will just say that:
>
> The authors have not addressed points A, B and C, and I cannot recommend publication until they have done so.
>
>
>
---
There are several "Peer Reviewer's Oaths" out there. The one I like is from here:
<http://www.opiniomics.org/the-reviewers-oath/>
>
> I, the reviewer, promise:
>
>
> 1. to not hide behind a screen of anonymity
> 2. to be open and honest with you (the authors) at all times
> 3. to be constructive in my criticism
> 4. within the rules given to me by the journal, to assist you in every way
> I ethically can to get your manuscript published, by providing
> criticism and praise that is valid and relevant
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it's important to remember that your role as a reviewer isn't to make value judgements about the authors' work. By recommending rejection, you're acting more like a moderator. You are interpreting the rules — the written rules of the journal or publication, and the unwritten rules of peer review — and applying them to a given paper. You are answering the question “Does this paper adhere to the rules and standards (or can it with modifications)?”, and ***not*** the question “Is this a good paper?”.
Recommending rejection is then just answering the question in the negative — you do not believe this paper adheres to those rules, and isn't likely to after modification. It's not a “bad paper” (well, it may be, but you're not saying so), and the authors are welcome to find a different venue that better aligns with what they've written.
Finally, remember that you are not the only reviewer. If you recommend rejection and the paper is rejected, then at least one other reviewer or the editor agreed with you. And if you recommend rejection but the paper is accepted, no one will give another thought that you recommended differently.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: It is nice of you to think about the author of a paper you feel it should be rejected. Please also think about:
* All the readers. They waste their time reading a bad paper. They were excited when they found the paper but disappointed after reading it.
* The authors of other papers, that might be rejected (due to limited number of presentation slots or restricted number of article per issue).
* And the reputation of the conference / journal that might be compromised by bad papers. This is also steered by the editor, but he has to rely on hisreferees. (thanks to Gnudiff for this aspect)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I think the roles of "major revision" and "reject" are quite different, and it is not helpful to the author to use one when you really mean the other.
Reviewers should recommend rejection if the paper, while it may be publishable, is not sufficiently interesting for the journal. If this is the case, it is unlikely (at least in my field, which is mathematics) that a revised version would ever be published in that journal. However, the paper may well be suitable for a slightly less selective journal, and you do authors no favours if you ask for a major revision first, rather than giving them an early opportunity to resubmit to such a journal. Ideally your review would suggest alternative venues (as well as identifying any significant issues they may wish to deal with before submitting).
Major revisions, on the other hand, are appropriate for papers which have issues which need to be resolved before publication (and it may not be clear that the authors will be able to resolve them), but with an interest level suitable for the journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: There are quite a few things to unpack here, so let’s go over them one by one:
### Career Damage
You are responsible for delivering an accurate report; you are not responsible for indirect consequences of an accurate report, such as career impact.
If somebody does not get a position because you gave a correct negative assessment, this is upon them or their co-authors.
Also remember that somebody else will get the respective position instead and – on average – they are more qualified:
There is a lot of noise in career decisions and by providing a fair review, you reduce this.
Do not only think of the authors, but also think of the qualified researcher who does not get a position because their opponent managed to get some piece of junk published thanks to overly lenient reviews.
If you want to be nice to upcoming researchers without compromising the quality of research, do your peer reviews quickly (i.e., prioritise them with respect to your other duties, not rush the actual reviewing). This way, they have more time to fix the paper’s problem and submit it elsewhere before whatever application deadline they are facing *and* they hopefully learn something in the process:
Coping with and learning from rejections and criticism in general is an important skill for researchers.
If a student’s supervisor did not properly guide them through their research or writing process, the student has to learn this another way.
You are not responsible for taking that part of the training, but a detailed review can be that way.
Finally, it may also help you to assume that all the authors are professors close to retirement with no career stakes whatsoever.
The ideal of peer review is that it should ignore the authors’ identity (which is why double-blind peer review is a thing).
### Assessing Unsalvageability
From the reviewer’s and editor’s point of inevitably imperfect knowledge, every paper has the potential to be salvaged: The authors may fix their research or explanations or present better arguments for the relevance of their work. The probability that a paper can be made suitable for a journal is never zero. Going by this, there never should be a decision for final rejection. But this is not what a rejection practically means.
Instead, if this probability (of the paper eventually being made suitable for the journal) turns out to be below some implicit threshold, it is more feasible to reject the paper and not invite further submissions, which would waste further journal resources.
All you do is to help estimate this probability and whether it is below the threshold.
If your estimate is a little bit off, that’s not dramatic, as there are several mechanism to compensate for this, namely other reviewers, the editors, and the option for rebuttal, if the authors think that they solved the issues with the manuscript against all odds.
What’s more important is that you elaborate what problems you see with the paper and what needs to be done to solve this ([username_3’s answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/153937/7734) gives a good example for this).
Even if your criticism should be based on some misunderstanding, this allows the authors to clarify.
Nothing is more frustrating if the main argument for rejecting your paper is something like:
>
> I don’t understand Section 2. [No further elaboration]
>
>
>
as you have to resort to guessing on how to solve this.
Which brings us to your next concern:
### Too Detailed Reviews
I do not think details are harmful in a review per se.
The main reason to stop delving into details is to avoid wasting your time.
Of course, you should make clear what the main issues are that lead to the rejection.
A detailed review can be very helpful to the authors to solve these main issues, be it for a resubmission or submission to another journal.
Moreover it provides evidence to the editor that you seriously engaged with the manuscript thus giving your review deservedly more weight.
Keep in mind that almost every manuscript gets published eventually, so your effort is rarely wasted (unless you do such things as noting typos in paragraphs that need to be completely rewritten anyway).
### Rejection Rate
You may note that you recommend to reject papers more often than your own papers are rejected or you even hear of papers being rejected.
There is a good chance that this says more about the quality of your and your acquaintances’ submissions than about your recommendations as a peer reviewer.
Remember [Sturgeon’s law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law):
“90% of everything is crap.”
It may be worth checking out the actual rejection rate of the journal if you can find it.
But even if your rejection rate is higher than the general rejection rates of the journals you are reviewing for, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
First of all, there is the matter of chance:
You have to review quite some papers to make any substantiated statements about your reviews deviating from the mean.
Second, the more thorough a review is, the more likely it is to find a flaw leading to a recommendation of rejection.
Here, the problem is not necessarily you but other reviewers not being thorough enough to spot problems.
### Wording
All reviews I have received, written, and co-written were almost exclusively in a very neutral tone, i.e., neither overly euphemistic nor aggressive.
There are justified exceptions, e.g., I once wrote in a report that I was disappointed by a revision on account of not implementing straightforward suggestions with which the authors appeared to agree.
If you stick to a neutral description of issues and suggestions, I see little that could go wrong.
The one exception where wording matters is the actual recommendation – if this happens in writing and not via a score system.
Here, you do not want to be misunderstood by the editor.
The aforementioned list of things that need to be happen before acceptance is a good way to avoid any miscommunication here:
For example, if the editor can easily see that this is probably an insurmountable challenge, they do not need your direct assessment.
It may also help you to write a short note exclusively for the editor explaining how likely you think that the authors manage to fix their manuscript.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: 1. "*The best lack all conviction*". Your doubts sound more symptomatic of you doing a good job refereeing than of you being unnecessarily critical. I do think it's a good idea to give people a chance to improve their paper with a "major revision" recommendation. Keep in mind that a recommendation is not a verdict (the editors base their decision on your report, but this doesn't mean that they just adopt your suggestion without change; in particular, a "major revision" can become a "rejected" if the other referee is similarly unenthusiastic).
2. Here is how I would sanity-check my "major revision" suggestions: Assuming that the author followed all my recommendations, would I then suggest accepting the paper, or would I be annoyed at having to find better reasons to reject it? In the former case, "major revision" is the right recommendation to make. In the latter, it is "rejection". (And then there is "revise and resubmit", which I tend to choose if I don't understand or don't believe significant parts of the paper and but wouldn't be surprised if the author salvages it. Here I am deferring judgment until the problems are resolved. This option is good to keep in mind when you don't quite see what the paper will become after revision.)
3. "Too detailed" is rarely an issue in reviews. Even if the paper cannot be salvaged, any future papers by the same author will probably gain from you pointing out grammatical errors, confusing terminology, misconceptions, etc. (which otherwise would likely creep over into these future papers if left unchallenged). Peer review is one of the few ways scientists learn after their PhD!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Speaking as an editor, let me reiterate something you know: the decision to reject or not is the editor's, not yours. You are asked for a recommendation, but **the editor (who typically has much more experience) makes the decision**. The contents of your report matter more than the recommendation. As an editor, a big part of my job is recognizing the "major revision" recommendations that should be interpreted as "reject" (and less often, vice-versa).
Some great detailed advice for refereeing can be found [here](http://matt.might.net/articles/how-to-peer-review/).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: In the long term, you need to get more experience to feel more confident about your decisions. So what you can do now, is that you can try to make this process faster by 1. Getting familiar with the state-of-the-art on the topics you are invited to review 2. Volunteer for more reviews 3. Study other people's reviews (as a reviewer, at the end of the process you can see other reviewers' comments and also, some venues have openreviews (look it up), this will tell you how you are doing in comparison to others e.g. are you too optimistic? 4. Write more papers, which helps you get the hang of it
Mindset wise:
1. Reviews should be written in a way to suggest how the paper could be improved, and why, and point out major conflicts/false statements etc.. So, no, you don't need to bash a paper. There are far too many reviewers that think this is the point of reviews, which is shameful really. You should keep as objective as possible and not let your "subjective" judgement get in the way. Constructive criticism is what you should aim for.
2. If a paper is indeed too bad, by giving them more chances you are actually skewing the reviewing process because not all are lucky to have reviewers who will just give it a go.
3. If you are in doubt though, give the benefit of doubt to the authors. I have received far too many false claims that I couldn't even answer to in rebuttal, or did but the reviewers mind was set from the beginning. Just because I didn't include a detail, assuming that I didn't do it that way is still just subjective judgement (in fact, I did this but to me it was trivial and standard for any research paper so I didn't flat out write the exact details for example).
All that being said, I am also on the more optimistic side and give out more positive reviews with a similar mindset, but I also realize that when I am assigned perfect matches, I can be crystal clear in my comments and judgement, so you just need to be more confident in your expertise.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/14
| 248
| 1,136
|
<issue_start>username_0: Due to the Coronavirus situation it is required to adapt teaching activities to reduce risk of infection. Several courses have laboratory assignments that require physical presence. It is therefore necessary to reduce the number of students present by utilising all room availability. Due to the increased number of student groups and fragmented time slots it quickly becomes challenging to organise lab appointment times.
Are there any software tools for orgainising education lab appointments available?<issue_comment>username_1: If your institution has a Moodle server, you could use Moodle's "scheduler" activity.
If, on the other hand, you end up going for a solution hosted on a server outside your institution, such as @astronat's suggestion of a Doodle poll, be careful of local data protection laws.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Not sure if you're still in search for a system, but the [Clustermarket](https://www.clustermarket.com/) booking system could work well as it's made specifically for labs and has different roles such as admin and student with different access levels.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/14
| 3,179
| 12,916
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the COVID-19 pandemic I am dealing with anxiety for the first time, and professionally floundering.
I'm usually good at prioritization, but the state of the world means emergencies, and anxiety magnifies the perception that I am the only person who can deal with them. Sometimes I am: I have high-risk family, have lost care for them, and my university is not making safety-centered decisions very well. I am joined by other new-anxious in not being able to buy safe help: parents of young children, colleagues with disabilities, and anyone who has family sick with COVID, many of whom are wondering where precisely the buck stops, except with themselves... My normal support circles are broken or only available over Zoom, which is less helpful than in-person access. Sleep, for many reasons, is now hard for me, yet vital zoom meetings happen at every hour. Compounding this, large projects I committed to in January are now much more difficult to finish, and past due.
Deadlines are deadlines, students get helped or they don't, grants forgone today add uncertainty to an already complex tomorrow. The law provides protections, but won't help with tenure cases, or provide funds to keep students fed. My field and academe in general are trending more competitive, not less. I am usually quite productive, publishing multiple papers a year, writing grants, etc. I am doing the 'right things': I exercise daily, have a therapist, am exploring meds, and have taken up meditation. I am lucky to be in the hands of good care, but that care is often stymied by the culture of academe. "No one you can delegate that to?" asks my therapist.
It does not help that those above me in the chain of command are largely uncomfortable with the idea of mental health, full stop. Advice to 'pull together, 'buck up', and 'chill out' has come, along with signaling that mental health is outside the preview of academe. This is even as they show their own symptoms of great stress. While industry settings often have clear ways to handle mental health situations, my institution has no such resources for faculty and staff. Academic settings also have less 'chain of authority' to directly assist individuals. "Talk to your boss" is not necessarily sound advice. 'HR' is not a useful resource either.
I am specifically looking for academe-focused strategies to cope and potentially even better succeed, with this anxiety. I am Jr. Faculty in one role, Staff in another, highly autonomous in both, at the same institution. Most of my commitments are to individuals outside of my department. I do not see this all 'ending' soon.
Those with anxiety pre-pandemic: do you have strategies I might try? How does one prioritize and strategize when everything is on fire? Can anxiety in fact be a superpower when applied correctly in academe?
Everyone: are there there things I should do to minimize impact on my academic career? I need to stay competitive with individuals who are younger and have less complexity than I do, as we will be evaluated equally.<issue_comment>username_1: I expect research output overall to be down this year into next. Surely some people will cope better than others, and different types of research are more or less directly impacted (e.g., that requiring solo work at a computer, versus that requiring access to shared facilities that may be/have been closed, versus that requiring face-to-face contact with human subjects). Others will have additional direct challenges to their time: childcare may be closed and children may be learning from home rather than school, for example.
@paulgarrett's comment is exactly what I was thinking of as an answer:
>
> A small point: forgive yourself (as opposed to judging...) in this situation. It is crazy. To accidentally pretend that things are not crazy will obvs make you more crazy. My advice would be "cope with the bad current state, and wait to think about things later..."
>
>
>
...except I think this is the main point rather than a small one.
Besides that, it sounds like you're trying all the right things (eh, maybe not the booze, but if it *does* help you relax and if it's in moderation and not purely as medication then there's little harm).
I think the most "solvable" problem you have (or, at least, one I can provide some advice on) is this part:
>
> Compounding all this, I accepted several large projects in January which are now past due. *(...)* Writing, especially, is very difficult, which puts me further behind, which leads to more anxiety.
>
>
>
You're probably best off doing some prioritization (from @avid's comment: "What actually needs to be done by when? Can projects be reorganised to be more achievable? Can deadlines/deliverables be re-negotiated? Try and focus on completing one task/project at a time") and scheduling. There is no way you can make up for weeks of reduced productivity in an instant. Instead of worrying about everything you need to do (a circumstance I find myself in often; not new to COVID for me), set an *immediate-term* schedule for yourself.
The granularity might be something you experiment with, but **try to set *specific, achieveable* goals** for the next week, the next day, or the next hour. Do your best to meet them, but don't beat yourself up if you don't. Reevaluate your progress the next time you set goals. Try to focus on what you've accomplished.
It may be helpful to tier your short-term goals into:
1. Things you will accomplish (today/this week) **no matter what** (except emergency, of course)
2. Things you reasonably expect to accomplish
3. Goals to aim for in an ideal world
Probably the things you slot into "3" might look like a normal week for you pre-pandemic, or even far less than normal, and that's fine. Focus on making bits of progress on your projects that you can feel good about. Be prepared to have days and weeks where you only accomplish the tasks under (1), then forgive yourself for not doing more, remind yourself you've at least achieved your personal minimum, and move on.
In closing, though, and echoing Paul: forgive yourself, you're under a lot of very understandable stress in a crazy time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I have suffered from anxiety for some time now, so I will talk from personal experience!
First of all, I can't stress this enough: it is 100% normal for you to feel anxious in this time. It is very important for you to aknowledge that for you to be able to deal with that; even if you think you have aknowledged that, it may be the case that your subcouscious is still feeling 'guilty' about it and making you 'anxious because you are anxious', and it is ESSENTIAL to break this cycle!
What has always worked for me in times of greater pressure was concieving achievable goals: sometimes, you can have the tendency to set an extremely exigent goal, and then you'll be anxious when you don't meet it, and it's important not to do this.
When you can't set a smaller goal (either by responsability or deadlines or something like that), it is VERY helpful to divide your goal into small, more achievable steps! When you have a very big goal, you have the tendency to think you still haven't acomplished anything, when in reality you have acomplished a lot; if you divide your goal into smaller steps, you will actively see them getting achieved and checked off your list, and you will see that you are actually being very productive.
Another very important thing is to know that, if you don't achieve one or more of your goals, the world isn't going to end. Maybe you had a conference coming and you had a breakdown in the midst of all your responsabilities, and you couldn't prepare for the conference: your anxiety will tell you it is the end of the world, that you have failed and that you evaluation will be negative, and whatever else you are afraid of. But this is NOT true! Everyone, anxious or not, fails many of their goals frequently; it is only human to do so! So if you do fail, just tell yourself: "this is normal, this is okay, this is not the end of the world; I have tried my best and, therefore, this is the best possible outcome, so I should not feel guilty about it." Even if 'your best' was giving up on it, it WAS your best because you had so much on your plate, so it is normal to have to leave something behind!
Something that also helps a lot, that is obvious but not many people pursue when feeling overwhelmed by work, is to allocate some time per day or week in your schedule to a hobby you enjoy: this will not only allow you to relax and reduce anxiety by making you think of something else, but it will also help you revitalize and have more energy: anxiety, unfortunately, is very very energy consuming, making it a vicious cycle: you have too much to do so you are anxious, but it consumes your energy so you acomplish less than what you would if you were more relaxed. Therefore, replenishing your energy is absolutely essential, and a very good way of doing that is obligating yourself to do something you like (actually block a time slot for that on your schedule, it really helps).
I would also suggest seeing a doctor, because you may want to look into something to help you sleep (there are a lot of natural pills that help you relax and that do not cause any dependency at all, such as valerian extract); altough it is a temporary solution, it may help you a very great amount in this time of your life.
I really am rooting for you in this time of uncertainty. Best of luck with everything!
EDIT:
Also, if you are into exercise, it helps you release endorphins and will physically make you more relaxed! If you're not into typical forms of exercise (like gym, running, etc), you can try other activities that also make your heart rate faster, such as dancing, walking fast, playing with a cat or dog, etc etc!
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Not sure if it is exactly what you need, but a good book that kept me motivated during my PhD in face of setbacks was [The Obstacle is the Way](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18668059-the-obstacle-is-the-way) (which can also be found on LibGen), based on (a popular interpretation of) stoicism and the associated Daily Stoic newsletter. I believe it also prepared me very well for this kind of situation.
To large extent it's based on the book *Meditations* written by an ancient Emperor about being a good leader in face of stress and difficulties. Similar themes arise in Frankl's *Man's search for meaning* (the guy learned to thrive mentally in a Nazi concentration camp); although I haven't read the latter two books myself yet.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I exactly know what you go through. Let me start by telling that
**it is one of the hardest challenges to try and stay calm during this kind of crazy situation.**
In these kind of situations, where everything is on fire and al I have is a can of gas, I always tend to take the advice of Chess Grandmaster <NAME>. He tells a story of a woman in one of [his courses](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJTpieCDXqY) in the video game called Chessmaster.
>
> While crossing a street, a woman gets angry with a biker who almost
> hit her. She begins to scream at him, missing the taxi coming down the
> street in full speed. The taxi hits her badly. She gets to live, but
> is badly injured.
>
>
>
The moral of the story, he says, that sometimes a bike comes out of some direction unexpectedly. What we need to do is to shake it off, stay calm, and deal with the matter in hand.
What I feel from your post is that your mind is full beyond capacity. This is exactly the mindset of the woman who almost got hit by the bike.
So, considering the anectode above, and the fact that you are looking for an acedeme-focused strategies, what I'd suggest is to deal the matter in hand. If something can be delayed (such as the deadline of one of your big projects), then delay it. Can you spot something that needs to be done immediately? If so, then I think you should start doing it and **nothing else**.
There are a ton of tasks you are concerned about. Are there any which you can lay off and not get into serious trouble, maybe giving students a not-very-rigorous homework, then I think you should do it **right now**.
I see, and completely understand that you don't want to delegate. But do you think you can do a better job with this mindset compared to *any* person you delegate? Simply put, you are overwhelmed with tasks. Instead of doing everything half, you can choose to fully complete one or two tasks in hand, and let the rest be dealt with your delegate.
All in all, *I think*, your family and your mental health should be the number one priority. Simply because if you lose any of them, then all the other problems you mentioned become far from being solved.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/14
| 262
| 1,171
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to give an example in a formal definition. My concern is, by giving an example, I am implicitly demonstrating that the definition is not precise/clear enough.
Is it acceptable to give an example in a formal definition?<issue_comment>username_1: In the definition itself, no. It just should be that: A definition. You should add examples and/or motivations in the surrounding text, so your reader (a befuddled human being, not an automaton!) sees what is going on, and where you want to go.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In mathematics, the definition of a concept is an essential ingredient of all proofs involving that concept. The definition must therefore be sufficiently clear and precise to serve that purpose in rigorous proofs.
The goal of precision may conflict with other worthwhile goals, for example ease of understanding, motivation, and hints about the role of the defined concept in a broader theory. Nevertheless, I'd insist on precision in the definition itself, and use examples (and other sorts of information) outside the definition, if necessary, to serve those other goals.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/15
| 729
| 3,000
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to be a rising junior (undergrad), and I plan on applying to graduate school in mathematics. Our school offers the opportunity to get a B.S./M.S. in math, or simply a math B.S. To get a B.S./M.S., I'd have to sacrifice some courses outside of math (like english, history, etc.) in order to take more graduate math classes (need 8 total). I'd still plan on taking graduate courses even with the B.S., but it would probably be around 5-7 instead of the 8 needed.
In terms of graduate school admissions, would this matter at all? It seems to me that there's probably not too much of a difference given that they would see the coursework anyways. But who knows, maybe given the fact that there's so little time spent on each application, that having a M.S. would be just enough to stand out and have a name remembered.
EDIT: United States - sorry about that!<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I'd have to sacrifice some courses outside of math (like english, history, etc.) in order to take more graduate math classes (need 8 total).
>
>
>
In general more math or related courses instead of non-related courses would support your application better. For some context, these mandated non-degree courses are not globally agreed to be necessary. For example a 4-year math degree in US can have less content in math then a 3-year math degree in Germany. Essentially some degree programs can have "bloat" approximating around or above of 1 year work (8 to 12 courses). It is not at all obvious that these courses in necessary (as they are not mandated in a lot of places) and I have never ever seen any admission body / personal being even remotely interested in the existence or non-existence of a -very basic introductory to a discipline of humanities-.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: ~~Why would sacrificing courses like history be considered a negative?~~ The biggest advantage of the BS/MS here, from what it seems, is that it allows you to take more courses relevant to what you want to study/specialize in, which would definitely be a positive in this case.
EDIT: Maybe I was wrong in saying classes like history/english are irrelevant in this case. Writing/reading is very important if you were to pursue a PhD. But in the end it does come down to what you prefer. Do you want the extra outside courses for reading/writing prep or do you want to specialize in a specific area sooner? Is there a way to do both?
Also, my original answer didn't necessarily answer the original question mentioned. It is definitely not unheard of for a applicant to go straight from undergrad to a PhD program, but this depends on a variety of factors, including how much research experience/potential this person possesses. If you feel your writing is up to par and you really want to find an area in your field to specialize in, you might be better off with the extra graduate courses, although again, this really comes down to personal taste and preferences.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/15
| 1,030
| 4,079
|
<issue_start>username_0: The program that I want to apply to isn't accepting students until next year, so that gives me plenty of time to study for the GRE. However, I also want to take it as soon as possible because 1.) As far as I know, they're only offering at home testing until Sept. 30, and I'm way too OCD to take the test in person, even if everyone is wearing a mask. (I have a phobia of germs as it is, and I've become completely paranoid since the pandemic.) I also want to "get it over with" already because it's a source of anxiety. However, I want to get the best score possible, and I've set my goal as a top 10% verbal score and a math score sufficient for the program not to reject me due to a low score... (I'm applying to a humanities field with virtually no math involved.)
After a week of intense focus (studying most of the day), I've been distracted for the past couple of days with ruminations, and I'd like advice as to how get back on track. How does one stay focused while studying for the GRE?
Also, what is a realistic time frame to study? If I set a date in mid or late Sept., would that be too soon to achieve my goals? (A top 10% verbal score/decent math score [I don't have a number in mind for math])
\*question edited to delete my specific ruminations<issue_comment>username_1: There is no universal realistic time frame to study. It primarily depends on where you already are. Some may prepare for several months, while others may prepare for less than a week, and still score just as well or better. Your [earlier question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/150204/68109) suggests that you may be closer to the latter category, at least for the verbal section.
To get a good idea of your current level of preparedness, try solving practice tests under close to realistic testing conditions. See how close or far you are from your target. Identify the areas you are weak in, and prioritize your time on those. Spending a lot of time on an area you are already good at may make you bored and contribute to your distraction and lack of focus.
There is no end to improving your preparedness, but once you reach a point where you are reasonably certain that you are well prepared to meet and exceed your expectations, it may be better to spend time on something more useful.
*This answer does not comment on the issues of anxiety and mental health, on which, as others have already suggested, you should seek advice from trained professionals.*
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: A few things that helped me
**[Pomodoro Technique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique)** - Study for 25 minutes with a 5-minute break in-between. After 4 Pomodoros, give yourself a longer break.
**Timeboxing** - Limit your study time to specific times of the day, like 9-4 with a lunch break. This will train your brain to expect to focus during the time-window, then do other things after. Combine this with the Pomodoro Technique to best utilize your time.
**Retake a practice test at the end of each week** - This will both get you as familiar with the test as possible, and let you take a snapshot of your progress. This snapshot should happen during your timebox. Arrange to take the test during this timebox as well.
**Take at least 1 day off a week** - Be sure to give yourself at least 1 day off a week where you do not study or do work.
**See a therapist** - Studying for the GRE and applying to grad schools is stressful. It may help to deal with your ruminations so they won't be as distracting. They may also be able to teach you how to manage stress and time better.
It sounds like you may have burned out studying in one week. Take a day off. Tomorrow regroup and try at least some of these suggestions. You'll likely need to play with the times suggested, but they are a good place to start.
Finally, remember that a few hours of focused, uninterrupted time is better than a day filled with interruptions and poor planning. Make sure you're getting quality study time, then look at increasing the quantity.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/15
| 708
| 2,898
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently working on the slides for my database lecture. During the lecture I want to talk about different tools and available programs for database management. Am I allowed to use logos on my slides? What copyright should I put? Here is an example:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MariaDB_Logo.png>
Is "All company logos subject to copyrights. All rights reserved." sufficient?<issue_comment>username_1: You are probably permitted to do this as long as you aren't creating a "product" for use with the trademarked logo. Generally speaking, trademark law is distinct from copyright law.
See [a non legal description](https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/) for example.
In your case you are using the logo for purposes of description and identification, which is normally permitted.
But note that the rules and laws aren't universal.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In the specific case of open-source software, a lot of projects have information on the usage of their official logos. For example, MariaDB has a [logo page](https://mariadb.com/about-us/logos/) with some official downloads and graphical information. In our own work, we use Apache Spark and we have found their [logo guidelines](https://spark.apache.org/trademarks.html) helpful, as well as the more general guidelines from [the Apache Software Foundation](https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/).
The Apache Software Foundation lays out the general legal case behind using logos quite well, actually [[ref](https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#principles)]:
>
> Anyone can use ASF trademarks if that use of the trademark is nominative. The "nominative use" (or "nominative fair use") defense to trademark infringement is a legal doctrine that authorizes everyone (even commercial companies) to use another person's trademark as long as three requirements are met:
>
>
> 1. The product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (for example, it is not easy to identify Apache Hadoop® software without using the trademark "Hadoop")
> 2. Only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and
> 3. The organization using the mark must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
> The trademark nominative fair use defense is intended to encourage people to refer to trademarked goods and services by using the trademark itself. This trademark defense has nothing to do with copyright fair use and should not be confused with those rules.
>
>
>
The latter point to me, is key. For example, we make sure we're not giving the impression that we are "sponsored by Apache Spark," we just use and build upon the tools that they provide.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/15
| 878
| 3,901
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:** Did an economics major after switching out of physics and I did a math minor in university with somewhat inconsistent math grades (A+, A-, D, C+, ... ). The reason behind my grade spread is, quite simply, a lack of consistent, deliberate, and persistent effort as an immature student. I am now very close to defending my MSc in resource and environmental economics with a 3.83 gpa in coursework, graduate awards, academic teaching & learning courses, conference proceedings, and hopefully a submitted paper for review by the time of my application , so there's been much growth for whatever that's worth.
**Current Situation:** I am trying to switch into mathematical biology to study similar natural resource problems I would in resource economics, but from a different perspective I find myself more drawn to. I have reached out to a potential advisor, they have my transcripts and CV, we are set for a video call to talk about me coming on as a PhD student.
**Statement of Purpose:** There are some math courses that I do not have as a result of not being a math major, and there are some courses I am planning to retake this academic year to boost the grades of the courses I did poorly in. In my statement of purpose, I am wondering how I can address the background gaps.
**Initial Solution:** After my chat with the potential advisor, I was thinking of writing out a concrete action plan (including MIT OpenCourseware, References to texts I would study from, and subject matter I would cover) to address the background gaps which would include a combination of taking courses and self-studying courses that are not being offered at my local institutions. This plan could then be submitted (appended?) to the Statement of Purpose.
**The Final Problem:** Given some deficiencies in background, how can one, or how should one, adequately address those deficiencies in a Statement of Purpose to communicate that by the time they enter the program, they would have a sufficient background to be successful in a program?
Many answers around Statement of Purpose tags have suggested that the statement be forward looking, and so I intend to not spend an inordinate amount of time talking about my history, and instead in the spirit of those answers, focus on the path forward.<issue_comment>username_1: You can't "explain away" your deficiencies. They exist. And the SoP is not the place for it in any case. I also doubt that a "plan" for addressing those deficiencies is helpful in the SoP, which should be about your plans to succeed in the graduate program *and beyond*.
In the US, at least, there are courses open to doctoral students that will address at least some of your deficiencies and if your overall record is good, and you have good letters of recommendation, then a missing course or two probably won't be the single reason for rejection. Committees tend to look at the "whole picture" and try to make a prediction about the success of prospective students. If you can make that happen you can be accepted.
Treat the SoP for what it is intended. Commitment, hard work, dedication, interest, goals, plans. Make it a strong statement.
If you reach the point of an interview, you might be asked about deficiencies. That is the place to address them. And, if you still haven't been accepted anywhere, you can start to implement the "action plan" you suggest.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If your potential advisor wants to fund you as a PhD student, then it is very likely you will be given admission as their student regardless of whatever background deficiencies you may have. This is especially true now that your potential advisor is aware of those deficiencies. In terms of writing your statement of purpose, it is probably sufficient to say that you worked with Prof. x to create a plan to remedy these deficiencies.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/15
| 458
| 1,952
|
<issue_start>username_0: When one starts a PhD, should it be based upon interest or tractability of the project? If a project fails is switching advisors a reasonable option within the same department?
I have a couple options for PhD, one is an area I am more interested in but it's a more open ended problem with potentially less straightforward solutions. It also gives a background in more areas I am interested in learning and more industry applicable(focused on making novel system which works).
The other I don't think I want to work on for 4 years but probably will be more straightforward, it's also less useful to industry(I think) and more theoretical in nature. It is a continuation(mostly) of what I already know.
I'm not sure what to do, I have no interest in staying in academics so a PhD which is more focused on an applied topic which could be used to spin up a company is a lot more interesting to me but I obviously don't want it to fail.<issue_comment>username_1: You give a false dichotomy, because you should be doing a project that you are interested in and one that can be completed. There's no point in choosing a topic you hate working on for 5 years but is solvable just as there's no point in choosing a topic you're passionate about but not even those who have studied it for decades could solve (possible, but *highly* unlikely). Therefor, the answer to your question is to choose a solvable problem that you are interested in.
However, if you're interested in living in a binary world, then choose a project that is tractable and you hate. If you are concerned about getting a PhD, then it's better to complete a project and receive the degree than to work hard on a problem and receive no degree.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that a good PhD adviser will guide you to a project that is interesting and doable. Look for potential thesis advisers and see what their past students have done.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/16
| 926
| 3,948
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm set to start my first year as a TA at a large R1 institution. My teaching assignment consists of being a TA for an honors calculus I section. This includes holding a weekly problem solving session (in person) to about 20 students. The lecture, however, will be online. My general questions are:
* Besides taking the obvious safety precautions, (my university has mandated the use of masks on campus) what else can I do to make my classroom as safe as possible?
* What would you do differently as a TA during a global pandemic? Maybe grade more leniently? Hold online office hours?
* What would you do differently as a TA between an honors and non-honors section? For example, I was looking into old assignments and one of the differences is that honors calculus I cover epsilon-delta proofs and place more emphasis on theorems such as the mean value and intermediate value theorem. I'm guessing there will be a larger percentage of math majors than in your typical calculus I class.
Thanks for your advice.<issue_comment>username_1: ### Talk to the lecturer in charge of the course.
The lecturer (or professor, if that’s what your university calls them – different countries use different titles to refer to the equivalent positions) is your boss; if there’s something you’re uncertain of regarding how to teach their class, they should be your first port of call unless it’s utterly trivial.
So, ask them about how they would prefer you to handle things like office hours or grading; it’ll be important for all the tutors to be on the same page for those sorts of things anyway, so that students who were in one tutorial aren’t unfairly advantaged over students in others. Similarly, they should be familiar with what material will be covered in the honors vs non-honors versions of the class/unit/course/whatever your university calls it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A few quick observations, based on my own experience:
* In an ordinary situation, one of my big pieces of advice to a first-time TA would be "give the students lots of group work in class". It's a great way to get them to learn and build a supportive community at the same time. Unfortunately, it sounds like your institution is going to be placing COVID-19 precautions firmly on your shoulders, so you'll need to be the one enforcing social distancing. As a result **you should avoid group work in order to keep everyone safe**. Instead, I'd recommend giving students problems to practice on independently, and then have them share out their ideas to the class as a whole.
* Grading more leniently doesn't make sense - remember that, as an educator, one of your primary responsibilities is to make sure that students who pass your class are adequately qualified to succeed in the next class. Instead, I would recommend **talking to your instructor about setting up a lenient policy about deadlines.** It's reasonable to be nice about late work, but that would need to be something coordinated.
* Online office hours are an excellent idea, but in my experience students are less than likely to show up unless prompted to do so. I'd encourage you to ask your instructor if you can *require* your students to attend online office hours at least once. That would "break the ice" and make them much more likely to attend on their own.
And the **big** one:
* As @username_1 suggested, **talk to your instructor.** This is important because it's hard. When I was a first-time TA, I shied away from asking questions or reporting problems to my instructor, because I felt like that would make me look like I didn't know what I was doing. What I didn't understand is that **a first-time TA is not supposed to know what they're doing.** You've received very little training, and probably none that's relevant to teaching in a pandemic - *own* that, and communicate as much as you can with the people who do know what they're doing.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/16
| 723
| 2,792
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate student, and i had submitted a paper manuscript to *Mathematics of Computation*, I choose this journal because of my supervisor, who advised me to submit my paper to this journal, but 2 weaks after the submission I received the following email.
>
> Dear Professor XXX,
>
>
> This message concerns the manuscript
> XXXX by XXX
> submitted to Mathematics of Computation.
>
>
> We regret that we cannot consider it, in part because at present we have a large backlog of excellent articles awaiting publication. We are thus forced to return articles that might otherwise be considered. Thank you for considering Mathematics of Computation.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> XXXX Managing Editor, Mathematics of Computation
>
>
> --- Sent via EditFlow by XXXX <EMAIL> }}
>
>
>
So, how to deal with this situation ?
Are there any positives/negatives that can be taken ?
Should I submit the paper to another journal? Or just submit it to the same journal at a later time?
Note that I informed the editors and the referees that I am an undergraduate student.<issue_comment>username_1: It is just a nice way to say no. Submit elsewhere.
This is called a *desk reject*; you will find more in this question [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) .
Note that Math Comp is one of the top journals in its field, so unless the paper was extremely good this was the expected outcome.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It's totally normal to get a first paper rejected, especially if you are dealing with a top notch journal (receiving lots of submissions) in a time of reviewer shortages. Don't take it personally or feel bad about it.
I would encourage you to submit your article to another journal. You can research potential journals by looking at what journals your citations were published in as well as looking at lists of journal rankings (e.g. [SJR](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php), [list of these ranking websites](https://latrobe.libguides.com/wherepublish/ranks)). Note: don't get too hung up on exact rankings - think of these lists more as a tool where you can search journals by keyword and try to get an understanding of who has a history of being being a reputable journal versus who is a potential scam. Come up with a list of a few suggestions, and then go talk your ideas over with your supervisor. They may have other suggestions too, but it's good to start learning about how to pick a journal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Even if the backlog answer was true, it could take many months to clear it out. I would submit to another journal.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/16
| 573
| 2,280
|
<issue_start>username_0: After two years, six months, and 22 days, I am going to stop sending emails to Canadian professors. During these two and a half years looking for a Ph.D.studentship. The majority of my friends said that university professors are bombarded by emails from all the countries across the globe. I said ok. During this period I have published many articles in some reputable journals. Unlike Canadians, the Americans, New Zealanders, and Australians are the best ones, always reply to your email, say "yes" or "no". If Canadian professors are busy, please set your automatic answering in your email setting to reply NO. Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: It seems as though you might be the issue here, not the professors. I say this because the odds that every single professor you’ve emailed from a Canadian institution not responding because of their geographical context is near zero. Particularly because those at Canadian institutions are not necessarily even born Canadian‘s themselves, so you’d have to argue that Canadian academic culture is the problem, which again, I can’t envision being the case.
You should do some serious reflection on what your email titles are, your body paragraphs, how you come across, and the Canadian system will help you to find a more rational answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I suspect that Canadian academics get a far larger number of queries from prospective Iranian students (I gather from poking around in your question history that that's your country of origin), certainly compared to the US in recent times, because Canada is more open to student admissions from Iran. Therefore, Canadian academics may be increasingly overwhelmed by inquiries, and your inquiries may be more likely to be lost in the flood.
From [here](https://www.applyboard.com/blog/study-permit-trends-in-canada-iran), "The number of Iranian student applications [to Canada] has more than doubled since 2017." (presumably the number of inquiries is roughly proportional to the number of applications ...)
(I am a Canadian academic who doesn't always manage to send a polite and timely e-mail response to student requests, even domestic ones! I get large numbers of inquiries from the Middle East and South Asia ...)
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/16
| 377
| 1,700
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wrote a paper with 3 other students regarding my final year project in mechanical engineering. It was recently selected for a conference in NIT Delhi. Minimum one author is required to present and the price is pretty steep for the participation certificate.Should all of us attend the conference or just one of us? Does the certificate hold any value?<issue_comment>username_1: Perhaps things are different in India than some other places, but I'd suggest that at least one of you go, as required. The others should make a decision whether the conference, itself, independent of the presentation, has enough value to justify the cost in money and time spent. If any of you intend an academic career, the opportunity to meet others has positive value in building future circles of collaboration.
Note that there may be some discounts for student presenters.
Ii think that, in general, a "certificate of participation" has little value other than as a remembrance.
Of course, if you can draw on a grant for this, the computation changes quite a lot, and then the main cost is the time and effort for the individual. That may not be trivial, of course. Talk too your professor(s).
And, congratulations.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You should pay as little as possible to a conference. If there is only one presentation, there should only be one paying presenter.
For online conferences, you may be able to submit your presentation as a recording. The people who appear in the recorded presentation need not be the the paying presenter, unless the conference says otherwise; all the authors could be in the video. Do follow pandemic quarantine rules.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/16
| 886
| 3,823
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated from college with a physics degree faster than my peers (because of various reasons: financial constraint and ambitions as well as near-burn-out state). My undergrad is a decent research university, not the best of the best, but many well-known researchers. I did well in most classes but I sometimes think it's because my classes are not rigorous enough. Just saying my thought is not out of thin air because I attempted to take a graduate course at the time and I had to work really really hard for it. I don't think I really understood many things from undergraduate classes, even though I'm really good at solving problems from examples. Now I think many of the **basic things** I didn't understand before start to haunt me in my graduate program. Just to emphasize, the gaps I'm talking about is not just some details but in some occasions the whole subject. I still have many gaps from my peers at graduate school. Even though I'm finally filling in the gaps starting grad school, I still feel like there are a lot I need to revisit.
Perhaps my state is a result of me graduating early and pushing my schedule to a limit where I can barely sit down with a class and understand it. Perhaps I fooled everyone in grad admission into thinking I'm some sort of smart student. Perhaps it's because my undergrad didn't really have the best structure preparing me for what I'm doing now. Or perhaps I didn't really know how to learn effectively before graduate school. I don't know.
I feel worrisome sometimes about my abilities, but relieved other time when I revisit what I didn't know and finally understand it. I want to ask if other people experience similar things about not understanding many things and eventually filling in the gaps later (I mean a lot of gaps :)? Or is it a debt of a student who didn't properly go through their education?
As a final word, I know about imposter syndrome. I think I have evidence in my lack of qualifications as said rather than only disregarding my achievements. And thank you in advance for reading my long concerns.<issue_comment>username_1: I think this question is, in fact, about imposter syndrome. But I will answer it anyway.
Many rigorous studies have shown that it is common for students who have completed physics courses to maintain the same misunderstandings of basic physics that they had when they started those courses. So yes, it is normal to not understand things.
It is unlikely that you fooled anyone.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I want to ask if other people experience similar things about not understanding many things and eventually filling in the gaps later (I mean a lot of gaps :)? Or is it a debt of a student who didn't properly go through their education?
>
>
>
I do very often feel the same way and asked my advisors their opinion. Here is a batch of answers fused with my commentary on the subject.
* There is a big gap between getting an A and actually understanding the subject.
* It is normal to not understand something in your first try. It takes few tries for some people.
* Those gaps will be filled over time as you work on those subjects further.
* You can't really fully understand something before teaching a course on it (verbatim from my advisors).
I personally feel like I really understand 2-3 subjects and have a passing understanding of other 4-5. Unlike your case, I did not graduate early. I personally approach this with solving textbook problems without rereading the text. It really help, at least to me, to figure out what I do or do not understand. Another method is taking more advanced courses which inevitably require, at some point, some of those gaps you are missing. That is a good time to go back and repeat, learn in context.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/16
| 1,394
| 6,068
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a chemistry undergraduate student applying for master’s programs in electrical and computer engineering or computer science (ECE/CS). All my programming skills are self-taught so my professors have no idea about my program switch.
I’ve already contacted some professors and they are willing to give me the references. But once I said I am not applying for a chemistry degree but ECE/CS, two of my references said they cannot give me the reference for non-chemistry related programs since they know nothing about my programming skills. Those two references are who know me the most (IMO) and I think I performed well in their courses/projects.
What can I do? I cannot put too much workload on each professor if two of whom quit.<issue_comment>username_1: Your professors are in essence, trying to help. They think that their letters would not carry enough weight to help you. They may be thinking about if they'd admit a student from a different field whose letter-writers said nothing about their chemistry experience (and apparently deciding they would not). Professor's time is valuable, and they don't want to spend it writing a letter that they think would be useless.
>
> But once I said I am not applying for a chemistry degree but ECE/CS 2 of my references said they cannot give me the reference for non-chemistry related programs since they know nothing about my programming skills.
>
>
>
I do not know whether you need letters that espouse your programming skills, but the solution is to:
* Tell the professors that you have already got a letter-writer addressing your programming skills, and ask them to write about something more specific, like your research experience, or go-getting-ness (etc., etc.). You have a letter that explains why you'd be a good ECE/CS student, right?
* Explain why that's not a concern, and then ask them to focus on something more specific.
If they still refuse, unfortunately, there is little you can do.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: This is disappointing but you may have dodged a bullet there. It seems from the information you provide that this professor would have not gone much beyond the boilerplate stuff that admission officer can get from the transcript.
It is simple enough to state in the opening paragraph that the referee cannot comment on the ability of the candidate to perform in the proposed program but instead focus on what *not* in the transcript.
Indeed, the strongest reference letters are those that go beyond repeating what’s in the transcript, i.e. the discuss the work ethics, industry, collegiality of the candidate, etc. If this professor is cannot do this, then it’s unlikely the reference letter would have been useful in the first place.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You need to gain relevant experience so that you can obtain relevant letters of recommendation. This can be done by working in the software industry or conducting academic research that uses your programming skills.
Alternately, I would expect that some masters programs do not require letters of recommendation. You can seek those out.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm retired now but I bluffed my way into several courses - including a Masters. Luckily I went on to get the qualifications.
If you got a first-class degree in anything, (apart perhaps from a so-called "soft" subject, I won't go into details), then this in itself is enough to indicate that that you are bright enough and determined enough to cope with studying at Masters level (IMHO).
My suggestion is that you pick one of these profs who know you the most and try an experiment.
Write your own reference, laying out your strengths, e.g. Works hard, capable of team work, but also capable of working alone, excellent attention to detail in the lab, etc, etc. Make sure that you are truthful and **realistic**.
**Now comes the experiment** (let's face it you have nothing to lose)
Send the above reference to one of the profs who has refused. Ask if s/he would be willing to send it as one of your recommendations even though it says nothing about computing skills. Ask them simply to redact or amend anything that is not true. This will save them a lot of work.
The professor can respond in a number of ways. Let's consider two.
1. They give you a straight "No". Then you are no worse off because they weren't going to anyway.
2. They say "Yes", then you have the opportunity to go ahead. Make sure you *do* use the letter though or the prof will resent putting in even putting in the limited amount of work.
---
**Note**
There are Masters and Masters. Some are clearly designated as conversion courses. They are for experts in other fields who want to add new knowledge; These courses are rather like doing a three-year first degree but in one year. This is tough but can be done - however you won't get too advanced - probably you'll only be able to reach graduate level in the subject.
Others are intended as an advance from a first degree in the same subject. In my opinion, unless you are a genius) you would be crazy to attempt this coming from a different subject. Computer science is not about having written a few C programs or any other programming language. It is about understanding data structures (trees, stack, heap etc), search algorithms, graph traversal, computability theory, operating systems, machine architecture, etc. (Those are just the first that came to mind). Already being fluent in several different programming paradigms (OOP, Functional, Procedural, etc.) is taken for granted.
I think you should carefully read the prerequisites for the course and see if *you* believe you have them. Otherwise think again.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Computer Science is more than just programming it also involves theory, logical arguments, and problem solving. If you can suggests to your professors to instead discuss you abilities as a good problem solver or abstract/mathematical thinker that should be something they can write about.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/17
| 729
| 3,106
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had a professor who told me during the year that he'd be happy to write me a letter of recommendation for a research degree I was contemplating applying to. I've since decided to apply.
My university (in Europe) is on break until 1 October. I emailed the professor asking for the letter three weeks ago on his university email address. He hasn't answered me. However, I sent him a connection request on LinkedIn, and he accepted it within 45 seconds. I am thus wondering if he is not checking his university email during our vacation. However, I would like to know if he is willing to write it before October, as waiting until then would give me insufficient time to request one from someone else.
Would it be inappropriate for me to send him a follow-up letter request via LinkedIn, since I know he's checking that? Would it be more appropriate to make reference to the email I sent him, or send my entire request via the messenger? Or should I limit myself to communication via the university email address and just hope he reads it?<issue_comment>username_1: Too much thinking can be procrastinating. Waiting to take an action will halt the whole thing you want to achieve. At the end, it will either be a yes or a no for recommendation, which will be still better than waiting.
I would recommend you to start with by messaging your professor on linkedIn, maybe a simple 'Hello' type communication.
If you receive a response, ask if he gets a chance to check regarding your recommendation letter.
Again either yes or no. Even if checked or not checked, you can request the possibility to receive it, also specifying the reason that something is at halt because of it.
Make sure you acknowledge and express genuine gratitude how he taught and supported you before closing this conversation on linkedIn.
Again there will be waiting time, and you might check back with him on linkedIn after specified possible time plus maximum of 2 days additionally depending on your comfort-ability.
After this point you will be facing the same question again regarding waiting, so read this again and repeat your actions.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: If someone is on LinkedIn, especially if they are active on LinkedIn, I see no reason why they would be offended if you sent them a message on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is a professional networking site. That would be exactly what you are doing. I would write something straight forward:
>
> [Salutation]
>
>
> I am applying to graduate programs at a few schools. I enjoyed your class in Underwater Heavy Metal Guitar and felt I did well in the class. Would you be willing to write me a letter of recommendation for my graduate program applications?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> -username_1
>
>
>
Three weeks is a long enough time that this professor has likely not seen (or has forgotten about) your email. There is no reason to cower in fear about asking for a letter of recommendation from a professor who said he would write you one. If he is at all reasonable, a simple message on LinkedIn will be just fine.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/17
| 293
| 1,258
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working as a project assistant in a lab in India. My role is similar to that of what a research assistant does in academia. But I'm not familiar with the use of the title 'project assistant' in the U.S or Europe. Should I specify my job role as a research assistant while applying for a PhD position in Europe or in the U.S? Or is there a perceivable difference between the two titles and if so, which one has more weightage during applications?<issue_comment>username_1: Best answer from Dimitry. Yes include your duties, but stress the research part. Avoid using sentances like " I accomplished this or that" and don't try to impress people by using too many technical terms. Remember that the brightest people have the ability to explain the most complex terms elequently in laymans terms.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Note that titles are given to people, not assumed by them. Only use titles as formally assigned to avoid any hint of possible fraud. Research Assistant (RA) in the US is a specific designation.
But if you are *formally* a Project Assistant, then you could explain somewhere that it is "similar to" a research assistant in other places. Be prepared in any interview to explain further.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/17
| 1,730
| 7,645
|
<issue_start>username_0: Review articles generally receive more citations compared to original research articles.
In my mind, it should be the other way around, as journal guidelines generally solicit researchers to cite original research articles rather than review articles. So reviews should only be cited after their original content, which tends to be a small fraction of their total content, while the largest part of it consists of paraphrasing and citing research articles.
Therefore, I would venture to believe that reviews receive more citations because the rule I mentioned previously is generally not followed; and that authors usually cite reviews to avoid taking time to search for original articles (which I have to admit can be exhausting, and extremely time-consuming).
Can someone corroborate if this is the case, or am I missing something? Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: I don't recall ever being told, by journal guidelines or by an editor, that I should always cite the original paper instead of a review. The review would usually contain citations of the original publications.
A review can be cited as a single source for lots of facts, especially in the "introduction" or "background" sections of a paper. So it's likely to be more useful for the reader. A good review is also likely to be easier for many readers to understand than the original paper. And the review might be where I originally learned the information I need. Finally, a review is likely to use uniform notation that I can adopt, whereas the original papers are more likely to have diverging notation, which may make it difficult for readers to compare them with my paper and with each other.
I've often written things like "see [review] and the references there"; no one has yet complained.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Many papers have background that touches on enough different areas that citing all the original research in those areas would quickly balloon a paper to thousands of references. Therefore, it's common practice to cite authoritative reviews, plus specific individual papers of the highest relevance.
The direction to:
>
> cite original research articles rather than review articles
>
>
>
...only applies when you are discussing specific findings. If you are referring to Alice's paper, you should cite Alice, not Bob's review of several papers including Alice's. If you are referring to a whole area of research that has been nicely summarized by Bob and includes papers by Alice, Jane, Jesse and Richard, you can (and should!) cite Bob.
If anything, it's a form of plagiarism of Bob if you were to read Bob's review, find that Bob has collected papers from Alice, Jane, Jesse, and Richard, and cite those papers rather than Bob (it would be okay to cite Bob plus the others if they are sufficiently important; if I do this I make clear that the citations were found via Bob, even if I'm familiar with the other papers individually as well). Collecting papers in a review is an intellectual endeavor that deserves citation.
I think the general claim that review articles are cited more frequently than original research is false, but I don't have great data to support that besides my own papers: reviews make up a minority of citations in a single paper.
However, my impression is that there are a handful of **very highly cited reviews**, often by respected researchers in particular fields, and also lots of reviews that are hardly cited at all. Those highly respected reviews collect citations from a very broad area of research and their citation counts balloon well over that of any individual paper in the same broad area.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the previous posts, but would add that there are a few additional aspects of reviews that merit high citation counts:
* Most researchers start by reading a review when getting into a new topic. Since reviews are "introductory material", naturally, many people have read them and therefore many people are likely to cite them.
* A review has a broader audience than a research article since it may cover e.g. five subfields instead of a specific question in one subfield. Therefore many different types of people can use them, relative to an article which has a narrower focus.
* Reviews bring value in and of themselves. For example, they might outline the history of a research area; they might compare and contrast different articles' view points; or they might point to key areas for future work. These are independent contributions in and of themselves and should be cited as such.
As you note, it is easier to cite a review than read sub-articles, but I don't think that's the primary reason. If I am just using content from a single article, then I would cite the original article and not the review.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You should ask yourself, what is the purpose of a citation?
I read your perspective as: the purpose is to award credit (like "points") to research that originated an idea.
That is one of the purposes, but there are others. An important purpose is giving the reader a reference for a claim or statement, so they can go learn more about it. Review articles are generally better for this.
Another purpose is to establish credibility for a claim or statement. If I write "researchers generally consider approach A more promising", then a review article demonstrating this has more credibility than an opinion expressed in one research paper.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> So reviews should only be cited after their original content, which tends to be a small fraction of their total content, while the largest part of it consists of paraphrasing and citing research articles.
>
>
>
The **original and defining content of a review is the review work itself**, that is the comparison of the knowledge record about a topic. It is a lot of scientific work. A review article is like the embryonic form of a book.
Conversely, too many "original" research articles fail to link their content to the state of the art. I am not surprised any longer of finding that the literature review in the introductions is just name dropping: I often go and browse the cited papers only not to find any supporting information to the citing paper.
And, incidentally, when I review papers in the sense of peer reviewing, I always look through at least some of the articles the authors have cited.
Disappointing incidents happened to me even for [work published by associate editors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148771/if-you-were-an-editor-in-chief-would-you-appreciate-to-be-informed-that-an-asso).
Anyhow, the attribution **original** for any standard publication is possibly a name of convenience and creates a false dichotomy: you could call it **incremental research** for example. (I have seen now that Elsevier calls them "regular articles").
The point I cherish is that one should only cite what one has read, preferably perused, preferably not just glanced at. As a reader I want to know what you considered to build your arguments. If you read a review article and are happy about the comparison and conclusions drawn there, cite it. If you went further and looked into some other publication, whether or not cited in the review, cite that.
About reading papers and the fact that it
>
> can be exhausting, and extremely time-consuming
>
>
>
I do concur. This is particularly true of badly written papers, that is for which authors have not taken sufficient time for writing well, beside that for reading well, but that's another story.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/17
| 1,624
| 7,089
|
<issue_start>username_0: My university tests every student.
So they have the data.
I can understand that for privacy,
the names of the students who tested positive are not released to the public or the instructors.
But do instructors have right to know how many or if any student in his/her class tested positive?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't recall ever being told, by journal guidelines or by an editor, that I should always cite the original paper instead of a review. The review would usually contain citations of the original publications.
A review can be cited as a single source for lots of facts, especially in the "introduction" or "background" sections of a paper. So it's likely to be more useful for the reader. A good review is also likely to be easier for many readers to understand than the original paper. And the review might be where I originally learned the information I need. Finally, a review is likely to use uniform notation that I can adopt, whereas the original papers are more likely to have diverging notation, which may make it difficult for readers to compare them with my paper and with each other.
I've often written things like "see [review] and the references there"; no one has yet complained.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Many papers have background that touches on enough different areas that citing all the original research in those areas would quickly balloon a paper to thousands of references. Therefore, it's common practice to cite authoritative reviews, plus specific individual papers of the highest relevance.
The direction to:
>
> cite original research articles rather than review articles
>
>
>
...only applies when you are discussing specific findings. If you are referring to Alice's paper, you should cite Alice, not Bob's review of several papers including Alice's. If you are referring to a whole area of research that has been nicely summarized by Bob and includes papers by Alice, Jane, Jesse and Richard, you can (and should!) cite Bob.
If anything, it's a form of plagiarism of Bob if you were to read Bob's review, find that Bob has collected papers from Alice, Jane, Jesse, and Richard, and cite those papers rather than Bob (it would be okay to cite Bob plus the others if they are sufficiently important; if I do this I make clear that the citations were found via Bob, even if I'm familiar with the other papers individually as well). Collecting papers in a review is an intellectual endeavor that deserves citation.
I think the general claim that review articles are cited more frequently than original research is false, but I don't have great data to support that besides my own papers: reviews make up a minority of citations in a single paper.
However, my impression is that there are a handful of **very highly cited reviews**, often by respected researchers in particular fields, and also lots of reviews that are hardly cited at all. Those highly respected reviews collect citations from a very broad area of research and their citation counts balloon well over that of any individual paper in the same broad area.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the previous posts, but would add that there are a few additional aspects of reviews that merit high citation counts:
* Most researchers start by reading a review when getting into a new topic. Since reviews are "introductory material", naturally, many people have read them and therefore many people are likely to cite them.
* A review has a broader audience than a research article since it may cover e.g. five subfields instead of a specific question in one subfield. Therefore many different types of people can use them, relative to an article which has a narrower focus.
* Reviews bring value in and of themselves. For example, they might outline the history of a research area; they might compare and contrast different articles' view points; or they might point to key areas for future work. These are independent contributions in and of themselves and should be cited as such.
As you note, it is easier to cite a review than read sub-articles, but I don't think that's the primary reason. If I am just using content from a single article, then I would cite the original article and not the review.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You should ask yourself, what is the purpose of a citation?
I read your perspective as: the purpose is to award credit (like "points") to research that originated an idea.
That is one of the purposes, but there are others. An important purpose is giving the reader a reference for a claim or statement, so they can go learn more about it. Review articles are generally better for this.
Another purpose is to establish credibility for a claim or statement. If I write "researchers generally consider approach A more promising", then a review article demonstrating this has more credibility than an opinion expressed in one research paper.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> So reviews should only be cited after their original content, which tends to be a small fraction of their total content, while the largest part of it consists of paraphrasing and citing research articles.
>
>
>
The **original and defining content of a review is the review work itself**, that is the comparison of the knowledge record about a topic. It is a lot of scientific work. A review article is like the embryonic form of a book.
Conversely, too many "original" research articles fail to link their content to the state of the art. I am not surprised any longer of finding that the literature review in the introductions is just name dropping: I often go and browse the cited papers only not to find any supporting information to the citing paper.
And, incidentally, when I review papers in the sense of peer reviewing, I always look through at least some of the articles the authors have cited.
Disappointing incidents happened to me even for [work published by associate editors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148771/if-you-were-an-editor-in-chief-would-you-appreciate-to-be-informed-that-an-asso).
Anyhow, the attribution **original** for any standard publication is possibly a name of convenience and creates a false dichotomy: you could call it **incremental research** for example. (I have seen now that Elsevier calls them "regular articles").
The point I cherish is that one should only cite what one has read, preferably perused, preferably not just glanced at. As a reader I want to know what you considered to build your arguments. If you read a review article and are happy about the comparison and conclusions drawn there, cite it. If you went further and looked into some other publication, whether or not cited in the review, cite that.
About reading papers and the fact that it
>
> can be exhausting, and extremely time-consuming
>
>
>
I do concur. This is particularly true of badly written papers, that is for which authors have not taken sufficient time for writing well, beside that for reading well, but that's another story.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/17
| 1,014
| 4,371
|
<issue_start>username_0: For context, at a US-based institute there is a typical business-like policy stating intellectual property developed by faculty is owned by the institute. Likewise, faculty are required to submit disclosures of their work before public release as to not interfere with the ability to patent such novel ideas. This can clearly create some backlog and difficulty in publishing work, but is also a concern for academics that do not want to commercialize their ideas but instead allow them to be free for the 'public good'.
Are there examples where universities have created specific policies that allow faculty to make the decision on, for example, making an algorithm and code open source without disclosure?
Another way to consider the question if this is more common than I can find; what are the most open policies for faculty decision making in the ability to put ideas in the public domain without first disclosing to the university?<issue_comment>username_1: In Sweden, faculty and researchers at universities personally own the copyright to the research and teaching materials they produce. This rule (called *lärarundantaget*, the "teachers' exception" to the automatic transfer of copyright to the employer that is the rule in other industries) is stipulated by law, not by the policies of individual universities.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I've worked under contracts (at University College London and the University of Cambridge) specifying that I would retain any copyrights I generated in the course of my work, but the university would get any design rights and patentable inventions. I've also worked under a contract (at the University of Plymouth) specifying that I would retain the copyright in any *article for publication* that I wrote, but the university would get any *other* copyrights and any design rights and patentable inventions.
IIRC, in at least two of the three cases (and possibly all three), the contracts promised that, in connection with any patentable invention of my creation, the university wouldn't apply for a patent without my permission.
Edited a couple of days later to add: at the University of Cambridge, faculty-level staff are allowed to refuse to sign the standard contract of employment, instead merely signing a declaration that they 'will well and faithfully discharge all the duties of the office'. One of the reasons faculty might exercise this option is traditionally [said](https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2003-04/weekly/5938/18.html) to be to protect IP they create from falling into the ownership of the university. However, it occurs to me now that this would actually be counter-productive, because refusing to sign the standard contract would bring into play the default position in sections 11(2) and 215(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and section 39 of the Patents Act 1977, which actually give the university more control and the individual faculty member less control than the standard contract.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The University of Illinois (where I am a faculty member) classifies most *written* faculty work as "traditional academic copyrightable works", and by [explicit policy](https://www.bot.uillinois.edu/governance/general_rules) all such works are owned by their authors. If their creation requires university resources "over and above those usually and customarily provided", then by default the university gets a royalty-free non-exclusive license, but even that requirement is routinely waived.
My university also supports faculty [releasing their software under open-source licenses](https://otm.illinois.edu/disclose-protect/open-source-licensing). In principle, any code developed with the support of a research grant requires university approval before it can be released, but in practice, faculty routinely publish their research code without prior approval (or censure) from the university. I can see the possibility of a dispute arising if a piece of code were *patentable*, but the last time I remember the university wielding that particular hammer with any force, the NCSA Mosaic authors left (middle fingers high in the air) to found Netscape.
I have never felt any pressure to ask anyone's permission to publish an algorithm or source code. (My first-order research area is algorithms.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/18
| 492
| 2,254
|
<issue_start>username_0: So far, at the institution I work at, we have taken our quizzes in a proctored environment. Either on paper or sometimes online. But under the prevailing scenario, we need to resort to some fully online method, where the students will appear in the quizzes from home.
Among other Learning Management Systems, Microsoft Teams is one of the possible choices. Do you think that it is safe to use Microsoft Teams for quizzes?
The quizzes comprise mostly multiple-choice and true-false questions plus some other short questions with textual answers.
Can a student try viewing the quiz source while taking the quiz which is likely to contain the correct answers for the MCQ and TF questions?<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming you mean a quiz written as a Microsoft Forms quiz and using the Teams assignment tab for submission and collation, then I believe it's robust to that particular attack, since it is literally a web form, and the marking and score generation seem to happen server side.
On the other hand there are plenty of attacks that it isn't secure to. Not least students communicating with each other, either through Teams directly (for the non-creative students) or out of band (e.g. via a mobile phone). And unfortunately both multiple choice and true-false are harder to plagiarism check than freeform text.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Microsoft Teams seems to utilise a wide range of security features on most of its services. including Microsoft Teams, which you can read about here: <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/teams-security-guide>. However, Microsoft Teams cannot prevent students from communicating in an environment external to itself – there are countless messaging services which can be used outside of the Microsoft corporation. Moreover, advanced algorithms would be needed in order to gain accurate insights into which students might be cheating through MS form comparison, and even if they were 100% accurate, you couldn't say which student was supplying answers and which was copying.
I think it is fair to say that a student would have to be more than tech-savvy to hack Microsoft Teams, but not to DM another student to find out the answer to a question.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/18
| 692
| 2,786
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently working on my master thesis in physics and mathematics and will finish within a few months. My supervisor told me he would like to continue with my thesis' research subject and asked me if I wanted to be a PhD student in his group. However, he doesn't have any funds at the moment for hiring another PhD student, although his current PhD students are all almost finished.
He is going to look around and obviously will continue submitting proposals for grants. But unless we are very lucky, there won't be a grant within a reasonable time. He offered to help me get a PhD somewhere else and write a good letter of recommendation. I think the chances are good to obtain a PhD position somewhere else. However, I would like to find a way to do a PhD with my current supervisor.
Does anyone have any ideas how to get funding or something else I could do? This is at a university in The Netherlands and a PhD is considered as a job here. Funding is almost never arranged by the PhD student his/herself.<issue_comment>username_1: If you are not starting as a funded student then you should assume that you’ll have no funding for the entire duration. Based on that assumption, can you somehow afford 1) tuition 2) living costs 3) auxiliary costs (social, personal, etc) for the duration of the PhD? And, if you cannot, are you willing to take on thousands (tens of thousands?) worth of debt to try and get that PhD?
If you cannot get funding, you may have to find a job to support yourself, but then of course, your time will be divided.
If you are not willing to find a part time job or you are not willing to take on a lot of debt, then you should not be doing your PhD with somebody who is unable to pay you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are -mainly- two options in the Netherlands to arrange your own funding.
Get a talent scholarship from NWO. See here: <https://www.nwo.nl/en/research-and-results/programmes/magw/research-talent/index.html>
Or, as you are in beta science a very good option, is to find a company that will hire you and will allow you to do the phd externally. This allows you to gain some work experience while doing the phd. You will take longer, but you will stay connected to practice.
By the way, in my opinion, to much of this 'yeah i would love to but i dont have funding' is coming from professors. If they really want you, they should only offer you a funded position. But that's from someone who left academia :)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Even if you masters supervisor had funding, you should apply for multiple PhD positions at multiple universities. Accept the best offer you receive.
In physics, I would not recommend an unfunded PhD to anyone who is not already wealthy.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/18
| 294
| 1,271
|
<issue_start>username_0: When students turn in papers, are they electronic? or do they turn in physical paper copies?
Perhaps there is one answer for high school students and another for college / graduate school?<issue_comment>username_1: Context: US universities. My daughter started 5 years ago now, taking her ink jet printer. It never got used - the small liberal arts school had lots of public printers in libraries and other buildings, with a page allowance that more than covered whatever printing needed to be done. Many professors took pdf submissions. Now at a large state school for grad work, nobody wants paper submissions.
Son just moved in as a freshman, no printer in tow.
Bottom line: universities have printing options available, usually with some pages included in your tuition, most profs take pdf submissions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Datapoint: I've been teaching for the last 10 years, always strongly encouraging digital submissions. They're easier to check for plagiarism, easier to handle, and more environmentally friendly. If I really need hardcopy (e.g. because they're more convenient to read), I can always print my own. None of my colleagues accepts hardcopy submissions only. But preferences certainly differ.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/18
| 560
| 2,340
|
<issue_start>username_0: When I started my Master's program, my supervisor was Professor X. However, I had to leave their group after a few months, partly because we didn't get along, but also because the research topic wasn't a good fit.
Presently, my supervisor is Professor Y (who is awesome, and with whom I performed research work that really interested me). Now, I am getting ready to defend my thesis and need to select professors for the defense committee.
It so happens that my current thesis research deals tangentially with Professor X's research focus from about 5 years ago (and by the way, there aren't many professors whose research directly relates to my thesis). Under normal circumstances, Professor X would have been a decent choice for my defense committee.
Here is where I need a gut-check: I personally do not want Professor X on my defense committee. It is unlikely that they would try to sabotage my defense, but I have always found it distressing to be in Professor X's presence. Yes, I could grin and bear it, but I would simply rather not do that. Is it reasonable to request that Professor X be excluded?<issue_comment>username_1: This is something to talk over with your advisor. It is a reasonable request, but it might not be possible to go along with it. But if your advisor knows the whole story they can advise you on how to proceed, or even, if necessary, assure that the other person isn't included.
But, assuming that your advisor is present at the defense, perhaps one of the examiners, then they can intervene if there is anything improper going on.
If the advisor isn't present, it is a bigger problem, and you need to work harder to achieve the other person's attendance. Sadly, there may not be any options, given the field and the available people.
But, you need an advocate in setting it up and preferably at the defense as well.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Don't pick professor X because you don't need that stress. At my university you weren't even supposed to pick someone you've collaborated with for conflict of interest reasons. If anyone asks tell them you wanted the significance of your work to be evaluated by the broader audience and not by someone that might be biased in favour of your research. I think that's a very defendable position.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/18
| 1,919
| 8,286
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student in social science. Recently, I have been invited to present my work at a conference and a lab meeting. I'm glad about the opportunities to present my work in front of colleagues. But at the same time, I'm afraid that I won't be able to answer questions from audience and they will think that I'm dumb.
To be clear, I don't have anxiety about giving a talk per se, or at least know how to deal with it. I have a script for my talk, rehearse it so many times to the point I almost memorize it. I even practice my facial expressions and voice tone during the talk. I just learn and practice how to present my "ideal" academic self to colleagues.
However, when it comes to Q & A after my talk, I sometimes couldn't answer questions professionally. I think there are two reasons for why sometimes I couldn't answer questions.
1. I'm not a native English speaker. When someone asks me a question that I couldn't understand, I ask the person to repeat the question or ask a follow-up question for clarification. But this strategy doesn't always work. One time, at a conference, I couldn't understand the question after asking the person to repeat the question twice. It was so embarrassing.
2. When I'm under pressure, my brain stops functioning and I couldn't really think! When people suggest a new idea that I'm not familiar with, I feel like my brain stops working, my mind goes blank and I cannot really provide "sophisticated" answer, which is possible only when I fully understand what their question actually meant and when I know how to connect their idea with my work. Also, it is so hard for me to come up with a good answer in a minute. I cannot really think when everyone is looking at my face waiting for my answer.
Given that how judging academia is, I feel like people will eventually find out that I'm not that smart. My frustration is that I cannot prepare for questions in advance. They are often unpredictable and random. I'm wondering if you have any tips or advice about how to deal with questions after talk or how to overcome anxiety about questions.<issue_comment>username_1: There are other questions about "imposter syndrome" on this Stack, it might be useful to look through them because some of what you describe might fit into that area.
Besides that, I think the best way to feel better about answering questions during presentations is to *do it a lot*. Seek out opportunities to present to a "friendly audience", and ask that they challenge you with questions. Talk about your research informally with fellow students in your area. Do all of this in English, in case you typically use another language in those contexts.
You can also try to plan ahead for certain questions or areas of questions, and even make slides to respond to those questions ahead of time if they are asked. Generally I wouldn't suggest purposefully leaving information out to prompt certain questions, but it is rare that you can fit every single caveat and counterexample and piece of background into a talk.
If you can't figure out what question someone is asking, try to ask it back to them, even if you are off the mark or don't get it exactly right - that's usually more productive than just asking someone to repeat. I see native English speakers including everyone from students to full professors have trouble understanding what someone is asking about all the time - it's quite normal. Also, questions asked during a talk aren't like exam questions where a grader is judging your answer based on some rubric for that specific question. Usually the asker is hoping to get you to elaborate on something, so even if all you can pick up is a key word you can repeat back a possible question based on that key word, or just start elaborating on that area. I'm also a fan of being honest with language difficulties. I would never think less of someone who just gave an entire talk in their non-native language but doesn't understand a particular word or phrase I used.
Lastly, I don't think academia is nearly as "judging" as you may think it is. Especially when you are presenting your own work, know that **you are the best expert in the world in your own work**. PhD-level research does build on what has been done before, but ultimately if it's research worth doing as a PhD student it is pushing some boundary of knowledge. You're the only person who has yet crossed that particular boundary, and the whole point of giving an academic presentation is to bring your colleagues up to speed.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Confidence is key. Confidence to say ‘Interesting question, I don’t know the answer but will look into it’ or ‘can we take this offline?’ Most people respect admission of not knowing more than a faulty attempt just to answer
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Your problem starts with how you approach giving the talk. You say:
>
> I have a script for my talk, rehearse it so many times to the point I almost memorize it. I even practice my facial expressions and voice tone during the talk. I just learn and practice how to present my "ideal" academic self to colleagues.
>
>
>
Given you are presenting in a non-native language, this is understandable, but you should try to be more spontaneous in your talk. Start by reducing your verbatim script into shorthand, and remove the phrases/expressions that you find easiest. Once you have become comfortable with that, reduce your script further so that it occupies just one sheet of paper, on which you outline the structure, key points, and any quotations.
**Once you have become more spontaneous in how you give a talk**, you should find yourself better equipped to handle questions on the spot. As for dealing with these questions, remember that conferences are about presenting "work in progress" and providing an opportunity to discuss such work with peers at a formative stage. In that context, you should **expect** to be challenged.
Think of the tough questions as feedback, and engage with it in good faith -- that is to say, try to respond with some discussion relating the ideas/issues raised by the question to your work, **even if you cannot actually answer the question**. Think of it as a very brief seminar discussion or supervision, and participate in that spirit:
* do **not** dodge the question;
* do **not** change the question to something you wish the person had asked; and
* "I do not know" is perfectly acceptable as a starting-point for an answer, as long as you then elaborate by making a connection to something you **do** know (practice saying expressions such as
+ "I do not know about this issue specifically, but what I can say is that..."
+ "I am not sure about ..., but it may be connected to what we have observed with ..."
+ "I have not got enough information/evidence to be sure about this, although I suspect that..."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: When someone asks you a question, *pause* before you answer. This gives you a chance to gather your thoughts and make sure you're answering the question they asked (and not the question you assumed they were asking when you heard the first few words from them). The pause will also reassure the asker that you've really listened to them. I often find that during such a pause, I come up with a better, more coherent, answer than I would have otherwise. Pause for what feels to you like an awkwardly long time (it will feel much shorter to the audience). One way to force yourself to pause is to breathe in slowly.
Remember that the audience is on your side; they want you to do well. There *might* be someone in the audience who likes to take people down, but other people will recognise this as mean-spiritedness; they will have empathy for you. And it won't be your job to deal with such a person (beyond a good faith attempt to answer the question). The conference or session chair will step in if things get out of hand.
If someone asks why you didn't do Y instead of X, treat it as a *suggestion* rather than a *criticism*. It's usually fine to say something like "for this experiment, we did X because it was convenient/familiar/etc., but it would be interesting to repeat the experiment with Y in future".
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/19
| 1,553
| 6,254
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am planning to submit my thesis next month. I have 4 published SCI-indexed journals (Elsevier, Springer, IEEE transaction, World Scientific) and 2 more journals communicated (all first authors). My thesis is on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. The thesis will be sent to two external examiners about whom I will not know (Institute policy). I am fearing what will happen if my thesis somehow gets rejected (I do not know why I am so scared right now).
1. Should I be worried that my thesis may get rejected?
2. Also, what happens when the thesis gets major revision?
3. Do I have to do the corrections and send the thesis again?
4. When a reviewer is checking a thesis, usually what does he want in
it?
5. Does he read the entire thesis line by line?
Kindly share any incident of thesis rejections if you know of any, why it was rejected and how the person finally got his degree.<issue_comment>username_1: This very much depends on which system you are in. I can answer from the point of view of the UK system.
1. It is very **un**likely your thesis will be outright rejected.
2. It is very likely you will be asked to make some corrections.
3. Yes, you will have to make the corrections and send the thesis again.
4. Requirements for a thesis are generally set out by the university. They normally specify you must have made a "novel contribution to the field" and the work is, in principle, of publication quality. Or something similar.
5. Yes, a good examiner will read the thesis line by line.
There are five possible outcomes from the examination of a thesis.
1. Accepted without corrections
2. Minor corrections - generally textual changes only - 3 month time limit
3. Major corrections - might involve some reanalysis, but no new experiments - 6 month time limit.
4. Resubmit - this thesis does not pass, but contains sufficient material to convince the examiners you are capable of passing. You are giving leave to rewrite and resubmit the thesis. May involve new experiments - often 1 year time limit.
5. Fail (either with or without a Master of Philosophy degree).
Almost all students are given minor or major corrections - I'd say 90% fall into these categories. Slightly more in minor corrections probably. Maybe 8% get no corrections, and perhaps 1.5% are asked to resubmit. Very, very few fail outright.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Should I be worried that my thesis may get rejected?
>
>
>
Four published journal articles and two under review, that sounds impressive to me! It's natural to fear your thesis will get rejected, it's natural to be scared: Search this forum for *impostor syndrome*
>
> Also, what happens when the thesis gets major revision? Do I have to do the corrections and send the thesis again?
>
>
>
That'll likely depend on your institute and country. I suspect you'll need to make corrections in a timely fashion, perhaps your examiners will need to check they are satisfied.
>
> When a reviewer is checking a thesis, usually what does he want in it?
>
>
>
A novel (valid) contribution to your field (just like a journal article), mastery of the material, and a broad understand of your domain.
>
> Does he read the entire thesis line by line?
>
>
>
That depends on the examiner.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It is possible but unlikely that your thesis is rejected.
Although probably technically illegal, it is also probable that any sensible examiner would quietly contact your supervisor before submitting a report if there was a major problem with the thesis, if only to make sure there was no major misunderstanding and avoid embarrassment for the student but also for those like the thesis director who allowed the thesis to go forward. My experience is that examiners will prefer to hold their noses and accept a marginal or bad thesis rather than cause trouble and reject the submission.
The most likely outcome is that you will be asked to make minor revisions, and then your school will have some procedure to handle this time-wise. Usually the examiners do not need to see the thesis again when resubmitted after minor corrections.
Depending on how closely the thesis is examined, it may be accepted as is, but this very rare in my experience, and not necessarily desirable and one wonders how closely the examiner did his/her job. You want the examiner to engage with and improve the outcome to raise the visibility of the results.
In 35 or so years of experience, I know for certain of only three cases where a thesis was rejected: in two instances a document was submitted over the objection of the thesis director; in the third instance a real error was found in the thesis. Since this is exceptionally rare, you tend to hear about such instances when they happen.
Thankfully, I was not involved directly in any of the situations.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: The other answers have generally good advice, to address a specific question you had:
>
> Kindly share any incident of thesis rejections if you know of any, why it was rejected and how the person finally got his degree.
>
>
>
I only know of one thesis that was completely rejected. In this case:
1. The student had a very weak publication record.
2. The student decided it was time for them to graduate (not the advisor).
3. The procedure for a defense didn't require the advisors signature, so they submitted the form and schedule the exam without their consent. (And initially without their knowledge.)
4. The advisor told them they weren't ready to graduate.
5. At the defense I'm told they couldn't answer even basic questions on the field properly.
6. After a year they were able to try one more time, and nothing changed, so they failed out of the program.
From what you've posted, this is far from your situation. So, while occasion anxiety is understandable, it is probably unwarranted in your case.
I also know of one case where someone's PhD was found to highly overlap with another PhD in another area with completely different terminology. (Math vs CS) That was awful for everyone involved - in that case they were given more time by the committee to come back and address it, and eventually they graduated.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/19
| 1,330
| 5,663
|
<issue_start>username_0: When we put some images in a thesis, we provide a reference to its source where it’s located. If I have created my own images or pictures, how do I make it clear that they are my images and I did not copy and paste them from somewhere?.
So here is the scenario. I am comparing my application architecture with the existing architecture. Since it was a literature study, my architecture is quite different except for one or two components that share the idea with the other one. I am showing both architectures. I explicitly mention the source of the other. But what about my own?
Is there a need to cite self-created images? If yes then how to cite them?<issue_comment>username_1: Cite your own work just like you'd cite someone else's. Without citation you're suggesting originality.
A reader knows when an author cites their own work. The author of both works are the same (or overlapping). There's no need to be explicit (by stating, for instance, *in my earlier work*), unless it is useful.
For works derived from a thesis (as opposed to published works), there isn't an explicit need to self-cite, since works derived from a thesis are considered original, they haven't been published before. That said, you might want to mention something along the lines of: My thesis contains a preliminary version of this work, or similar. (You'll need to adapt slightly when you aren't the sole author.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no need to cite self-created, previously-unpublished images any more than you need to cite self-written, previously unpublished words. By absence of a citation you are claiming the work as your own.
Since this is for a thesis, you should probably check with your advisor / supervisor to be absolutely certain they share that view.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Have a look at the relevant guidelines/rules at your university/department.
Where I am, one typically signs that everything that is not your work or that is not novel is cited. Novelty in the thesis context is defined as "has not been used in any other exam/thesis". Papers published as part of the thesis work do not hamper thesis-relevant novelty *at "my" university*. But since it is up to the unviersity (or even faculty) to decide their exam rules, you may be subject to different rules.
In addition, copyright plays a role. You may be author without having the copyright. The holder/owner of the copyright can allow you to re-use images but stipulate certain ways of citing.
Anything (images, diagrams, tables, text) you created for the current thesis (so they are novel *according to the thesis rules*) and where you hold the copyright (so no rules binding to use particular citation forms) are not cited. If there is no citation, you claim it's yours and novel for this thesis - and thus that it should be included in the content based on which your work is judged by the thesis committee.
---
In my case, I needed to cite my own work only if/when:
* I wanted to reuse an image/diagram that I used already for an earlier thesis or exam, e.g. had I wanted a diagram from my Master thesis to re-appear in my PhD thesis. In that case, I'd have cited my Master thesis like *unrelated* work. Unrelated since this is not part of the work the committee should judge.
* I transfered copyright for several papers I authored to the respective publishers. They typically did allow re-use in theses but prescribed citation sentences like e.g. "This image is reused from [CB3] with kind permission of `$publisher`." [CB3] would be how I cited e.g. the third paper I wrote as part of PhD current thesis.
Had I retained copyright (non-exclusive license to the publisher), I wouldn't have *need* to cite this way. Nevertheless, I'd still think it *advisable* to tell the reader that this diagram can also be found in that paper - it saves people from trying to find out whether the paper contains anything in addition to what the thesis contains. Similarly, I could have used [3], i.e. there was no requirement to make the citiations of my papers for the thesis immediately distinguishable from other citations, but I thought it a good idea to provide such a distincition - e.g. because it makes it clear to the committee that this is part of what they judge as my thesis.
---
For your scenario of diagrams illustrating some application architecture described in some paper:
* if the diagram for the existing one is directly taken from the paper, you apply for a license to re-use that image with the publisher and then do whatever they stipulate in this license.
* if you draw *your own* diagram (in your architecture diagram "language"/style) from the description in the paper, you cite the idea/description, e.g. "diagram of architecture described in [27]" but the diagram itself is *your own work*, and novel and original part of your thesis.
With "your own diagram" I mean e.g. situations like: They have some diagram in the paper. But their way of illustrating isn't really suitable for your thesis since you need to highlight/contrast aspects that are similar to|differ from the architecture you developed. You therefore make a new graph that describes their architecture in another language/style that allows to depict their architecture as well as your architecture.
* Your diagram of your architecture is original and novel work that is part of your thesis. No citation here, unless you signed away the copyright for this diagram - in which case you need a license by the new copyright owner (= journal publisher). In which case you do whatever the license says you should do.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/19
| 358
| 1,506
|
<issue_start>username_0: Quite simply, I have contacted several professors in the same department, and they have all expressed an interest in supervision, and several of them have also said, "you should also consider professors X, Y..." So I ask:
Can I disclose in my correspondences that "yes, I am also in discussions with professors X, Y..."? I feel like the scenario is a bit like being in [Dragon's Den](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons%27_Den_(British_TV_programme)) and I don't know whether it would be a good idea and then have them potentially discussing me behind my back? Or what does happen in these circumstances usually?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you can do that. You are taking their advice, actually, and giving them information they might want. But don't neglect to also say that you are (very) interested in either working with them or keeping contact.
But it is also essential that you have a conversation with each of them about how it will play out if you become their student. You want to know if they have good research ideas (in case you aren't yet committed) and that they will be able to spend sufficient effort on your behalf.
It is also useful to speak with one or more of their current students to get feedback on such things.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If Professor A suggests your speak with Professor B and C, I suggest you copy in Professor A when writing your introduction email to Professors B and C. Keeps things open and transparent.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/19
| 804
| 3,467
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am planning on applying to a PhD in engineering in Germany (either by contacting a group, which I will prioritize, or through a normal application at the graduate school).
The problem I currently face is finding good referees (by good, I mean respectable h-indices, for example).
For those acquainted with German academia: How much weight is put on the recommendation letters and, more importantly, the referrers when reviewing an application for a PhD position (more, or less, than in the US)?
For instance, if you had to rank these factors:
* Letters of recommendation
* Transcripts
* Publications/internships
* Statement of purpose
Where would the letters of recommendation be positioned?<issue_comment>username_1: It is hard to rank them, apart from the last one. The first three have definitely higher priority. Within those three, I think individual preferences will make the difference between institutions.
However I can say this. Compared to USA, standardized tests (GRE general, GRE subject, TOEFL, IETLS, etc.) are much less important when applying in Germany. In my experience, exams like GRE are not asked for or have very little importance. For language exams such as TOEFL, they will usually state a minimum and that will be the actual minimum (unlike in US) and they seem to be understood as sufficiency and not very effective on the preference. Also, unlike in the USA, none of my applications in Europe asked me to send them an official result (which costs around 20$ each) even after I accepted their offer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You mention two different ways of applying: to a grad school and to (the head of) a group.
These ways of “getting in” are very different. Group leaders can, if they have the funds, normally hire whomever they want (if the formal qualification is given), and there is no standard process. For grad schools, there will typically be some committee that may have their own evaluation process.
A few points can be stated, though:
1. Letters of recommendation are a very recent occurrence in German academia. Some more senior professors may value them very little. If the group head is non-German, they are more likely to value them.
2. Transcripts are typically *very* important. The reason is that many PhD regulations require a more-than-average master’s degree. Hence, bad transcripts can be a show-stopper. But also they are often the best available information for how good an applicant is.
3. When applying directly to a group, you should have some courses on your transcript that are relatively close to the area in which the group is working on. You are expected to come with the knowledge needed to start researching right away, so this is important. Better have good grades in them.
4. If you have proper publications already, they help tremendously with your application. So they are, in a sense, most important. There is normally no expectation that an applicant has published research already. Note that papers in predatory journals have a good chance to count negatively, though.
5. If you apply to a group, it is more important to state why your interests align with those of the group. Be very concrete here, and do your homework. Groups with a lot of third-party funded projects will need PhD students to work on these projects, so if your statement of purpose being too concrete while not aligning with any of the projects would not be ideal.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/08/19
| 834
| 3,637
|
<issue_start>username_0: My Ph.D. research in materials science and mechanics was entirely experimental with some MatLab coding to analyze the results and some image analysis through the image processing toolbox. However, in my 2 years postdoc with my Ph.D. supervisor, I am planning of carrying out computational simulations using Molecular dynamics and Finite element analysis. I have limited mathematical background (undergraduate 1,2,3rd years) and programming (undergrad, master's and through Coursera). Through self-study (books and online lectures), will it be possible to be proficient in these modeling tools and methods? Or has that ship sailed when I started the experimentalist path?
Has anyone followed this path in their career?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, pioneers in a field have no other option but to learn from self study. So, yes, it is possible and there are others before you.
In fact, for non-pioneers it is easier than in the past since there are now resources that didn't exist in the past. You have named some of them. You no longer have to depend on yourself and obscure papers that are probably misleading.
I assume that many of us here changed fields after their doctorate as I did.
But, a circle of collaborators or other contacts can be a big help in this so that you get some guidance. This is fairly easy if you hold an academic position at a place with, in your case, theoreticians.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Not at all! as @JonCuster has pointed out, one of the main goals of Ph.D. is to *learn how to learn*; you don't have to be schooled for every single skill.
Plus, I think you might even have an advantage over those who studied only theoretical. I wouldn't neglect the importance of the intuition gained from doing experiments. If you talk with people from a purely theoretical background, they don't even know how the experimentalists are experimenting with the system under study. That is why, in general, when their model doesn't work, they have no idea which of the assumptions that are being made are possibly failing.
Not an answer, but if I were you, I would go with OCW courses [mit, harward (see cs50), etc.] instead of that of websites such as coursera.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Theoretical and experimental thinking is quite different. These are not just different topics, they are different worlds of thinking. That being said, some of the best scientists are proficient at both. There are experimentalists which are strong in theory and where experimental intuition guides them towards good theoretical approaches; and theoreticians which keep their feet on the ground by being aware of the experimental realities.
Your problem is not just learning the material, but actually learning the way of thinking and the language. My recommendation is to work closely with or inside a group that does the type of theory you are interested in, and you will see how well you can absorb this type of thinking.
It does not work for everybody, as both experimental and theoretical talent are quite different in character. But it's worth a try. However, I recommend to "go to school" in your new work, in the sense that, apart from doing the daily research you are expected to be productive in, you set yourself a hard self-study program with clear schedule/topics by which you make your way into the topic. E.g. as if you take a course of (say) 2-3 hours every day to just work through the textbook material, as if in class, until you "swim free" and become comfortable with the basics and more capable of moving freely through the literature.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/20
| 1,072
| 4,612
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently doing the first year of my postdoc. My contract is coming up for renewal in a few months and my PI has asked what my plans are for next year. I told him that I was hoping to stay in his lab for at least another year, but he's told me he can't yet guarantee my contract will be renewed.
I've heard from other people in the lab that my PI normally holds off from confirming that he'll renew your contract until the last minute, where he'll then try to add some extra clauses in the contract that demand the postdoc to complete certain projects or papers by a certain date.
I'm relatively confident that my PI is intending to renew my contract, as he's pushing me to write some grants that would start next year.
But as he can't promise anything yet, is it ok for me to start looking for other postdoc positions in case he doesn't renew my contract? If so, should I let him know that I'm looking for other roles?
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, it sounds like it is essential for you to to look for alternatives. It is improper for the PI to hold you in jeopardy and he should be more clear.
But your career is at risk if you just "hope for the best". You also need to "plan for the worst". It is more than OK.
Whether you let him know or not is a matter of your judgement of his personality. But it might be fine to say (a) I'd love to stay, but (b) I recognize it may not be possible and need a backup.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: A postdoc is a transitory position. Looking for your next job and career step is not just okay, it's essentially what those positions are for.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: You need to plan ahead for the sake of your own career, as well as your financial and mental well-being. There may be certain cases where a PI genuinely can't let you know until the last minute whether they can renew your contract, such as if they are waiting for the outcome of a grant. It seems that this is not the case here however.
You could try politely speaking to or emailing the PI setting a reasonable deadline after which you will apply for other positions. E.g.:
"My contract is ending in December. I really hope that it will be possible to extend my contract here, but appreciate that you cannot commit to an extension at the moment. If it does become possible for me to stay, please let me know by the end of September, after which I will start submitting applications for new positions."
However if I were you, I would consider whether I want to work for a manipulative PI. If they want you to work on a particular project or paper, they should be upfront about it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Yes, you should look for another job. In any contract negotiation, you should always consider your "best alternative to negotiated agreement" (sometimes referred to as a BATNA). If your advisor comes to you with a new employment contract and you have a choice between staying on or being unemployed, you will probably sign.
If, on the other hand, you have two offers, you can choose which one you like best. A second offer also gives you the confidence to negotiate better terms, avoiding unpleasant projects, for example.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I would recommend having an honest conversation with your PI ASAP, making it clear that:
(1) You'd be happy to stay and continue and expand your research with them;
(2) If the contract extension cannot be guaranteed, in the current uncertain funding and political climate you need to start looking for alternatives ASAP;
(3) This would drain some of your time and attention from the current research, which you would not like but, well, these things do use up your mental energy;
(4) If they cannot guarantee extension, you'd appreciate their advice on which other PIs might have funding available and would be good to contact, or which funding opportunities to pursue;
(5) Because it's important to both of you that by the end of your postdoc you have a first-author publication, if they cannot guarantee extension, you need to discuss which of your current projects to focus on. Also, whether you could take some aspect of your current research as your own to develop independently in the future.
Basically, make it clear that you need to know the contract situation and plan accordingly --- and that it is also in the PI's best interest to let you know early.
Best wishes from a new PI who's had his former postdoc positions extended repeatedly, and who is being very clear to his current lab members about their contract situation!
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/20
| 349
| 1,521
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing my PhD in data mining and I want to start writing my thesis. Is there any acceptable percentage of similarities between the final thesis and the used published research to create the final thesis?
For example, one of my research papers is published by IEEE as full research paper and at the same time I extended that paper and got published with a journal. Now, I plan to include them in my thesis and I almost ran out of phrases and words to describe the work without having duplication from the two works.<issue_comment>username_1: The proper way to do this is to quote and cite your earlier work just as you would the work of someone else. This avoids the problem of *self plagiarism*. If you still hold copyright on the earlier work you can quote pretty extensively from it as long as you make it clear that the words come from a specific earlier publication. If you don't own copyright and yielded it to the journals, then you are bound by that as well.
And it isn't just the specific words you need to worry about. Even paraphrasing can be self plagiarism if not cited.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Check with your supervisor, but: Copy-and-paste should be fine, just make sure to mention that your thesis is based upon a list of published papers/articles.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: You should check with your university. Some universities allow an "alternate thesis format", in which some or all chapters are just reprints of published papers.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/20
| 505
| 2,132
|
<issue_start>username_0: I used many open-source packages in my research, such as `matplotlib`, `numpy`, `pandas`, `scipy`, etc. And I found this on the website of SciPy: [Citing packages in the SciPy ecosystem](https://www.scipy.org/citing.html). Should I cite every one of them in my paper? (I'd like to cite them but there are so many of them which will make my paper even half or one page longer)<issue_comment>username_1: Presumably your research uses your software, which in turn uses and acknowledges open-source packages. Your papers need only cite the software used directly, which is perhaps just your software. You could also mention your software is built from open-source packages, but I don't think that's strictly necessary, since acknowledgements appear in your software.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The correct answer is yes, it is because they are open source specialized packages. The answer could be be yes or no depending software developer. Best course of action when in doubt is to include the citations as if you were citing any other individuals source of work, to avoid the plagiarism snafu. Whether you do are not, I would highly suggest you bring this up with your instructor for direction to cover your bases.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I would apply the same prioritization as I would when referencing academic papers: Cite the packages you directly use, but not dependencies, as these are implied.
If you would like to be complete but are under a space or reference constraint in the main text of your publication (typically the case in big-name printed journals), you could include a list of references to all used packages as a supplementary table.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In the "acknowledgments" section of your manuscript, you could say something like
>
> The authors thank the developers of SciPy (Virtanen et al., 2020) for making their > code available on a free and open-source basis.
>
>
>
Depending on the circumstances, that may or may not add less extra length to your manuscript than trying to shoehorn a citation into the main text.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/20
| 383
| 1,658
|
<issue_start>username_0: I emailed my undergrad supervisor back in July asking them to write a reference letter, which they agreed to.
I had an email from the uni I am applying to yesterday stating they were yet to receive the reference letter. I then emailed the supervisor to reminded them about the reference letter and the deadline for the application on the 10th of September but they are out of the office until Monday, the 24th of August.
Should I email the uni admissions to explain the situation and say that I have re-emailed the supervisor or wait till Monday and see what happens (during my undergrad my supervisor usually need not respond to emails but I don't have anyone else I could ask at this short notice)?
Any advice would be appreciated<issue_comment>username_1: I would advise letting them know of the situation. You lose nothing by this and it might save you if you indicate that you are attending to the situation.
But on the 24th, you should also follow up with the advisor to make sure that all will be put right.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The deadline is still three weeks away, and your letter-writer is back in the office in two business days. Emailing to let them know about a two-day delay would just be noise. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone even saw your email response. They're just being polite and helpful. I never got any reminders from my applied-to schools!
Follow up with your letter-writer on Monday, but you shouldn't need to contact the schools you're applying to unless your letter-writer has some sort of personal emergency that means they won't be able to submit on time.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/08/20
| 566
| 2,316
|
<issue_start>username_0: It is common to write papers in the third person, using sentences such as "The author(s) did this", "the author(s) thank XYZ" etc. Is the same convention true for referee reports? I have noticed that my reports tend to be a mishmash of first and third person, with sentences like "to the best of the reviewer's knowledge" next to "I think equation 123 has a typo". What is the most common convention? My field is math, in case it makes a difference.<issue_comment>username_1: **First person is the default** in the natural sciences. It's difficult to find an "official" reference for this as a convention. But I have never seen a referee report written in the third person.
On a related note, most style guidelines suggest that active voice makes for clearer writing. If in doubt about your norms might as well pick what makes it easiest for the reader to understand you! <https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/active_and_passive_voice/active_versus_passive_voice.html>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Resoundingly, yes.** At least in my field (number theory). I just looked at the 15 most recent referee reports I received, and only 1 out of 15 of these reports avoided writing in the first person.
Note: I restricted to reports on initial submissions to avoid obvious duplication of referee styles. Of the 15 I looked at, the reports were written in sufficiently different styles that I'm confident in saying there wasn't too much duplication of referees in this sample.
**Added:** To address the "mishmash" aspect, in none of these reports did the reviewer refer to themself in both the 1st and 3rd person, but I have seen it before and have possibly done it myself. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Referee reports are not formal pieces of writing meant for public display (like parts of grant applications or MathSciNet reviews), and while some reviewers may prefer to refer to themself in the 3rd person (presumably to make the review sound more formal/professional or less personal), I think most prefer to write more directly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I'll add a data point from physics: I've seen thousands of referee reports, and very few reviewers refer to themselves in 3rd person. It's simply unnatural.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/20
| 744
| 3,082
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm now choosing a Ph.D. program between two schools and am struggling a lot. Please let me know your thoughts and I'll greatly appreciate any help! The two universities are very similar in reputation and compensation.
1. School 1's lab: The professor is very nice and supportive. He would support a broad range of research topics and I have the freedom of choice. The students are very hardworking. They published 8 top conference papers last year.
However, the students in this group are from not good universities. And the professor is very young, his oldest Ph.D. student hasn't graduated yet, so I don't know the students' outcome. Also, the students are so hard-working that the work-life balance might be bad. Also, the professor doesn't have as many connections in my desired place of work.
2. School 2's lab: The students in this lab are all from top universities. The professor has advised many Ph.D.'s and all of them are going to great labs and universities now. The professor has a lot more citations and more connections in the country I want to work in the future.
However, the group only published 3 top conference papers last year. The professor is also not as committed to personally advising me.<issue_comment>username_1: **First person is the default** in the natural sciences. It's difficult to find an "official" reference for this as a convention. But I have never seen a referee report written in the third person.
On a related note, most style guidelines suggest that active voice makes for clearer writing. If in doubt about your norms might as well pick what makes it easiest for the reader to understand you! <https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/active_and_passive_voice/active_versus_passive_voice.html>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Resoundingly, yes.** At least in my field (number theory). I just looked at the 15 most recent referee reports I received, and only 1 out of 15 of these reports avoided writing in the first person.
Note: I restricted to reports on initial submissions to avoid obvious duplication of referee styles. Of the 15 I looked at, the reports were written in sufficiently different styles that I'm confident in saying there wasn't too much duplication of referees in this sample.
**Added:** To address the "mishmash" aspect, in none of these reports did the reviewer refer to themself in both the 1st and 3rd person, but I have seen it before and have possibly done it myself. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Referee reports are not formal pieces of writing meant for public display (like parts of grant applications or MathSciNet reviews), and while some reviewers may prefer to refer to themself in the 3rd person (presumably to make the review sound more formal/professional or less personal), I think most prefer to write more directly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I'll add a data point from physics: I've seen thousands of referee reports, and very few reviewers refer to themselves in 3rd person. It's simply unnatural.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/20
| 1,858
| 7,455
|
<issue_start>username_0: A bit of context. I am about to get my PhD soon and a few months ago I started applying for R&D positions1 , both in academia and in the industry. A few things to note here:
* I am interested in applying to positions in a limited number of countries (in Europe)
* The positions I applied to may be very competitive (especially the ones in industry)
* The COVID situation may be impacting the job market
So the result is that I ended up with a very limited number of applications (~15) and absolutely no feedback from them, except one rejection and one invitation for an interview. The latter is in an academic research lab.
Now I have been thinking, **if in this upcoming interview I'm asked: “Are you currently interviewing elsewhere?”, should I be honest and say that I’m not?**
My concern is that I don’t know how this could be seen. I thought of 2 options:
1. they will think that I’m not “in-demand” and that I don’t have successful applications so perhaps that may discourage them from hiring me.
2. they instead would be understanding of the fact that I don't have other options, given the global context and my personal preferences. Then, if the interview goes well and they do make an offer, I'd have to provide them with a response fast since they know that I don’t have other options. My concern here is: what if (miraculously) another/better option opens up for me in the meantime such that it would be better for me not to respond to the first offer right away.
Note that my question is not very related to: [Should I tell other interviewers where else I've interviewed?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8766/should-i-tell-other-interviewers-where-else-ive-interviewed), as that one deals with the case where the candidate had other interviews and it is about graduate school admissions, while mine is related to a later career stage. In addition, as there is an academic component in the situation, I preferred to ask the question here instead of Workplace SE.
Any thoughts would be welcome.
1 What I mean by R&D positions are those positions where you work in the context of EU R&D projects. I hope that's not too vague as a definition.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, honesty is a good thing. But you can be honest without giving out too much information. Some possibilities that may work for you.
>
> Not at the current time.
>
>
>
>
> I'm awaiting some offers.
>
>
>
>
> I'm only getting started in this process.
>
>
>
>
> None that I'd care to discuss at this time.
>
>
>
But you can also turn it around a bit.
>
> This is the one I'm most interested in at the moment. (a non-answer)
>
>
>
Not all of these are equivalent, of course, but you may be able to come up with something that fits your case.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Short answer: **Yes**, you should answer honestly.
---
Long answer: your question contains, implicitly and explicitly, several (mostly) flawed premises.
>
> **Premise 1:** professors are superficial people who can’t be bothered to come up with their own idea of how good you are as an applicant based on the strength of your application, so will resort to relying on an (essentially) irrelevant piece of information to guide their decision.
>
>
>
**The reality:** almost no professor would care whether you have an interview elsewhere, or, to the small extent that they might care, it’s mainly to help them figure out if there’s any time pressure to reaching a decision on your application. In the case of truly stellar applicants the knowledge of other pending interviews/offers may affect the salary the professor might offer, but in normal cases it won’t.
There’s also a small number of professors for whom the assumption you’re making may be valid. But by and large the premise is not an accurate description of reality.
>
> **Premise 2:** you are as good of a liar as you think you are.
>
>
>
**The reality:** you aren’t. In your question you only factor in the perceived cost of acting honestly (and are incorrect in how high you think that cost is, see premise 1 above) but completely ignore the very real - almost certain in my opinion - possibility that the alternative approach of trying to make yourself look much more desired than you are by not telling the honest truth would come across as clumsy and clueless in the best case, or shady and dishonest in the worst case. That eventuality will lead to a much worse outcome (certain rejection of your application, and a bad reputation that could follow you far into the future) than the eventuality you are actually expressing concern about.
>
> **Premise 3:** if you say you don’t have any interviews you will have to accept an offer very fast since “they know [you] don’t have other options”, even if in the meantime you do receive some other offer.
>
>
>
**The reality:** this is false. You seem to have the misguided notion that by stating you don’t currently have other interviews you are committing yourself to never having any interviews. That’s not how the world (academia or anywhere else) works.
Hope this helps, and good luck with your interview!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: While the answer may seem a bit similar to one offered by username_1, I will suggest one more very specific answer with some explanation:
>
> I'm involved in few other recruitment processes but I didn't have any other interviews yet.
>
>
>
It doesn't disclose the information that you didn't even have invitations to interviews. But it gives the information that you are involved in other processes and that you didn't have interviews yet so you may have also something else in the future.
It is fully sincere and safe. It offers accurate information to the interviewer and shows the possibility of other offers for you. At the same time, it does not disclose how far are you in the other processes. If something comes up in the future, you will not surprise the respondents of the current process with this information.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: To offer another perspective on the question; you may be attributing incorrect meaning to the question.
It may sound as if a question asking if you are interviewing other places is gauging how many other places 'want you', but may just as well be gauging how much you 'want them'. I.E., are you interviewing for other job opportunities that are completely unrelated to this one? Is this your main target?
For each example you think of that suggests they would think less of you, there are equal numbers of examples in which they are instead trying to understand your own interests (which links to how well you fit in their department) or even where they stand in relation.
So it is not a good idea to lie, as I can imagine the next question could even be "so where?". Academia is a small world, and it is likely they will know the other job openings.
Having been on both sides, I can say at least a few times there was a question of if the department could even attract a person, and understanding the state they were in for other offers was a way to rush their application through administration. Similarly to my last point, when there is a faculty position posting we also do an extensive search to find what other peer institutes are searching for, so it is usually expected someone is applying to other postings we are already aware of.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/21
| 432
| 1,903
|
<issue_start>username_0: 1. The best result on a given dataset has no trace in the form of
research paper or any sort of analysis.
2. We have no idea whose results were those, or what method was created.
3. Some competition was held, participants uploaded their resultant output files on leader-board.
4. When the competition was over, the best performing participant didn't come forward to share their methods.
5. The organizers wrote a survey paper, where they mentioned this unknown result but mentioned that they had no idea who the authors were, probably in the hope that they would write paper in the future.
6. After the competition, that participant still hasn't written any paper. The only information available is that survey paper by the organizers with the result in the form of a number and nothing else.
Can this be referenced as the state of the art result or does one have to pick the best scoring entry that has a paper as evidence by its author?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes. You can cite the survey paper as evidence to support your claim.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Was the competition ranking based on a blinded test set?
* If not, the *none* of the results of the competition are very strong evidence.
* If yes, unless there was gross misconduct\* the blinding by the competition provides strong evidence in favor of the best ranked result.
Thus, cite the best result with the publication about the competition. If you are uncomfortable, you can also cite e.g. the 3 best results known so far.
---
\* E.g. the "best" result having been obtained by improper knowledge about the test set reference labels. That would likely cast doubt again on the reliability competition and in turn on its publication.
I'm looking at the competition as something like a ring trial/round robin. The evidence generated depends critically on the trust in the organizer.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/21
| 391
| 1,737
|
<issue_start>username_0: We submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal and we are asked for a revision. One of the reviewer commented
>
> *The results are rather straight forward and would be useful to the community of specialists working on optical properties of anisotropic crystals*
>
>
>
What does it mean when the reviewer says **"the results are rather straightforward"**?<issue_comment>username_1: Offhand, it could mean two things:
1. The results are to be expected, i.e. not surprising. Normally not a good comment to receive since it implies the paper is not interesting.
2. The results are gotten in straightforward fashion. For example, if you were asked to take the derivative of an elementary function, there's a well-known series of rules that will lead to the derivative. If the function is complicated enough then taking the derivative will also be complicated - but it is straightforward. Apply the rules correctly and you will get there.
The rest of the sentence leads me to suspect the second interpretation is correct.
If the second interpretation is indeed correct, it wouldn't be something to worry about, and your attention is better focused on what the rest of the review says.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When we do research we expect to find something new, preferably useful. When the results of an experiment are "straightforward" it means that the novelty is limited. One would have expected such results even without doing the experiment.
Since the novelty is limited it is possibly useful only to some specialists working in a niche area.
I would say, the reviewer is not highly impressed with your work. But at the same time does not think it is useless.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/21
| 3,542
| 14,457
|
<issue_start>username_0: Three years ago I got kicked out of graduate school in physics. I was suffering from mental illness, which led me to believe I made a huge discovery in physics. But my advisor kept saying that what I was doing is nonsense and that I should focus on something else. I just ignored him and kept working on huge discovery, convinced I was going to win a Nobel prize.
I started sending many emails to many physics people (I had a list of thousand email addresses I found online) hoping someone would realize my amazing discovery. I got kicked from school which made me send more emails (almost one a day near the end), and when I got negative responses I sent an email to everyone on the list insulting them and saying I deserved to be in their place.
I got psychiatric help, and eventually doctors found a brain tumor, which they removed. I am now taking drugs, and doing much better. I now realize how insane my behavior was.
I want to re-apply to grad school, but I’m scared people will recognize my name or contact my university. My undergraduate grades were very good. Should I mention my illness (with proof) when applying? Should I send apology emails to the people I’ve contacted?<issue_comment>username_1: Nobody on this site should be advising on your recovery from illness. Discuss that with a professional who has examined you personally.
If you apply for a new PhD, you will be required to give a record of your previous studies. This will show you were "kicked out." To convince an admissions committee you should be readmitted, you will need to tell them your expulsion was related to an untreated illness and you will need to inform the committee of the degree to which you have recovered from the illness and probability of recurrence (ask your medical professional). You do not need to provide proof of the illness, or even say what it was. You should explicitly state that the illness caused behavior which lead to expulsion.
Any educated person who read your emails would have realized you were ill. Apologizing would be a matter of personal preference.
Based on the limited information you provided, I do not see any reason why you could not get a PhD.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: A few suggestions:
* If it were me, I would be very forthcoming about the illness. Of course, no one is entitled to your private medical information, so you will have to decide what you're comfortable with. But "an undiagnosed brain tumor caused me to act erratically" is a **very** convincing explanation, and does not reflect poorly on you.
* Consider reaching out to your previous advisors / colleagues. Even those who were furious at your previous behavior would probably accept that an undiagnosed brain tumor caused you to exhibit poor judgment. It's a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" situation.
* Along similar lines, consider contacting the university, and the specific school within the university, to discuss whether the expulsion can be expunged or converted to some other classification. Most universities are really understanding if you speak to the right people.
* When you apply, I would absolutely explain what happened. I would give a shorter version of what you wrote above -- even if they don't recognize your name, they will see that you were expelled, so it's better to tell your story. And you did a good job telling the story above, so I trust that you can write an explanation that is similarly clear and compelling.
* There will likely be no need to provide medical proof. You could (perhaps even should) offer to provide proof, but I suspect most admissions committees would not request it. Among other reasons, it will likely be clear from your tone that you have recovered.
* I don't think it's necessary to send an apology to your entire mailing list. But I don't think doing so would be inappropriate either. If you do so, be concise: no need for more than a sentence or two.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Your case is very special and not something one encounters usually. So I doubt an accurate and confident answer is possible by the community here.
Bad things happen in life for everyone. In your case, you are out of it. And that is positive. Your past actions definitely will have an impact on your life and career but you should note that memory of people is dynamic. Your present matters more to your future than the past. And you have a very good and honest reason for your actions in past.
I do not think you need to apologize to each and everyone except the people who you have an in-person connection with. Definitely to the people in your previous school. Others would have forgotten you already. Change your email-id. Start fresh.
You are not a crank anymore. That person is cured and you are different. Mention this in your application. I am sure that you will eventually get a good PhD school, and who knows, might win a Nobel prize.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Change your name
================
I don't know about other countries but **in the UK** one can change their name by deed poll. <https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll>
It is also acceptable to write academic papers under a pseudonym. [If I publish under a pseudonym, can I still take credit for my work?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8603/if-i-publish-under-a-pseudonym-can-i-still-take-credit-for-my-work)
Also **in the UK**, universities are required to take issues of mental health very seriously. <https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/stepchange>
If you did very well in your undergraduate studies, I suggest you contact lecturers who were kindly disposed towards you then and ask if they will help by providing references. Remind them of your record (get a transcript) because, if at that time you were an 'ordinary' student they may not remember you. If they got word of your "craziness" they will only have heard it second hand. Tell them about your brain tumour and its removal - no need to mention follow-up drugs IMO. Remind them of how you were when **they** knew you and ask if they will support you on that basis.
Once you have been formally accepted at a new university, now is the time to notify them of your legal name change. The paperwork will go through the office.
How do I know this? I actually did the name-change thing. I didn't do what you did in terms of mental health, but for personal reasons I wanted to leave my old life behind (see note). No-one but my family and a few old friends know what my name used to be.
If you are not in the UK then of course you will need to research the situation in your own country. (or apply to a UK university)
---
Note: Don't worry, nothing criminal!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Since the release of the movie *A Beautiful Mind* I'm certain that a lot of academics have seen it and can understand that mental illness can happen even to the most brilliant people.
>
> The story begins in Nash's days as a graduate student at Princeton
> University. Early in the film, Nash begins to develop paranoid
> schizophrenia and endures delusional episodes while watching the
> burden his condition brings on his wife Alicia and friends.
>
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_(film)>
>
>
>
If you haven't seen it yourself then I recommend it as a confidence booster. This true story shows that it is still possible to be successful despite having to cope with major delusions.
**With regard to apologies/explanations**, I think the people who need them most will be those you know personally. They know you by sight and will recognise you at conferences. A short but sincere apology and explanation is all that is needed.
A possible title for an email might be, "Apology from a student who was ill". The body could simply be: "I would like to apologise sincerely for an email I sent you when I was suffering from a brain tumour. It caused me to have delusions. Thankfully surgery has corrected this and I am planning to resume my normal life in academia. Once again I apologise for any offence I may have caused."
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Congrats on identifying and moving past your illness! You'll find academics a comparatively accepting crowd as you move on.
I would suggest contacting those you've "cranked" to, telling them exactly what you've told us. You had a brain tumor, and it's been removed. You're embarrassed by your behavior during your illness, though not apologetic, as people don't need to apologize for being ill. Tell them future contacts from you will be in only professionally appropriate situations, and request that earlier contacts be evaluated in appropriate context.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Unless you were previously known to them or legitimately made them anxious for some reason, **most of them will have forgotten your name.** (If we are talking about a few-year gap.) It's normal for a crank to get offended when their idea is shot down, it's only when it turns into extended harassment that it becomes noteworthy. If someone told you about a perpetual motion machine a few years ago you might remember it but probably not their name.
I have gone through something similar to you (I know how *priceless* your recovery is and I know that the subtle stuff takes years to mend). Here is what I would tell you:
**It's a war story, not a sob story.** You've learned a lot that many people never will. There are lots of interesting things you could tell; you have, I'm sure, learned a lot about the mind and soul, about human behaviour. This sort of thing can help you be more successful because you have more insight into how other people's minds work. "Own" your past behaviour—show why it's interesting rather than apologising/showing how "you're better now"/are safe to be trusted. You can use humour to lighten it up, but intellectual people often want to learn more about the hows and whys.
**People are prejudiced about mental disorders.** Unfortunately. I've noticed subtle changes in first impressions if I speak freely to people. Now I understand what "covert racism" is. People treat you with respect but somehow you get far fewer follow-ups to the proverbial résumé.
Once people have formed a relationship with you, hearing your story actually makes them gain respect for you. But don't volunteer too much too early is my advice.
**Nothing says "sane" like face-to-face.** If you meet someone in person and they get the impression you are a normal, intelligent person, this carries a lot of weight over any written or word-of-mouth communication. If you want to start on the right foot with someone, try to catch them at an event, or better still, have someone introduce you. (Dammit, COVID.) I'm not saying this is guaranteed but if you want to apologise to someone, and you have the option to do it in person, do that.
**Find the language.** For unusual experiences like this, it's hard to find the right words. It's easy to fumble or say nothing, which leaves people confused or making the wrong assumptions. I had to learn to say "oh, sorry, I got overexcited, that's embarrassing" and "sorry I'm not feeling well right now." Sometimes it's about spin, for example "I became obsessed with an idea that wasn't very good" compared to "I had an idea that was utterly insane and acted like I had just discovered one of the biggest breakthroughs ever." I'm still not very good at this. I like to tell my story from my perspective, when the "objective" perspective is probably better most of the time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I'm sorry this happened to you. I too suffer from mental illness, and sometimes people just don't understand.
I would explain what the circumstances were behind your episode. People will be very sympathetic when they realize that a tumor in you brain was the cause. Even those you insulted will understand.
Do not change your name as some have suggested. That makes it seem as though you are hiding from what happened.
Do not contact the 1000 people you emailed. If you feel that you want to explain your actions to specific people, then do that. If you got into an exchange with a specific person, maybe get in touch with them and explain. I'll bet that the majority of the people on the email blast you sent out have forgotten your name and/or never opened the email to begin with.
Move on with your life. Continue your education. You didn't intentionally lie or try to trick people into a believing a sham theory. You had a brain tumor. Again, people will be very sympathetic when they know the reason behind what happened.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You self-identity as a recovered crank, which is unusual. But then, you had a specific medical cause perturbing your thought patterns and you now have a competent professional perspective on your erstwhile cranky notions (and the accompanying megalomania and paranoia), something which typical cranks do not ever acquire.
Cranks also, according to expert Underwood Dudley, never sent out messages stating 'I have stopped now.' You are considering such. People that you might have pestered repeatedly, and to whom you perhaps made angry comments or veiled threats (as cranks often do), would probably appreciate an apology/explanation. People who were probably able to summarily dismiss you as 'just another one' probably do not need to hear from you again.
To your question. As a former director and admissions tutor in a large MSc/PhD research school, I would assess your current state of competence and base my decision on this, regardless of any history and whether I knew about it. If you did not disclose it, but I found out about it later, I would be somewhat miffed but could easily forgive you if your performance was stellar, much less so otherwise. So choosing to keep this to yourself (which despite of what I just said I do think you'd be entitled to) would be a bit of a gamble. If you do not disclose but still exhibit, at interview, signs of mental frailness (shyness, insecurity), or its diametrical opposite, that would worry me in its own right since the programme is demanding. If you do disclose I would worry about the possibility of a relapse (yes, I am aware it was due to that tumor but human psychology is complex) and at the very least address this with you and work out a sort of 'early warnings sign' protocol for us both.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/21
| 1,221
| 4,921
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted the preprint to arXiv and the manuscript to a Physical Review journal, and someone asked me to cite their article after seeing it from arXiv.
Their paper is a review. After reading that paper, I find that it has only a weak connection with our work.
My supervisor asks me to cite it. Should I refuse to cite?<issue_comment>username_1: I can think of a number of **reasons to cite** a source:
1. to acknowledge the work of others that you are building on (avoiding plagiarism)
2. to give credit to the author of a particular phrase that you quote (avoiding plagiarism)
3. to point readers to relevant previous literature
4. to signal that your work is at the cutting edge of the field, and
5. to situate your contribution in the context of related research
6. to provide evidence for a claim
**"Being asked" is not among them.**
Unless you retrospectively find that one of the reasons above applies (esp. 3-5), politely decline to cite the paper in question. In particular, you should refuse to add a citation as a favor.
---
Addendum: I just saw your update to the question, stating that your supervisor asks you to cite the apparently irrelevant paper. This complicates the issue. I would ask them to explain why and where to add the citation. Perhaps they want you to slightly revise your paper, incorporating information from the new source, which would justify the citation. If not, it depends on your relationship whether you are in a position to push back.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Should I refuse to cite?
>
>
>
**Do nothing.** You've read the paper and found it "has only a weak connection with ours," so there's no need to cite. You needn't refuse; just do nothing. If you must respond, then say something like:
*Thank you for bringing your work to my attention. I have taken a look, but I don't see a strong connection and as such I believe it would be inappropriate to cite. If I've missed something, do let me know.*
You can add a comma to the opening sentence and follow with *I found it interesting*, if appropriate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If you didn't read the review paper and went direct to the original paper(s), I can't see why you should cite a secondary source. If you did that exhaustively, you would include everyone's textbook about the subject plus the Wikipedia entry!
Alternatively, if there is pressure, look for one or or more specifics where the reviewer has thrown light where you would or could have missed it. Or maybe give a cursory acknowledgement by simply saying, "There have been a number of useful review papers in this area including X, Y and Z." and say no more.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Politics! Politics! Politics!
1. Citations are now (for better or worse) the coin of the realm.
2. It is inappropriate for someone to contact you asking for a citation. This person can rightly bring his work to your attention but asking to cite is a spoonful too much. You should be allowed to decide for yourself is this review is relevant or not to your work.
3. You and your co-authors should decide if this additional work is worth citing. Those in favour should have an argument as to why this work was overlooked in the first place.
4. *If possible*, hold firm. After all, you have (or should have) the final say as first author.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I will just share my experiences (bad ones) to throw in some perspective.
I had submitted a paper once to a top conference in computer vision which was rejected for good reasons acceptable by me. But one of the reviewers, which I guessed was a top name in that area (also had a coursera course), asked me to cite 5 of his papers in the review. All were his papers.
A few years later, when I am doing my PhD, I got a paper accepted in a top conference. This time my supervisor sent me a list of 8-10 papers which I *had* to cite. Since there were constraints of space, he asked me to truncate a diagram and reduce the size of images to accommodate his list. Those papers had no relation whatsoever to my work. My supervisor is an IEEE fellow and has more than $1M in grants.
Citations improve H-index. H-index is crucial to get promotions and fundings. We had a very highly talented lecturer joining our university. He got 3 ICML papers accepted as first author (a top conference in machine learning) within a year, which is a fantastic achievement, but his grant application was rejected in favour of another lecturer who had 20 papers in mediocre conferences but a much better H-index. She works closely with my supervisor-- is a part of his nexus. The lecturer left my university and joined Google.
Academia is rotten with such practices. I regret that I agreed to add those citations - should have fought back. But then, fighting back is of little consequence when the system is fundamentally broken.
Upvotes: 5
|
2020/08/21
| 1,964
| 7,984
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am trying to figure out the best way to publish my elderly father's life work. He says he would be considered a "*fringe*" scientist or an independent researcher. Should we self-publish? The subject matter would be of great interest to those interested in earth-moon systems, and the Egyptian Pyramids. How should we proceed?<issue_comment>username_1: "Independent Researcher" is a perfectly honorable profession. If you have something worth publishing, I suggest you write it up properly and submit it to a suitable journal. You don't need to be university faculty or an industrial researcher to be published.
Self publishing is sure to leave you with almost no audience unless one of you is already very well known.
But when you say "fringe", you may have a hard time if the ideas are impossible for people with open minds to accept. But fringe can also mean just "not well known". That is fine. Publish and you can become known. But know the standards of any journal you submit to.
You will need to decide if joint authorship is appropriate, also.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: A few years back I was in a position when I had to submit a paper but could not use any affiliation. You could say I was between jobs or maybe in a job where I could not use my affiliation for independent research.
I spent a few 100 dollars and registered a company. I registered with IEEE to get an email address. This is perfectly legal.
In your case, the motto of your company is to do research in the ancient ways of Egyptians or whatever. You both are its stakeholders. Now you are not independent researchers. You work in a company.
Legally and for all practical purposes, you are no less than researchers affiliated to universities or research labs.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: There are precedents for this.
<NAME> assumed that his music would be forgotten after he died. It would have been it if weren't for the efforts of Mendelsohn, Schuman and others. Nowadays Bach is considered by many to be the greatest composer whoever lived. His work is to be heard ubiquitously.
>
> For about 50 years after Bach’s death, his music was neglected. This
> was only natural; in the days of Haydn and Mozart, no one could be
> expected to take much interest in a composer who had been considered
> old-fashioned even in his lifetime.
> <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Johann-Sebastian-Bach/Reputation-and-influence>
>
>
>
With regard to publication by children of a parent's work, there is the case of <NAME>.
Fermat was a great mathematician by any measure. However his widespread recognition by the general public was the result of his so-called Last Theorem. This came to light purely as a result of his son reproducing a note from Pierre's handwritten note in a margin.
>
> Written in 1637, it wasn’t actually his last theorem, but nobody knew
> about it until his son found it five years after Fermat died. Years
> later, after all of Fermat’s other theorems had surrendered to
> mathematical proof, this remarkable theorem resisted all assaults.
> <https://www.famousscientists.org/pierre-de-fermat/>
>
>
>
---
Self-publishing is always an option even if it ends up being simply a treasured family keepsake.
Without knowing the details (Did he visit and excavate the pyramids? Did he decipher hieroglyphics that no-one else could?) it is difficult for us to answer.
I think you need to consult an expert in the field. Alternatively you need to get a publishing agent in the field of interest. They will negotiate the traps and tricks of the publishing industry for you (at a fee of course).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You might get the widest readership by posting on something like arXiv (for math, at least). At least if your father's work can be put into reasonable pieces that at least vaguely resemble referee-able journal papers, they would likely accept.
The main possible obstacle is that arXiv would want "an endorsement" from a more established scholar... but/and for anything presented in a reasonably dignified, serious way, this ought to be feasible.
Self-publication won't reach anyone. Journal publication hardly reaches anyone any more, either, except for the fanciest journals, which are very status-and-orthodoxy-sensitive. The "arXiv" (for math) -like on-line archives are by far the highest-profile way to publish, and are not behind paywalls.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: The way I'd suggest proceeding depends on the answers to a couple of questions:
Question 1: can your father present robust enough evidence for his ideas to get them through peer review?
If the answer to question 1 is "yes", then you can submit a paper (or several papers, depending how many separate original insights your father has to publish) to a peer-reviewed journal in a relevant subject area, through the usual channels as detailed on that journal's website. (Presumably you'll want to choose a journal that doesn't charge its authors publication fees, so make sure you read the small print on the journal website.) You don't need to be affiliated to a research institution, nor to found a company: I've definitely seen papers in peer-reviewed journals with the author's home address given where the institutional affiliation would usually be.
If the answer to question 1 is "no", then you need to ask yourself:
Question 2: can your father tell a compelling enough story to make a book of his ideas a marketable proposition for a regular, for-profit publishing house? (I'm guessing that the advent of print-on-demand services means that this is not as high a hurdle as it used to be, but its height is still non-zero.)
If the answer to question 1 is "no" but the answer to question 2 is "yes", then you can pitch such a book to a publishing house. How to go about this is somewhat outside my bailiwick, but there's some sensible-sounding advice [here](https://getpublished.penguin.co.uk/).
If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are both "no", then I'm afraid you are in the territory of self-publishing or what's pejoratively called "vanity publishing". That's even further outside my bailiwick than the previous option, but as I understand it, in this case, you don't need detailed procedural advice, just the ability to hand over some money, and to read contracts thoroughly so you know what you're getting for that money. (Again, I'm guessing that the advent of print-on-demand services means that the amount of money you'll have to hand over is less than it used to be.)
If you're unable to determine with any confidence the answer to question 1, then your situation is slightly trickier. However, people on orthodox academic career tracks quite often find themselves in this position too. The traditional way to deal with it is to submit an abstract to, then present a paper at, a conference with peer-reviewed proceedings. That way, one gets input from the relevant scholarly community, via discussion at the conference, to help work out the answer to question 1 and/or to help improve the paper to make sure the answer to question 1 is "yes". However, this would involve you in paying out registration fees for the conference and travel costs to get to the conference, which you probably don't want to do. Fortunately, the internet era has made available a way of achieving the same benefits without those costs: submitting a paper to a special type of peer-reviewed journal that has the process sometimes known as "Interactive Public Peer Review" (that name for the process is a trademark of one particular journal publisher, Copernicus Publications, but I'm pretty sure there are other journal publishers that have an analogous process, albeit under a different name, for some or all of their journals). (As for other types of journals, check the small print on the journal website if you want to make sure you're choosing a journal that doesn't charge author fees.)
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/21
| 1,022
| 4,138
|
<issue_start>username_0: Due to low enrollment, my college's administration sent out letters rescinding all non-tenure full-year appointments (against our contract, too) and replacing them with a fall 2020 appointment only. This would be my tenured year if I made it through, and spring is unknown as of now.
I just interviewed with another institution that loves me (Zoom, informal), but I have not gone through with the official interview, and they hinted that they'd be willing to hold the position for spring for me. They are hiring urgently and my tenure is uncertain. I won't know until maybe November 2020 if I have a job next spring at my current institution.
I'll obviously need references, etc. from my current place of employment. My chair, several colleagues would gladly do it for me, but I'm afraid to tell them I'm about to leave... and I don't want to. But I have bills to pay and would hate a gap in employment and the loss of (potential) tenure, too.
What would you do?<issue_comment>username_1: Perhaps you can arrange a meeting with others in your situation and someone in authority (dean, say) and ask what the college is willing to do to help boost the careers of those that circumstances are putting in jeopardy. If you have to do it alone, ask the same question.
They owe you something, even if they can't keep to "normal order". But asking, puts them on the spot. Maybe it just means that you get your letters and no prejudice against you if you wind up staying.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> What would you do?
>
>
>
*Disclaimer: I have never been in this situation before, so I don't speak from experience. Following my advice would be risky; that said, so would any other course of action.*
Act like a rat on a sinking ship.
Your university has unilaterally rescinded your contract. Go on the official interview. Ask your chair and colleagues to be references. Make every effort to find secure and permanent employment.
Tell your chair and dean that you love your university and would like to stay in the long term. (If this is true.) Bargain with them if possible, if you decide you trust them.
One option you may (or may not) have is to *go on unpaid leave* if you accept another job offer. Sometimes people accept a job at University B while going on unpaid leave at University A, go to B for a year, and then decide to return to University A.
If your chair and colleagues are worthy of your loyalty, then they could not expect it under these circumstances. Good luck.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: First, this sounds like a horrible position to be in. The username_2 life is not easy and you must have put in a huge amount of work to get to where you are now.
Not sure I understand the situation completely, but if there is another institution offering you a better contract then why would you not move to it now rather than wait til spring?
If your current institution has placed you on a contract that will expire in December 2020 (I am guessing from the question) then you only have 3 or 4 months of contract left and you need to look for jobs elsewhere.
In my experience once a job is formally offered then you can start thinking about start dates and going into some sort of negotiation between your current username_2 institution and the new one.
I would not start to attempt to negotiate anything without a formal job offer.
I have some similarish experiences from quite a few years ago when I worked on some temporary username_2 contracts.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Someone just graduated recently and COVID struck. He had a job at a startup which he gave up just before graduation so he could take a break for a few months. Someone else got that job. And now he is unemployed and in high stress.
I would say be proactive, be selfish and ensure that you are not out of a job in these stressful and uncertain times. Consider the fact that the other university might soon find better candidates to fill your shoes.
The someone I mentioned above would love to get an offer like yourself.
But note that you know your circumstances best.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/22
| 944
| 4,056
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international student, studying for a PhD in Electrical Engineering at UNC and just finished my first year.
My employer gave me a full scholarship to the US. So, I have a 6k monthly salary while they cover all tuition fees and medical.
I would like to take my time to finish it in 6 years. No rush as I am enjoying staying in the US and very fortunate to have my children study here.
However, my advisor is pushing me to work harder, he plans to graduate me in four years. How can I tell him my opinion? I am afraid it will give him bad indication that I am not serious while I am interested to do good but during a longer period of time.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a grey area. On the one hand, your employer is paying for the PhD, which from the perspective of the professor would be as if you were self-funded, so you're not using any of the professor's grant money.
From a financial perspective, you have no reason to adhere to the timeline of your supervisor. **However**, your supervisor is giving up his/her time and expertise, for you to pursue research.
It is reasonable to assume that your research goals are also of interest to your supervisor, and potentially impactful on his/her work. While they are supervising you it is also a collaboration in pursuit of research goals and thus the effort you invest - reflected in the time to complete the PhD - is partly your supervisor's decision.
My recommendation is to find out why the supervisor wants you to graduate in four years, and how the supervisor ascertains that it is possible. If he/she has given you a problem for example that he/she would have worked on to further his/her own research, it is probably that.
Once you understand the motivations of your supervisor, you are in a better position to gauge whether it would be appropriate to discuss extending the timeline.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Congrats on being a very lucky PhD student :)
It's important to discuss this with your advisor in order to understand their request and try to find a compromise. Don't be afraid to explain your point of view to them, but try to have an open mind about their perspective as well. For example is it related to some of the institution rules? or to their general research plan? does the duration of their students' PhD affects their evaluation? As you can see it's crucial to communicate in order to understand the problem and find the appropriate solution.
A simple suggestion in case it helps: as far as I know most institutions allow some form of part-time PhD. This is often used for people who have another job or a serious health issue for instance. Naturally the normal PhD duration is extended proportionally for these students, so this could be an option worth exploring.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I suggest, fairly strongly that you go along with the professor and make four years your target. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, you want your advisor happy with you and with the opinion that you are making progress toward a common goal. They may actually need your results as part of a larger picture.
Second, there is no guarantee that any doctoral student meets their time target. Things happen in research that can't be predicted. Some of these lead to additional time. You have a cushion that you can fall back on in this case.
Third, if you do finish in four years, there may be additional opportunities that arise are not visible now and that might make sense at that time. Perhaps you can find a way to just stay on with additional research if your funders are happy. And you may find that you can find something suitable elsewhere, but still in a place you want to live.
Things happen over six years that aren't predictable. Who would have guessed six years ago that the US and the world would be in the current state it is? We hope that in six years it will be better.
---
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” ~~<NAME>
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/23
| 1,080
| 3,716
|
<issue_start>username_0: ibid or Ibid?
-------------
---
**Context:**
---
In my efforts to use footnotes for the first time in my essay, I've come across a few problems (which you might know if you've seen [Part 1 of the ibid journey](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154183/how-does-ibid-work-in-footnotes).
I recently read online that it makes a difference whether you use ibid or Ibid (capitalization) in your footnotes and that there are even rules around this, at this [site](https://guides.library.uwa.edu.au/AGLC4/footnotes) (I don't go to the school running this site).
They say:
>
> ‘Ibid’ should always be capitalized when it appears at the start of a footnote. If there is a pinpoint reference, that is, a reference to a specific place in the cited text, and the next footnote is to the same work and to the same place in the cited text, use ‘ibid’.
>
>
>
But, isn't ibid (or Ibid) always at the start of a footnote, so shouldn't it be always capitalised?
---
**The Question**
---
When should I use "ibid" or "Ibid" in my text? What difference does the capatilisation make?<issue_comment>username_1: Ibid is not a proper noun, so it's not capitalized as a matter of course. (Your own question contains several examples where lowercase 'ibid' is used correctly.) Whether it should be capitalized at the start of a footnote depends on the style guide used. For example, [OSCOLA](https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf) uses lowercase 'ibid', whereas the [Chicago](https://research.wou.edu/c.php?g=551307&p=3785494) and [Harvard](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/resources/authors/pdf/hup-author-guidelines-notes.pdf) styles use the capitalized form. When used for in-text citations it is typically lowercase, however.
Finally, when used with footnotes, 'ibid' doesn't necessarily occur at the start. In books I've seen 'ibid' occurring after parenthetical remarks, such as "For X, see ibid p. 50". Sometimes a single footnote is also used for multiple references, as in this example from the [Physical Review style guide](https://cdn.journals.aps.org/files/styleguide-pr.pdf), where 'ibid' refers to the journal name:
>
> <NAME>, Phys. Rev. B **26**, 1 (1982); <NAME>, *ibid*. **24**, 3 (1981); <NAME>, *ibid*. **24**, 22 (1981).
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The short answer to this question is that **it depends on the style guide.** Style guides will be provided from the press or journal to which you are submitting your paper. If this paper is for a class, the style guide will depend on either what your university prefers, the conventions for your academic discipline, or what your professor has requested you use for the specific class that you are taking.
>
> But, isn't ibid (or Ibid) always at the start of a footnote, so shouldn't it be always capitalised?
>
>
>
If your style guide does not explicitly give an answer to the question of whether or not ibid should be capitalized, the general rule of thumb is to think about footnotes as complete sentences, where there is a period at the end of a thought and a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence. You are correct that ibid is typically used at the beginning of a sentence, **but this is not always the case**.
* As user username_1 points out, ibid can be used in the middle of a sentence "For X, see ibid."
* Ibid can also be used after a semicolon that separates cited sources. For example, you could cite "Source A." in footnote 1, and in footnote 2 you could cite "Source B; ibid." where the ibid refers to Source A. This is unusual, but possible if it corresponds respectively to the information you are citing in your text.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/23
| 1,746
| 7,505
|
<issue_start>username_0: [As more colleges stay online, students demand tuition cuts](https://apnews.com/b33f36db3569ea43ff9126a45ae5afd7)
The article talks about students demanding tuition cuts because online classes are less effective, and because lots of things they pay for are no longer relevant (such as campus transport). It notably doesn't say if it is actually cheaper for the university to teach online. If it isn't cheaper, then if the university cuts tuition fees it would have to make up the shortfall from somewhere.
Is it cheaper for universities to teach online than in-person?<issue_comment>username_1: There are two possible interpretation of your question, which lead to different answers.
1. Consider a University, which made a strategic choice to teach all/most of their courses fully/mostly online. Assuming they had a good team to properly consider the administrative and academic issues and to prepare high quality courses. A prominent example in the UK is [Open University](http://www.open.ac.uk/). There are no/small costs for Estates. The costs for salaries is roughly the same or slightly smaller (staff still benefits from saving commute costs and opportunity to live in cheaper more distant areas). As a consequence, their bills are smaller and they can charge less for their courses. Today, a BSc in Maths at the Open University costs [£6k](http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/maths/degrees/bsc-mathematics-q31#fees-and-funding) per full-time year while a similar course at U Essex costs [£9k](https://www.essex.ac.uk/courses/ug00269/1/bsc-mathematics). The answer is **yes**.
2. Now, suppose a normal University like the University of Essex is suddenly forced to move teaching online. Their Estates bill remains more or less the same (Estates remain on the balance and require maintenance). The salaries remain the same. Additional funds are required to develop the necessary IT infrastructure for online delivery, equip academics with all they need for teaching from home, train staff and/or recruit extra specialists to re-develop courses for online delivery (e.g. develop substitutions for labs, etc). In this situation, the urgent switch to online teaching actually costs more, so the answer is **no**.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Consider [the University of California system](https://www.ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/rbudget/2015-16budgetforcurrentoperations_.pdf) as an example: of its core funds expenditures, three quarters goes to employees, and most of the rest is student financial aid. Only 6% of the costs go to equipment, utilities, and similar.
Now, some portion of those employees would also become unnecessary if they did away with a physical campus entirely, but most are still needed to operate the organization. In the case of an institution like the UC system, remember also that much of the physical campus is also not devoted to instruction, but to research and other non-instructional activities, and these have continued in many cases (albeit with reduced capacity) through the pandemic.
In short: in the near term, most universities' costs are almost entirely identical while teaching online. In the long term, even if they shed every physical aspect of instruction, the costs would not go down all that much unless the institution was radically restructured to greatly increase the numbers of students per instructor.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: **It probably depends on the course**
A major cost of offering an undergraduate Biology course (and presumably other science and engineering courses I have less experience of) is practicals. These consume expensive materials, and require substantial additional support in the form of PhD students who are paid to assist in the laboratory, as well as taking multiple technicians and academic staff to deliver the classes.
There is no online equivalent to these practical elements, and so their absence likely represents a substantial saving to the university, and their loss is a significant deficit in the education such students are receiving.
For other courses, such as Mathematics, teaching is likely no cheaper and probably actually requires additional time from the teaching staff compared to in-person teaching. Since these staff are salaried they probably aren't being paid by the hour anyway, I leave debating whether this is really a "cost" to other people who are fond of arguing.
**But any analysis of the cost of teaching is missing the point**
The amount universities charge for a degree is down either to government regulation (as in the UK) or the market value of a degree to the student but either way the university is not totting up a value for the education delivered and charging the student an itemised bill for that; it is deciding what income it need, or can get, and is charging accordingly.
(Note: since these seems directed at the current situation rather than Online in general, I am considering only the costs of a traditional university providing temporary online teaching not the comparison to full distance learning as a long term decision.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Of course it is cheaper. You don't have to pay for facilities, you don't have to pay for staff to service those facilities, you don't have to pay for utilities and maintenance on the same. You can pay some instructors less because they work from home. Students don't need to live on campus so you don't need to build dorms and offer scholarships for them. Generally cost of living is cheaper for students, so even off-campus students require less financial support.
But this stuff only applies if you are a remote university to begin with. If you already have facilities and staff geared towards on-campus learning, you're not going to magically save money because nobody is using them. Instead you'll be wasting money on expensive facilities nobody can use. Sure you can turn off power and save a few dollars there, but the bank will still come to collect interest on the loan. And generally there's all the money you invested before, with the expectation that you will be able to get use out of it, which now becomes a sunk cost.
As far as lowering tuition though, this is an indirect factor at best. Elite universities are not the kind of industry where the market efficiently competes for a few percentage points of profit above cost. Many students do not consider elite universities a commodity, and would not switch simply to save a few dollars, in the same way way people won't stop buying Apple product just because there are cheaper competitors. There is tremendous brand value. This isn't true for all students, and some surely *will* rethink their education path, but elite universities have highly competitive admissions with many more times people applying than get in. So you could say there is a huge artificial shortage of spots at elite universities, and slightly shrinking the market will not reduce demand much.
On the contrary, no-name universities are usually treated as generic commodities, and we may see prices come down. These universities have already had cheaper tuition before Covid, as their students shop around more and even consider (gasp) not going to university altogether. Their admissions are also not that competitive. But many of these universities already have been doing distance learning, and others might not find it easy to switch over just for a year only to switch back again after.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/23
| 2,676
| 11,823
|
<issue_start>username_0: Due to COVID-19, I have found myself teaching a course online. I worked with the university teaching center to transition the course online, prepared an online classroom, and updated the requirements of the course to deal with asynchronous leaning. The course went along reasonably well, and at the end I felt good about the learning demonstrated by a majority of the students.
However, some students did end up failing the course, largely due to a poor performance on the final assessments. Here is the situation:
* The students failed to turn in early homework. I reached out to them to see if there was any technical difficulties. There were technical difficulties, and I provided a solution that the students *confirmed as solving* the technical issue.
* The students continued to turn in homework late, wherein I often had to reach out to them to get submissions. Trying to be empathetic to the COVID-19 situation, I waved the late penalties (although the late submissions are recorded by the online system).
* The final exam was available for two weeks as a take-home. The student turned in very little, earning less than 10%.
* Upon seeing their grades, they reached out stating the same technical issue as before (which they had previously said was resolved) and that they needed to pass the course to graduate.
I feel as though I am being pressured by the students and department to pass the students with a minimum grade (the department thinks we should be lenient due to the pandemic). The students never showed up for online lectures (NB: all course materials were available for fully asynchronous learning), their course interaction scores were very low, and I felt I did everything I could to succeed in the course. Yet I feel completely at fault and guilty.<issue_comment>username_1: Under the circumstances, I would probably bite my tongue and go along with a minimal passing grade. Others would disagree, I'm sure, but let me explain why.
First, it seems like you did your job, giving feedback to the student along the way that there were issues with their learning. I won't fault you on that. But I agree that the final is not the time to learn you've failed. In fact, I tended to minimize high risk exams altogether, but if I were still teaching, would do so even more in the current pandemic situation.
Some student, who are otherwise quite good in a certain educational setting won't do as well in others, since the expectations and processes have changed and they haven't had time to adjust. Certainly, few students are currently "experienced" in the new way of delivering courses. That alone is disruptive and it might also be in psychological as well as educational ways.
Being a bit generous isn't a sin, generally speaking. If the student is bad generally, it will catch up with them. If they are good generally, then a single course blocking their graduation, or delaying it for up to a year, seems unfair in itself, if they tried.
I'll note that there are some universities who have decided not to fail students at the current time, for some of the reasons above. In fact, they are essentially giving only top and incomplete grades. Until we get more experience with online teaching, we need to be cautious not to harm students for things that they have little control over.
I can't judge the level of effort that the student put in, of course. Normally, I would fail students who didn't try, but work with those who were willing, so as to get them over the line. But that is much less possible now, both to judge the situation and to compensate for it.
And given that the administration is suggesting leniency, I'd recommend going along. But it is a tough call, I know.
And, for the record, your administration should defer to your judgement.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your department defers to you as the final authority on the student’s grade, and for a good reason: because you are the only person who sees the full picture of the student’s performance and the context in which it was assessed.
The department can give you high-level guidance and advice, but that is never a substitute for an instructor’s reasoned judgment taking into account the details of the situation.
The student, like all students everywhere, wants to pass, and like many (but not all) students will offer any excuse they can think of, no matter how feeble, for why they deserve lenient treatment. If the excuse rings hollow, ignore it.
Whatever your conscience dictates doing is the best course of action here. Making that final call is precisely what the department pays you to do and expects of you.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Supporting some other answers: spring 2020 has been an exceptional time. The stresses affect many people quite severely... and some don't quite realize.
Sure, maybe the student was not really working hard all along... but the advent of COVID-19 just made/makes all the usual things break.
My attitude, and advice, is to be generous in spring and summer 2020.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Fail them, but don't make it count against their GPA.
=====================================================
My university had the following policy for the classes that were affected by the Covid-19 lockdown: all classes were online, and students who failed were recorded as having failed, and would need to repeat the courses they failed. However, these failed courses wouldn't be counted on their transcripts, and wouldn't be counted for the calculation of their GPAs.
After all, if the student hasn't passed the unit, it isn't fair for everyone who put in the effort to pass the class legitimately. Additionally, if they haven't gained or demonstrated the knowledge that the class aimed to teach, then they should be given another option to gain or demonstrate that knowledge by redoing the class at a later date.
This would, of course, delay their graduation and result in them paying additional tuition fees, but that's what happens when someone fails their classes.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Have you considered offering an Incomplete instead of immediately offering a pass or fail grade? This might be a compromise you could suggest which wouldn't automatically pass the student without the work being completed, while still allowing them the opportunity to complete that work and pass the class. Having been in a similar teaching situation this spring an Incomplete was a way to say, "Right now you have not remotely fulfilled the requirements to pass the class. However pre-covid shutdown you had been doing well enough (both grades and participation) that we expected you to pass the class, and as such are willing to give you more time to complete the requirements."
For a number of students in this situation we found that it was only partly about technical issues, and often there were other life circumstances compounding any technical issues. For example, chaotic living situation that was not conducive to focusing on schoolwork, struggling to keep track of all the asynchronous assignments without the structure of a class schedule, and/or extra stress about health of themselves and loved ones in the face of Covid.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: The students haven't demonstrated that your course material or teaching methods are problematic. They also didn't bother making use of the material provided to help them succeed.
From your side, you resolved the technical issue timeously, and went above and beyond to both waive late penalties *and* chase up the student(s) when they still did not submit homework.
For me it's a clear-cut case: these students failed because they didn't put in the effort, and now that reality has sunk in, they're now trying to blame the technical issue - and implicitly you - for their failure. That's flat out dishonesty, and it's unacceptable, regardless of COVID or not.
They failed of their own accord - fail them. If they really believe they have a case, they are welcome to appeal to your department listing exculpatory reasons why they should be passed. But I suspect they won't.
Please always remember - you are part of the machine for enforcing academic honesty and integrity. Passing failed students who are also dishonest, is failing in your duty to uphold these ideals. Yes, the world needs graduates - but it needs truthful ones, not politicians.
Finally, unless your department has produced an official policy document that requires you to pass those who have supposedly failed due to COVID, pass/fail remains entirely your discretion. I suspect your department wants to have it both ways - passing more students while not appearing to relax standards - and that's also dishonest. Until or unless they're willing to formally change their policy, you have the final say, and their pressure means nothing.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: **A passing grade in a course indicates that the students has achieved the minimum requirements of the course**. In this case it seems the students have not submitted sufficient evidence to reach the minimum course requirements, so they are not entitled to a passing grade. Further, it shouldn't be your 'choice', the department shouldn't put pressure on you to change grades without good cause and clear *written* advice. It may have consequences for the institution as a whole and its external accreditation.
With that in mind you have 3 routes:
1. The students in question fail the course
2. Following discussion with your department, allow additional evidence to be submitted/taken account of (e.g. coursework, additional exams etc.)
3. Following discussion with your department, accept that the course requirements for the 2020 course should be changed and re-grade accordingly.
Either option 2,3 require strategic decisions to be made, not by you as a course teacher, but by someone with overall responsibility in the institution and with due consideration of the external certification process (if applicable e.g. chartership, medical licensing).
>
> Yet I feel completely at fault and guilty.
>
>
>
It sounds like you tried your best to deliver the course as well as you could, but it hasn't worked out as well as you hoped. Addressing this feels like a very different question, but I hope this works out for you in time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Many of the existing answers focus on options available within the academic structure of the university. Depending on your institution, you probably have at least two other options.
Many universities employ an ombudsperson. They don't possess much authority, but can be helpful in mediating disputes. They can also help connect you with the appropriate people and (informational) resources to navigate a conflict. There may be better avenues to try, policies or information you don't know, etc. The ombudspeople can help with this.
Second, consider talking to your institution's auditors. Being pressured to pass a student who did not garner that grade is fraud. A department who does this for one student is likely to have at least tried to do it for others, and may be at a higher risk for other kinds of fraud. Even outside of fraud, it highlights a management problem that may also demonstrate a risk for financial problems, HR problems, and a litany of other things.
What can auditors do? Well, they also don't have much authority, but they are excellent at performing investigations and they have the ear of university executives. If you have a board of trustees or similar, they typically report directly to them. Your auditors are in a position to hear your compliant, and if it seems to represent a risk to the university, conduct an investigation and let the high-ups know.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/08/23
| 1,466
| 6,199
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an UG research assistant in CV/ML on a robotics project. I was given a surveillance video by my boss, and w/o being too specific, I was asked to find a way to detect something in the video. W/o revealing myself by giving too much info, I went above and beyond and found a way to predict something occurring in the videos. I did everything from collecting the data to implementing the code. I am not sure what I should do.
Usually, a co authorship or first authorship assumes some kind of mentoring in UG. There was 0 mentoring or guidance, so this would be wrong. I was given a project and left alone to do it. At the same time, he took me on and gave me a chance with little experience. Additionally, I would want to use him as a LOR, so I don't want to upset him.
**Short summary:** I discovered a new and effective way to do something that AFAIK, has not been done before. I am not saying this is groundbreaking research, but it's not too bad for UG work. I spent a little over a year on this project and worked extremely hard. I received no help. I am not sure if I should ask my boss if I can solo author. Should I write a draft of the paper, then ask him if I can solo author? He supplied me with a video, in which I collected data, can I acknowledge him in it instead of coauthoring?<issue_comment>username_1: **Just go with co-authorship**
You're an undergraduate researcher. This is a case where having co-authorship is actually better than sole authorship. You said yourself it isn't groundbreaking. By doing co-authorship you've created a google trail back to this professor.
When people are googling the professor's name, your paper will come up. When people google your name, they will see your research network back to the professor.
Ph.D. students in the group likely talk about first/sole authorship more.
That's because Ph.D. students are expected to do high-level research and come up with novel ideas. The next step in their career is (maybe) being a professor.
**The next step in your career is getting into grad-school**
The prestige of the professor your working with is a factor in admissions. He'll probably write a recommendation anyway, but drive it home to admissions committees with a co-authorship.
From your post it sounds like he's pretty hands-off. Write up the paper and put your name first and the profs second. Let him tell you to swap them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The co-authorship route is probably better, and there are several benefits you would get from him. A scientific research article is written in a different way to most other types of articles, so you would be getting mentorship in scientific writing. Without this mentorship you may have much more difficulty in getting the paper accepted due to your unusual writing style, the fact you will likely place emphasis on the wrong things and leave that you may leave out key points that the readers need to follow.
Your supervisor also knows the field better than you, and so knows if this is a publishable result, or if you will need to do some checks/extensions. They may also realise that your method may be an extention of some other method or an application of a method to a different field (even if you didn't know of the method before). That may give some insight to the result and/or make it fit more snugly into existing literature. It may also turn out that your result was published last year, or ages ago in some out of the way place, which your supervisor may be more aware of.
There are also money/grant aspects to consider. Money may be involved in getting it published (though it might also be possible for the university to have some money, but they probably expect post-docs/advanced PhDs to be requesting it). I have also heard that computer science papers are normally published by going to a conference which will have expenses. If you got some money from a grant your supervisor may wish to say that this is an output of that grant so they can include it in reports and it may look weird not to have their name on it (shouldn't really be reason for name on a publication, but might be useful if trying to understand any behaviours).
All in all: probably go co-authorship, but view it as a mentorship in how to write academically and instruction in how this work fits into the broader picture. However you can discuss with him about being a corresponding author (which may indicate you are more than just an undergrad doing plug and chug who got lucky). Furthermore when you get a reference from him you can ask him to explicitly point out how you took initiative and went beyond what was expected, resulting in this paper.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Contrary to some of the other answers, Id suggest that you have a conversation with your advisor about it. Don't make assumptions. But ask what the advisor thinks what would be appropriate here, putting them on notice that you have thought about the issue and have some preferences. But making any assumption without having this discussion could lead to problems and you might wind up with less than you deserve or hope for.
Ask whether you should be sole author with an acknowledgement for the professor's help in getting you started, or whether co-authorship would be more appropriate and helpful to you in the future. If they make a recommendation, ask for the reasoning behind it so that you can learn more about how academia works. Listen to their answer and analyze what it means.
Don't bring up the issue of stealing your work. If the professor is someone who would do that, then they might anyway, but, while it happens, it isn't as common as you fear. Yes, there are a lot of questions here from students it has happened to, but far more students have no need to ask.
I don't think you will lose anything in starting this conversation. The professor won't *suddenly think* "I can steal this work." Trust, but verify.
But, as the [other](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154309/75368) [answers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154318/75368) suggest, co-authorship can be a good thing. Don't reject it out of hand if it is suggested.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/24
| 928
| 4,056
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have written a paper on COVID-19 with data that goes up to the 31st of July. I would say that the interest in this paper will reduce significantly as time goes on. I submitted the paper to a fast-track process of a relatively high-profile journal on August 5. This is the second time I have submitted to the fast-track process of that journal. Last time, both reviewers were assigned in a single day, and the first round of reviewing was complete in two weeks.
This time things were much slower. Reviewer 1 took over a week to assign. According to status updates, Reviewer 1's review is in as of August 20. A second reviewer still has not been found. I asked the journal whether there was any way I could assist, and they asked if I had reviewer suggestions. I thought a bit and provided a suggestion. That was before the weekend and I have not heard back.
Here’s my conundrum: If Reviewer 1 has recommended rejection, then the paper will not be accepted, so I think waiting any longer is a waste of time. I would like to see Reviewer 1’s review and feedback, implement it, and submit to a different journal ASAP, preferably still in August (so the data is less than one month old). I feel this is an unusual thing to ask: “Based on Reviewer 1's report, is the paper likely to be rejected? If so I'll just withdraw, make the changes, and submit to a different journal now.” If we wait till a second reviewer is found, that review takes time, and then the paper is rejected based on Reviewer 1's report, then I will be quite frustrated. I will have waited for little purpose and the paper will now be out of date and less likely to be accepted by another journal.
There's always a certain amount of chance with submissions. Do the reviewers like your paper – that's often quite subjective. If they don't, I'll roll the dice again, and would like to ASAP.<issue_comment>username_1: You should not request special treatment because your paper is about a major current event. Journals will have many papers about the event, and they already know those papers are urgent.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm interpreting your question as whether it's acceptable to ask for a decision based on the single reviewer report received so far. You could certainly ask but the editor's reaction is probably unpredictable. Some will be OK sharing the report (this gets more likely if the report isn't controversial), others will not be hurried.
The problem with sharing the report is that the decision might not agree with the report. There are all sorts of reasons why the first report might be rejected, e.g. (and this is an intentionally egregious example) if the reviewer says "this should cite A, B, C, D, E papers, aside from that it's acceptable". In that case the report effectively says nothing except ask for some citations. The second reviewer report will likely be the decisive report, and showing the authors the first report is rather pointless (other than to show how bad our journal's reviewers can be, i.e. not desirable).
Even if the first report is an honest and relatively positive report, the decision still might be reject, if the second report is sufficiently poor. In this case I would be more inclined to share the first report with the author before the decision, but I would stress that there is no decision yet.
It sounds like you're considering the case where the first review is damning enough to cause outright rejection. If that's what happened, the journal doesn't need to invite a second reviewer, they can already reject your paper. If they haven't already rejected your paper, then unless the editors are too busy to look at your submission, your paper still has a chance.
**tl; dr**: "Based on Reviewer 1's report, is the paper likely to be rejected?" is not an answerable question, unless Reviewer 1's report is well and truly damning, in which case they would already be able to make a decision. You could still ask for the review, but not every editor will show you the review.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/24
| 1,456
| 6,194
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently pursuing an M.Sc. in Europe. I am going to apply for a PhD program at an Ivy league university. I am afraid that some bad marks in the master's (especially one in a relevant subject) would affect my application.
**Some background**: I completed my B.Sc. in mathematics with very good marks (corresponding to a GPA of 4.0 or something close to it) in Europe and then moved to another country (still in Europe) to do a quite renowned master in theoretical physics (about 1 out of every 5 applicants was selected for this master).
**Current situation**: Because of several factors (moving to another country, changing subject from math to theoretical physics, different and stricter exam regulations\*, having chosen to follow the most demanding courses) I got bad marks in my first semester. In particular I got the American equivalent to 2.5 in a subject which is relevant for my master thesis (and for the PhD project I would like to pursue).
During the second semester my grades improved. Since I got most of the required credits, I have time to do the specific low-grade exam again during next semester (I can also do more exams to replace the bad ones according to the university regulations).
**Problem**: Even if I do the exam again and get a good mark, I will know the results after the deadline of the application for the PhD. So, I can't reflect my ability in that core subject (apart from my results in other exams and from my reference letters) in the application. Would it be a problem for my application? Would saying "I did bad in the first semester but I will try to make up for it in the third semester" be satisfying for such elite universities?
I am very excited about the research topic and would love to work on it. I am just afraid that some bad marks could affect my chances to get in the PhD program.
**Additional info**: The PhD program would be in physics / theoretical physics. My B.Sc. was in mathematics but included physics exams (and I did more physics exams than average by choosing optional modules).
\*here I mean that in the master's I had less time to prepare for exams (they were immediately after the end of the lectures, whereas during my bachelor's I had time between the end of lectures and the exam session). Moreover, in the bachelor's I had multiple retake exams and every retake had the same difficulty whereas here we have at most one retake and if it occurs it is more difficult than the first exam (this is an objective observation claimed by professors, I quote "you can't get a good mark at the retake" and "guys I suggest you to do the exam immediately because the retake will be way more difficult").<issue_comment>username_1: I believe it is very normal to have some drawbacks in every university experience, especially in the situation you described. I believe most people would be understanding if you explained to them what caused that specific grade (the changing masters and countries, etc), and I would explain how you are improving (extra hours of study, asking for advise of older students, learning better organization techniques, things of that kind). It's all a matter of how you expose the situation; if you expose it with a positive output, they will get a positive impression of you!
For my master thesis internship interview, one of the topics I talked about was how I in one semester had very low grades (average of 13/20) and even failed at one subject, and how I decided to turn things back around, got up on my feet and in the next semester, did one extra subject and ended with an average of 18/20, and they loved it, I was actually their first option for the internship! It's all about how you deliver the info :)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I can relate to your situation, as username_1 stated above, it is normal to feel like you might not be on par with other applicants. As far as lower than desired GPA, or any other factor that you may be holding you back, one of the things that the Ivy Leagues (and other schools in the US for that matter) generally require for PhD admissions is a statement of purpose, where you explain why you are applying to the programs you are applying to as well as your research interests. It's been discussed in a couple other posts on this site, but the statement of purpose (SOP) is a great place to explain any hiccups that may have occurred during your previous education (people tend to be more understanding of stumbles along the way than you may think). So in the case of your low grades, you could briefly mention your low grades, and what caused this and how you improved from that situation and how you plan to build on this during your PhD studies. You want to remember, though, to not bring too much (negative) attention to this and keep everything in a positive light here.
You are far from the only one I've seen on here to post worrying about lower than desired grades; a lot of people have posted fretting not being able to get into a PhD/graduate program due to lower than desired grades, most often owing to a bad first semester or even first couple of years. However, a lot of people have overcome such situations and have been able to secure admission to great graduate programs, so keep your chin up and eventually things will work out. Hope this helped and best of luck.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: How were your GRE scores? If they were great, you can write off that one bad grade, maybe even show semester-by-semester Marks to prove it’s an outlier. If your GRE scores were poor, there’s a chance it will be seen as confirmatory that your poor grade was diagnostic.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: This is exactly the sort of situation that a reference letter should address. Find a referee, perhaps the lecturer for that subject, who can credibly say that your results don't truly reflect your ability and explain why.
(Of course, as other posters have suggested, you can also explain the situation in your own statement. But this might look a bit defensive, which is why it's so helpful to have someone else, who can take a more objective tone, do it for you.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/24
| 2,483
| 10,803
|
<issue_start>username_0: In order to publish a research paper in a journal, one of the requirement may be the reproducibility of results.
I'm wondering, in academia, how does an un-reproducible result even exist?
Is there any classical example for it, in any branch of academia research?<issue_comment>username_1: It's important to define what reproducibility actually means and in what context it is used. Science deals with things that can be reproduced *in principle*: If you managed to re-create the exact same situation, you would be able to get the same result.
But in practice, that doesn't always mean that you *can* re-create the situation: You might have measured the seismic waves of a very large earthquake in Indonesia. Or you might have seen photons of a nearby supernova. Neither of these conditions can be created by humans, and so the experiment can not be repeated in practice, though in principle it could be. A related situation happens if it is *impractical* to do so: If the original experiment was done with a ten-billion $ machine (say, a particle accelerator, a nuclear fusion reaction), then yes you *could* repeat the experiment, but you probably find yourself in financial trouble if you tried. There are also valid research results that *should* not be reproduced, even if they could: Say, whatever we may have learned from the [Tuskeegee syphilis study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study) or the [Stanford prison experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) might be scientifically correct, even repeatable, but one can only hope that nobody will ever try to repeat these studies.
Finally, there are often practical constraints: If you take a picture of turbulence in a pipe, you will not be able to recreate the same picture because turbulence is a chaotic process; similarly, if you try to do experiments on a single cell and count the number of molecules of a specific kind, you're likely going to find that it depends sensitively on temperature, time of day, etc. That doesn't mean that the science is wrong: In both cases, *statistical* assessments of the results may still be valid, even if you can't recreate the specific numbers.
Of course, there are also experiments that really can't be reproduced: Someone published the results of an experiment that seemed reasonable to them and to the reviewers, but the measuring device had a mechanical defect and consequently every number in the publication is just wrong and the measured effect does not actually exist. This of course *shouldn't* happen, but it *does* happen in practice. There are also common statistical problems in studies that involve a small number of human subjects where the random, involuntary, or voluntary choice of subjects suggested an effect that, if repeated on a larger and more random cohort does not actually exist.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Consider data mining or machine learning research. Normally, you invent a new algorithm, run it against state-of-the-art competitors on publicly available datasets, and if your algorithm performs significantly better, then you have a paper. Assuming that the paper clearly describes the algorithm and the experimental setup, these results are reproducible: if anyone were to repeat the steps, they should arrive at the same conclusion.
Nowadays, massive IT companies with research departments submit research papers to data mining and machine learning conferences as well. Imagine that Google invents a new algorithm, runs it against state-of-the-art competitors on publicly available datasets, and reports a significantly better performance in their paper. Sounds good, right? However, the new algorithm might be computationally expensive to a degree that prohibits reproducibility: maybe the algorithm needs access to Google's proprietary servers in order to be fed with enough computation power to allow the algorithm to finish before the universe implodes. The paper is written in the exact same way, with enough detail such that if anyone were to repeat the steps, they should arrive at the same conclusion. However, I would argue that this is not reproducible research: the average research scientist at the average university will not be able to repeat the steps, by lack of access to computation facilities.
The tricky thing is that the research may very well be valid. Unfortunately, the average reviewer has no way of knowing this. But that's hardly Google's fault, so they should be able to publish their papers. But it's not really reproducible. So this is a very gray area.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Enough information to reproduce
-------------------------------
If we look at a journal requirement for the results to be reproducible, it's not about the result being reproducible in principle, but about the possibility to reproduce it *based on the contents of your paper*.
For example, your paper may describe a result that *you* can reproduce but that is effectively not reproducible by omitting key details of the experimental setup or by relying on data that's classified or otherwise unavailable to others. If so, you're effectively asking the journal, reviewers and the wider community (who might actually attempt to reproduce the results later) to accept your results as true based on pure faith and goodwill - and they may refuse to do so. This limitation generally is not strictly applied to things that are very difficult or very expensive to reproduce (e.g. you need the equivalent of the Large Hadron Collider to replicate LHC results, but physics still wants to publish results coming out of LHC even if noone else has a comparable particle accelerator), but for situations where practical reproduction is plausible, it makes sense to mandate that the authors include in the paper the information required to do so.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> In order to publish a research paper in a journal, one of the requirement may be the reproducibility of results.
>
>
>
Your assumption is false. Only certain kinds of journals require reproducibility.
Classic examples of unreproducible results include:
* Case studies of unique circumstances. For rare diseases, these are very valuable, but they apply to many non-medical fields of research too.
* All observational astronomy (there is only one universe).
* Statistical fluctuations.
* Expensive experiments.
* Errors.
Only the errors should not be published.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Wikipedia has an excellent article on the current [Replication Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) (or Reproducibility Crisis), and I can't hope to improve on it. I would recommend that you start by reading that article, the many examples included, and the other referenced links therein.
>
> The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility
> crisis) is, as of 2020, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it
> has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or
> impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects
> the social sciences and medicine most severely. The crisis has
> long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s as part
> of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis
> represents an important body of research in the field of
> metascience...
>
>
> <NAME> and <NAME> proposed these causes:
>
>
> * Generation of new data/publications at an unprecedented rate.
> * Majority of these discoveries will not stand the test of time.
> * Failure to adhere to good scientific practice and the desperation to publish or perish.
> * Multiple varied stakeholders
>
>
> They conclude that no party is solely responsible, and no single
> solution will suffice. In fact, some predictions of an impending
> crisis in the quality control mechanism of science can be traced back
> several decades...
>
>
> Philosopher and historian of science <NAME> predicted in his
> 1971 book Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems that science –
> in its progression from "little" science composed of isolated
> communities of researchers, to "big" science or "techno-science" –
> would suffer major problems in its internal system of quality control.
> Ravetz recognized that the incentive structure for modern scientists
> could become dysfunctional, now known as the present 'publish or
> perish' challenge, creating perverse incentives to publish any
> findings, however dubious. According to Ravetz, quality in science is
> maintained only when there is a community of scholars linked by a set
> of shared norms and standards, all of whom are willing and able to
> hold one another accountable.
>
>
>
Keep in mind that modern scientific studies have a probabilistic aspect in how their random sample has been determined. It's the goal of statistical inference to express and clarify this fact. For example: Say there's a deadly disease, a researcher creates a medication that in truth does nothing, but just by fortune happens to give it to the only 10 people in the world who will recover on their own. Then that study will appear to be an amazing success and surely get published, even though no one will ever be able to recreate the effect. This is called [Publication Bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias) and with more and more scientific studies done over time, it's theorized that a majority of published papers may now be in this category.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: To add what others have already written, reproducibility in academic publishing mainly deals with the extent of how you have described your research methodology.
UPDATE: Un-reproducible results are largely frowned upon and a result of not describing the study properly. There is a place in science for experience reports and conjectures, however these should be framed as such.
Say, you are dealing with something unique like a supernova exploding. There is no way to recreate it in any practical sense. However, you can describe the star (type, size, distance, composition, environment, details of the explosion, etc etc) to provide the reader with enough details to understand what you are studying.
Similarly, you describe what kind of tools (telescopes, detectors etc.) you have used to collect data, what kind of methods you used to analyze the data, and so on. Thus, the reader can trace back your conclusions to data and to the circumstances of how the data was collected, and to the phenomenon being investigated.
Thus, the whole study may not be reproducible but parts of it can. Like, using the same equipment in the same way, applying the same data analysis methods, apply your reasoning to draw conclusions.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/24
| 845
| 3,643
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international PhD student, in the last lap of my PhD, and have a little more than a year to defend my thesis. My work is in theory, and our simulations take a lot of computing time. As we are working on wrapping up my first paper now, I want to only focus on projects which will lead to publications since our Faculty requires 4 papers(published and/or submitted to journals) to be able to defend one's thesis. I have tried to talk to my supervisor about this, but he only spared 13 minutes listening to the project ideas I have had and did not get involved with ideas or give any input.
I am guessing there is a bias how he handles my involvement in his projects since a relatively new PhD student(who is a local and have been in the department since his Bachelor's) receive a lot of his attention. It is not about that my supervisor should be more involved in my prospects, but at least he should give it as much attention as any other. He also holds many other positions, one of them being department head and trying to solve a serious work-environment issue in the department in a different group. So he remains quite busy in meetings since the last few months.
So, what should be my way of communicating my career prospects in the year to come with him and my team so that we can work towards achieving them in a specific time frame? I do lack the field-insights which my team has and in that respect, they can help me a lot to plan efficiently.<issue_comment>username_1: These 13 minutes of which you speak, was that a meeting that you planned in advance? Or did you happen to meet him at a random moment? If it was a planned meeting, you should insist on another planned meeting of at least an hour to discuss this point and only this point. If it was a random moment, your supervisor might already be late for another urgent appointment.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You have less than a year to defend your thesis. You haven't published anything and need four publications before you can defend. Publishing four papers in a year is problematic: You have to write the papers, submit them, and wait for reviews. Can you manage that four times in the time you have? If so, great, go do it. Otherwise, speak to your supervisor about an extension.
Discussing new project ideas with less than a year surely isn't a viable way to finish on time. You need to focus on work that's nearly complete. If you don't have such work, speak to your supervisor about an extension.
I don't agree that your supervisor should give you as much time as other students. All students deserve a certain level of supervision. This level will vary as a student progresses: New students need more attention than older students. A supervisor may go above-and-beyond for some students at their discretion, likely benefiting better students, who significantly further the supervisor's interests.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Some supervisors are more interested in the "new" projects, like readers are in the newspaper of today, not yesterday.
Especially if they are overloaded with admin duties, they need something to take their mind off it, and it's most likely that a project that is fresh has more "refreshment value" than a project that is several years old.
In other words: it does not have to have to do with you in particular, rather with the novelty value of your work vs. the new student's work.
So my advice is: try to set up fixed slots, even just half-hour, if an hour is too much, preparing a clear agenda ahead of time for your supervisor. Help him supervise you.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/24
| 1,972
| 8,396
|
<issue_start>username_0: When writing a paper, it's not that seldom, that I want to cite papers where a DOI is given but cannot be accessed (anymore). Quite frequently, the corresponding DOI is also presented within the PDF document of the paper that I want to cite, which is also not accessible (anymore).
The intention of DOIs was to guarantee permanent access to documents and unify it, but in reality, some are broken over time. Furthermore, not every DOI lookup website does have a complete list of all DOIs.
My primary question is: Is there some common practice how to handle this situation? Should I provide the DOI as well in my references, even though it is not accessible anymore? (Maybe it could still be accessible with some other DOI lookup website?)
What is the best DOI lookup tool? Is there something better than <https://doi.org>?<issue_comment>username_1: While not as volatile as URLs, DOIs still can be revoked or otherwise become unavailable.
In your case, consider if there is a chance that the DOI could become available again (there might be technical difficulties with the host) or whether there is another available source (another DOI). Personally, I would include the DOI in the bibliography and send a message to the author(s) or the provider (this should not be your problem to solve).
All accessible DOIs can be searched with [Crossref](https://www.crossref.org) (search by title, author, DOI and other metadata).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm from Crossref. The DOI should always resolve to some location, even if the content has moved location on the web or has changed publisher. Can you share the example so we can get it reported? It's possible it's not a Crossref DOI of course (there are several other DOI agencies) but I can find out from the DOI. The prefix does often denote a particular publisher but journals change hands frequently as societies negotiate different publishing agreements so that's not necessarily a failsafe way to solve the problem (which I agree should not be your problem!). Happy to help if you share the example(s) :-)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: While DOIs are very convenient, it may actually not be a problem if it is broken. Usually, citations include author(s) name(s), journal name, journal issue, year and possibly page reference and article title. With this information alone you should be able to find a referenced article using the traditional method. Therefore, DOIs can be considered a convenience service with not too big of a fallout if they break. Another convenient "service" is to ask a librarian at your institution if you have difficulties finding a referenced source.
Furthermore, keep in mind that a DOI might simply contain a typo and can thus not be resolved correctly. This can of course also happen with traditional referencing, but there it is usually easier to see that the article from "Nautre" is actually published in "Nature".
Lastly, I would like to point out that the internet has other tools to resolve DOIs than the usual websites. For example, I can easily find the article you mentioned in the comments by using a regular internet search engine.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm also from Crossref. Broken DOI links aren't good and we do try and fix them. If you get the "DOI Not Found" error page -for example when following this link - <https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2019.0806081> - it means that the DOI hasn't been registered. If you fill in the form then this error is reported to the appropriate Registration Agency. In Crossref's case we notify the publisher of the error and ask them to fix the problem - it usually gets fixed but if the publisher has ceased operations or isn't a Crossref member anymore the link may not be able to be fixed. Where archiving arrangements are in place the DOI can be redirected to archived copies of the content.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Summarizing some useful comments in an answer as suggested:
The journal seems to be fraudulent. The name alone is suspicious
>
> International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology
>
>
>
@Ander Biguri nicknamed it "Journal of everything you'd pay me to publish" in one comment, which seems appropriate when reading the [website](http://www.ijirset.com/) of the publisher:
>
> "Fast review & Publication within 12 to 24 hours"
>
>
>
It may be that the DOIs never expired but rather were faked from the start by the journal as @Glenn Willen points out in another comment.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: This answer is partially derived from other answers and comments for this question:
### Answer for question 1
Despite the fact that DOIs *should* stay operational/accessible, there exist different reasons why they can become inaccessible:
1. **Some publishers might vanish over time.** In this case a DOI authority can be contacted to report the broken DOI.
2. **A publisher might have been merged with another publisher.** In case such a DOI is broken, the publisher or a DOI authority could be notified. Usually, the new publisher can fix it.
3. **Some papers might be revoked after publication.** In this case a DOI authority should be contacted so that the DOI does not link to a URL which e.g. does not exist anymore.
4. **A domain of a publisher might be down temporarily.** This case can be tested by loading other Web pages of the same publisher. If several pages are down at the same time, it's advisable to wait for some hours and then again check the state of the domain. Just some patience might solve this issue.
5. **A technical problem with a specific Website of the publisher's domain might exist.** E.g. the content could have been moved to a different location/address. This can be tested, by checking other Web pages of the same publisher. If they work properly, it's most likely that a specific Website has some issue which needs to be fixed by the publisher. Thus, the publisher should be informed.
6. **Sometimes, when papers were recently published, the DOI might already exist but the paper is not yet accessible.** In case of very fresh papers, just some patience might solve this issue, until the content is uploaded properly.
7. **Some papers may be fake as well or the publisher might provide low quality papers.** In case a DOI is inaccessible, it can be useful to check the trustworthiness of a publisher:
* Is it a rather unknown publisher?
* Does the website look suspicious?
* Are there many typos in the papers or on the publisher's Web domain?
* Has the publisher published papers only for e.g. 1 or 2 years?
* Are there several papers with inaccessible DOIs of this publisher?
* Can you find other inconsistencies?
* Optional and not recommended in general: Has this paper never been cited by another author or by very few authors (citation count)? This is not a general recommendation, since every fresh paper has to start with a citation count of zero. Furthermore, it is not always perfectly transparent how the citation counts are created by existing systems. Different systems may report different citation counts. Furthermore, the citation count will hardly be completely accurate. If considered, this should only be seen as some small indicator in combination with other criteria.The more questions can be answered with yes, the more suspicious it is that the publisher might be fraudulent. It may also happen that this publisher is a "low quality" publisher, which provides low quality papers, without an extended peer review process. In any mentioned case, it is recommended to consider finding alternative papers probably also from other publishers, if possible.
8. **The DOI points to the wrong paper.** If a DOI points to the wrong paper or content, then a DOI authority should be informed.
9. **Some typo might exist in the DOI.** Finally, it is also possible, that there is just some typo in the given DOI.
In case of doubt, one can also simply perform a web search (e.g. Google or Google Scholar, etc.) with a search string containing the title and the authors of a paper to look it up and to check the corresponding DOI. Sometimes there may also exist a different (and operational) DOI for the paper.
### Answer for question 2
<https://doi.org> and <https://crossref.org> are two excellent domains for DOI lookup.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/24
| 518
| 2,082
|
<issue_start>username_0: So recently, my PI submitted a paper that I and another graduate student have worked on for the past year. The graduate student and I contributed equally on this project, in creating figures, getting data, writing the manuscript, etc., and he agrees as well. However, the first authorship is going to my partner, but I think it would be more fair if we had co-first authorship.
I want to bring this up and ask my PI, but I'm not sure what she'll say. How should I explain my situation to her?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I want to bring this up and ask my PI, but I'm not sure what she'll say. How should I explain my situation to her?
>
>
>
You're thinking about this wrong. It's not the PI's decision. You don't have to convince her, as she has no greater role in establishing authorship than any other, except of course by being the mediator between her own students.
Everyone on the author list has to agree to the ordering (and co-first-authorship). If the present first author agrees you should share first authorship, that's the big hurdle. I would suggest having him email all authors saying something like:
>
> Monolo and I have discussed their contributions, and we would like to submit this paper as co-first-authors.
>
>
>
No one is likely to object, unless you're trying to jump from seventh author to first.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You could request a meeting with your PI, at which you can say you'd like to understand why your collaborator was named first author. She may have good reasons or she may have a mistaken understanding of your contributions, which you can correct.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I suggest that you first talk to your partner. If they agree, then you can go jointly to the PI. If they disagree then you are inviting a fight. Make sure that it is a fight you really want. Bad things can come from such fights especially if your PI also disagrees.
Having any authorship is a good thing and in the long run co-first-authorship will mean little extra for first papers.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/25
| 2,315
| 10,320
|
<issue_start>username_0: The *long and erroneous publishing process after a recently accepted (Open Access) paper* has led me to ask this question. I'll explain its context briefly.
We submitted a journal paper (a LaTeX manuscript including supplemental material) which after, in my domain (Computer Science) somewhat reasonable, 7 to 8 months time got accepted subject to minor revision. The journal has a very good reputation, the reviewers unanimously liked the manuscript and gave very helpful and detailed feedback. I handed in the revision not quite a month later. About 4 months from then I got the final acceptance notification. Although I felt already that took quite long, what followed seems like an Odyssey to me: after more than two months I got the first online proof which had numerous (100s of) typos, type setting and conversion errors introduced, tables wrongly formatted, cross-references lost, etc. I had to invest considerable time to point out all the errors, and after several more weeks (about two months in the meanwhile) and two proof revisions, I'm still stuck with waiting for another iteration of the proof. The editorial office has politely and helpfully handled the corrections with the production team, however, my requests/concerns also got a bit lost in translation. Overall, we are about to reach 9 months after acceptance with minor corrections and, after a couple of emails with the editorial office, I have no idea how long it will still take to at least see something like an official online-first version, not talking of the journal issue the article will possibly be included.
I believe that *journal's procedure seems inappropriate* inasmuch as I opted for **full Open Access** according to the funding policies and my Uni accepted (by a default waiver for that publisher) to pay a decent amount of article processing charges (I believe from their library budget). This inappropriateness stems from the long production time and that the conversion of the LaTeX manuscript caused so many further issues and required several proof iterations. Maybe strange, but again, I would have expected a more accurate production process than for a non-OA publication. But OA might not play a role here.
*Just for comparison:* a year earlier, we had a non-OA article accepted with minor for another (even higher ranked) journal where it took them about six weeks from this acceptance to complete publication, no typos introduced, and those six weeks even included our time to submit the minor revisions.
That whole thing made me wonder **what expectations one ought to have on the paid portion of work done in the production process**, other than reviewing and editing which in the majority of cases is purely voluntary in my field? How could one improve this situation? E.g. would a notification of my Uni (maybe our library) be exaggerated, so they can consider blocking future APC waivers for that journal/publisher?
I believe my concerns go beyond this [interesting question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126422/what-to-do-for-a-paper-with-a-very-long-review-process) about long review processes.<issue_comment>username_1: It doesn't matter whether you paid an APC or whether the publisher is getting money from subscribers for seeing your article.
There are journals that have very significant production backlogs, so that accepted papers are not produced for months or even years. A long production backlog is not really cause for serious complaint, though undoubtedly both you and the editors of the journal are not happy about it. Note that frequently the only way to fix a production backlog is to stop accepting papers (or accept very few papers) for some period of time. (In particular, back when people mostly read papers by going to their physical library, there was no reason for the production backlog to be any better than the publication backlog, and some publishers still think this way.)
However, the number of errors in the production process and the amount of time and number of iterations it has so far required to fix them is completely unheard of in my experience. I have had some production issues twice in 20+ papers (both times with the same publisher but different journals), but they were nowhere near what you are describing.
At this point, you should let the editors know what has happened and ask them to complain strongly on your behalf. (Of course, you should be nice and understanding about it, since it's not their fault in any way. But they have leverage that you don't.) They are on your side. They can see you have been treated badly, and they know that incidents like this are very bad for their journal. This should be a serious issue, to the extent that, if these kinds of production issues are a common occurrence, the editorial board might try to switch publishers (if they own the name of the journal) or resign. (You don't know if your case is a one-off or common, so you can't very well ask them to do this, but they should want to know and should take this seriously.)
Finally, I think you are well within your rights to not submit to a journal run by this publisher until you have some indication they have improved their processes, and you should quietly let anyone who asks you for journal advice know about what you have gone through. (If someone reads this question, figures out who you are, and e-mails you, you should let them know who this publisher is.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with what username_1 said, to the effect that "numerous typos" should not be taken lightly, and that you should consider contacting the editorial board.
When something similar happened to me once, I sent a long and angry email to the publisher, and demanded the process be started over from scratch. This produced the desired results.
Also, again agreeing with username_1, the scheduling concerns are more ambiguous. In my experience, asking you to wait forever is a bit annoying, but par for the course.
I have an additional suggestion: as you suggested, *contact your librarian*. They might be familiar with this publisher; ask them how typical your experience is.
I don't think that they would block APC waivers based on a single complaint, but if they received many such complaints then they might consider it. In any case, they might be willing to suggest a course of action, or to contact the publisher on your behalf.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: When I worked in production, we had a timetable of roughly 30 working days to get a manuscript published. The 30 days would include all the steps in the process: copyediting, 1st typesetting, proofreading, author checking, 2nd typesetting, author sign-off, and uploading online. Lots of people were involved, up to 5+.
Sometimes the timetable would not work. Why not? Usually it's because one of the 5+ people dropped the ball. Do remember that in general the staff are not the "journal's" staff, they are the publisher's staff, and the publisher probably has more than one journal. This means things like these can happen:
* A paper for journal A arrives, but six papers for journal B arrive at the same time, and the staff choose to work on those six papers first (because those six papers are urgent, because the editors request it, etc).
* One of the 5+ people goes on leave for a few days. That's not long enough to really have someone else cover for them, but more than long enough to upend the schedule for everyone else.
* One of the 5+ people is focusing on something else, e.g. if you are in charge of uploading the paper online, perhaps you are also in charge of maintaining the journal's website or editorial management system, and there's something about the website that needs to be fixed.
Taken together this means there is room to expedite a paper - certainly a very important/urgent paper can be completed in a few days, for example - but the speedup happens at a cost to every other paper, and there's no guarantee that papers take the same amount of time.
You might have experienced something similar. Say you are reviewing papers by Alice and Bob. Alice's paper is smooth and easy and you finish it in one week, well before the deadline. You then put Bob's paper aside for a while to grade your students' assignments, then you have to deal with unhappy students, and then it turns out that you need a paper Bob referenced to finish the review so you contact your librarian, and it ends up taking a long time. From your perspective you've done the best you can do under the circumstances. From Alice's and Bob's perspective, they both submitted to the same journal and yet one review was very fast and another took an unpleasantly long time.
One more thing: my experience with Open Access is that it literally does not affect the publication process, except at the end when we instruct the sales department to charge the author. It is possible some publishers expedite OA papers, however.
**In your specific case:** it's hard to tell what happened from the outside. If you submitted a manuscript in a difficult-to-parse format (e.g. if you used Word when the staff are trained with TeX), then they might have encountered problems converting it. You write that "The editing office has politely and helpfully handled the corrections with the production team". Assuming the editing office is the editorial office of the publisher, then they've done all they can, and it's the production team that's at fault. Still, one can't tell from the outside what's going on - for example, you could simply have gotten a bad (or new/overworked/depressed) typesetter. What certainly shouldn't happen is for the bad manuscript to make it to you in the first place, simply because one of the 5+ people in the production process should have caught the issues before it got that far.
I'm almost certain getting your library to impose an open access "sanction" on the publisher is kind of missing the point, since it almost certainly doesn't address the problem(s). It's not clear how to address the problem either - from the publisher's point of view, what needs to be done is for the 5+ people involved to be more careful and/or willing to ask for help, which isn't something that management can just implement.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/25
| 1,315
| 5,713
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an academic in a Portuguese-speaking country, so there is some incentive for me to write in Portuguese. However, much of the literature I deal with is in English, so I would like to publish in journals from anglophone countries.
Given this state of affairs, and given that no matter how many translations are made of a work, the research leading up to it remains *one* research, I had the idea of maximising my audience by publishing in both in English (abroad) and Portuguese (in my country). That is, I'd like to publish a paper first in a Portuguese-language journal, and then later submit it to an English-language journal, or vice-versa.
However, as we know, originality is typically a requirement in academic journals. But **are translations of papers previously published in foreign languages considered "original work"?**
At face value, I think the answer might be "no": the work, as a research, has been published elsewhere, so it isn't quite "original". But that would mean that no research published in Portuguese can ever find itself as a translation in an English-language journal, which also sounds a bit exaggerated. If that is the case, what is the appropriate venue for translations?
I'm aware some journals have a policy giving editors discretion to consider exceptions to the originality rule on a case-by-case basis (see e.g. [[1]](https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/our-services/authors/author-policies/editorial-policy-originality-guidelines)). Still, I was unable to find information on how situations like this are typically treated. Obviously, as a matter of ethics, the original work would be properly referenced in the translation, which would be flagged as such.
So, paraphrasing: is the (original) translation of an academic article previously published in a foreign language considered "original work" for the purposes of publication?
P.S.: I imagine this may differ from field to field. I do research in the fields of law, Social science, and philosophy.<issue_comment>username_1: Why would it be "exaggerated" to think that journals are reluctant to publish findings that have already been published? A journal has limited space to publish articles. They want to maximize the "value" they get out of the articles they publish (prestige, money...). An article that exclusively contains already-known findings is of less value than an article with new findings, plain and simple.
There are some exceptions. If an article is of high value, it may be worthwhile for a generalist journal to publish a translation. Books are a different beast: it is more common to publish translations of books, as they are generally assumed to have a wider readership and a longer-lasting usefulness, and the "space" concern is less pregnant. Finally, some journals specialize in publishing translations. Other than in these cases, I don't think it is likely that a journal would publish a direct translation of an existing article.
As for what you are trying to achieve, I am a bit puzzled. Is there really an incentive for you to publish in Portuguese? I do not work in Portugal, but in a non-anglophone Western European country. The language of my field is English. There is no incentive whatsoever for me to publish my findings in my native language. Anyone remotely interested in reading what I write knows English, and I am personally evaluated on the basis of all my articles, including the ones in English – in fact, almost all the top journals of my field almost only publish in English. So let me ask you: are there really lusophone academics in your field that are not able to read documents in English? Do the incentives to publish in Portuguese really exist? This may happen in specific fields (e.g. if you study the history of Portugal, or the Portuguese language itself), but otherwise, since you claim that most of the literature you read is in English, color me doubtful. What exactly do you gain by publishing in Portuguese?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many journals and universities would consider it plagiarism to publish the same paper in two different languages. If the papers are similar enough that one would be considered plagiarised (or not publishable as not enough novelty) if they were in the same language, then putting one in another language does not change its status.
What are your goals with the Portuguese version? I can understand that some of your legal issues papers may be most appropriate in Portuguese if you want to perhaps have them read by legal practitioners as well as scholars. But you state that much of the material (and therefore the intellectual debate) is in English. If you want to contribute to that discussion, then you presumably need to publish in English.
One approach might be to publish in English but have a blog or other less formal outlet where you summarise and promote the paper (in Portuguese).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: **No.** A translation is not considered an original work in the context of submission to an academic journal whose stated policy is that submissions must be original work that is not published elsewhere.\*
You can still send an email to the editor explaining your idea and asking if they’d make an exception to the policy. Some journals, in some circumstances, might consider it.
You can also translate your paper anyway and make the translation available via a paper repository such as arXiv. It will undoubtedly increase the exposure and impact of your work.
\*Translation is of course a creative activity requiring skill and expertise, and in other contexts would certainly be considered a kind of original work.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/25
| 726
| 3,017
|
<issue_start>username_0: As the title suggests, I am a Master's student with no publications. I will apply for a PhD in the USA next year so I am a bit worried that most applicants with a Master's degree have a publication. Is this (no publications in Master's) common within mathematics?<issue_comment>username_1: I cannot speak for the whole world, but for a master student in Europe, it would be exceptional to have a published paper already. A preprint is perhaps not completely unheard of but still extremely uncommon.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In the US, there are diffent kinds of masters degrees. Some are mostly course based and some have a research component. Of those, not all will require formal publication outside the university. This guides the decisions of those on admissions committees for doctoral programs.
Having a publication in a good journal is a strong plus, but lacking one isn't necessarily a strong minus. At the top schools it would be likely to count for more than otherwise, but still, not likely to be essential.
I suspect that for students applying it is not especially common to already have publications. This is partly because of the short and time-limited nature of most US masters programs. Research tends to be open ended, hence the long time it can take to get a doctorate.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Don't worry about it. Having a publication on entry to a (US) Ph.D. is unusual (though not unheard of), regardless of whether you're coming in with a master's or a bachelor's degree. In fact, in most subfields of mathematics, most of those completing a Ph.D. will not yet have a paper submitted, much less accepted or published (though many will have turned all or part of their thesis into a preprint by then.)
That being said, for admission to a competitive Ph.D. program, it is very helpful to show some evidence of excellence in mathematics beyond coursework. A publication/preprint is one way to do that; good competition results in math contests another; great reference from a professor a third, etc. etc. So figure out what is your excellence calling card.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: No, a Master's degree is a "post baccalaureate," not a "pre PhD.
Many master's programs have a "capstone" requirement consisting of a paper or a project, but it is uncommon for it to be of publishable quality.
Basically, you are usually not qualified to do "research" until toward the end of the of PhD program, and your thesis may well be your first publication.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: It is very unusual to have a paper -- further, it would be extremely unusual to have a solo-author paper, and whether you have a paper with one of the project supervisors you had in your undergraduate or Masters depends more on them that it does on you.
Having a paper is a (small) positive, but not at all a requirement. Appearing interested and knowledgable at your interview is much more important.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/25
| 1,188
| 5,011
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have 3 advisors; two are great (main prof and a daily advisor) and one ('Jill') is not. Jill invited herself to my advisor team after coming back to work from a long medical leave and she's ready to Kick! Some! Butt! in the academic arena. The problem is that her help is not very helpful because:
1. She is not directly involved in research and has little knowledge of my area so her feedback on my work is superficial, nitpicky or just plain useless.
2. She is often late to our meetings which is annoying and a waste of time for me since the meetings are planned only for her benefit (I speak regularly with my daily advisor so he knows my progress but for some reason we have a weekly meeting with Jill as well).
3. She is a Chatty Cathy and wants to make the office one big happy family. She's the kind of person who would judge you for being on the quieter side and make it her mission to prod you out of your shell.
I find her presence draining. She on the other hand is DESPERATE to help me and feel useful, so much so that it comes off as patronizing. Basically she treats me like her duckling.
I'm in my final months of writing and I just want to get my stuff done without having to involve her, but I can't get rid of her and don't want to burn bridges. The other advisors seem fine with her. How do I best manage this dynamic without going insane?<issue_comment>username_1: If she isn't a formal advisor you might just get by ignoring her. But if that doesn't seem right, I'd suggest working through one or both of your other advisors. They can *quietly* speak to her about the fact that her communications are disruptive and not helpful. It might be harmful for you to say the things they they can say comfortably. Let this be a faculty fight if a fight needs to occur, not a student v faculty issue.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This sounds like a rather delicate matter. On the one hand, your request to not have your supervisory team shaken up while you are finishing your thesis is completely reasonable. On the other hand, if she was your supervisor before leaving it can be painful to come back from a long medical leave and see that your projects moved on to the extent that you aren't actually needed (or even useful) anymore.
If you have a healthy relationship to your main supervisor I would have a frank discussion with them. You should not complain, but saying that you feel that this de-facto change in your supervision isn't actually helping you is completely fair. However, as always in these matters, stick to the facts and leave out any speculation about her motives. Don't say or imply that she is desperate to help you or to feel useful. Just say that these additional meetings are draining your time and energy, and that you feel like you are not getting much feedback that is useful to you in this phase of the project.
Maybe your advisor will see the issue and talk gently to Jill, or maybe they won't. In the latter case, simply humouring her and sticking it out for the last few months is probably a better option than escalating this into a big conflict.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Set a meeting with all three advisors, explain you'd like to focus entirely on the writing, and ask whether regular meetings can be replaced with less-regular meetings when you need support.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I'll be the one dissenting voice and suggest you look for the silver lining. Maybe the reason the other two advisors aren't pushing her out is because they also see the value of some grist in the mill. Life is about gleaning hidden lessons. Maybe she really does have something to contribute even if in a way you don't fully appreciate right now.
If her feedback is generally kind of useless it might be because she doesn't really understand what you're doing. If a member of your advisory panel doesn't understand then there is little hope for others outside your tight circle. Most academics work never gets out to affect the world because they write for an audience of 10 or at most 100 people in their field.
Just some thoughts. More than a comment. Less than an answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I've read the other answers and I don't think anyone else has mentioned the following.
This is a classic case of the old proverb, "too many cooks spoil the broth". Either that or you could present it that way.
You could explain that you simply find it confusing to get advice from so many sources and would prefer to limit this. Of course the risk is that you could lose one of the good ones. However if you present the matter as simply "too many cooks" and talk individually to the other advisers saying that you particularly like *their* help and you don't want to lose it, then there is no need to criticise anyone - all your words are positive.
This is just a suggestion and of course there are no guarantees in life that things work out perfectly. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/25
| 504
| 2,288
|
<issue_start>username_0: Note that I'm not talking about "visiting professor" or "visiting lecturer" positions in the US, which seem to be full-time non-tenure-track positions offered at some US universities.
What I mean is that I sometimes see people list "visiting researcher", "visiting scholar", or "visiting professor" as their second affiliation, and seemingly they are not actually being paid by the second institution (their full-time position is at their primary place of employment) but they simply maintain a second affiliation through this visiting position. Often I see people having visiting affiliations at universities in other countries, or professors keeping a visiting position at their previous place of employment after they moved to another place.
What are these visiting positions? How does one get it, and what is the point?<issue_comment>username_1: Some professors visit to moderate courses or programs in other institutions, for quality control or accreditation requirements.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A typical reason for these positions is that a person needs a formal affiliation with the "visited" university for some formal reason. This is particularly common for visiting positions at past institutions. These can be there to faciliate continued supervision of PhD students at the old instituation, or to keep existing grants. Grants can be a reason beyond this - eg by having a visiting position at some university, it may become possible to get travel there (or even to other places) paid for by a grant situated at that university.
In the short-term visiting positions can actually be just what they are called. The person may in fact visit the instituation for a while, sometimes with funding from the host institation (which would be acknowledged via such an affiliation). It can also be something mundane as needing some formal association with the host university to get a keycard or library access.
I assume that almost always the person receiving a visiting position will have a pre-existing strong relationship with either the institution or an academic at that place. There will be some formalities depending on the institution, but that is something people figure and sort out once the need arises.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/25
| 510
| 2,211
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want your opinion on this issue.
I submitted a paper to Journal A. It had been with the editor for two months without being sent to peer review. So, I sent a withdrawal email to the editor. I waited for few days to get an email back, but I thought it is already done since I informed them. Then, I sent the paper to Journal B. It was sent to peer review after two days of submission.
Recently, I checked the online submission system of journal A, and they did not withdraw the paper, they actually sent it to peer review four days ago (three months from submission to intitiang peer review, which is too long in my field); I noticed that they have a new editor. Now, the paper is under review in two journals, which I know it is misconduct, but I assumed that the paper was withdrawn because I sent an email requesting that.
What do you think I should do?<issue_comment>username_1: Contact the editor for Journal A immediately, sending a copy of the withdrawal request you sent previously, and ask them to complete the withdrawal because you have submitted it elsewhere after the original withdrawal. Be polite.
I would at the same time check whether there is any way to withdraw the paper through the online submission system, and do that as well. Your email may have been missed.
It might be worth giving Journal B a heads-up, too. I don't think you've done anything wrong here except perhaps for not following up with the withdrawal when you didn't get a response, and therefore making the situation clear is best for you.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: This isn't misconduct: You submitted a paper, the journal failed to act,\* and you withdrew. You then submitted the paper to another journal.
There was no dual-submission, no misconduct (on your part).
Nonetheless, you should notify the first journal that the paper was withdrawn. You should also notify the second journal that you previously withdraw from the first, yet the first journal proceeded without your knowledge nor consent, and you've now reminded them that you withdrew.
What you want to avoid is any accusation of misconduct.
\*I don't personally think two months is an outrageous delay.
Upvotes: 6
|
2020/08/25
| 189
| 772
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can someone do another Masters in Canada if you already have a Masters and PhD from the UK?<issue_comment>username_1: You can study for a second masters, but funding may have different conditions.
I know several people with 2 masters and they did them for their own reasons.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I know a lecturer in my university who did his Masters and PhD in Computer Science and also has a Masters in soil science. So yes, you could do any number of Masters you want. I doubt immigration really cares about your background. If you have admission and support letter from a Canadian university, you should be able to get a visa. And if you are paying fees for your Masters it is unlikely you will have any problems.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/26
| 694
| 2,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: Taking relevant courses builds up confidence, exposure and depth. I managed to get my master's degree and PhD degree in computational chemistry without taking any graduate level mathematics and modeling courses.
On top of this, the only maths I had was till my 3rd year undergrad and I struggled with it. I scored a C grade in every exams and I was/and still am not comfortable with it.
I am decent with linear algebra and multivariable calculus and work with tensor analysis in my research. Each of these I had taken only in my undergrad.
I should have taken relevant courses during my master's and PhD. Though I can perform well in my research (currently a postdoc), I feel unconfident and uncomfortable with my level of knowledge as I have never explored the depth of the subjects as is done in graduate courses. I only self-studied what was needed in my research.
How to feel confident with knowledge if I have not taken relevant classes during my postgraduate degree?<issue_comment>username_1: The classes from undergrad and what you took from them enabled you to self-study all the relevant maths on your own. That is a much more valuable thing than the knowledge on its own and should give you the confidence.
If you absolutely need the "external validation" to build the confidence: As a postdoc you are still in a University setting? Then why not take some time out of your schedule and take the classes now? Or take some online courses that include tests and a certificate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the good points made by [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154420/12339), you might consider going back to the first course you struggled with and taking it again or going through a book on it. You might be rusty on some points, but you could very well find that you understand parts of it better than you did the first time around.
Also, what made the courses harder as you went along? Was it more assumed knowledge, a faster pace, a shift from computation and calculation to proofs, a greater level of abstraction/complexity? If you can identify the stumbling blocks, you can work on them. For instance, take time to strengthen your knowledge of the prerequisites, study at your own pace if possible and, if relevant, take an introductory course on proof-based mathematics. Increased abstraction or complexity can be harder to deal with, but sometimes you can find a book or other resource that helps bridge the gap between where you currently are and where the new material starts, with a gentler learning curve.
You may also need to make peace with not knowing everything to the same depth. The seeming paradox is that the more you know, the more you find there is to know, so it feels like your knowledge is increasingly inadequate. This is a game you can't win - none of us can. By all means learn things as you need to or want to, but ease back on your expectations of yourself.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/26
| 1,115
| 4,948
|
<issue_start>username_0: A few months ago, a PhD student I had never met sent me an email asking me for advice about their paper. I have written papers on related topics and apparently I answered a question of theirs on the relevant SE site.
The paper was interesting and I was happy to give advice. However I found a mistake in a crucial lemma that puts several results in jeopardy. I wrote back with the advice and added an explanation about the error. I never received a response (not even thanks for the advice), and the preprint remains on the public preprint server untouched.
What should I do at this point? Do I write back asking for an update? Do I wait until the preprint is updated?
I guess what I am afraid of is that the paper contains results I am not unlikely to use in the future. But if the proof is wrong, that's a problem. I would like to avoid the public humiliation for the student to write in one of my papers that their proof is wrong and that I have a correct proof, or even worse for the paper in question to be published (because the student didn't care that I found an error) and then corrected/retracted once I inform the editor of the error. On the other hand I may be overthinking it as I am not responsible at all for these things: I don't know the student, *they* asked *me* for advice.<issue_comment>username_1: Do nothing. You've fulfilled your duty. The author needs to act, not you.
The author should be considering your advice. They may find you're wrong, or they may change their paper in response to your advice. Either way, they should have thanked you.
You shouldn't expect any changes to be released immediately. The author may be making many changes and they may want to complete all changes before releasing an update. Equally, they may be waiting for their co-authors. Assuming your advice helped, you should receive an acknowledgement.
It's possible that the author is unable to correct the paper alone. You could reach out to them, explain that you have a corrected proof, and offer to co-author the paper.
Before using the results in the future, you could reach out to the student, explain that you intend to use the results, but can't in the current form. Ask if they can update the preprint to contain a correct proof, perhaps even offering to co-author.
You seem convinced that you're right and they're wrong. Maybe you have a basis for that. You should entertain the possibility that you've falsely claimed that their proof is wrong. Perhaps you've missed something. Perhaps not. But always consider that possibility.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It's tempting to become emotionally involved here, but you need to resist that temptation. If the student (or their advisor) wanted to involve you more, they would have done so already. If would be courteous to write back, and if they remember to thank you in a final version, that would be nice, but discourtesy is not a big deal.
If you did, indeed, find a significant error in their work, it may have been an easy fix (and they are just not courteous) or it may have been a serious problem that could have undermined the entire result. They might be scrambling to fix it, might have even decided it is unfixable and moved on to something entirely different. Moreover, the situation you describe may have other non-scientific factors in play, as a student would typically not reach out unsolicited to an outside expert without in some way involving their advisor (even if just as a cc on the email). All of which is a long way of saying that you have no idea what might be going on with the student right now.
So, what about the other reasons you express for involving yourself?
* Should you be concerned about a manuscript with an error being publicly available on a preprint server? No, you should not. Preprint servers are filled with unreviewed work that is, indeed, likely to contain errors, and anybody accessing them should assume as much.
* Should you worry about an incorrect proof getting through peer review? No, you should not. They have your information, and if they choose to publish anyway and if then reviewers don't notice the problem, then that is not your responsibility. A correction or retraction would indeed be warranted and an unfortunately appropriate embarrassment to all involved.
All that said, if you are *genuinely* interested in making use of their results in your own work *at this time*, then you have an actual appropriate professional reason to contact them on that basis --- along with their advisor, who should be better versed in typical scientific practices. Say exactly your interest, and that you would like to know their progress for that reason. At that point, either an updated preprint or an offer for you to become more involved should be forthcoming --- and if not, I think it would be appropriate to consider yourself released to work in the area without constraint.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/26
| 1,023
| 4,516
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a mathematics undergraduate in the USA. Recently I had a paper accepted to a math journal, and in the final steps of the process I had to fill out a “consent to publish” form, in which I had the choice of whether to transfer the copyright to the journal. My question is: given the option to still have the paper published while retaining the copyright, is there any reason to still transfer the copyright?
In this situation I don’t think it matters much, because regardless of which option you choose you still retain the right to post on ArXiv and your personal website, etc. But I’m curious about what is considered acceptable and/or standard, in case I have to make the decision again.
The specific form I had to fill out is [that of the AMS](https://www.ams.org/publications/ctp.pdf), and choosing not to transfer the copyright has the effect of deleting points 3 and 6.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> given the option to still have the paper published while retaining the copyright, is there any reason to still transfer the copyright?
>
>
>
There are benefits of a publisher holding the copyright, e.g., they can enforce copyright, whereas you likely cannot.
When royalties are involved this is particularly useful. When they aren't, it can still be useful, e.g., the publisher can handle instances of plagiarism. (Perhaps readers can list other benefits below, or write their own answers.)
I suspect plagiarism is rare, so I see little benefit in giving-up copyright, and I'd personally keep the copyright.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: To expand a little on username_1's answer, the text provided by the publisher normally explains the benefits and implications of the different options quite well.
* If you choose to **retain** your copyright, you are only giving the publisher permission to publish and sell your work, but all rights to your work remain with you. You are in principle free to give other publishers permission to print your work, but there still may or may not be a rider about exclusivity (for a specific time or forever) in the copyright agreement even if you choose to retain the rights to your work.
* If you choose to **transfer** your copyright, the publisher becomes the owner of this piece of text, similar to if you had written a book through a contract with them. You cannot simply turn around and sell or give away the same work to another party.
The (theoretical) incentive for you to transfer is that if the copyright is with the publisher, the publisher has the legal opportunities and incentives to protect their intellectual property, for instance by taking legal action against plagiarized versions of your manuscript. If you retain your copyright, the publisher basically can't know whether you have given another publisher permission to reprint your work, and they also don't really care since it's your work, not theirs.
However, in practice a publisher is only willing to protect your work to the extent that they suffer actual financial damages. For instance, if an obscure spam open access publisher publishes a plagiarized version of your article, you may be very annoyed but the publisher is unlikely to take legal action (or at least none that goes beyond sending them an unfriendly email), since the actual financial damage for them is very, very limited. In that light I agree with you that for most people retaining their copyright is probably the more natural choice.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Retaining the copyright as an individual is fairly meaningless. First, you can't afford to deal with copyright violations, and second, assigning the copyright to the journal won't prevent you from using the intellectual property of the paper in any way you like.
On the other hand, if you are employed in industry (or a national lab, etc) and the work reported in the paper was done "for hire", the copyright most likely belongs to your employer and not to you personally, so it is not yours go "give away" in any case.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: In and of itself, the only advantage to giving up any part of your copyright would be altruism; virtue signalling, if you must.
Of course it's true that publishers and agents have more resources available for defending copyright and so what?
All decent publishers, agents, etc, will be happy to negotiate terms for using their resources to defend your rights. Who won't, isn't the right publisher, agent, or what.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/08/26
| 268
| 1,082
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm applying for a fellowship in continental Europe (Spain) and have been asked what grade I received. I think in many countries it's normal to receive grades over the course of a PhD, as well as an overall grade (of the form "with distinction", "cum laude" etc.) but this isn't common in the UK, where I received my PhD.
How should I answer the question? "N/A" seems most obvious, but should I explain in a footnote why I received no grade?<issue_comment>username_1: In all questions like this the appropriate course of action is to **contact the people who run the application process** and ask.
They will be able to give you the appropriate instructions taking into account all the details we don't know. E.g. can you even leave it blank, is there an automated system, does it even matter for the ones that do have a grade etc.?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would just write ***not graded**.* This is short, accurate, complete, requires no footnote to explain, and I see no way this could be misinterpreted by a human or machine.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/26
| 1,190
| 5,181
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am not a professor, but I work at a Community College. I work with students directly (basically a tutor) and someone asked me a question that I didn't know how to respond: **Is it appropriate for professors to use COVID as a topic in their online discussion boards?**
Obviously, the whole COVID situation can provide professors an ample supply of material directly related to the content of the course. If you study math, then you can look at different data and statistics about it. If you study economics, then you can look at the economic impact and response. If you study sociology, you can look at it through a sociological lens. Basically, every subject has the potential to use COVID in their class. At my community college, all of the online professors require weekly discussion board posts, as a way to keep the students talking and engaged with each other. It appears that most professors are making their discussion board posts COVID related. But issues can arise when a student has high anxiety or stress about their quarantine. Basically, the student I was working with said something along the lines of "I have been in quarantine for 5 months already, COVID is all over the news and social media, I read about it and listen to it 24/7. I'm tired of it. I don't want it waved in my face from all of my professors trying to get me to discuss it even more. I'm having a tough time as it is, why are they making me re-live it?"
Should professors use COVID as a real world example of their material? Or should they be more sensitive to possible student issues of quarantine?
I wasn't sure what to tag...I tagged health-issues more for mental health issues. I couldn't find a tag for discussion boards or online forums for classes.
EDIT: I am based in the U.S. if that helps shape any thoughts/answers. And now after reading the accepted answer, it makes me worry about this particular student I have. She had to write a discussion board post and the professor said "write about 3 examples of xyz as it relates to the COVID pandemic. Keep this dscussion post in mind later this week when I give you your first paper assignment." So now I am afraid she will have to write about something COVID related for a 5 page paper. Would it be acceptable for her to ask for a different assignment, since she has high anxiety about anything COVID related? (she is very high risk since she is older and has had previous lung surgery. She literally has not left her house since March, so I know the topic compounds her mental health difficulties).<issue_comment>username_1: That COVID can become boring is interesting feedback. I and other people I know who teach use COVID examples to make the material more approachable for students by showing how that material is relevant for their daily life. I can see how this can be over-used. This feedback could help to find the right balance.
However, I don't think we should avoid discussing COVID altogether. It is an important phenomenon that needs to be discussed and taught in universities.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think I would avoid using COVID-19 as an example except in situations that are most directly relevant (those involving viral biology or epidemiology, for example), for exactly the reason your student raised.
At the same time, I wouldn't say it is *inappropriate*, just that it is quite a saturated topic for many people right now. It's also *definitely appropriate* to open forums for students to converse about managing aspects of the pandemic, especially in their experience *as students*, on topics like social isolation, remote learning, etc.
I would also encourage students to relate topics to COVID *by their choice* when there are most open-ended assignments, while also allowing them to use different cases.
Usually there is some benefit for relating content to current events to make the content more salient, but I do think this is a time where there is a bit of overload. Ordinarily, you would do this to make a bridge, where students are now thinking about the material in a relevant-to-them way. With COVID, there is enough going on that instead they might be distracted by other thoughts about COVID (including anxieties about themselves or others being infected, loved ones who are currently sick or have died, general uncertainty and impacts of measures to reduce spread, etc), unrelated to the course material, so you lose the benefits.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Use the COVID topic only if it's relevant to the course. At the community college, courses are at an introductory level with only a few that are more advanced.
It would depend on the instructor's comfort level and classroom dynamics. There are many historical examples that I use in class without mentioning COVID as an example. As an instructor, I refrain from using it as an example of the course as it triggers my anxiety. Nonetheless, if a student showed an interest in COVID research, I am ready to provide them with resources and research within their fields of interest to assist them to seek trustworthy information and develop their research.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/26
| 1,152
| 4,881
|
<issue_start>username_0: I worked briefly with Person A from a different university on a project in a competition. We were both PhD students. In this competition, our concept was based on combining mainly a system he developed before the competition and a device that I developed, also before the competition. Except for raising this combined concept, we didn’t do any actual testing or evaluation for this combined concept.
Since last year, I have also invited him to help analyze some data collected from a study of mine. I also invited two other researchers (Person B and Person C) from complementary backgrounds and who are more senior to help with the analysis. We have all agreed that all four of us will be co-authors for the final paper. We are coming to the final stage of our paper writing at this moment. Person A only knows Person B and Person C through my introduction in this case.
I have just received a notification email from a submission system that a paper was accepted to a conference. I entered the system to find the submitted version of the paper. It is a write-up of the concept of that competition. I would say 90% is based on Person A’s existing system. He has put me as a co-author. More strangely, he has also put Person B and Person C as co-authors. However, I doubt if Person B and Person C have ever heard of this project.
I found it very uncomfortable, as I am not comfortable to be associated with a concept and claim that haven’t been sufficiently evaluated. I know Person A cares greatly about the number of his publications. In fact, this is not the first time he did this. Last year, I came across a similar situation, and I successfully asked him to withdraw that paper (as that paper contains a large part of my work), which made him extremely upset. I hesitate this time, as the current paper of my study is very important for me and it has already been through several delays including serious illness of one co-author and COVID-19. I do not wish to upset him and negatively impact his work on the last stage of the current paper, which I have poured so much time and effort in. However, I felt it is unethical to include other people’s names without consent.
Note: This paper in question is mainly based on his system, which is a different discipline and it is beyond my capability to verify the system. However, where it combines the concept brought by my device, there is no evaluation at all, so it is an empty claim.
On the other hand, it could be that he includes me as a co-author as a courtesy though I feel I have only contributed conceptually.
I literaly don't know what to do.
Edit: I also realise that, if I accept that my name remain co-author, then as co-author, should I be responsible to inform Person B and Person C, or require Person A to remove their names?<issue_comment>username_1: Person A is not acting ethically by submitting a paper with multiple names on it, but without asking those people to assess the paper and agree to publish it. In normal circumstances, you'd expect person A to discuss with persons B and C as well as you. I think that it is beyond doubt that this person is in the wrong.
However, it is unclear to me what is to be done about the situation as it is. Mainly, my question to you would be: do you support the claims made in the submitted paper? If so, it might be socially prudent to just accept that the paper was submitted as is. After all, science is a social construct, and we get nowhere without our network. However, if person A submits a paper where you don't support the main conclusions and puts your name on it, that would be a reason to vigorously oppose what is happening here.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Initially, I'd suggest going in gently, trying to persuade person A in a friendly fashion that this sort of behaviour is a bad idea. Person A is a PhD student, not highly experienced, so s/he may not yet have learned that being listed as a co-author of a published paper comes with risks as well as benefits, and may believe that s/he is just giving OP (and persons B and C) a nice free gift.
On the other hand, if things do escalate or become hostile, OP has options. Firstly, the licence-to-publish forms for journal and conference papers usually require the corresponding author to sign a declaration that s/he has the consent of his/her co-authors to go ahead with the publication: hence, person A will have to tell an outright lie on the form to proceed, and OP could notify the publisher of this lie and let the publisher get appropriately cross with person A. Secondly, in some jurisdictions, person A's actions are not just unethical, but unlawful (see for example, section 84 of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), so one could arrange a letter from a (relatively) inexpensive local solicitor telling him/her to stop it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/27
| 2,598
| 10,697
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am 31 soon to be 32, I don't know what I am doing with my life. I have a PhD in computational chemistry from a top 50 world ranking university. But, it did not turn out well and took too long to complete(6years), mostly my fault. I published few papers in applied journals, but my knowledge is just mediocre. My grades in the graduate courses were abysmal and many were irrelevant, so had to do a lot of self study. I believe I am just not smart enough for academia or research.
Everyone in my research group and my friend circle were always high achieving as students, they have in-depth knowledge about their subjects. They also struggle during their PhD and Postdoc, but they are smart and knowledgeable in their fields unlike me. I have been a mediocre student throughout. In undergrad my GPA was 3.4, 3.75 in master's and PhD degree. I even flunked three subjects in my undergrad. I had to repeat them. I shouldn't have gone beyond my undergrad degree.
I just got lucky with my master's degree and PhD completion. I would have been thrown out for not being upto the mark in any other university. I think my advisor and my committee members took pity on me.
I have no industrial experience or internship experience. I am not confident about my career path. I like doing research and working in my research field, but I am no good. I just don't have the knowledge and intelligence to do work of any significance. No, it's not imposter syndrome.
I am just making myself unemployable as time passes. I am suffering mentally and current situation is not helping. I am going to be stuck alone and poor in this world.
Currently I am a postdoc with my advisor as she probably took pity on me. I have a year contract to be expiring next year in April.
Any advice?<issue_comment>username_1: Sorry, almost certainly imposter syndrome. You have the misfortune of having studied with (other) good students and you are probably comparing yourself unfairly. Abysmal grades: irrelevant. Self study: yay. Pity: unlikely. Extra time in degree: entirely common. Your fault: maybe, but so what? Own your future.
Take a deep breath. Have a culturally appropriate beverage. Confidence will come with practice. Give the post-doc your best shot. Keep self studying. I think you'll be fine. Just relax.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Be kind to yourself. Give yourself a break.
You are not amongst the best? Of course not, in academia you are only one amongst the brightest. There is *always* a bigger fish. This is no longer necessarily the case when you leave academia. Being amongst capable people are an opportunity for you: to learn.
Do you enjoy research? You say, yes. That's the most important thing. When I was a student, someone of same age, but much smarter and wiser than me once said to me that the important thing is not brilliance, not prizes, not being the first that matters, but enjoying what you do and doing a good and honest job (after all, you published journal papers). And, if I may add, persistence. I know people who made a career by honest, persistent, good-quality (i.e. craftsmanshiplike) research.
If top-rank academia is too cut-throat for you, perhaps there is for you some smaller college lectureship (if you like teaching) or a nice research job in industry (if you don't).
Take stock what you like to do, be honest not only about the things you are not good at, but also about what you *are* good at and use these to guide your reflection.
And treat yourself like you would treat someone else in the same situation. What advice would you give them from the outside?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Academia has convinced you of things that are not true.
Your post has a strong air of imposter syndrome about it, but let's assume that you are largely correct. You managed to get into a PhD program with an undergrad record that was not truly excellent, but you still managed to get into a PhD program. Most undergrad records are not sufficient to do that. GPA of 3.4 isn't "mediocre student" unless your school goes in for some severe grade inflation. You stumbled through your PhD in 6 years - longer than you would have liked - but you still managed to get through it. Many who go for PhDs drop out somewhere along the way. You would have gotten thrown out at any other university... but you got your degree from a top 50 school? No. No, that does not compute. You got your degree from a top 50 school.
From the facts on the ground, you do have good qualifications. Further, your core is a lot stronger than you think. You state the it taking too long was "mostly your fault". Probably you're describing running out of psychological resources of various sorts and therefore not being able to utterly power through at every point. Yeah... that's the kind of marathon a PhD *is*. The fact that you had to pick up a bunch of this stuff from self-study actually reflects well on you. It's additional difficulty that you had to plow through on your way up, and your willingness and ability to do so are also good traits.
Mostly? You sound seriously burned out. You spent all that you could of your psychological resources in order to make it across the finish line, and then you went looking and dug deeper and found more, and spent those too. You finally got your degree (go you!) and now the bill is coming due. This is *normal*. It sucks, but it's normal. Coronavirus is almost certainly making it suck worse, because Coronavirus makes basically everything suck worse for everybody. What you need is rest. Rest, take care of yourself, re-establish a degree of a social life, reconnect with the things that you enjoy, and generally take care of yourself. Nourish your soul, and allow yourself to heal. You have a solid position until April. There's time in there to recover, and you should take it. Once you've had some time to recover, I suspect that you'll find the situation is not nearly so terrible... and there are places in industry where "I have a PhD" is a serious qualification all by itself.
Actually, I suspect that that's the final part of your problem. You've been aiming at the top of your target range at every level up until now. You got into a PhD program at a top 50 school, after all. That's how you do that thing. Now you've hit a point where you look at the top of the target range for "graduated a top 50 school with a PhD" and you don't think you can hack it. You know? You're probably right about that... but that's also normal. Every time you hit that top bracket, the people around you get smarter and the challenges greater. There's no shame in being the middle of the best of the best rather than the best of the best of the best. Once you recover emotionally, start looking at positions a notch or two down from where you were looking before. I suspect that you'll be able to find places where you can do things you enjoy and contribute meaningfully without burning yourself out in the same way, and places that will be delighted to get you... especially with your demonstrated willingness and ability to self-study when necessary.
One little anecdote: I have an aunt who ran one of the shared biochem labs at her university for many years. It was a position that only required a Masters, but she had a PhD. Still, they were happy to have her there, and happy with the moderate amount of low-pressure experimentation and publishing that she did with spare time and resources. She, in turn, rather enjoyed being able to talk with the grad students without being terribly intimidating, but also pull out her doctorate when one of them was insufficiently respectful. There's *lots* of positions out there that you're plenty qualified for, or even overqualified for. If you're willing to put them in your view, I suspect that things will not look so dire.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Leave it behind for a few years. If its right for you you'll find your way back to it. Go backpack in a foreign country. Live with people completely different than you. You've lived in a bubble of academia for too long and have lost touch with other aspects of your self. Reconnect with those aspects and latent talents and interests will surely emerge.
I speak from experience. Same age as you, when things didn't feel right in my career I took several years to travel and find myself. Don't let the social pressure of your academic bubble prevent you from following your inner self.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Sounds like a research career is not a great fit for you. As you are no doubt aware yourself, a strong track record of published research is crucial for success in academia. But it is just one of the things you need. You also need to have a lot of enthusiasm about your work, so that you can get other people (especially grant committees and universities where you apply for tenure track) excited about it.
There is a huge segment of the industry where your advanced technical training is in high demand. Many manufacturing companies, pharmaceuticals, biotech all have a need for people with a good knowledge of chemistry. Even if you consider yourself as "not a real chemist" given your computational focus (IMO not correct, since you still took the classes and learned the theory), computational skills are even more highly demanded by the industry.
So since it sounds like research is not working out, I would suggest you consider your job prospects in the industry. Your biggest hurdle will probably be lack of non-academic work experience - them's the breaks, every PhD has to get over that. On the other hand, your advisor sounds like an extremely compassionate, caring person. I don't think I've ever met anyone in my scientific career who would hire underqualified people out of pity, I wouldn't do it either. But since you got lucky there, you should ask her for advise with getting your first industry job. She may very well have industry connections that could help you out.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Get out of academe. Start looking for industry jobs, immediately. You will almost certainly be happier. Imposter syndrome or not, you are miserable. With a degree from a top 50 school you will land a comfortable industry job, and not be poor. Many companies will allow you to do your own research, and the fact that you do not have a driving passion for your own line of research will in fact be a factor that makes you happy in carrying our the research agendas of your employer.
Seriously; make a resume out of your CV, get on some job search sites, hit up every one of your friends in industry on LinkedIn, and move to where you are happier.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/27
| 3,784
| 15,995
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am tenured faculty at a state university in the US. Our campus bookstore is not run by the university; instead, it is owned and operated by a large, well-known corporation, and has a contractual agreement with the university to "be the official bookstore" and to operate in the center of campus.
Over the years, I have grown increasingly frustrated by the poor service offered by the bookstore. To name only the problems I've encountered this fall:
* A full week into classes, many of my students have not yet been able to obtain their books. Neither they nor I have been told when their books will be ready; bookstore staff are not answering their email, and their phone goes straight to a recording.
* A complaint on their Facebook page reads: "Please get more people working the registers, kids are waiting in line shoulder to shoulder with others for hours because there’s only one person working the register!" This, in the middle of a deadly pandemic!
My question is this: *As a faculty member, do I have any ability to coerce them to improve their service?* For example, if I were to join the relevant Faculty Senate committee, and pester a bunch of people in my university's administration, would I be able to bring about change? (And, if so, what would be the best way to proceed?). Or, would I merely be driving myself crazy?<issue_comment>username_1: While there may be some excuses this fall (2020) in the middle of a pandemic that supply chains for books are messed up (as they are for many other things), here are a few things that you could do.
1. Choose textbooks and materials that are readily available through other outlets, even suggesting places they can be found. (Neither of my kids generally buy their textbooks from the campus bookstore anymore - just easier to order from the comfort of their dorm/apartment and have them show up in a day or two.)
2. Prepare and teach your course such that any of several recent editions of the textbook could be used. This way it will be easier for students to find a used copy that would still apply. (One of the organic chemistry profs at the local university does this - organic chemistry texts new are ~$400, used are ~$50 since new editions come out nearly yearly in an attempt by the textbook publishers to destroy the used market.)
3. Provide much of the material yourself in the form of lecture notes, with pointers to material on reserve at the library (wait, is that a thing anymore?).
4. Work with your department to apply these suggestions across more classes. Talk to colleagues in other departments as well. They likely have similar frustrations.
In summary, I think local, then grassroots, efforts are likely to be more impactful than trying to fight city hall.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> As a faculty member, do I have any ability to coerce them to improve their service?
>
>
>
I wouldn’t use the word “coerce”, since in the literal sense of what you are asking, no, you can’t coerce anyone to do anything. But if things are as bad as you describe, you certainly ought to have the ability to effect change, provided you are willing to make a substantial commitment of time and effort, and spearhead and champion a multi-year (probably) effort to raise awareness of the problem, recruit allies, and build up support for your cause.
After all, determined individuals have done much greater things than improve service at a local bookstore, starting popular movements that led to much bigger changes at the city, national, or international levels. If <NAME> can win a Nobel Peace Prize at 17 for her activism for human rights and education of women and children, and <NAME> can become an international icon for her climate and environmental advocacy, it does not seem a stretch to imagine that you too can be an agent of change.
But just joining a senate committee by itself won’t achieve anything. You have to be willing to work much harder than that and at a much broader level. You probably will encounter resistance due to administrators’ incompetence, indifference, and maybe even outright corruption. So to succeed, I think the key will be to raise a massive level of support from faculty and students that will leave decision makers with no choice about the need for reform. Some obvious steps are to gather data, document the extent of the problem, and then work on communicating what you know in the most persuasive way you can to as many people as possible, through blogs, social media, emails, personal conversations, or any other way you can think of.
Good luck! Note that this answer, and your question, are opinion-based, and thus in my opinion the question is not answerable to the standards usually expected on academia.se. But I hope these thoughts are still helpful in a modest way.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Having repeatedly attempted in less chaotic times to replace the needlessly expensive "popular" texts with at-cost in-house notes for calculus... I have the impression that many faculty don't care about cost-to-students. Second, from the top down, as far as I can tell, the university makes decisions about bookstores without any info about what faculty or students want. They will occasionally appear to try to accommodate, but appearance is not substance.
Yes, I'd predict that you'd mostly just be driving yourself crazy with frustration by being on faculty committees or whatever, to try to influence the central administration, unless in your univ (unlike mine, sadly) the faculty senate actually has power. Here, about bookstores, health plans, and most other things, we definitely do not, and neither do students.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It seems that the students are already complaining about the situation on facebook, but maybe moving those complaints to twitter and adding mentions to state representatives (since it is a state school) might be enough to shame the bookstore into doing better.
Faculty and students can also can complain to their department chair, dean or provost. There is no need to be a member of a senate committee.
Having said that, vendors have been given a lot of leeway during the pandemic, so there is a chance the university and bookstore will simply say "Sorry, we are doing the best we can." (See for example the story about food in NYU dorms: <https://abc7ny.com/nyu-food-new-york-university-dorm-coronavirus/6382186/>)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Assign Open Educational Resources instead of proprietary textbooks. This will bring about the end of your campus bookstore. Open educational resources are free, redistributable, and modifiable. They eliminate all the problems with campus bookstores.
Examples: <https://openstax.org/subjects/view-all>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> A full week into classes, many of my students have not yet been able to obtain their books.
>
>
>
This happens at my campus too. It's not likely to change, because it's an inventory management/cash flow strategy for the bookstore. Come October, they don't want to be left holding any unsold books. Those books represent a huge cash outlay, and shipping them back to the publisher costs money and uses labor. Many faculty don't assign any work from the book for the first week, so the bookstore finds it convenient to act as if *all* classes are that way. Some students are shopping for classes, so the store wants to take their returns and sell them to other students in the second week.
>
> My question is this: As a faculty member, do I have any ability to coerce them to improve their service? For example, if I were to join the relevant Faculty Senate committee, and pester a bunch of people in my university's administration, would I be able to bring about change?
>
>
>
Not likely. Your campus outsourced this function for budgetary and administrative reasons. In particular, if your campus workforce is unionized, then outsourcing the bookstore lets them avoid paying union workers, whose wages and benefits are expensive. Because it's outsourced, they can't directly control the store's operations, and they outsourced precisely because they didn't *want* to control them.
Although this issue has both educational and management aspects, it's primarily a management issue that happens to impact education. Your faculty senate only deals with professional and educational issues. Its job isn't to get involved in the operation of the campus. Sometimes a faculty senate does succeed with an expansive interpretation of its mandate, but in my experience that gains sufficient momentum only when it's an issue involving wages, benefits, or working conditions, and they can act in concert with a faculty union.
You do have some control over this at the individual level. You can use open educational resources. Although I'm an OER enthusiast and use them exclusively in all my classes, you should not be under the illusion, as suggested by some other answers, that this will cause a prairie fire of resistance that will fix the whole problem. Most faculty want the convenience of the publisher's ancillaries, including the test bank, etc., that they already have set up and are used to. Few faculty care at all about either the price or the didactic quality of texts. Most will express attitudes that these are irrelevant: -- that the students wont buy the book anyway, or won't read it, or will use it only as a supplement to the prof's own (superlative) lectures.
Keep in mind also that that there are likely to be campus financial interests involved. E.g., on my campus, the bookstore has a 37% markup (which they prefer to describe as 27% of the retail price), and any profit goes to sports teams. And although I haven't seen any reliable evidence of direct cash kickbacks to faculty, it is indeed common with the big-bucks freshman survey texts that there will be "soft" kickbacks. E.g., on my campus, the publisher of the freshman calculus text invites faculty on trips to Florida to meet the author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: You don't have the ability to impact how the bookstore does business, but you certainly have the ability to impact the students' reliance on the book store.
On your syllabus, and on your course website, you should plainly show the course materials that the students need for your course. If there is good open-access material that would serve your purpose, you should consider using it, but even if there isn't, or for some reason you don't like the open access model (and I have no urge to enter that debate), this gives the students an opportunity to purchase their materials somewhere other than the bookstore. Be VERY careful about actually linking or recommending alternative and cheaper commercial sites, though, as that likely violates the school's contract with the vendor. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, though, that textbooks can be found at much lower cost than the campus bookstore, whether a student is purchasing new, used, or wants to rent.
Keep in mind that there may be some actual benefits to bookstore services. For example, they may take purchase orders from the school, or somehow interact with the bursar's offices for students who might need to purchase their books through financial aid. They remove the excuse for students claiming "I couldn't buy the book" (assuming the staff is doing their job, unlike your case). There's probably another reason or three that I'm sure you'll figure out if the bookstore decides it can no longer profitably operate on your campus and leaves.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: What happened to good old fashioned campus activism to promote change? I guess it’s not the 60s any more, but take a lesson from ‘60s activists’ playbook when conditions were unacceptable and change was slow in coming:
* Organize with like-minded individuals
* Prepare a list of demands of the book store and publicize the demands
* Find a charismatic, telegenic spokesperson among the dissatisfied
students
* Boycott the store
* Picket, sit-in, protest loudly but non-violently
* Reach out to the shareholders of the parent company if publicly
traded
* Petition the school administration to cancel the bookstore’s contract
for cause
* Propose a co-op, non-profit bookstore run by student employees with
faculty advisors
* Editorialize in campus publications, websites, social media
* Involve outside media (radio, TV, newspapers)
The time for timid suggestions is long passed. Activism gets results.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I can think of three ways of tackling this:
* The official route: finding out what the contract says, finding out who in the University is responsible for managing it, examining the contract to see whether they are in breach of it, establishing when it comes up for renewal, and ultimately getting it terminated.
* The activism route: basically making their life sufficiently miserable that they change their ways, by boycotting them, giving them bad publicity, etc.
* The persuasion route: find out who the bookstore manager's boss is; get on their side; explain that its in both your interests to improve things; get them to replace the current manager with someone competent.
My suspicion would be that the cause of the problem is an incompetent local manager, and that the bookstore's head office is probably as keen to sort the situation out as you are. You need to find out whether that's the case, because it will affect the strategy for solving the problem.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: The other answers here focus on how to make the bookstore change.
I'd like to add a thought on how to change the situation at the bookstore *now*.
From what you write, one particularly annoying issue right now is that many students have to spend a lot of time in the line at the bookstore. It may be worth while if you as teacher of the course suggest to the bookstore to make one "bulk" purchase: have your students sign a list if they want to buy there, if needed collect copies of their student IDs, place the order with the book store and schedule an appointment when to collect the books or when they deliver the books to you (without the need to line up). All this can be done by your students, although I think that when calling the bookstore to agree on such a procedure you as the lecturer may have more weight than a student calling them.
---
That being said, I still find the culture of having one mandatory textbook strange for a university course.
Typically,
* We have several textbooks to choose from (so each student can work with the textbook(s) that they get along with best)
* Old editions are typically fine as well (I've sucessfully worked with several textbooks that were 30 - 40 years old in my first years at university)
* We'd have been quite upset if the textbooks that were recommended as directly relevant hadn't been available in the library in sufficient numbers (we weren't that many, though). Many if not most of us started by using textbooks from the library at least until we knew which textbook suited us personally. That was also the recommended procedure for buying textbooks.
* (Buying in student editions of software was either done at the university IT department, or directly from the software company.)
The first two points are something you can work towards in future when doing the next iteration on your lecture.
The third point is also something to bring up at your department and/or library, but may require quite hard negotiations. It is probably difficult to negotiate, but I noticed that substantial sets of textbooks had stickers saying that they were funded by certain foundations. But maybe you can find such money, and get the donor to tie the purpose to buying textbooks for the library. With the decision for faculty and/or library being textbooks vs. nothing, I'd think the textbooks have a good chance.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/27
| 809
| 3,472
|
<issue_start>username_0: What do you think would be the better choice prestige wise? Prof I'm working with gave me the choice to choose which to submit to. To be clear, the top conference is CVPR and the mediocre conference is a relatively new ACM conference.
I care about prestige because I'm applying to graduate school, and I want to make the best impression.
--Edit--
To clarify further, it's a short paper in the CVPR workshop which wouldn't go into the proceedings and rather would just be a poster.<issue_comment>username_1: First, ACM is reputable and so the conferences they hold are reputable, even if new. The ACM is a valuable "brand" on a paper is a good thing for a CS academic. Some of the "new" conferences I once attended turned out to be major events and have had a long history. OOPSLA became SPLASH became ...
IEEE is also a valuable brand of course.
Second, a poster session may have a very large number of available slots and it might be limited only by the size of the room at the venue. So, it isn't especially difficult to get accepted, compared to a paper which will receive serious review and competes for a limited number of time/space slots.
So, if something (posters) is easier to do that something else (paper), the latter will have more "prestige" value. This is especially true if the poster material is not going to appear in the official proceedings and so is more ephemeral.
Maybe you can work it out to do both. Write the paper and write a separate poster presentation that talks about your work (and might even refer to the paper). Posters are better for building some interest in your *ongoing* work, especially when it is incomplete, and also for meeting people that might turn out to be collaborators in the future.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> poster in top conference vs. Paper in mediocre conference?
>
>
>
Credit for publications is significantly greater than credit for posters, so I'd suggest going for the paper (you could go for the poster too).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Both previous answers are misleading in this specific scenario, where the choice is between CVPR (main conference) and an ACM conference.
*Both conferences require submission of a full paper!* The only difference is that CVPR will decide after the review how your paper is presented, whether as long oral presentation, short oral presentation, or poster. Independent of this, all accepted CVPR papers will be published in the conference proceedings without mention of the presentation type. *You cannot submit your paper to both conferences*, this would be in breach of CVPR ethical guidelines, and likely ACM as well.
Regarding impact or prestige, nothing will currently (2020) beat an accepted paper at CVPR, no matter the type of presentation, if you are working in computer vision or deep learning related to computer vision. Having a CVPR paper under your belt would be great for graduate admissions.
That being said, on the flipside this also means that getting your work accepted in CVPR is likely to be much more difficult than to get it accepted at a normal conference. If this is your first submission to any conference, and you are doing most of the work yourself, then I'd wager your chances of getting accepted are in the range of 10-15% (If you submit an average paper that is written reasonably well, of course if your work is really outstanding, then disregard this rough estimate).
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/27
| 840
| 3,594
|
<issue_start>username_0: Most Comp Sci MS programs in the US require certain undergrad core prerequisites in order for a non-CS major undergraduate to be considered for admission (usually 4 or 5 including data structures, discrete math, computer systems, etc).
If an applicant has all but one or two of these on their transcript when they apply to MS programs (e.g. late fall 2020), but plans to take the rest of the core in the semester following the application deadline (e.g. spring 2021), will their application still be taken seriously?
Is it worth mentioning plans to take the rest of the core in the statement of purpose?<issue_comment>username_1: First, ACM is reputable and so the conferences they hold are reputable, even if new. The ACM is a valuable "brand" on a paper is a good thing for a CS academic. Some of the "new" conferences I once attended turned out to be major events and have had a long history. OOPSLA became SPLASH became ...
IEEE is also a valuable brand of course.
Second, a poster session may have a very large number of available slots and it might be limited only by the size of the room at the venue. So, it isn't especially difficult to get accepted, compared to a paper which will receive serious review and competes for a limited number of time/space slots.
So, if something (posters) is easier to do that something else (paper), the latter will have more "prestige" value. This is especially true if the poster material is not going to appear in the official proceedings and so is more ephemeral.
Maybe you can work it out to do both. Write the paper and write a separate poster presentation that talks about your work (and might even refer to the paper). Posters are better for building some interest in your *ongoing* work, especially when it is incomplete, and also for meeting people that might turn out to be collaborators in the future.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> poster in top conference vs. Paper in mediocre conference?
>
>
>
Credit for publications is significantly greater than credit for posters, so I'd suggest going for the paper (you could go for the poster too).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Both previous answers are misleading in this specific scenario, where the choice is between CVPR (main conference) and an ACM conference.
*Both conferences require submission of a full paper!* The only difference is that CVPR will decide after the review how your paper is presented, whether as long oral presentation, short oral presentation, or poster. Independent of this, all accepted CVPR papers will be published in the conference proceedings without mention of the presentation type. *You cannot submit your paper to both conferences*, this would be in breach of CVPR ethical guidelines, and likely ACM as well.
Regarding impact or prestige, nothing will currently (2020) beat an accepted paper at CVPR, no matter the type of presentation, if you are working in computer vision or deep learning related to computer vision. Having a CVPR paper under your belt would be great for graduate admissions.
That being said, on the flipside this also means that getting your work accepted in CVPR is likely to be much more difficult than to get it accepted at a normal conference. If this is your first submission to any conference, and you are doing most of the work yourself, then I'd wager your chances of getting accepted are in the range of 10-15% (If you submit an average paper that is written reasonably well, of course if your work is really outstanding, then disregard this rough estimate).
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/28
| 1,052
| 4,413
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been invited for a chat for a potential PhD position by a professor I'm interested in working with. He also wants me to give a short presentation on some experiments I've done in the past that I'm proud of. What am I supposed to expect from this? Is it going to be a real interview? My master's dissertation has essentially been on a similar field of study. Am I supposed to explain everything from the basics in the presentation or just talk about the experiments that he asked for and assume the professor knows/understands stuff? What am I going to be judged on? What are the right questions for me to ask?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, this is an interview. Or at least a part of an interview - depending on your location, there may be a more formal one later. As a rule of thumb, both for academia and industry, whenever you meet with a prospective employer, be it for a coffee or lunch, a "chat" or something else, it is part of the interview.
As for the chat itself. If he asked you to give a short presentation, you should prepare to give a rather thorough one; ie. be prepared to explain basic stuff as well. If you have no idea about the format (time, place, equipment, audience (eg. is it just him?)), ask him. In my field it would be common to prepare some slides for such a presentation, but for others you would do without. It is always nice to know roughly how long time you have when preparing. Important: If the prof. says that you have, say, 20 minutes, then prepare to stick to that.
You can ask about details of the research, what is expected of PhD students wrt. teaching, possibilities for traveling and other things you are curious about.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes this is very much an interview, although you might find it less formal than some because in many ways a PhD supervisor really wants to know whether the two of you can work effectively together.
Take it seriously, be friendly and professional - don't try to do everything in the presentation (concise and clever, not over-burdened with detail or obscure). Make an impression of enthusiasm and willingness to throw yourself into the project, even if you don't quite know where it will go. But show that you've thought at least about potential timelines and plans.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If it was just a chat, I would say it's more like a get to know you. He would want to see how you present yourself, make sure you aren't crazy, not an arrogant person, etc. But because he wants to see you present some of your work, I would absolutely treat it like an interview.
If I was him, I would say "Chat" just to keep things informal, casual, and keep the pressure off both you and him. There's lots of reasons he might not want to start a formal process like an official interview, but sounds like you are in a good position. I wouldn't over dress, but look nice. Create a PowerPoint with 4 or 5 slides for each experiment you want to talk about. Prepare for the normal interview questions, and STAR questions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If I were the professor, I'd prefer to chat with you, rather than do some formal thing. If I'm looking for a student, I want to put them in the least stressful situation possible, because I'm more interested in him/her when they are at their best. In my lab, I don't like useless stress. Creativity manifests itself in stressful situations, but the coolest stuff happens when people aren't afraid and are driven by the passion for exploration. There is enough time in a PhD life to be put on the spot, and you can be trained for that to a great extent.
Slides are a great aid, and will be helpful in explaining your research. There is probably a lot of stuff a prospective PhD candidate doesn't know about and is unsure of, and a formal interview is great at revealing it, but is not so great at revealing what the candidate does know.
I remember my best student, how nervous was when we met first. I think I underestimated him then because he simply couldn't talk about his research work freely. Two years later I understood how good he really was, and three years later, had his own publications. Now he is better than I ever was.
I also want to add that the "chat" might mean that is up to you if you feel comfortable giving a talk in front of more people than the potential advisor.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/28
| 4,130
| 17,700
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working at a German university after I obtained my PhD. My professor asked me to write project proposals to get funding. One and a half years ago, I spent all my time during 6~8 months writing a DFG proposal that is supposed to be a joint effort between our university and another institution. No one contributed to the proposal except me. My professor used to give me some general feedback.
When we submitted the proposal, I wanted to submit it under my name but my professor convinced me that it would have higher chances under his name than mine and at the end, it did not change anything. I accepted, and the proposal was submitted under his name and the name of our partner and me as a co-applicant.
During the review process, my professor changed university and asked me to join him. However, due to private reasons, I couldn't join him. Now, the proposal has been accepted and I asked my former professor to keep the project in my university as my contract will end soon and because I wrote the entire proposal.
His answer was "**No, I don't want to**". I argued with him and he replied *“it is normal to write a proposal for me when you are at the beginning of your postdoc”*. In this situation, I am not getting any credit and the project will move with him and another person will be hired for it, where I might be unemployed.
Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals and what to do in similar situations because I find it stealing my effort and credit?
**EDIT**
Currently, I am hired by the university and affiliated to a research group, so we can work on the project in our institution. Originally, the project was granted to my current institution.
**EDIT 2**
I think it is getting more into a discussion rather than answering a question. I allow my self to EDIT the question according to the answers and the comments. I didn't get a clear answer, but people were divided into three categories:
1. It is unethical and the professor did a terrible thing.
2. It is unethical but the professor has fulfilled his moral responsibility be offering a position in his new institution.
3. It is ethical and universities/professors can use employees or professional writers to write proposals. (Btw. I did not mention that I wrote the proposal but I also developed the ideas, where my professor did not agree with most of them).
The goal of my question is not to find who is wrong or to prove that I am a victim of my former professor's behaviour but to know if we are working in a healthy atmosphere or not and if it is unethical I would reject to write proposals for my next professor. Otherwise, I need to agree with the fact that this is how it works and continue doing it without feeling bad about my self.
**EDIT 3**
Consequently, I would vote to close the question as it is likely to be answered with opinions rather than facts and citations.<issue_comment>username_1: If I understand correctly, you (as a postdoc) developed a research proposal, your professor submitted it under their name, and the project was funded. Then you were sidelined --- you will not be a PI on this project and you will not even take any role in it. This is a terrible experience and I am sorry to hear it happened to you.
The professor's behaviour is wrong. Even for German academia, notoriously famous for being professor-centred and often exploiting young researchers unfairly, this is probably beyond what can be considered normal.
Now, what can probably happen if you expose the story? Likely, not much. There are two issues here:
1. It is impossible to verify reliably who was the author of the proposal. Even if you show the time stamped drafts, it only proves that you typeset the material and prepared it for submission. Your former professor may say that they explained you the main idea and asked you to type it. It's very hard to prove authorship.
2. Even when evidence is quite convincing, most academics and academic administrators won't pursue an established professor for a single case of academic misconduct, if it does not directly hurt the University. Ideas are stolen very often, but such stories rarely made headlines, so most administrators won't bother dealing with them. Of course, there are exceptions, when even a single problem can unexpectedly grow big and eventually cost academic their job (there were several such stories recently related to hot topics in political/social discourse). But as far as I see quite a few professors made their carriers by borrowing ideas of others and making their students and postdocs to do a lot of their own work.
So, what can you take from this story? First, you know that you can develop a winning research proposal. This is a sign of a great researcher! Not many people can do it in their postdoc. This is something you should be proud of, and this skill and dedication is something no-one can steal from you. If you decide to leave this story behind and focus on what's ahead, I hope you will be able to repeat this success and now get the full credit for your hard work and creativity.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I feel weird trying to play "the devil's advocate" in this case. It is quite clear that doing some work and getting nothing in return is frustrating at least and might be connected with unethical behavior indeed. However, I still want to share a couple of "balancing" thoughts that might be or might not be true in this situation.
First, I see no major issues in outsourcing proposal writing to someone else if it is done properly. In my early postdoc years I was myself hired to co-author a large proposal. It was implied that I am to be in the project if it is funded, but ultimately it was just work for hire, and there was no promise of any future employment. The project was tied to the university rather than individuals, so my name wasn't anywhere in the document as far as I remember (but it was long time ago). I consider such situation a fair deal.
Next, sometimes a project is really connected to a specific PI/Co-PI team. A part of project evaluation is the assessment of PIs abilities to conduct the proposed research, so a plan might be rejected merely on the basis of "inappropriate team". The implication here is that changing a PI after acceptance might be nearly impossible — one cannot just pass a project from one team to another, as the grant is awarded to a specific team.
Finally, your moral standards are really high if you expect people to give up grant money on moral grounds in such situations. Yep, I agree your case is unfair, but from the professor's perspective you got the offer, and you turned it down. So in his point of view he tried to fulfill his moral obligation, and now he is free to go.
While I might say that the moral of this story is to always negotiate on the land before you sail, but in reality life is too complicated, and it's hard to predict all possibilities. There are no winning scenarios here — it's either you without work or the professor without an accepted grant proposal. BTW, remember that he also has obligations to the other participant university — it is probably a part of their agreement that they are going to deal with him rather than with you. So, frankly speaking, I don't see a solution that would make everyone happy here.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals and what to do in similar situations because I find it stealing my effort and credit?
>
>
>
Someone should come out and say it clearly. **No, the behavior you described is not ethical.** The professor clearly exploited your work and skills, and his blunt refusal to cede to your request at least partially shows bad faith on his part. How bad the behavior is precisely may depend on various details, such as whether he knew he was going to leave the university and was not straight with you about his plans and intentions at a time when you could have used that information to decide how much effort to invest in the venture. But any way you look at it, he took advantage of you.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: You have to live with your decisions and accept that you didn't move for personal reasons and now won't be a part of that work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Summary: there may be unethical details here. On the whole, I consider
* the professor offering you a job in their new group *fair* treatment
* that you cannot complain of not getting a job when you refuse to move there
* the ethics of the professor taking the grant with them unanswerable here
* a successful proposal a very important achievement for a fresh postdoc. This should show up in your CV and Arbeitszeugnis.
* the ethics of postdocs writing proposals complicated - thus long answer below.
---
I've known similar things happen. In the case I'm thinking of everyone stayed at the same institution, but someone else was assigned to do the research. The grant writer was not threatened by unemployment, though. To some extent, it would be seen as OK (solidarity as in: everyone may occasionally need a grant that they did not propose, so in turn, others occasionally need to write successful grants that they won't work on). But when this turned too disparate (someone writing several successful grants and not getting any of them for their resarch), it caused bad blood and IMHO rightly so.
---
I think your question hinges on whether it is ethical for the professor to take the grant with them. Which I think cannot be answered by strangers on the internet, since the answer would depend on details for the grant. However, such a move/change is certainly approved by the funding agency.
What you may do is contacting the funding agency to *learn* how they handle/consider changes such as the professor moving. It may also be instructive to learn what they expect of their applicants.
Without knowing further details, I think it quite likely that the funding agency considers the professor's research group a highly important "infrastructure" aspect for the grant\* - and that would likely also have been the case with you as main applicant. It may also be that a fresh postdoc doesn't have any chance as applicant not because of lacking scientific ability but because they want to see someone experienced in the grant business and someone who is in a position to actually do hiring decisions.
---
>
> Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals
>
>
>
IMHO it is perfectly fine if a professor (or rather: a university) employs people to write proposals. This is certainly academic work. Unfortunately, it is a large part of academic work that is often not recognized and appreciated at its true importance.
From the employment perspective, the university pays a salary and gets written proposals in exchange. This is not different from hiring an employee to do research where salary is exchanged for research work.
Things turn murky when someone is told to write proposals who was hired for other work (e.g. *doing* research):
* On the one hand, most employment contracts that I've seen (I'm in [germany](/questions/tagged/germany "show questions tagged 'germany'")) have a clause that allows the employer to assign the employee to other work (typically: at a comparable level of expertise). My guess would be that the writing of scientific proposals compared to doing research as postdoc would easily pass this test.
* On the other hand, if the employee was funded by grant money and several person-months of work went into writing proposals rather than research on the project that pays, this is IMHO corruption.
In academia, there's an additional conflict here: In industry, everyone knows that an employee is typically not allowed to talk too freely about what they did for their salary. In constast, in academia there is an assumption that the work can be judged correctly from what is publicly visible.
When that assumption is not met, difficulties ensue. This is the case with your proposal but it can happen also e.g. if the employer does not allow scientific publication of a piece of work - which is within their legal rights (legally speaking, you were compensated by your salary).
IMHO it is unethical to hamper your professional career by assigning you work that will not have the same visibility as the work you were hired for without any compensation or measures to mitigate this disadvantage. IMHO, a certain compensation may be reached quite easily:
>
> am not getting any credit
>
>
>
That would **clearly be unethical**. Your Arbeitszeugnis should certify that you wrote a successful grant application. As a fresh postdoc, having written a successful grant proposal deserves to go into your CV, so when you apply for another job the hiring committee sees this experience.
What would also be **clearly unethical** is promising a grant to someone who writes a proposal and then breaking that promise. I'd also include deliberately creating the impression of such a promise as unethical.
But again, we strangers on the internet do not know here how much was actually promised to you vs. *you* not seeing the risks of the proposal not working out to a contract for you even though the proposal its granted.
For a fresh postdoc, I'd even say that a *nice* professor may prepare a "green" postdoc that things can go wrong. I would not call this an ethical obligation though, since it is somewhat in conflict with treating you on eye-level as a fully grown-up professional (who'd be aware of such risks without being told). In that case, misjudging your understanding of how academic funding works would not make this ethical misconduct.
>
> and the project will move with him and another person will be hired for it, where I might be unemployed.
>
>
>
* As I said above, we cannot know whether the grant should or even can stay at your university after the professor moved.
* The professor asking you (= offering you a job at their new university) is very fair treatment. I therefore don't see cause for complaint for this aspect of the situation. Why you do not want to take this offer does not matter at all.
(If not all bridges are burnt by now, it may be worth while exploring whether you could work remotely/mostly remotely on that project - I'd think that right now, you may have extra-good chances with such a request).
* Someone who wrote the proposal does have an "objective head start" compared to other applicants for the job since they are obviously up to date already with the topic. OTOH, hiring someone *only* because they wrote the proposal without considering other candidates could have a smell of nepotism, which would also be unethical.
>
> it is normal to write a proposal for me when you are at the beginning of your postdoc
>
>
>
The professor may argue that this is *ethical*: starting a postdoc directly after PhD means that you are currently funded by a project that someone else wrote. The may argue that it is only fair if you work off this "debt" by writing a proposal that funds some other fresh postdoc.
---
---
In future, you may want to discuss very openly the implications and prospects for you when asked to write a proposal. Like discussing authorship right at the beginning of a collaborative paper, this is a lesson often painfully learned. And something that you may find difficult to achieve in practice (in particular as a still quite fresh postdoc).
I'd take good care to make clear that you do not want to question the good faith of your collaborators/professsors but that you need such things to be spelled out quite clearly for your own sake/for your own professional improvement/to better learn how academia works.
---
\* I had a scholarship during my PhD time - the funding agency thought the research group aspect sufficiently important to ask me whether there's any other group where I could do the proposed research better than at my "home" group and offered to help with a transfer if so. (My project was quite interdisciplinary - they asked whether moving my "base camp" to the other discipline would help me)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I don't actually see a clear cut ethical problem here. It is likely that the grant DID in fact have a better chance of success with the established professor as the PI. There was probably a considerable part of the proposal that involved the professor's research record, their connections to other scientists, etc. which played a large part in the decision process (regardless of who compiled and wrote the section highlighting this, this is something significant they brought to the table in this proposal).
It is possible the professor knew in advance that they were leaving, but honestly, it is not always safe to discuss these things until they are set in stone so I don't know what they could do there in terms of being upfront about this. And they DID offer you a position in the new group, so if you are left unemployed by this turn of events, that is a choice that you made and not a situation forced on you by the professor.
Could the professor hand off the PI position to someone else? Who would that be? Should they make YOU the PI of the grant and leave the project behind? I'm not sure that is fair to ask, honestly.
You did good, you apparently wrote a good proposal, this is a valuable skill to have. Keep at it, try to collaborate with this current project in any way you can, and keep writing good grant proposals (next time with your name as either PI or co-PI).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/28
| 3,682
| 15,754
|
<issue_start>username_0: Here is more context:
* I understand that I have to stick to the point and so on, but I'm not asking if *you* think it's a good idea or not, so I beg you to spare me the lecture. I would like your advice to do it in the best way possible.
* My research domain is software engineering.
* The reason for wanting to include a non-technical passage is that I want to point to other fields in which nature-based design (i.e. biomimicry) has led researchers astray such as architecture for example. Another subject I want to approach is patent law, so I would ask the same question for that.
Of course, the main thrust of my thesis is technical, but I firmly believe that some information about the surroundings of the subject is important, because the subject of my thesis is about the use of improper methodology in a subfield of computational sciences, so it does fall under the category of meta-methodology.
Thank you all for your input. It is much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: If I understand correctly, you (as a postdoc) developed a research proposal, your professor submitted it under their name, and the project was funded. Then you were sidelined --- you will not be a PI on this project and you will not even take any role in it. This is a terrible experience and I am sorry to hear it happened to you.
The professor's behaviour is wrong. Even for German academia, notoriously famous for being professor-centred and often exploiting young researchers unfairly, this is probably beyond what can be considered normal.
Now, what can probably happen if you expose the story? Likely, not much. There are two issues here:
1. It is impossible to verify reliably who was the author of the proposal. Even if you show the time stamped drafts, it only proves that you typeset the material and prepared it for submission. Your former professor may say that they explained you the main idea and asked you to type it. It's very hard to prove authorship.
2. Even when evidence is quite convincing, most academics and academic administrators won't pursue an established professor for a single case of academic misconduct, if it does not directly hurt the University. Ideas are stolen very often, but such stories rarely made headlines, so most administrators won't bother dealing with them. Of course, there are exceptions, when even a single problem can unexpectedly grow big and eventually cost academic their job (there were several such stories recently related to hot topics in political/social discourse). But as far as I see quite a few professors made their carriers by borrowing ideas of others and making their students and postdocs to do a lot of their own work.
So, what can you take from this story? First, you know that you can develop a winning research proposal. This is a sign of a great researcher! Not many people can do it in their postdoc. This is something you should be proud of, and this skill and dedication is something no-one can steal from you. If you decide to leave this story behind and focus on what's ahead, I hope you will be able to repeat this success and now get the full credit for your hard work and creativity.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I feel weird trying to play "the devil's advocate" in this case. It is quite clear that doing some work and getting nothing in return is frustrating at least and might be connected with unethical behavior indeed. However, I still want to share a couple of "balancing" thoughts that might be or might not be true in this situation.
First, I see no major issues in outsourcing proposal writing to someone else if it is done properly. In my early postdoc years I was myself hired to co-author a large proposal. It was implied that I am to be in the project if it is funded, but ultimately it was just work for hire, and there was no promise of any future employment. The project was tied to the university rather than individuals, so my name wasn't anywhere in the document as far as I remember (but it was long time ago). I consider such situation a fair deal.
Next, sometimes a project is really connected to a specific PI/Co-PI team. A part of project evaluation is the assessment of PIs abilities to conduct the proposed research, so a plan might be rejected merely on the basis of "inappropriate team". The implication here is that changing a PI after acceptance might be nearly impossible — one cannot just pass a project from one team to another, as the grant is awarded to a specific team.
Finally, your moral standards are really high if you expect people to give up grant money on moral grounds in such situations. Yep, I agree your case is unfair, but from the professor's perspective you got the offer, and you turned it down. So in his point of view he tried to fulfill his moral obligation, and now he is free to go.
While I might say that the moral of this story is to always negotiate on the land before you sail, but in reality life is too complicated, and it's hard to predict all possibilities. There are no winning scenarios here — it's either you without work or the professor without an accepted grant proposal. BTW, remember that he also has obligations to the other participant university — it is probably a part of their agreement that they are going to deal with him rather than with you. So, frankly speaking, I don't see a solution that would make everyone happy here.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals and what to do in similar situations because I find it stealing my effort and credit?
>
>
>
Someone should come out and say it clearly. **No, the behavior you described is not ethical.** The professor clearly exploited your work and skills, and his blunt refusal to cede to your request at least partially shows bad faith on his part. How bad the behavior is precisely may depend on various details, such as whether he knew he was going to leave the university and was not straight with you about his plans and intentions at a time when you could have used that information to decide how much effort to invest in the venture. But any way you look at it, he took advantage of you.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: You have to live with your decisions and accept that you didn't move for personal reasons and now won't be a part of that work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Summary: there may be unethical details here. On the whole, I consider
* the professor offering you a job in their new group *fair* treatment
* that you cannot complain of not getting a job when you refuse to move there
* the ethics of the professor taking the grant with them unanswerable here
* a successful proposal a very important achievement for a fresh postdoc. This should show up in your CV and Arbeitszeugnis.
* the ethics of postdocs writing proposals complicated - thus long answer below.
---
I've known similar things happen. In the case I'm thinking of everyone stayed at the same institution, but someone else was assigned to do the research. The grant writer was not threatened by unemployment, though. To some extent, it would be seen as OK (solidarity as in: everyone may occasionally need a grant that they did not propose, so in turn, others occasionally need to write successful grants that they won't work on). But when this turned too disparate (someone writing several successful grants and not getting any of them for their resarch), it caused bad blood and IMHO rightly so.
---
I think your question hinges on whether it is ethical for the professor to take the grant with them. Which I think cannot be answered by strangers on the internet, since the answer would depend on details for the grant. However, such a move/change is certainly approved by the funding agency.
What you may do is contacting the funding agency to *learn* how they handle/consider changes such as the professor moving. It may also be instructive to learn what they expect of their applicants.
Without knowing further details, I think it quite likely that the funding agency considers the professor's research group a highly important "infrastructure" aspect for the grant\* - and that would likely also have been the case with you as main applicant. It may also be that a fresh postdoc doesn't have any chance as applicant not because of lacking scientific ability but because they want to see someone experienced in the grant business and someone who is in a position to actually do hiring decisions.
---
>
> Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals
>
>
>
IMHO it is perfectly fine if a professor (or rather: a university) employs people to write proposals. This is certainly academic work. Unfortunately, it is a large part of academic work that is often not recognized and appreciated at its true importance.
From the employment perspective, the university pays a salary and gets written proposals in exchange. This is not different from hiring an employee to do research where salary is exchanged for research work.
Things turn murky when someone is told to write proposals who was hired for other work (e.g. *doing* research):
* On the one hand, most employment contracts that I've seen (I'm in [germany](/questions/tagged/germany "show questions tagged 'germany'")) have a clause that allows the employer to assign the employee to other work (typically: at a comparable level of expertise). My guess would be that the writing of scientific proposals compared to doing research as postdoc would easily pass this test.
* On the other hand, if the employee was funded by grant money and several person-months of work went into writing proposals rather than research on the project that pays, this is IMHO corruption.
In academia, there's an additional conflict here: In industry, everyone knows that an employee is typically not allowed to talk too freely about what they did for their salary. In constast, in academia there is an assumption that the work can be judged correctly from what is publicly visible.
When that assumption is not met, difficulties ensue. This is the case with your proposal but it can happen also e.g. if the employer does not allow scientific publication of a piece of work - which is within their legal rights (legally speaking, you were compensated by your salary).
IMHO it is unethical to hamper your professional career by assigning you work that will not have the same visibility as the work you were hired for without any compensation or measures to mitigate this disadvantage. IMHO, a certain compensation may be reached quite easily:
>
> am not getting any credit
>
>
>
That would **clearly be unethical**. Your Arbeitszeugnis should certify that you wrote a successful grant application. As a fresh postdoc, having written a successful grant proposal deserves to go into your CV, so when you apply for another job the hiring committee sees this experience.
What would also be **clearly unethical** is promising a grant to someone who writes a proposal and then breaking that promise. I'd also include deliberately creating the impression of such a promise as unethical.
But again, we strangers on the internet do not know here how much was actually promised to you vs. *you* not seeing the risks of the proposal not working out to a contract for you even though the proposal its granted.
For a fresh postdoc, I'd even say that a *nice* professor may prepare a "green" postdoc that things can go wrong. I would not call this an ethical obligation though, since it is somewhat in conflict with treating you on eye-level as a fully grown-up professional (who'd be aware of such risks without being told). In that case, misjudging your understanding of how academic funding works would not make this ethical misconduct.
>
> and the project will move with him and another person will be hired for it, where I might be unemployed.
>
>
>
* As I said above, we cannot know whether the grant should or even can stay at your university after the professor moved.
* The professor asking you (= offering you a job at their new university) is very fair treatment. I therefore don't see cause for complaint for this aspect of the situation. Why you do not want to take this offer does not matter at all.
(If not all bridges are burnt by now, it may be worth while exploring whether you could work remotely/mostly remotely on that project - I'd think that right now, you may have extra-good chances with such a request).
* Someone who wrote the proposal does have an "objective head start" compared to other applicants for the job since they are obviously up to date already with the topic. OTOH, hiring someone *only* because they wrote the proposal without considering other candidates could have a smell of nepotism, which would also be unethical.
>
> it is normal to write a proposal for me when you are at the beginning of your postdoc
>
>
>
The professor may argue that this is *ethical*: starting a postdoc directly after PhD means that you are currently funded by a project that someone else wrote. The may argue that it is only fair if you work off this "debt" by writing a proposal that funds some other fresh postdoc.
---
---
In future, you may want to discuss very openly the implications and prospects for you when asked to write a proposal. Like discussing authorship right at the beginning of a collaborative paper, this is a lesson often painfully learned. And something that you may find difficult to achieve in practice (in particular as a still quite fresh postdoc).
I'd take good care to make clear that you do not want to question the good faith of your collaborators/professsors but that you need such things to be spelled out quite clearly for your own sake/for your own professional improvement/to better learn how academia works.
---
\* I had a scholarship during my PhD time - the funding agency thought the research group aspect sufficiently important to ask me whether there's any other group where I could do the proposed research better than at my "home" group and offered to help with a transfer if so. (My project was quite interdisciplinary - they asked whether moving my "base camp" to the other discipline would help me)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I don't actually see a clear cut ethical problem here. It is likely that the grant DID in fact have a better chance of success with the established professor as the PI. There was probably a considerable part of the proposal that involved the professor's research record, their connections to other scientists, etc. which played a large part in the decision process (regardless of who compiled and wrote the section highlighting this, this is something significant they brought to the table in this proposal).
It is possible the professor knew in advance that they were leaving, but honestly, it is not always safe to discuss these things until they are set in stone so I don't know what they could do there in terms of being upfront about this. And they DID offer you a position in the new group, so if you are left unemployed by this turn of events, that is a choice that you made and not a situation forced on you by the professor.
Could the professor hand off the PI position to someone else? Who would that be? Should they make YOU the PI of the grant and leave the project behind? I'm not sure that is fair to ask, honestly.
You did good, you apparently wrote a good proposal, this is a valuable skill to have. Keep at it, try to collaborate with this current project in any way you can, and keep writing good grant proposals (next time with your name as either PI or co-PI).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/28
| 2,751
| 11,647
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a tenure-track assistant professor who started in this fall. I heard that I should not get involved in any issues or conflicts to get tenured. However, I am unsure about this situation.
I was in a romantic relationship with a professor in the school I was a graduate student in over 7 years in Illinois. Recently I realized that he has been double-dating with a professor in New Jersey. Actually their relationship was over 10 years. Both are in my study field and they are pretty well-known.
I immediately broke up with him during this COVID-19. However, he keeps all of my stuffs in his place -- mostly books and personal stuffs (total about $5,000 books) and does not pay back the costs I spent for his trip (total about $15,000).
He says "just let it go". He threatens me that he would contact my department chair and dean not to reappoint with me for my tenure if I bring any issues regarding my stuffs and the cost he doesn't send me back as well as his double-dating. His point is "just stop contacting him". Actually the relationship started because he kissed me during his office hours; he asked me to meet on Saturday to talk about my research and then he took me to his place....
The most important thing to me at this point is to get tenured in my current position. Is it wise to let it go as he insists. Or is it better to bring an issue like contacting his department chair to report his problems?
I'd truly appreciate your response -- it is very complicated because I am pre-tenured and all in the same research field.<issue_comment>username_1: There are three entangled issues here:
1. an issue of personal relationship gone wrong, your former partner
not allowing you to collect your personal items and not returning
the money you paid for his trip;
2. an issue of tenure which potentially gives your former partner some
power over your future career;
3. an issue with him being in a relationship with you when you were a
student, which can be considered academic misconduct and potentially
can be used to sabotage his future career.
From your answer in comments, I understand that you are not interested in (3), but mostly want to solve (1), avoiding issues with (2).
First, I suggest considering (together with a proper lawyer, perhaps) whether you could legally enforce (1) if all other issues were nonexistent. I don't know about laws in the US, but in many places it can be difficult to recover money spent in a relationship. Where I live, it would be probably illegal to simply
>
> get in his place with a police to take get back all of my personal stuffs and the costs you took from me.
>
>
>
as you suggested in a comment on the question.
It is possible that before you get the police involved, you will need to take this matter to court. You will likely be able to get your personal items back, but as for the money, it may be not so easy. It is not uncommon for one partner to buy expensive presents for another partner, and typically partners can keep the gifts they received (unless there is a special law in your country that forfeits an unfaithful partner the rights to anything they received in the relationship).
If you and your lawyer agree that recovering your items and money is legal and legally enforceable, and you are willing to proceed, then do it. You will need to inform your Department that there is a conflict of interests between you and the professor. It is unlikely that they will require details, but if they will, you can ask to speak privately to the Ethics Lead in your Department (might also be called Title IX office, Ethics Office - check with HR if unsure). Usually there is a well-established process on how to deal with sensitive matters without compromising the privacy of people involved.
Normally, the declared conflict of interests results in him not being part of any assessment and decision-making process regarding your tenure. The panels are often not very big, and it is quite easy to choose the panel avoiding any potential clashes of interests. Also, even if you are not interested in (3), he does not know it, and it may serve as an extra reason for him not to stay in your way to tenure.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is probably worth stating this up front: The relationship you describe has the appearance of an abusive relationship -- and I'm also going to say that I'm sorry you find yourself in this situation :-(
Part of abusive relationships are threats that, in many cases, can or will not actually be realized. While I don't know for sure, my best guess is that your former partner does not actually have much to gain from contacting anyone about your tenure: It would certainly reflect very poorly on them to have been in a relationship with a student, and whatever they would have to say about you would come over as poor taste and sour grapes, not deep insight in your abilities. As such, my best guess is that your former partner is not actually going to pull through with their threat, even if you moved forward with retrieving your possessions with the help of a lawyer.
The second part to keep in mind (and that is something you should definitely take pride in!): Your current department hired you for a good reason, namely that you are qualified in your work! They *want* you to succeed, and will support you in it. The advice to stay out of contentious topics is probably good, but your colleagues are there to help with get through personal things such as this as they have no stake in it. You will have friends in your current department, or at least people who have good intentions. You can rely on them to find a way through all of this.
My suggestion to be on the safe side would be the following. Write an email to the department head or another senior professor in the department in which you lay out the situation to make sure that it's on record before anyone might hear from your former partner. Maybe something like this:
>
> Dear < department head >
>
>
> I'd like to bring to your attention a situation that is primarily a personal matter but that might also appear in our professional lives. There is nothing for you to do at this moment, but I want this to be on the written record in case it ever comes up again.
>
>
> In short, while I was at A University, I was in a relationship with professor X. The end of this relationship was contentious, and I have received threats from X as well as professor Y at B University (with whom he has apparently also had a relationship) that they would try to sabotage my career by writing to you about me.
>
>
> As mentioned above, there is nothing for anyone to do at this moment. My goal is simply to ensure you know about the threat in case you do get emails from X or Y. When the time comes, in a few years, to thinking about letters of evaluation for the purposes of tenure, I will likely also request that neither X nor Y will be asked to write.
>
>
> Sincerely, user128851
>
>
>
The point simply is to make sure the issue has been recorded in writing before anyone ever gets an email from X or Y, so that if they ever did, they can find the appropriate place for this email: The trash bin. It will also make sure that your department -- which, remember!, wants you to succeed -- will disregard anything coming from the direction of X or Y when it comes time to decide on your tenure. For example, in a faculty meeting about your case, if someone brings up that they heard bad things about you from X, the department head will say something like this: "We will need to disregard what you have just said. A few years ago, user128851 told me some personal details about her time at A university. I can't tell you what they were, but I will share that she and X had disagreements and that X threatened her. I believe that what X is now saying about her is not something we should trust." And just like this, the issue is gone -- the important point is to get out front of anything X might ever say about you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm not an academic. But I think this is not a purely academic issue either. It should not be dealt with by some ethical advisor, senior professor or department head of your university. This is not their job.
This is a legal issue. This is blackmail. Make it very clear to your former partner, that you will not tolerate this behaviour. Demand from him to stop threatening you like this immediately or you will take legal action against him.
Do you have written communication of him saying that he would contact your department chair and dean not to reappoint you if you raise issues regarding your stuff and your costs? If yes you should contact a lawyer.
Your goal should be to obtain a cease and desist declaration against your former partner and maybe even his new partner. He needs to commit to not contact your employer about your past relationship and work.
If you don't have proof of his threats proceed with caution but still get legal advice. I don't know anything about US law and it seems to be not the same when it comes to blackmail in every state, so you should get expert advice.
If he does not cooperate and you go the legal route you should consult your department as suggested by username_2. But I think only informing them is not enough in this case, he may find a way to still make you look bad!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Ex-academic here.
I would err on the side of caution. I would suggest that you:
1. Investigate your legal options. This does not need to involve your
school or telling anyone you work with - you have a right to keep
your private life, private. For example is there a small claims
court you could access that doesn't involve the school?
2. Get your documentation in order. Unless there is proof, it's your
word against his. This includes documenting your relationship.
3. Document everything you do, now. This includes all emails, calls,
and texts about this matter. If others know of the matter and
comment (or bully) you, write it down.
4. Keep this documentation forever. Times change; proof can be very
useful in the future, not just now.
Map out all your options and consider them carefully. Search for people whose relationships have been with people who have power over their career in your field1 and see how they end. I would absolutely be talking to a lawyer; you need a dispassionate advocate who can give you balanced advice while shielding you from manipulative and what sounds like predatory behaviour.
1 Every faculty/industry is different. In my (ex-)field, for example, the majority will back the older man / male-favourites over any injustice (with proof or not), regardless of reputation (just my lived experience and every other victim I've spoken to in my field).
All the best.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Just as an amplifier on earlier responses: if you don't have threats from him in writing, check out the legality of recording him over the phone. In many jurisdictions such recordings are legal as long as one party knows about them. If he's in a different jurisdiction it's probably trickier: two jurisdiction's rules *plus* possibly other rules such as US interstate rules, may apply.
But having legal recordings, as painful as it might be to get, could put you in good stead both with the court in trying to recover your belongings, and to get any negative input from the two dismissed if it prevents your eventual tenure.
You also don't seem the vindictive sort but if you were, I imagine his actions may be a violation of his employer's ethics code.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/28
| 1,332
| 6,080
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student and use GitHub to track and share code for nearly all of my research projects, most of which are largely coding-based work in the field of remote sensing.
Our lab is discussing how to best keep track of all the software related projects we do. I generally start and manage projects where I'm first author under my own GitHub account. I recently started a organization account for our lab and I have a repository in there that is basically just a README listing everyone's projects and links to them. We also have this information on our lab website.
I'm considering the pros and cons of having projects owned by the lab account, but I am leaning somewhat away from this, because most of these projects are individually maintained by students or lab technicians and it seems fairer to have them get credit on their own accounts. But we all want the lab to get credit and for people to know certain tools were developed within and supported by our lab.
Anyway, I'm just curious what other labs do and to get a feel for best practices here.<issue_comment>username_1: It's fairly common for labs to have GitHub organizations. There are multiple reasons for this.
1. First of all, it doesn't prevent the authors from getting credit. The commits will be shown as commits of the individual, not as commits of the organization.
2. Labs often have a scientific "brand" in terms of what they research. If the GitHub repository is completely personal, then your work does not fully contribute towards this brand. But contributing towards the joint scientific output of the groups is a major reason why you may get funding from the group's third party funding.
3. Perhaps most importantly, PhD students eventually leave the lab. They can continue maintaining their projects if they want to - there is no necessity to be an administrator of a GitHub organization to continue maintaining existing repositories. But what if the leaving PhD students choose not to maintain the code? If the repository is personal, then other people in the lab then cannot commit bugfixes to the repository. They could fork it, but once the repository link is in a scientific paper, the original repository is the official one. And this is problematic if the group's brand depends on the repository because it's a central part of their overall story.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If your audience is non-programmers or infrequent programmers:
Most people will not look at Github accounts or care which account is associated with your code. They will look at the manual. They will look at journal articles about your code. It's possible they might look at a copyright notice.
Write a useful manual, and state at the beginning of it who should get credit for writing the software.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You don't have to answer these questions, but what country and what institution? In my country (USA) there are intellectual property laws for federally funded research (a lot if not most STEM research) and institutional rules resulting from those laws that make it expedient for the institution to have the ability to own the repo and whatever it contains. When the students/postdocs/other researchers leave, they'll need to have guaranteed that the GitHub ownership or access stayed with the lab or institution. At my institution, that incentivizes many projects to go open source (which is fine with the federal law ([Bayh-Dole Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act)) and my institution (UT Austin)) which requires explicit paperwork at UT (the feds don't seem to care too much but they do like commercial products and OSS products simultaneously).
Seeing commits as credit/blame is one thing (which I guess you could show off on a CV), but that's not the real point. Bayh-Dole gives the institution the opportunity, practically the mandate, to commercialize the software, which they sometimes try to do. But, as you can find on the internet, it's weird when it comes to commercializing software. Nevertheless, your institution may have policies in effect that demand that you declare software products that were created under government-funded work so that the law can be followed. We are consulted about whether we think the software is commercializable, and the law requires the "inventor" to get a cut of any sales or licenses (which I've seen happen to the substantial benefit of the author), but it's not pushed very hard if you say "there's no market for selling this as a product, and we ought to open source it on GitHub." UT trusts the author/inventor to make that call, and many NSF grants are starting to come with a mandate that any software developed under the grant be opened (don't know how this is made to mesh up with Bayh-Dole's desire to commercialize everything!).
All that makes me think that you ought to have a GitHub owner account for the lab that is controlled by the most expert git/GitHub user in the lab with the password information being shared via a good shared mechanism (i.e. a password safe that supports sharing). There also ought to be a process in place for what happens to change both the GitHub owner account and any other shared passwords when they leave.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: For me it boils down to the question: Does the individual student take the software with him after the PhD and build his career on it? Or does the lab base a large share of its work on this code and multiple students will contribute and maintain the code.
An example for single person is <NAME>' UMFPack / Suitesparse. He wrote multiple articles about the algorithms and further improvements. When he moved from Florida to Texas, he took all software with him.
If your concern is about the future of the software, it depends on the people. If the single developer leaves academia, the project is at danger. If the group maintaining the software cannot motivate new PhD students to pick the task up and continue maintaining, the project will break.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/08/28
| 1,102
| 4,260
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my PhD I worked on a specific topic. My thesis is published at my university website. This has been done one year ago. Today, I found that one professor (not my supervisor and not from the same institute. I do not know them personally) give a presentation on a conference about the same idea as mine. Even their future work are the same a my other PhD chapter. They expressed their idea as a novel one. Do I need to contact them? If so, what should I tell them?
I do not know if they know about my thesis or not. Also, my work was built up on existing work. They even do not cite any existing works. I do not know why, but may be they do not know about these works. So I do not suggest any bad thing about them. Just would like to know what should do for this situation.
I respect the professor so much. So again no bad suggestion about her or any one of her group. She may at the beginning of the research and did not update her literature review yet.<issue_comment>username_1: Sure you can (and should) contact the professor. But you should not accuse them of any misconduct (yet) since, based on your question, it sounds very plausible that they haven't seen your Ph.D. thesis and came up with the same ideas independently (great minds think alike).
You should contact them to make them aware of your thesis. Do not make any specific requests (e.g., that they revise the conference slides to give you credit for prior work, or that they revise any articles in their pipeline to cite your thesis).
Perhaps you may want to look up their university's Dean of Research, or someone with a similar title, and cc them. I wouldn't do it on the first e-mail, but I might cc the department chair, especially if I knew them.
>
> Dear Prof. X,
>
>
> I became aware of the presentation you gave at a conference *X* and was surprised by the similarities between your work and my 2019 Ph.D. thesis posted at *URL*.
> Your slide *X* says *X*, while my thesis (section *X*, page *X*) says *X*.
>
>
>
Cite all the similarities, omit none, no "etc's", and be as detailed and specific as posisble, and quote the text from your thesis, do not paraphrase or summarize.
>
> You describe idea *X* as novel, but it is found my thesis (section *X*, page *X*, saying *X*).
>
>
>
>
> I trust that you have found my thesis to be of interest. I hope we can correspond more about *X*.
>
>
>
Then you wait for their response (or the lack thereof) and proceed accordingly.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: You do not "need" to contact them. The fact that your work was on a university website does not mean that anyone has seen it.
Unless there are subtler clues that they just copied your work, you should treat that work as completely independent of yours.
If you email them, do not express any doubts about their honesty, etc. This would in-any-case terminally alienate them. Rather, say that you have similar interests, as visible in your thesis, which actually obtains some similar results.
Do NOT make any remarks about how your thesis was on-line for a year, and "should have been cited", etc. Things don't really work that way.
Again, most often it's not that people are cheating, but that they have similar ideas, due to similar contexts...
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Similar research lines often pop up at similar times, when the tools, mood, and fashions hit favourable winds.
Many good research ideas come, historically, in at least pairs. Unless you have a strong reason to assume that the prof had seen your work, I would not assume that. Start under the assumption of good faith in absence of any evidence to the contrary.
The easiest and most neutral way to let the prof know about your work is a friendly mail such as: Dear Prof. X, I have seen your interesting presentation/paper at Y. I have worked on this topic in my thesis (Alice 2020) [add full reference at the end of your mail], which you might be interested in - you can obtain it from http://this-is-my-thesis.
You have now told them you did the work. The reference lists the precise time. They cannot in future claim to not know about your work. And, who knows, perhaps you even have a future collaborator.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/29
| 3,291
| 14,372
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know someone who is currently writing their master’s thesis. They will be the single author of the document. Our (German) university requires a statement that says something like: ‘I wrote all of this thesis myself unless otherwise specified’, meaning everything not cited is your own work (*Eigenständigkeitserklärung*).
Now the amount of supervision given for students of course varies between both students and supervisors, but it is generally understood that thesis examiners will read the thesis for grading.
However, one of the advisor’s/examiner’s of my acquaintance offered to proof-read their thesis. This proof-reading can be expected to be both for grammar and content, as the same thing was apparently done by both advisors for the person’s bachelor thesis.
This is not common in my department as far as I can tell. It seems unfair to me: the thesis to be graded was already improved by comments of people who will grade it. In addition, why would they proof-read something for their own examination?
I will most definitely not take any action in this issue. My opinion though is that this is different from proof-reading, e.g., a publication, because the thesis is subject to grading and will not necessarily be published.
**Question**: Would this situation be considered cheating, micro-managing or just better supervision than average?
(or none of the above?)
---
[This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24346/is-it-considered-cheating-to-ask-a-friend-or-tutor-to-proofread-your-thesis-befo) is somewhat related, but the proof-reading is done by peers instead of examiners. Comments and answers are generally in favour of proof-reading, and one answer mentions proof-reading by supervisors is customary in the UK. I'm not sure whether this applies to Germany, since I haven’t heard about it before.<issue_comment>username_1: Whether it is allowed depends on the specific regulations of your university, but your advisor proofreading your thesis and offering suggestions is quite common. I would consider *not* having a proofreading round to be lazy on the part of the advisor.
Keep in mind that the examiner can still have the initial reading influence the grade. Somebody who submits a perfect thesis that requires no corrections would usually get a higher grade than somebody who submits the same thesis after receiving detailed comments on how to improve it. The proofreading is part of the teaching process, and how well you implement the suggestions is part of the assessment.
What do you think is better from a didactical perspective?
1. Telling a student that they got a barely-passing grade because X and Y need to be improved
2. Telling a student that they could improve X and Y by doing Z, and having them do that before assigning a final grade
Clearly, the student will learn much more from option (2).
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is a generally agreement and understanding across academia that theses must contain the student's own work. However, when it comes to details, the customs vary dramatically.
In some places BSc students are expected to come up with their own project proposals and are free to execute them as they will under a gentle advisory guidance of their supervisor. In some places, projects are specified and proposed by academics, together with the list of recommended literature and expected outcomes; students simply go through what is effectively a taught material delivered in one-to-one mode.
Considering the dramatic variation of what the projects are in form and purpose, it is not surprising that there is also difference in details, e.g. the role of supervisor. It often stems from the fact that some supervisors perceive the projects as some kind of competition between staff. This is often reflected when it comes to marking, and some staff make a major effort to secure higher mark for the students they supervised, while offering a much lower mark to students of other supervisors. The situation can become particularly nasty if "successful supervision" is a promotion/progression criteria in a Department.
Needless to say, if some academics wrongly understand the quality and mark of theses as criteria of their own success, rather then the success of their students, their behaviour can deviate far from being fair and objective. It is quite common that such academics may become overly pro-active and offer to proof-read theses, edit them, etc. In one extreme case I've seen an academic who kept all good projects from past years in his office and could offer a struggling student to "look at" a successful project on a very similar topic, effectively encouraging plagiarism.
This behaviour if unfair to other students and detrimental to students' learning. Unfortunately, academic administrators often turn a blind eye or even support this sort of behaviour, because it keeps the struggling students happy and allows them to pass, improving the statistics of outcomes for the department. This is particularly typical in countries with strong marketalisation of Higher Education, where education is considered a service, and students are treated as customers. In this model, administrators find nothing wrong with keeping the clients happy, and may even reward academics for "supporting students who need support", creating an additional incentive for the wrong behaviour.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me start with a quote from *[Good scientific practice for scientific qualification reports and theses in physics](https://www.kfp-physik.de/dokument/Good_scientific_practice_160603.pdf)* ([German version](https://www.kfp-physik.de/dokument/KFP_Gute_wissenschaftliche_Praxis_160603.pdf)).
These are **recommendations are published by the conference of German physics departments**, whose prime purpose is to coordinate teaching and thesis standards. This document is specific to physics (and makes this point itself) but after all I heard, it holds at least for all the physical sciences, mathematics, and computer science:
>
> At the same time, in physics it is part of the scientific discourse that parts of the qualification report or thesis are presented in advance to another person, e.g. to the supervisor, for critical commentary. Such commentary can refer to the interpretation of the scientific results themselves, the organization of the subject matter, or the chain of arguments within the report or thesis. For doctoral theses, the commentary should rather have the character of a collegial feedback. For reports and theses within undergraduate or master studies, it is also a duty of the supervisor to aid the student in developing the competences necessary for writing such a report or thesis. Within the development of the study program, this aspect should play a lesser role.
>
>
>
In my experience and from what I gathered from colleagues, **the rationale for this** is:
* Part of the purposes of a thesis project (and studying in general) is that the **student learns how to present their own work in writing**. Providing constructive criticism on the thesis before submitting and having the student implement this (often in multiple iterations) is the best way to nurture this, as the student is forced to revisit their own writing and engage with the criticism. Critical comments on the final product do not achieve this, as the student has no motivation to revisit their thesis and doesn’t get the fruit of their work examined.
I have never encountered any student (including myself) who had sufficient writing skills to write a paper before finishing their master’s thesis under proper supervision (i.e., with criticism before submission). Usually the pre-supervision writing skills were abysmal by any standard and then were considerably improved during the thesis-writing process.
* We train the student for real writing, whether in academia (papers, grant applications, etc.) or in industry settings. And **it is rare and inadvisable to write anything important in a vacuum**. One always has co-authors and colleagues or similar whom one can and should solicit for constructive feedback. Even for the papers I wrote as a single author, I solicited the feedback from colleagues and supervisors before submitting them. By contrast, I did peer-review some papers where I was very likely the first person to read them and they often had severe shortcomings in writing. Thus having feedback from the supervisor is a more realistic writing conditions and also trains the valuable skill of handling feedback on one’s writing.
* The supervisor (usually) **doesn’t dictate sentences to the student**, but just shows them what is wrong and provides guidance on how to fix these issues. Thus the condition that everything written is the student’s own work is not violated.
* In particular for bachelor’s and master’s projects, the stated purpose is that the student performs a scientific project *under supervision* and I see no reason to exclude the writing process from this. With other words, **applying constructive criticism from your supervisor to your thesis is part of the project** and the grade captures how well this was done. (Thus there is no paradox of “proof-reading something for one’s own examination” does not really arise.)
* **One hardly ever compares theses under different supervisors** with respect to their grading and even if one does, the topics may be considerably different in how challenging it is to write about them. Thus the unfairness issue simply does not arise. Moreover, a supervisor has far stronger means to give an unfair advantage to their supervisees.
Finally, some **further remarks**:
* I strongly urge students I supervise to **hand in the very first page as soon as they have written it**. This way I avoid that bad practices become a habit and their further writing already has a better quality before I first see it. For this reason, I think any good supervision should engage with the thesis long before it is complete.
* **I disagree with the idea that the initial thesis (before critical comments) should influence the grade.** As already stated, one of the points of the thesis project is that the student *learns* writing about their own scientific work and they have no chance to acquire this skill elsewhere (except for previous theses and similar). A student who considerably improves their writing during the supervision process should be rewarded. Students who already have the skill are likely to have it not due to their own ingenuity but because they enjoyed a proper thesis supervision before. Moreover, implementing constructive criticism is part of the skill we want to teach and thus the grading should reflect it. Finally, there is no clear separation between *before* and *after* supervision in case of a good supervision (see the previous point).
That being said, in my experience there is a strong correlation between the quality of the initial writing and the final result, with the latter being considerably better. The main exceptions are students whose initial writing is bad and who do not respond to the supervision for some reason. I have never experienced a student whose initial writing was above standard and who did not improve.
* Mind that **this is still field-specific**. In particular, in the humanities, wording holds a much higher value and thus things may be different. (It is for that reason that plagiarism is much more prevalent in those fields.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: There may be exact rules, but they exist mostly for the fools to obey and...
I don't see anything sketchy happening here. Sharing a few possibilities that occured to me.
1. It may be that the examiner put on the co-advisor hat. May be parts of the thesis rely on a piece of theory that a colleague of the advisor is more familiar with. Surely it is to everybody's advantage that the said colleague (soon to become an examiner) takes a look in advance. Possibly improving the thesis. I have acted in such a capacity at our math department, examining master theses supervised by a colleague mostly working in a different part of math.
2. It may be a scheduling problem. I have also been involved with cases like the following: For the student to graduate this Spring, the thesis must be processed before a given date. A signed statement from the examiner is required for the process to go through, but their schedule makes them unavailable for two weeks prior to the deadline. Again, surely it is in everybody's interests that the examiners looks at a slightly unpolished version. They can then write their statement in time without compromising the integrity of the process. If no suitable alternative examiners are available at the department the alternative would be to delay graduation to the next semester for a trivial reason.
3. A third pair of eyes/brains may spot something the student and the advisor both missed. One of the examiners my own dissertation spotted an error *I understand what you are claiming here. That claim is important, correct, and follows from the preceding discussion. But look carefully how you phrased this theorem. It says something else, and it's not what you are really claiming, is it?* Of course, the examiner was right. When I told my advisor about it, he just laughed.
Also, the recommended edits coming from such a reading by an examiner are not going to **substantially** change the thesis. Any effect on the grade would be somewhere between non-existent and minimal. To have a marked impact on the grade the edits would need to be substantial, like completely rewriting parts of the thesis.
Whenever I am the examiner, I make it clear that any *implementations* of my suggested edits are left to the discretion of the advisor/student. Recalling a case when I served as an examiner of a PhD dissertation. A day before the public defence there was "the informal but grueling *real* defence". When preparing for that I spotted one possibility for further simplifying one of the formulas. I brought it up in passing (it was by no means essential). And the candidate ran with it! He spent the night to work it out, and extended his slide set to cover it. I thought more highly of their ability after this, and I think most of us would do likewise.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/08/29
| 562
| 2,494
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied for a research associate position when I was at the final stage of my Ph.D. The job description matches my profile with 80%, the 20% included some scientific skills that I didn't have, but they said that they're considering applicants who are willing to learn. This was perfect for me cause this is I have seen those concepts that they're asking for when I was a Master's student, I just didn't have a detailed knowledge of those concepts.
I have prepared hard for the interview and even started reading some research articles. Basically, I started working on my own cause I loved the project. But the surprising thing is that I didn't hear from them at all!. When I reached to the HR team, they said that 'they raised the bar pretty high and only choose candidates who are a close match', my initial reaction was laughing but I decided to take the L and move on.
A few days later, I noticed that the job is re-posted again (previous applicants will not be considered). I also completed my Ph.D and I am available immediately. The job description is still the same and it's really frustrating cause I deserved an interview at least. I want to write an email to the PI, is this a good idea?<issue_comment>username_1: It's not a terrible idea, but it probably won't be fruitful since they state that "previous applicants will not be considered". They would have to make an exception to consider you and they already know your qualifications, even though you now have the doctorate.
Unless something else has changed in your qualifications, it is probably a waste of time and you probably won't like the reply. But there is nothing wrong about asking.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: A significant proportion of academic jobs are advertised publicly, but in reality they are created for a pre-selected candidate. It is extremely frustrating that many talented candidates routinely waste time end effort applying for jobs where they will not be shortlisted, even if their skills are a close match to published job specification. I am sorry to hear you find yourself in this situation. The *old boys' club* is still strong in academia and it hurts normal candidates a lot.
For an individual like you, it is probably advisable to move on and apply elsewhere. Some places have a more fair assessment process for all applications, and the more you apply the higher is the chance you will be invited for an interview.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/29
| 493
| 2,136
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am planning to apply for a few undergraduate research internships and I recently learned LaTeX, so I am thinking of transferring my resume from Word to LaTeX. I came across LaTeX templates for a "Deedy CV" and a "Deedy Cover Letter" which apparently went viral in 2014. Admittedly, the "Deedy" templates look very attractive; in fact, they were the most attractive-looking CV/cover letter templates in the entire Overleaf gallery. Is it recommended that an undergraduate applying for undergraduate research internships uses the Deedy templates? What about a template for a somewhat infographic colored CV? Do these formats of CVs convey unprofessionalism in academia?
P.S. If this is relevant, I am in the US and am also planning to cold email some professors on the US to ask if they would be willing to take me on for a research position.<issue_comment>username_1: It's not a terrible idea, but it probably won't be fruitful since they state that "previous applicants will not be considered". They would have to make an exception to consider you and they already know your qualifications, even though you now have the doctorate.
Unless something else has changed in your qualifications, it is probably a waste of time and you probably won't like the reply. But there is nothing wrong about asking.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: A significant proportion of academic jobs are advertised publicly, but in reality they are created for a pre-selected candidate. It is extremely frustrating that many talented candidates routinely waste time end effort applying for jobs where they will not be shortlisted, even if their skills are a close match to published job specification. I am sorry to hear you find yourself in this situation. The *old boys' club* is still strong in academia and it hurts normal candidates a lot.
For an individual like you, it is probably advisable to move on and apply elsewhere. Some places have a more fair assessment process for all applications, and the more you apply the higher is the chance you will be invited for an interview.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/30
| 1,394
| 5,961
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. candidate in economics in the UK, and now start my 4th and hopefully final year of the program.
I currently consider changing my supervisor (SV hereafter) because of an ongoing conflict. During my second year, she matched me with a former Ph.D. of hers, "co-author" or "CO" from now on, so the three of us could write a paper together. While things started OK, CO became increasingly possessive of the project. His tone became aggressive and disrespectful, he gave me non-sensical, inconsistent instructions, lied to my supervisor behind my back about things I had never done or said (learned of this during meetings with my supervisor), and he repeatedly deleted content I produced from our draft for reasons that stood in complete contradiction to earlier agreements. Suffice to say, progress was unsatisfying.
I was baffled that SV did not intervene, but seemed to go along with him; I had severe self-doubts. Yet after a particular crappy "revision" of our draft by CO, SV shortly after told me she considers CO's input crap and admitted he's difficult -- turns out she was not paying attention and had until then simply trusted CO by default. I was relieved, but unfortunately, nothing changed afterward; while SV repeatedly agreed with my views, she nevertheless continued to humor CO, and backed him when he criticized me for lack of progress. At some point, SV finally admitted to me she has no understanding of our project topic and what we are doing, which explained a lot of her weird behaviour.
This toxic situation has taken a toll on me mentally, and it needs to stop. Unfortunately, SV is a leader of our rather small field, and I was told not having a letter from her is a red flag in job applications. Fortunately, I have done research assistance for another young prof at our faculty who appreciates me, and he would be willing to take me on as his student.
Any advice on how I can handle this gracefully? I have no reason to trust my SV anymore, and think her perfectly capable of ruining my reputation if I changed. Is there a way to protect me against this? Or should I just accept the academic trail is dead for me and look for suitable industry jobs instead?<issue_comment>username_1: I would say that the overarching problem is that Co is not easy to work with and that SV doesn’t have the capability, motivation, or bandwidth to deal with it. Just because someone is a good researcher doesn’t mean they are a good manager. If, as you say in a comment, this is an extension of CO’s work, then SV also has very little leverage, other than seniority.
So, if you want a career in academia, move on to the new faculty member for the third essay, and it will become self-revealing if you should move on all together. If this will be your job market paper, and if it is done well, it may be enough to get you an academic job in Econ (particularly with a post-doc). To maintain your relationship with SV, I would frame this as a conversation specifically about the future of your third paper, rather than the past. Explain the topic you would like to work on, and that you think that engaging the other advisor as a co-advisor would be useful. Then forget about the first paper for the time being and focus your efforts on the new work. This should allow you to get good work done while keeping a positive reference from the first advisor — both of which seem positive for your future prospects.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Having a Ph.D. supervisor who "admitted to me that she has no understanding of our project topic and what we are doing" sounds crazy to me, especially after she arranged for the three of you to write a joint paper (presumably on this project). This sounds as if you definitely need a new supervisor. You mentioned that another young prof wold be willing to take you as his student. Does he understand your work? Or will he understand it after a reasonable amount of explanation? If so, might he and your present supervisor be willing to be co-supervisors, if you really need the present supervisor's recommendation? The ideal situation might be that the new supervisor actually supervises your work while the present supervisor handles administrative stuff and adds her recommendation's weight to your job applications. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if your present supervisor's recommendation counts for less than you think, in a field that she doesn't understand.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Since you have already completed most of your PhD, your best course of action is to finish your PhD as soon as possible. Then you will be free of CO's bad behavior. Negotiate a plan for completion of your degree with your supervisor. Request that this plan does not rely on CO since they are not dependable.
>
> should I just accept the academic trail is dead for me and look for suitable industry jobs instead?
>
>
>
The information you have provided in the question tells us nothing about your ability to find an academic job. However, academic jobs are in general scarce and low paying.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: The situation is resolved: I spoke to SV plainly and explained to her that I found her supervision last year unacceptable. I did so in a factual, polite manner, listed specific occasions where I felt left alone, and concluded, given the poor results, that it may be best for both of us if I continued to work with the other, younger professor.
It turned out she reacted well to clear words. While she is not happy that I leave, she supports my decision, reassured me she will still write a letter for me and sent favorable comments to the young professor. I suspect she is actually ashamed she didn't tackle CO and let me down; as <NAME> noted, it seems to be a character flaw, but not hurtful intention.
In any case, I thank you all for your comments (which encouraged me to do this).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/08/30
| 773
| 3,620
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying for a PhD and when I was speaking to my potential advisor they discussed the possibility of me applying for an interdisciplinary degree that is offered by the institution as an option instead of the discipline specific degree in applied mathematics. The supervisors field is in mathematical biology and my dissertation work would be as well, and working under the assumption that they will take me on as a student, I am wondering what the advantages and disadvantages of the interdisciplinary degree might be relative to a degree that focuses on a specific discipline.
For example, how would a PhD in an interdisciplinary field affect paths forward for a PostDoc position? There are probably some particular advantages and disadvantages that are not obvious to me, so I am putting this out to the community.<issue_comment>username_1: The main reasons are pretty obvious, I think.
A narrow field of study will (probably) make you more suitable for employment in that field and less in others.
A wider field of study will (probably) give you more options, but those who have specialized in something will have the upper hand (again, probably) over you it their specialty.
None of that is necessarily true and you can always either broaden your outlook later or specialize further as necessary. So, I suspect that any effect is most important only for your first job.
But it also depends on the individual program. I can imagine one in which the mathematical techniques are pretty generally useful, but also one in which they are not. This might be worth exploring with you proposed advisor.
On a different dimension, an interdisciplinary program might leave you more grounded in applications, where a straight applied math program might (not necessarily) leave you wondering how to actually use what you have learned.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: This answer is for the US academic job market in mathematics, where the majority of positions are more focused on teaching than research and where many colleges and universities have combined departments of mathematics rather than separate pure and applied mathematics departments or even more specialized departments.
A specialized interdisciplinary degree program is a good way to prepare for a focused research career in that interdisciplinary area of research, particularly if that area is new and growing.
A more traditional program grounded within a discipline may be more helpful in preparing you for a faculty career within a typical mathematics department. As an applied mathematician teaching in a smaller department at an institution that isn't focused on research, you'd be expected to be able to teach a broad range of courses in mathematics, from calculus to linear algebra, ordinary and partial differential equations, mathematical modeling, mathematical biology, numerical analysis, and maybe even some probability and statistics. It's likely that a more traditional degree program with a broader range of graduate courses would better prepare you for this kind of teaching work.
Some specific things to consider:
1. Do graduate students in the interdisciplinary program work only as research assistants or can they get experience as TA's within the math department?
2. How broad is the course work that you'll take as a student in the two different programs?
3. What areas are covered by the preliminary exams in the two programs?
4. How have previous graduates of the programs done on the job market (both immediately after graduation and after some years (say 5-10) in the profession)?
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/08/30
| 579
| 2,530
|
<issue_start>username_0: A famous paper has three coauthors. I wrote a note regarding that paper and want to get some feedback from them. Shall I send the note and my questions in one email to the three authors together (with two of them in cc line or also in "to" line), or is it more respectful to send three different personalized letters?
If I am sending three personalized letters to each of them, shall I tell them that I also send the letter to the two other authors?
One obvious answer for natural science disciplines is to send one email to the corresponding author only. However, most economic papers have equal coauthors and many economic papers have no corresponding authors or three corresponding authors with email addresses specified. In contrast, the natural science papers usually only have one corresponding.<issue_comment>username_1: My solution would be to send one mail. Personalization seems a wasted effort as you don't know the people, I assume. It even seems a bit presumptuous.
But put all three authors on the *TO:* line, not some there and some on the *CC:*, line. The latter feels like you are picking a lead author and they may not agree with that.
With twenty authors, the corresponding author solution would be fine, but with only a few, send it to all.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Pick one author - probably the corresponding author.
If I received an email addressed to multiple authors of one of my papers - especially if it required any thinking - then it would go right to the bottom of my todo list, and probably stay there for months.
If it were clearly aimed at me (eg to me, cc’d to the others, and I’m the corresponding author), it’d get a much higher priority.
So - make it clear who you want a response from, else it’ll be everyone’s job - and they’ll all ignore it as a lower priority task.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Whatever you do, please do *not* send three independent emails. The reason is that if you do, then each of the three may spend time writing similar answers to your question, unaware that the others are doing the same. This wastes their time.
Either pick one corresponding author to email directly (as username_2 suggests), or send a single message addressed to all three (as username_1 suggests). In the latter case, each will at least know that the others have received the same message, and whoever replies first can easily cc the others, letting them know they no longer need to respond unless they want to.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/08/31
| 991
| 4,276
|
<issue_start>username_0: My colleague lost his job in academia due to COVID-19. He has zero income at the moment and there is little to no funding or employment opportunity in his field (invertebrate taxonomy) in his region (a developing country). He is now looking for other non-academic jobs.
But being one of the few experts in his field, he is still frequently invited to review manuscripts. Each of these reviews takes a long time (especially large taxonomic monographs) and takes away his time to develop skills and look for jobs. And hours spent on peer-reviewing are not remunerated by anyone. Should he just outright reject such invitations? Should he give reasons for rejecting such invitations too?<issue_comment>username_1: Peer review is not a tax: if it doesn't make sense for somebody to peer review, they shouldn't do it.
Instead, I view peer review as:
* an opportunity to contribute to a community that I care about, and
* beneficial to me in helping me "keep my tools sharp" on critical thinking, writing skills (even as a reader!), and exposure to authors and ideas I might not otherwise read.
Because responsible peer review takes a significant investment of time, however, I set a budget for myself on how much time is sensible for to contribute over the course of a year, and I refuse assignments that would take me over that budget.
I would thus advise your colleague to consider a sensible budget, given their current situation and how much those motivations make sense to them. Yes, peer review may take time away from job development. On the other hand, peer review may still feel meaningful as a contribution, an intellectual connection, a motivation, etc.
Maybe the budget should be zero. Certainly the budget shouldn't be 10+ hours per week. But it may be entirely reasonable to put in a couple of hours of peer review per week if they still enjoy and benefit from it.
Bottom line: the amount to continue peer reviewing is an assessment that your colleague needs to make for themselves based on their personal situation and to periodically reassess as that situation evolves over time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Reviewers should never feel obliged to review a paper. If one is unable to review, there is always someone else who can. Do it because one wants to read the paper, because one is interested in the topic, and so on. If one genuinely does not want to review the paper, for any reason, *decline*.
If your colleague feels bad about declining, he could try to redirect the editor to someone else who can review it.
As for reasons to give when declining - a simple "no time" works.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Is this a colleague or a friend? If a colleague, I think it is presumptuous to tell him what he should or shouldn't be doing with his time. I'm sure he is aware that he is under no obligation to review papers. (If not, then it would perhaps be helpful to point this out.) Whether he "should" review papers or not is like whether he "should" spend time gardening, reading textbooks in new fields, learning a new language, etc. -- none of a colleague's business. (Perhaps he enjoys the stimulation of reviewing papers; I often do.)
Of course, if you're a friend, this is different, but what your friendship is like is for you to assess.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: * Your colleague could always reject some of the requests and accept others, perhaps choosing which ones to accept based on which ones he thinks actually *are* likely to develop skills that improve his chances of finding new paid employment.
* If your colleague does want to accept any of the requests and he's claiming any kind of state unemployment benefit, he should check carefully whether the conditions of the benefit limit how much unpaid work he's allowed to do, or require him to declare any unpaid work to the authority that pays the benefit.
* Personnel at the publishers of the journals for which your colleague reviews, and continues to be asked to review, are aware that your colleague has certain skills relevant to their operations. If any of those publishers have an office that's conveniently located for your colleague, it might be worth his while including those publishers in his job search.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/31
| 597
| 2,540
|
<issue_start>username_0: This question is specific to Canada (but you could also say North America)
So if I am a sponsored PhD student (externally from my government), and I happen to work/research on a project funded through my PhD supervisor (for example by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation), is he legally required to pay me (regardless of my external sponsorship)? In other words, if my supervisor gets funding from a certain organisation, does this organisation stipulate that whoever is working on this project get paid because it is illegal to work (even if it's part of a degree) for free? This is what I understand from current PhD students, so is this understanding correct?
What are your experiences, particularly if you were sponsored?<issue_comment>username_1: At least in the U.S., the answer is "no." In fact, in general you can't be paid twice for the same work under any graduate student arrangement I know of. You could turn down your external sponsorship (a terrible idea) and *then* be supported by your supervisor, but you can't have both. With the external sponsorship, you're not working for free, you're being paid by the sponsors to study and do research, and it's typically a good thing that this overlaps with research someone cares about.
One exception may be if the funding level for the sponsorship is less than the graduate student stipend that the grant supports, in which you can be paid the difference. (I have seen this in the U.S.)
I don't know about Canada specifically, but my past interactions suggest that the procedures are similar, so I'll post this in case no Canadians respond!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> *In other words, if my supervisor gets funding from a certain organisation, does this organisation stipulate that whoever is working on this project get paid because it is illegal to work*
>
>
>
I have never heard of anything like that. What is however frequently the case is that the sponsor expects some reporting and/or provided the monies based on an agreement regarding who will work on the project (if not which individual, at least how much work would be conducted by a seasoned researcher as opposed to a PhD student). To the extent that your supervisor is not entirely upfront with them about that (and for example, claims to be spending x% of his time on this project when he is only spending y% supervising you instead of doing the work himself), it could be a form of fraud. It is quite common however and it doesn't get *you* any money.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/31
| 331
| 1,519
|
<issue_start>username_0: If an author published a paper that contains errors and decides to publish an erratum, but the journal where the article was published is inactive (but its website still exists). Could the author publish the erratum in another journal?
If so, what could the author do to make the article indicate the existence of the erratum?<issue_comment>username_1: What can be published in a journal is up to the editors. If the original was sufficiently important and the errors less than obvious to readers, then an editor might consider it. But they would rather, I surmise, publish a full paper with correct results, citing the old, than just an errata. If you can't make the new work seem significant, I doubt that editors would be interested.
But the editor decides, perhaps with advice from reviewers. You can possibly make a proposal to an editor before spending wasted effort.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The vast majority of published works contain errors, most don't matter. You need to consider: Whether your errors matter. Supposing they do, is a erratum necessary, or would updating a technical report suffice. Supposing necessity, is the erratum significant. If it is, then you can publish in another journal. Otherwise (journals aren't likely to accept), you could perhaps rewrite the original work to add significance and publish as a revision.
Regarding, the original work pointing towards any new work, you could ask the original publisher, beyond that not much.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/31
| 1,093
| 4,571
|
<issue_start>username_0: My first name (legally) consists of two names separated by a space, but I only go by the first in everyday use. I'm from Scandinavia and having a first name that is a compound of two names is not that uncommon. I also have a middle name that I rarely use.
Let's say my name is "<NAME>" in which "<NAME>" is my first name, "Smith" my middle name, and "Fitzgerald" my last name.
What would be the appropriate way to cite the author's name in an academic publication?
* <NAME>
* <NAME> (omitting second first name and middle name).
* <NAME> (with second first name omitted)
Personally, I would prefer to use the last format.
Does it actually matter or is consistency key?
I apologize if this has already been answered. Most replies that I found pertained to the use of middle and last name, not a compounded first name.<issue_comment>username_1: The most important thing is consistency. Choose now, and write the exact same name on all future publications.
A few things to consider:
* This is the name that everyone, except the people that know you personally, will use. So make sure you are not going to regret it.
* It is better to choose a name that identifies you as well as possible. If your first and last names are very common, it may be beneficial to add the second part of your given name, or your middle name, so that people are sure who wrote the paper just by looking at the name. If your name is already uncommon, this is a less pressing concern.
* Many people, especially in North America as I have found, are completely unfamiliar with the idea of compound names. Somehow, even generally open-minded people are reluctant (I do not use this word light, if I wanted to write "surprised" or "unfamiliar" that's what I would have written!) to accept that a name might not fit their traditional "GivenName MiddleName Surname" mental framework and will try to fit your name into their expectations, not the other way around, even after you have explained it to them. It is really frustrating and invalidating, but be prepared.
* Computer systems are also a beast to be prepared to fight. The big international ones are almost always written with North American expectations in mind.
* If you decide to use both parts of your given name, I *strongly* recommend joining the two with a dash, even if that is not culturally appropriate for you and/or does not match your ID card. This makes things a lot easier as it is clearer that these two parts are linked and cannot be taken apart. My surname is from a language where dashes do not even exist, and until I decided to use a dash I had to face incomprehension, even from people to whom I had carefully explained what's what.
For your particular case, if you are willing to be called "FirstName M[iddleNameInitial]. LastName", that sounds perfectly fine. Dropping the second part of your compound given name is fine if you are okay being called with just the first part, in emails or daily conversations. There is no requirements, legal or otherwise, that your legal name must match the name on your publications.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you're writing a paper and putting your name on the top of it, then (at all the journals where I've published) you can use whichever of those you please, and you're under no obligation to be consistent from one paper to the next (although being consistent may be somewhat beneficial to you, in terms of making sure you get full credit in bibliometric scores for everything you've published).
If you're citing the paper in some other document that you're writing, then I suggest you tell your reference management software the fullest information you've got about the author's name, i.e. the full "<NAME>", perhaps with a non-breaking space or thin space character instead of a normal space between "John" and "Andrew" [\*]. If some of the information you've got about the author's name did not appear explicitly at the top of the paper, you can enclose those bits in square brackets, as described on pages 13-14 of [this software manual](http://ctan.cs.uu.nl/biblio/bibtex/base/btxdoc.pdf). If your reference management software is any good, it should then work out automatically how to typeset the name to be consistent with the style guide to which you're writing.
[\*] Actually, the non-breaking space or thin space might be useful when you're authoring a paper and putting your name at the top of it, too.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/31
| 1,081
| 4,632
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm sorry if there are similar posts, I had a look and couldn't find something exactly similar.
I will be starting my final year of Bachelor (in the UK), and I am going to start applying for an integrated MS/PhD in mathematics (in the US). Recently, I started thinking about going for a gap year before starting with my graduate studies, and I found an interesting (but very selective) internship which might be interesting.
However, my problem is, I do not know how the admissions process works for the internship. So I might end up getting an answer **after** having sent my PhD applications. So my question is: is it possible in some universities to ask for a "possible" defferal of admission? Conditional on a third factor?
*PS: the universities I am applying for are UC Berkeley, and UCLA. I was thinking of emailing them but thought maybe someone would already have been in a similar situation here - and could maybe give me some advice :)*<issue_comment>username_1: The most important thing is consistency. Choose now, and write the exact same name on all future publications.
A few things to consider:
* This is the name that everyone, except the people that know you personally, will use. So make sure you are not going to regret it.
* It is better to choose a name that identifies you as well as possible. If your first and last names are very common, it may be beneficial to add the second part of your given name, or your middle name, so that people are sure who wrote the paper just by looking at the name. If your name is already uncommon, this is a less pressing concern.
* Many people, especially in North America as I have found, are completely unfamiliar with the idea of compound names. Somehow, even generally open-minded people are reluctant (I do not use this word light, if I wanted to write "surprised" or "unfamiliar" that's what I would have written!) to accept that a name might not fit their traditional "GivenName MiddleName Surname" mental framework and will try to fit your name into their expectations, not the other way around, even after you have explained it to them. It is really frustrating and invalidating, but be prepared.
* Computer systems are also a beast to be prepared to fight. The big international ones are almost always written with North American expectations in mind.
* If you decide to use both parts of your given name, I *strongly* recommend joining the two with a dash, even if that is not culturally appropriate for you and/or does not match your ID card. This makes things a lot easier as it is clearer that these two parts are linked and cannot be taken apart. My surname is from a language where dashes do not even exist, and until I decided to use a dash I had to face incomprehension, even from people to whom I had carefully explained what's what.
For your particular case, if you are willing to be called "FirstName M[iddleNameInitial]. LastName", that sounds perfectly fine. Dropping the second part of your compound given name is fine if you are okay being called with just the first part, in emails or daily conversations. There is no requirements, legal or otherwise, that your legal name must match the name on your publications.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you're writing a paper and putting your name on the top of it, then (at all the journals where I've published) you can use whichever of those you please, and you're under no obligation to be consistent from one paper to the next (although being consistent may be somewhat beneficial to you, in terms of making sure you get full credit in bibliometric scores for everything you've published).
If you're citing the paper in some other document that you're writing, then I suggest you tell your reference management software the fullest information you've got about the author's name, i.e. the full "<NAME>", perhaps with a non-breaking space or thin space character instead of a normal space between "John" and "Andrew" [\*]. If some of the information you've got about the author's name did not appear explicitly at the top of the paper, you can enclose those bits in square brackets, as described on pages 13-14 of [this software manual](http://ctan.cs.uu.nl/biblio/bibtex/base/btxdoc.pdf). If your reference management software is any good, it should then work out automatically how to typeset the name to be consistent with the style guide to which you're writing.
[\*] Actually, the non-breaking space or thin space might be useful when you're authoring a paper and putting your name at the top of it, too.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/31
| 3,169
| 13,503
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am finishing my Ph.D. very soon, with the only thing remaining is the thesis defence, which hopefully should go smoothly. My goal is to go into academia, so I started looking for postdoc opportunities. What I am looking for in this position is to have more publications so that I could eventually find a tenure-track position.
I recently got an offer from a university in a nearby city, and I was about to accept it. However, my advisor heard about this, and he suddenly wants to keep me as a postdoc himself after I finish. While I see some positives and negatives in both offers, I feel that there is a higher chance for me to produce publications if I stay with my current advisor. So I am considering staying.
I am just wondering that if I stay, will I be viewed in a negative light by future faculty selection committees, seeing that I stayed in the same place as a postdoc where I did my Ph.D. with the same advisor?<issue_comment>username_1: This is probably more a function of what you do and how you present it when applying later than anything. If someone stays because they have nowhere else to go it is a bit negative, but your description can be stated as a positive thing.
You are likely taking your current research further than you could otherwise. It isn't just the publication count, but the significance of what you can produce.
In a new position (in some fields) you will have constraints on what you can do, depending on the PI. Not so much in mathematics, perhaps, but more in some other fields.
I'd suggest that you can make it work either way, but think about how you present your choices when you move on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As someone hiring post-docs and staff members, I am leery of someone doing a long (defined as ~ >6 month) postdoc where they were a PhD student, particularly with their same advisor. Why? To me, the purpose of a post-doc is to have a clear demonstration that the new PhD can move into an at least slightly different area and rapidly come up to speed and be productive on something new. Staying where you are just means finishing up loose ends, whether correct or not. If in the 6+ month range, you've got some explaining to do to me in the interview.
I'm not upset by a few-month "postdoc" with their PhD advisor, finishing up things, as they are looking for the next position to come open. But a post-doc has to be something new - it is the time to show off your new-found abilities to learn and make progress. Why? Because that is what you are going to have to do for the rest of you career. You aren't going to keep doing your PhD project for the next 30+ years.
For my postdocs, what does showing off look like? We hand them a project, and expect that within ~3 months there should be progress sufficient for starting to submit abstracts to conferences. And then they get another new project to get going, with abstracts going out on it 3 months or so later. The point is that in the first year there should be conference presentations and papers heading out the door on the new work at my institution. They should have an interview talk based on that work. That is what a postdoc should look like, and what I look for out of their postdoc when hiring new staff members. And that does not seem to happen for a postdoc staying at their PhD institution under their PhD advisor - it is just too easy to wrap things up, not start new, well defined projects that are different.
I would like to add that for the next 2-5 years (or more based on what happens) I will be much more flexible with this. Clearly the pandemic is not going to help anybody's career trajectory, and the constraints on jobs, moving, and everything else will make life for grad students and postdocs far more complicated than usual (and everyone else, too). Still, choose wisely - what will make you better at what you want to do?
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: ### Publications
>
> I feel that there is a higher chance for me to produce publications if I stay with my current advisor
>
>
>
One of the very best outcomes of a postdoc is **publications.** Academia is essentially built on publish or perish. All other things being equal, I would go where your chances of publication are the highest.
I would also explore options for collaborating with the PI overseeing the potential postdoc in the nearby city. Is there still an opportunity to broaden your network by doing some collaboration? Just a thought.
I have evaluated a few job candidates who have a postdoc. (I work in industry, not academia). I usually do not care where they did their postdoc. I care *what* they did. Generally speaking, I would much rather take a candidate with three publications with their old PhD advisor than someone with one publication at an institution different than their PhD granting institution.\*
### Network
One thing I will mention is the benefit of opening an entire new network of opportunities by going to a new institution for a postdoc. At my former PhD institution (call it U of X), most PhD grads end up in some low level academia position (community college, non-research teaching university, etc.) Networking was really tough at this university.
At U of X, I shared an office with a lady who had an opportunity to do a postdoc at U of X. She had published several papers with her advisor already and likely would have published many more. However, U of X has mediocre to poor faculty networking (a discussion for a different day. Long story short, when a department hires a bunch of their own PhDs as professors, it's not good for networking). She decided to leave to another institution for a postdoc. She only published one paper during her postdoc, it just happened to be a really good one. She now is a researcher at an Ivy League school. Her postdoc blew her networking *wide* open.
Be careful to examine where postdocs from both opportunities end up. Network matters a lot in getting your first "real" job. Do not compromise network for one or two extra publications.
---
\*Do note that I would question a postdoc who did his or her BS+MS+PhD+Postdoc all at the same place. It might not be a deal breaker, but it would certainly make me wonder if there are some underlying issues.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: People have lives, so hiring committees hiring tenure-track faculty should not be jerks about something like this. My mom stayed at the same institution for undergrad and PhD because she was a single parent (of me), and my father and soon-to-be-stepfather were there.
The point of a postdoc is to show that you can work more independently and establish your own research program. You can do that while staying at the same school. Just...do that.
It depends on the field, but in many fields there is no longer any expectation that you can do a single postdoc and then apply successfully for tenure-track jobs at research-oriented schools. (It shouldn't be that way, but it is.) In these fields, you'll probably be doing a second postdoc somewhere else anyway.
What matters is the quality of your work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I'll keep it short. At least in the UK I've never heard of it being seen negatively if you did a postdoc after your PhD in the same research group under the same supervisor. Most PhDs I know prefer to get a postdoc in the same group if they can. I also believe it's more efficient.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Clearly, there are some people in the community who will make judgements based purely on the fact that you have or have not moved institutions. However, I think that is not the real issue here. The more significant factor is that changing institution tends to provide opportunities to develop a broader academic profile and perspective. Thus, individuals who move around tend to gain a competitive advantage over those who do not, and come across as more impressive candidates in an interview situation.
Of course, this is a sweeping generalisation, and one can easily think of individuals who provide counter-examples in both directions. However, moving tends to provide a number of opportunities, including:
* Change/evolution of research focus;
* Exposure to new ideas, techniques and ways of working;
* Exposure to different opinions on which problems are important in your field;
* Access to a different set of resources;
* An outsider's perspective on your former group's work, and its strengths and weaknesses;
* Access to a wider pool of potential collaborators;
* Opportunity to re-evaluate the projects and activities that occupy your time, and to have a 'fresh start'.
These will tend to have a positive impact on your overall academic profile, and help when you come to apply for jobs and grants. Thus, while there is certainly a short-term productivity cost associated with moving, in the medium/long term it pays off.
It is worth noting that most of the above benefits can be acquired *without* moving, if one makes a conscious effort to seek them out.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: It is difficult (but not impossible) to demonstrate that you are capable of independent research if you continue working exclusively or at least primarily with your former PhD advisor. It doesn’t mean you should burn the bridges with your old boss, but you should *clearly* establish that she or he is no longer in charge of your research agenda.
You could demonstrate independence by developing other collaborations, but then why stay in your original group?
A successful transition to another group or institution is *always* advantageous over continued success with your former PhD advisor.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: I think it's important to remember that not all publications are equal, and your publication list is not just the sum of its parts.
You say that "there is a higher chance for me to produce publications if I stay with my current advisor". True, but the point is that hiring committees know that too, and may take it into account in deciding how much weight to give those publications, particularly if your advisor is also an author on them.
I'm not saying that moving is necessarily better, just that staying being the easier way to get publications isn't on its own a good reason to stay.
(By the way, I have never been on a hiring committee so don't speak from experience.)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: I am an example of somebody who did a postdoc in place, with the same professor and same grant. In essence, I spent an extra year at my institution while I organized my job search.
Since the time leading up to one's thesis defense is often quite stressful and chaotic, a postdoc in place is a quite reasonable and normal option. Yes, it's preferable to be writing your thesis and searching for jobs at the same time, but that often just isn't an option for many and varied reasons. These are also often additional complicating factors, such as the timing of a partner's degree or other career steps.
Furthermore, since academia tends to work on an annual cycle, if your timing happens to not be well aligned with that cycle, it's easy to end up with a full year or so of gap. For example, somebody who finishes and starts organizing their search just after the Spring hiring season completes could easily end up on 15 months of postdoc, from the end of the Spring semester to the beginning of the Fall semester a year later when a new position starts.
I would thus not be at all concerned about somebody who spends up to a year or so in a "transitional" postdoc. Once I saw it stretching to two or three years, however, I would begin to be concerned about the ability of the person to be an independent researcher.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: One of the most important things as a post-doc is to show the ability to work with different people and independence (both is best, either is good).
If at all possible, try to publish your papers which do not include your supervisor as an author -- these can be solo author, or with other people. It is OK if these are "lesser", the important thing is to avoid someone looking down your publication list and see one name which occurs as a co-author on every paper you have ever been involved in, which can set off alarm bells.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: To my mind, it doesn't matter where you go but you do need to eventually demonstrate independence. Basically, it can be harder to do this with your own supervisor and it can also be quite difficult to shift from being a "student" to "collaborator" (for both of you actually). This said, I'm sure there are stacks of opportunities outside of the current supervisory sphere so if you stay then make sure your future network is not identical to theirs (overlap yes, but hanging off their coat-tails entirely as a postdoc will be viewed negatively). Are there small project funds or perhaps students you can supervise with someone else to demonstrate your broader network? My advice to PhD students is you need to work out the strengths and weaknesses in your CV. Then, pair with someone who compliments your research strengths (and hopefully compliments any research weakness - ie they are strong there) and have a frank conversation with someone you trust about how you make sure you are independent and your CV is as strong as it can be. This might be your PhD supervisor or another mentor (perhaps both).
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/08/31
| 1,002
| 4,274
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I founded a company as a PhD student and I want to work on company products over the summer times. Do I take a leave of absence or can I take an internship at my own company during that time?
What's the right way to do this?<issue_comment>username_1: **What are your school's policies and practices for summer activities?**
The university where I received my MSci required summer work in order to receive full funding. My PhD institution only required work for the main nine months of the school year. Summer work was optional and funding was limited.
This is very much dependent on what your school requires. If they require you to do research in summers to receive funding, then you will need to work something out with them and no one here is going to be much help specifically. If you are free to do what you want in the summer, then I guess that solves your problem.
If you have to go through some loophole such as one where your school requires you to either do research or an internship, then maybe you will have to do an internship for your self. That would be a really strange policy though.
Do keep in mind a balance of goals. You only have so many semesters to work through your degree before your school begins to push back. Most places (at least in the US) do not like their PhD students taking more than six years (or so) to complete a PhD. Summer research can be an important component of timeline management. On the other hand, industry/"real" experience can be very vital long term for your career.
---
I will add that you may need to examine how substantive your business idea/company truly is. I have no idea one way or the other how significant your work is. Maybe it will be the next Google. Maybe it will be an app that has fewer than 100 downloads. Be careful to balance credible research experience with experimental personal projects.
(I only bring this up because I recently had a job applicant who essentially "interned" for himself for a year. He produced an app with fewer than 40 downloads and it was only very loosely tied to his actual field of work. He acted like he should be given credit for a significantly impactful work, when it was in fact an app that essentially already existed and to which he had just added some gingerbread).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> can I take an internship at my own company during that time?
>
>
>
As a matter of pure semantics, I think the answer is that you cannot logically intern at your own company, in the sense that being a founder, owner, and regular employee (let alone CEO or some other high-level function which presumably you have) of a company is a distinct status from that of an intern. So being an intern at your own company is simply a notion that doesn’t make sense.
**However,** this seems to be just a matter of how you phrased the question. What you *really* seem to be asking is a slightly different question, which is, if I’m understanding correctly:
>
> will working over the summer months at your company satisfy your school’s requirement that students in the program you’re enrolled at do research or an internship over the summer?
>
>
>
The answer to that is:
1. Only your school can say for sure. You’ll have to ask them. But also,
2. I think it’s very likely that the answer will be yes, at least if your school is reasonable and your company can be convincingly shown to be doing interesting things that are related to the kind of research your program wants students to be doing.
>
> What's the right way to do this?
>
>
>
Explain the situation to the people at your school and ask them whether they would approve for you to keep working at your company over the summer months in lieu of the usual internship/research requirement. Be prepared to explain what kind of work you’ll be doing and to provide evidence that the company is a real company working on real things. It might be helpful if you have other people who are involved and can attest to the nature of the venture, such as a co-founder or investors, since trying to convince people based on your word alone might come across as a bit sketchy, at least if the venture is new and still hasn’t produced anything substantial.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 5
|
2020/08/31
| 1,867
| 7,575
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I have proven several lemmas during my work that are neither original nor significant (these results were needed for applied engineering/CS research, not mathematics). I believe that if I spend enough time going through articles in minor journals/theses in theoretical CS/applied mathematics, eventually, I will find the statements/proofs of these results. However, it seems that finding these results may take more time than it took to prove the results.
I am curious whether there is a chance that not providing citations could be perceived as plagiarism in one form or another. Would it suffice to state that I do not claim that the results are original without providing a citation?<issue_comment>username_1: You do need to make some effort to find in the literature a result you think is known, but after that what you propose is common and I feel is fine. I do it sometimes. In such a situation, I tend to say ``the following is probably known, but we include a proof for completeness.''
Even if you find the all your background lemmas in the literature, it might still make the reader's life easier if you include some or all of their proofs. It is really annoying to have to request seven obscure papers by inter-library loan, and then figure out all the different authors' notation, just to fill in a few pages of proofs.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: For completeness, no it is not plagiarism to state a theorem and prove it without knowing whether that theorem is available already in the literature.
Plagiarism is the purposeful appropriation of someone else's words, claiming that they are your own.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Perhaps, they may be best classified as 'mathematical folklore'.
>
>
>
Let me suggest that **citing it as 'mathematical folklore' would be incorrect.** Based on what you have said in the question, you have proven the result (you know it to be true) and you also are not aware of a proof in the literature, although you believe one exists. However attributing a result to folklore typically implies much more than that: that the result is well-known by many people in the field, but that it doesn't have a canonical published proof in the literature. As you aren't an expert in the literature in this area, these statements go beyond what you can claim; you would need to be aware, and not just suspect, that the result is common knowledge.
>
> I believe that if I spend enough time going through articles in minor journals/theses in theoretical CS/applied mathematics, eventually, I will find the statements/proofs of these results.
>
>
>
A common scenario in applied research! My approach in such situations is to somewhat "downplay" the result; for example, don't state it as a theorem, but as a proposition.
And don't claim in your introduction or your list of contributions that you have proven a new result; focus on the new application instead, and the theorems are just there for completeness of the formal development or out of necessity. Finally, depending on how much effort you (or a coauthor) has put into searching the literature, either say that it is not known to your knowledge, or that it may be known, but you include a proof here anyway.
If you do all this and word it carefully, I don't think you are crossing any ethical lines by not citing the result. And you are certainly not committing *plagiarism* just by not being aware of something.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I am basing my answer on some assumptions:
* Those results are really well-known;
* Those results can be found in a standard literature on the topic;
* You need those results, as you (as a decent mathematical thesis would) begin from the definitions and need to lay some ground work, but your *actual contribution* is later and definitely not here.
I would bring the lemmas from some standard book, adjusted to your notation, of course. I would **cite the book** in the lemma, e.g.,
>
> **Lemma 17.34** (Einstein and Feynman, 1892, Lemma 1.2). Each smooth *n*-dimensional hedgehog can be brushed over if *n* is even.
>
>
>
Then I would not state the full proof, but the *proof idea:*
>
> *Idea of the proof:* If *n* is odd, the tail cannot be brushed. However, *2k*-dimensional hedgehogs can be shown not to have a tail.
>
>
>
You want to advance the knowledge, not gurgle-up decades-old proofs. Of course, you should be able to reproduce the proof, if asked, e.g., during a thesis defence.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: A neat way around this would be to say it is easily/ readily shown ...
That way you make clear that this is really only a step along the way and make no claim to novelty and it is a common hand waving technique. You could even relocate the bulk of the Lemma to the appendix if you feel that the workings don't add anything.
Though I'd ask if it is such an obvious thing to work out that you'd rather just do it from scratch, it is really necessary to be included. What does the reader gain? Ask yourself how this really contributes to the point your trying to make.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: When writing a mathematical paper, it is often a good for readability idea to dissect the proof of a big theorem into a series of lemmata.
In all likelihood, some of them will end up being sufficiently localised and technical that no one has ever stated or proved them in the same form.
Some, on the other hand, will be very general observations which have almost certainly appeared in the work of others. Still, if it is merely a stepping stone towards the main result, you have independently formulated and proved it, and the proof is reasonably simple, then there is no harm in stating it as a proposition and moving on. Some caveats:
1. With a proposition of this kind, you should definitely avoid making it sound like it is some significant contribution of yours. If a reader or referee sees you claiming to have proven some significant fact, only to see something that is obvious and/or well-known, it will make you look real bad. (This does not mean that you should not stress its importance in the paper itself --- it is not unusual for simple observations to be very important.)
2. By extension, if the main result is described by the last paragraph (or trivially follows from a proposition like this), then most likely the paper is not sufficiently original for a research paper.
3. If you *know* the result is folklore (you have heard other people mention it, for instance), you should say it (and maybe state it as a fact, not a proposition). If you do not know, but are almost sure it is folklore, then you can say that the result is *likely* folklore. In both cases, if you have not found a proof in the literature, you should at least include a sketch.
4. If you know a very similar, but not completely trivially folklore result, then even if you have a citation, you should at least briefly indicate how the proof should be adapted or how your statement can be derived from the original (just as when citing known non-folklore results with modifications).
5. If the lemma has a reasonably simple statement, but the proof is either complicated or uses many preceding propositions, then you should make sure to check standard textbooks and, failing at that, perhaps ask on mathoverflow or math.se for a citation. If you spend half of the paper on proving a lemma which turns out to be a trivial variation of a well-known classical theorem, this will make you look bad.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/08/31
| 553
| 2,464
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been involved in the recruitment process for a researcher position in Europe and I have been informed I was accepted.
However, thinking about how the interview went, I noticed that most of it focused on the evaluation of the skills and the responsibilities associated with the future job opportunity. In particular, I was expecting the prospective employer to at least show some interest in my previous work (my recently-completed PhD\* for example), beyond the common question of introducing myself. However, no questions have been explictly asked about it, which I found particularly odd, since both topics (PhD and new position) are closely-related.
Is the employer's lack of interactivity/interest in knowing more about a candidate's past experiences normal/common in such interviews or is it a bad sign?
---
\*I don't know if this is relevant, but a PhD wasn't mentioned in the requirements for the position, but I applied anyway.<issue_comment>username_1: First, learn to take good news as good news! You've got better things to do in life than to second-guess these things :-)
As for the actual question: We really can't know. In academia, a lot of things are available in written form. You probably had to provide letters of reference, and the people who interviewed you will have read them. You also wrote a PhD thesis, and the people who interviewed you will have taken a look at it. You may have written publications, and the people who interviewed you will be aware of them. So a lot of your past performance is an open book. What isn't available to the selection committee is your ideas about your future because, I assume, you don't have a website on which you have provided a vision statement.
So, first, it doesn't strike me as particularly odd that the people who want to hire you for a particular job ask you about that job rather than your previous job. Second, just take the fact that they're offering you the job as good news and celebrate!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Lots of large organisations have very strict requirements about recruitment processes to avoid bias. These may include asking identical questions to each applicant. When you answer the question, you draw examples from whatever your history is - PhD, organising the family business, caring for your sick relative for five years. The thesis is a tool for developing and demonstrating a set of skills.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/09/01
| 666
| 2,649
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I learned about open access and that there are many ways in which the publishers implement it. How do I find out if a paper is Diamond/Gold/Green access?
I guess if the paper is listed in a journal but a pre-print is available on the authors' webpage/repository then it is Green access. Is that correct?
Next how do I find out whether a paper appearing on the journal's website is gold access or diamond access? (Basically did the authors pay to make their paper open)
Thanks<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I guess if the paper is listed in a journal but a pre-print is available on the authors' webpage/repository then it is Green access. Is that correct?
>
>
>
Not necessarily. Green OA allows archiving of the published paper, which is not the same as the preprint. If you find the published paper then yes it is green OA.
>
> Next how do I find out whether a paper appearing on the journal's website is gold access or diamond access? (Basically did the authors pay to make their paper open)
>
>
>
Access the paper, then look at the top of the first page with the copyright. If it says (c) the authors, it is usually gold/diamond open access. As for whether the authors paid for it, go to the journal's webpage and see if they have publication fees. If they don't, it's diamond.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> if the paper is listed in a journal but a pre-print is available on the authors' webpage/repository then it is Green access. Is that correct?
>
>
>
Not exactly. The paper may be published under a green OA agreement even if the author did not publish it on their webpage, or the author may have shared it illegally. For a more authoritative answer, you should instead look up the journal on [Sherpa/Romeo](https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/) and see if it allows publishing pre/postprints.
>
> Next how do I find out whether a paper appearing on the journal's website is gold access or diamond access? (Basically did the authors pay to make their paper open)
>
>
>
The journal's webpage will usually tell you if there are publication charges, and how much they are. Even if they advertise charges, these may be waived under certain conditions (for instance: agreement with the author's institution; author comes from a developing country). Ultimately, there is no way to pay if two third parties reached an agreement and waived that fee; that is a private contract between them and none of your business. :)
(Anyway, why do you care exactly? Is this to know if you will be charged to publish your future paper in the same venue? Or for a research/statistic?)
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/09/01
| 1,853
| 8,361
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I received a rejection letter from a journal editor (including some comments). However, when I checked the reviewers comments (from two reviewers), I found that their comments do not seem to be sufficient to reject the paper. Given these comments, I would have expected the decision to be "minor revisions." Specifically, some of the comments are very simple like: I mentioned table 1 in text, while I used table 5.1 in table headings. I got total of ten comments, two of them are just related to formatting and acronym, two are repeated from both reviewers, ending up with only six significant comments. What can I do in this case?
Here are two related questions I found on this site:
* [Do editors allow authors to respond to reviewers when a paper has been essentailly rejected?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/94871/do-editors-allow-authors-to-respond-to-reviewers-when-a-paper-has-been-essentail)
* [How to react to unfair reviewer comments?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/139913/how-to-react-to-unfair-reviewer-comments)<issue_comment>username_1: You make the suggested changes, assuming you agree with them, and submit to another slightly less prestigious journal.
Most likely, the editors didn't think your paper was interesting enough for their journal, and the reviewers weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the paper to convince them otherwise.
At the top journals, for a paper to be accepted, it's not enough for reviewers to recommend acceptance; if the reviewers don't explain in convincing and gushing detail about why the paper is the best thing since sliced bread, it's not likely to be accepted. (Of course there are the few exceptional cases where it's obvious that the paper is the best thing since sliced bread and there is no need to gush about it.)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally an editor will give a summary of why they decided to reject your paper outright, rather than allowing you the opportunity to revise. I would look very carefully at this sentence.
You should be aware that it is common when reviewing to be given two boxes to fill in. One with comments that are visible to the authors, and one that are for the editors eyes only. I would usually only use that if I had concerns about ethics or integrity, but its possible the reviewers have put other things in there.
It is possible to appeal against such as decision, such appeals are very rarely successful, although I have managed to convince editors to allow a resubmission once before.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I need to disagree with @AlexanderWoo: in my experience, at high-ranking journals, "interesting enough for the journal" is something that the editor generally decides *before* sending it out to reviewers, which is why most papers at such journals are rejected without review. Enthusiasm is *not* needed from peer reviewers, just a scientific assessment of the results.
Thus, I suspect that you are instead dealing with one of two other cases:
1. Those six comments actually included something the editor considered quite serious, even if you did not. If a paper is fatally flawed, it may not take many comments to state the flaw, and major issues sometimes become invisible to an author because they are too close to the problem.
2. The editor is being lazy and sloppy somehow in their handling of the paper. Even if the reviewers hated your paper in hidden fields, the editor should normally have explained the decision in at least an abstract fashion (e.g., "not appropriate to this community", "not significant given the citation from reviewer 2").
Note that in both of these cases, a reviewer's assessment of significance (or lack thereof) may cause the editor to reassess their level of interest in the manuscript. Again, however, what is required to pass is not enthusiasm but merely finding that close examination of the paper does not invalidate its claimed significance or results. In both cases, however, such a reassessment should be clearly reflected in the comments of the reviewers and/or the editor.
You can distinguish between the two by writing to the editor for a more thorough explanation of the reasons for rejection, politely explaining that you are not understanding the reasons for rejection and wish to improve your paper. You will almost certainly be unable to change the editor's mind at this point, but you may learn what (if anything) needs to be changed to give your paper a better chance at the next place you submit.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Papers can be rejected even if there's nothing wrong with them
--------------------------------------------------------------
Often a publication venue will want to select a particular number of papers at most. If they intend to publish x papers, and after the reviews it turns out that there are more than x papers that have no serious objections, they can and will reject some papers simply because there are x other papers that are more suitable according to the editor's opinion and the reviews.
There's no such thing as "comments not sufficient to reject the paper". In competitive venues there are rejections of unquestionably good papers where all reviewers recommend to accept them, simply because there are many other papers which have even better reviews.
If there are no meaningful drawbacks mentioned, then there likely is nothing wrong with your paper, it's just not considered as important or impactful as the other candidates they got, so you'll have to submit and publish it somewhere else. Often papers are rejected without review because they seem not as important or impactful as the journal wants, however, in your case probably the editor *expected* that the paper had that potential, so it was sent out for review, but perhaps the reviews were not as enthusiastic as the editor expected, and perhaps the editor simply reconsidered - as is their right (and, in competitive venues, duty) to reject papers where's nothing wrong with them other than the fact that they do not seem not *as much* impactful and citeable as the journal would like.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: You don't get to decide what is sufficient or not sufficient reason to reject a paper. The editor does, and they've already decided it's sufficient.
There's not much more to do other than the standard - you can:
* Make the suggested changes (if you agree with them) and submit to another journal, or
* Send the editor an appeal (if you do this, make sure to include technical rebuttals of the reviewer's comments).
If you send an appeal, one thing you definitely don't want to do is say "the comments are correct but they're not sufficient to reject my paper", because the editor has already rejected that line of reasoning.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I think the truth lies somewhere in between the answers of username_1 and username_3.
It is certainly true that editors reject a lot of papers without even sending them out to reviewers, if they clearly aren't interesting enough. And the top journals will normally contact a suitable expert for a quick opinion on whether it is worth sending out to reviewers.
However, this still leaves a lot of papers where it is not obvious whether they are interesting enough. Certainly whenever I review a paper I am always asked for an opinion on whether it is good enough for the journal. I don't think this has to be "gushing"; in my experience a statement that it is with some sort of justification will normally be enough, unless another reviewer disagrees. This is different for conferences where there is a hard limit on the number of papers accepted. Conversely, when I've had a paper rejected after review, which certainly does happen, it has been because a reviewer has explicitly said that they don't think the paper is suitable for the journal.
While you haven't seen anything that explicit in this case, often there are checkboxes to fill in about interest level, etc. In my experience these tend not to be sent to the authors, so quite possibly one of your reviewers checked a box rating your paper as not interesting enough, and that is why the paper got rejected. The comments you saw aren't the reason for rejection, but just some comments the reviewers thought would be helpful.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/09/01
| 647
| 2,789
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently an undergraduate student interested in gaining research experience. I recently asked the research coordinator of our faculty if there were any opportunities to conduct research over the holidays, in preparation for graduate studies. I was told that there were no available summer research programs at the moment, and that I should approach individual faculty members and ask them. They also told me something about them themselves not being able to support any research students over the summer because they don't "have the funds". I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what this means, but I'm actually not interested at all in getting paid; I just want to gain research experience. Is this what the individual meant, or does it mean something else?<issue_comment>username_1: You've been told by faculty members that **they don't have the funds [to pay you]**. Since you aren't interested in getting paid, you could approach faculty members again. **Explain you're willing to work for free**. Whether that's possible depends on the country's employment law.
Another answer discusses [the ethics of working for free](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154667/22768) and argues that it benefits the privileged who can support themselves. Some good points are raised and I've upvoted that answer. I don't entirely agree though: Sure the privileged benefit, but the unprivileged do to. Only they do so at greater cost. Perhaps working two jobs, minimising expenditure, or racking up some debt. Ultimately, refusing unpaid interns deprives the unprivileged of a levelling-up opportunity.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are two things that require funds for a summer studentship:
* Paying the student living costs
* The cost of the research materials themselves (which might be more or less important depending on the subject, but in my field we budget about £10,000 (~$15,000) a for a full time year per researcher.
As has been pointed out it depending on the local laws, you might legally count as an employee. I would expect that to be the case in many european countries. In fact its a big grey area in UK law, and working out if you an employee, a trainee or a volunteer is complicated.
But the law aside, I personally do not take unfunded summer students because the privilege those that have the means to support themselves without income for several months over those who can't. The system of unpaid internships in law, media, politics etc, has long been seen as a source of the unrepresentativeness of those professions and research is no different. There is a big move to here outlaw unpaid internships explicitly. I do not want to be part of that system and mine is not an uncommon position here.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/09/01
| 260
| 1,076
|
<issue_start>username_0: What software can I use to create pdf version of my PowerPoint presentation slides? My PowerPoint slides have animations, where multiple pictures are shown on one slide. When I use export pdf from the Microsoft office software, it shows just the last animated image for a slide. I want the animation images to be on different pages. Any software preferably open-source for mac ? Even windows software would do.<issue_comment>username_1: Keynote is a free app on your a Mac (it can handle Microsoft PPT files, but it doesn't always lead to 100% satisfactory outcomes -- you will have to check your case by hand).
In Keynote there's a setting 'make separate slide for each build stage' when you export your presentation as a PDF.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Apart from preaching that beamer is better than ppt ;), I highly recommend the
PPspliT plugin for powerpoint
<https://www.maxonthenet.altervista.org/ppsplit.php>
It is a straightforward solution to create a new slide after each animation, and then exporting it as a pdf.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/09/01
| 483
| 1,828
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a personal statement for a Ph.D. position. I had phobias of animals earlier which I overcame during my in-vivo lab experiments (for which I am really proud of). Do you think its a good idea to include that I overcame my phobia by myself?<issue_comment>username_1: It is a judgement call. On the one hand, if you are sure it is no longer relevant, then mentioning it could be a problem since some would doubt you are cured, I think.
On the other hand, it shows personal growth. Congratulations.
But having grown as a person may not be as relevant to future research as you think. At least in the minds of others.
On balance, it seems best to *not* discuss it in written materials. If it comes up in an interview, it is again a judgement call whether it is wise to mention it. But, at that point, you will have more information on which to make the judgement.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A personal statement is a story/pitch that describes/sells your suitability for a position. Your historic phobia of animals might be a starting point for your story. Overcoming that phobia showcases part of your personality.
>
> Do you think its a good idea to include that I overcame my phobia by myself?
>
>
>
I don't think overcoming your phobia is the key message, I think how that fits into the broader story is. Try writing a story that starts from your phobia and concludes with your application. See if that story can be worked into a personal statement you're proud of.
---
username_1 [mentions](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154674/22768) the possibility that hiring someone with a historic phobia of animals might be a red flag for a position with animal studies. I agree (and up voted), but I think it depends on the broader narrative.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/09/01
| 891
| 3,834
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am considering taking a position as a "junior assistant professor" in Japan. There are certain international fellowships to which I may apply, but they require that the applicant does not hold a "faculty-equivalent position". One in particular is Switzerland based.
I do plan to ask the fellowship contact directly how they determine faculty-equivalency. However, I prefer to be as informed as possible before asking them directly; that way, I can best pose my question. For instance, it may be that the fellowship office does not have a simple definition, but may ask for several pieces of "evidence" that I am not at a "faculty-equivalent position". This would be similar to the NIH having a list of "evidence" that an early career candidate is not yet independent.
I am curious to know opinions from the academic community on StackExchange: What, in your experience, typically constitutes "faculty equivalency" (voting rights, salary, tenureship, etc.)? I am hoping to hear these opinions so I can start collecting "evidence" (possibly some that the fellowship committee may not have defined yet but would welcome) that I am or am not of "faculty equivalency".
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.<issue_comment>username_1: At least in my mind, the threshold between "non-faculty" and "faculty" is tenure or tenure-track. If a position is tenured or tenure-track, then it is a faculty position, otherwise it is a non-faculty position.
Salary is not relevant as it varies widely between countries, and in some countries postdoc are paid better than early-career faculty to account for job instability. Voting rights vary even more widely between countries, and you can see everything between "faculty has total control over the whole university's operation" and "faculty have barely any say over their working conditions".
But of course, you don't want a general answer, you want to know what the fellowships you have in mind consider to be faculty positions. You would have to ask them. I don't understand why you would ask random strangers without even saying what the fellowships are. Sorry. Read carefully whatever call for applications, FAQ, information documents... you have, and ask whoever is in charge.
There are some subtleties. Sometimes it is possible to hold a temporary position that is considered equivalent to a tenured position. Like "visiting professor", "invited professor", "partner professor". This is much muddier and again, you should ask whoever is in charge of granting the fellowships you want. But typically they concern either people who are already otherwise employed as faculty, or who are external contractors who have a day job and teach / do research on the side. These people wouldn't typically care about whether they satisfy the criteria for a (postdoc, I presume) fellowship.
I do not know the Japanese system at all and I am only going off what I read at Wikipedia (I'm being honest so you can judge if it's worth anything). It seems that you are talking about the position called "Kōshi". It definitely sounds like a faculty position from what I've gathered, but again, I'm no expert. Ask Japanese academics and the institution that grants the fellowships you are interested in.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In my field (particle physics) positions considered as "faculty equivalent" positions are usually non-university permanent (or close to that) positions.
For example, in the US at national labs, there are several named fellowships and when applying to them they might state something like "this position is considered equivalent to an assistant professor at a university".
The idea usually being that the person in this position would be hired into a permanent position at the end of their fellowship, e.g., as a staff scientist.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/09/01
| 3,281
| 13,483
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are very well known American and British universities, which have a very good reputation in a lot of different fields. Obvious examples being Cambridge, Harvard or Princeton.
But what about the state funded German universities, how is their international reputation? Why are the German schools ranked so poorly in international rankings like the [Shanghai ranking](http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2020.html)?<issue_comment>username_1: There are lots of biases in international academic rankings, they tend to favour US and UK universities because they use criteria which are mostly relevant for a market-oriented academic system, such as the US/UK ones.
In many European countries the academic system is not market-oriented, or at least not as much as in the US and the UK: students fees are very low because higher education is mostly funded by public money. Universities are seen as a public service offering education to society as a whole, rather than a kind of commercial institution which sells knowledge and qualifications to those who can afford it. As a consequence Non-US/UK universities are not as incentivized to attract international students, they don't make big efforts to play the competition game since their income doesn't depend (at least not much) on their international ranking.
Of course this is only a simplified explanation, but this is the main reason why US/UK universities perform better than German universities (among others) in international rankings.
---
*[Edit] Originally this was only a quick answer to explain what (I think) is an important structural and cultural difference with respect to international rankings between UK/US-like academic systems and others. My point was only to emphasize this difference to the attention of prospective students looking at these rankings, knowing that this is a common source of misunderstanding among them. I didn't imagine that the question and my answer would attract so much attention. I gladly admit that this is a rather simplistic answer, and I'm happy to see that other answers have done a much better job than me at analyzing other aspects of the question in detail.*
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: ### Whence university rankings?
University-wise reputations are somewhat of a self-amplifying phenomenon:
1. University-wise reputation is an established thing. This is opposed to the reputation of a department or faculty.
2. Students and academics want to be at a well-reputed university. Thus, well-reputed universities can be more selective and get better students and staff.
3. Better students and academics at reputed universities raise the level of teaching and research through existing qualities, higher teaching levels, cross-fertilisation, researchers having access to better students, etc.
4. Reputed universities actually are better as they produce better graduates and research, attract more funding, etc.
5. University-wise reputation becomes a reasonable criterion and gets further established. Go to Step 1.
However, without such a process, university-wise reputations hardly makes any sense:
Most interactions in universities happen within departments or at least within faculties, and thus there is no reason to assume the qualities of different faculties correlate with each other.
For example, the idea that a university with an excellent science faculty also must have a good law faculty is absurd (except for the above mechanism).
### German specialities
In some countries, such a process has happened; in Germany, it mostly didn’t.
Germans rarely think about the reputation of a university, but rather about the reputation of a department, and there are indeed strong variabilities between those.
This is at least partially due to historical factors, but there also some systemic factors:
* In the German education system, students specialise on a field upon entering university. This reduces the interactions between departments as compared to other systems.
* German universities are primarily funded by taxes not by fees and donations. People do not make donations to their alma mater; they pay taxes. Reputed universities cannot raise higher fees. There is no rich-get-richer amplification furthering the above process.
* The German culture is rather egalitarian and particularly holds to the ideal of providing free and equal education to everybody (or in case of universities, everybody with certain prerequisites). The concept of an elite school or university is not generally well regarded. (Mind that whether those egalitarian ideals are actually achieved is another question.)
* A considerable amount of research in Germany happens at dedicated research institutes (mostly Max Planck, Helmholtz, Leibniz, and Fraunhofer Institutes) that are usually only loosely affiliated with universities. Whatever reputation these institutes acquire does not fully rub off on universities (in public perception as well as methodic rankings).
Note how the German universities that have a somewhat generally good reputation tend to be located in beautiful and expensive cities and thus are more attractive to students with rich parents (which despite all egalitarian tendencies have better prerequisites). Finally, mind that there is a (disputed) [initiative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Universities_Excellence_Initiative) that may initialise the above process, but even it does, I would expect it to take decades to show effect – in particular if you measure success in Nobel prizes (see below).
### Consequences
Now, all of this leads to German universities scoring badly in different ways:
* The effect of a few good departments at a university gets lost in averaging. The good departments in Germany are simply not clustered at a single university.
* Scoring high in a university ranking is not such a relevant factor for universities, and thus they have no incentive to game those systems.
* Even top departments are not that attractive to students that they can be as selective as a globally high-ranking university. Students simply select their place of study by other criteria.
* A considerable portion of research successes happens at research institutes and not at universities and thus does not boost any university’s ranking.
* For ARWU (Shanghai) in particular: This ranking mainly [counts the extremes](http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2020.html) (Nobel prizes, high-impact papers, etc.). Broadly speaking, it looks at the highest percentile of research happening, not the median, average, or similar. Most of the aforementioned points are particularly bad for achieving such extremes, while hardly affecting the average quality of research and teaching.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Just writing up an additional point discussed in the comments to username_1s excellent answer. US universities vary massively in terms of funding and any excellence or quality measure you can think of amonst each other. In comparision, German universities are much more uniform. This means that if you only look at the very top, you will see a few US universities but not a single German one. At the same time any German university would count as fairly good compared to the average US university.
In terms of funding this is a result of politicial choice in Germany. If you want a university that scores in the top 10 internationally, a necessary but not sufficient condition is an amount of funding similar to the current top 10. No German university is anywhere close to that amount of money and the German government, which provides the bulk of their funding, is (currently) not interested in giving out that amount of funding to a single university. There are a number of programs to increase excellency but they are all targeted more broadly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: A significant portion of this phenomena may simply be due to core problems in the methodology of these rankings systems. For example:
* [ARWU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities#Methodology) rankings are based *50%* on sparse outlier information for "glamour" rather than "normal" science: 30% for Nobel and Fields winners (which instantly excludes most research fields) and 20% for Nature & Science papers (which form a quite small fraction of even most famous researchers' significant output). Here, the top two German universities are ranks 51 and 54.
* [QS World University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QS_World_University_Rankings#Methodology) rankings are based *50%* on reputation surveys, which will tend to make "top ranking" a self-reinforcing phenomenon. Here, the top two German universities are ranks 50 and 63.
* [Times Higher Education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_Education_World_University_Rankings#Methodology) rankings are a bit more egalitarian, with 35% based on reputation surveys. Here, the top two German universities are ranks 32, and 41.
* [US News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_%26_World_Report_Best_Colleges_Ranking#Methodology) rankings are also less reputation-based, with 25% based on reputation surveys. Here, the top two German universities are ranks 43 and 56.
I find it interesting and possibly significant that the German universities rank higher in the less outlier-based and reputation-based ranking systems. Remember also that top 100 is still quite high, given that there are [approximately 1000 graduate schools and thousands more 4-year colleges in the USA alone](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_317.20.asp?current=yes).
Furthermore, even the "objective" measures like "citations per faculty" and "number of papers in top 1% of field" are going to be dominated by the high tail of the distribution, rather than the actual educational and research opportunities provided to the *median* undergraduate or graduate student.
Thus, if the German universities have not been optimizing for these metrics, as suggested by other answers, I would expect the best ones to show up only in the medium-high rankings, even if they are extremely good institutions (as they have been).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Edit: pointed out by by "henning -- <NAME>", my answer is not true as I wrote it since by using something called "Leistungszulage" you can negotiate top-ups to your standard salary.
One factor which has not been explicitly mentioned, but is somewhat related to the different amount of funding: In Germany, salaries of professors are regulated. This means that there are three types of professorships (W1 = Juniorprofessor, W2 and W3) for which there are fixed salaries no matter on who you are or where you have this professorship (they do change depeding on your years in the job, though; they also perhaps fluctuate in miniscule amount between the different "Bundesländer", but one can really ignore that for my point since the difference is too small). What this means is that if you are performing much better than the average in your field and can negotiate for a higher personal salary in a position at a US university, this option does just not exist in Germany. The best you can go for is negotiating e.g. more doctoral students or perhaps funding for your research/working conditions. I think this provides a high disincentive for over-performers to settle in Germany and might thus affect the outlier-measuring metrics used by many of the comparison schemes.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I would like to add one more point:
Top Institute like Max Planck, Helmholtz, Leibniz, Fraunhofer Institutes and many more offers Research (master, PhD, etc) in the German language, where hardly any international students gave more choice. Even these Institution and other Institution offers in the English language, which gives more completion for admission.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: There are undoubtedly many things going on here, but some of this is almost certainly attributable to the broad sweep of history. Academic inquiry flourishes best under some sort of liberal democracy. Germany was the originator of the modern university system, but for most of the 20th century, the political environment in some or all of the country was very negative. During the Nazi period there was a "brain drain" of academic talent, e.g., many leading physicists who were Jews fled to the US or UK. Taking TU Dresden as an example, it was ruled by the Nazis, then "largely destroyed" (according to their web site) by the allied bombing. Immediately after the war, there was just a struggle for daily survival in Gernany. TU Dresden was then rebuilt but run under totalitarian communism until reunification.
You don't just get those years back for free. Often in economics if there is a setback, that simply becomes the new starting point for continued exponential growth, so where some country that didn't experience the setback gets $Ae^t$, the country where bad things happened sees $A'e^t$, where A' is just smaller. It's true that sometimes destruction can actually have paradoxical effects, such as allowing a fresh start. (IIRC this happened sometimes when wars destroyed obsolete rail systems.) But that's not a guarantee.
So liberal democracy matters in many ways, including this. That's one reason why the trend toward populist authoritarianism in places like Poland, the US, and Hungary is such a bad thing.
Upvotes: 2
|