date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2021/05/11
| 3,920
| 17,068
|
<issue_start>username_0: I ask you this question that will seem trivial but having no experience in this regard and not having found specific information I do not know what to do.
I am writing my master's thesis in Computer Engineering, and sometimes I use short concepts (for example a 10-word sentence) reworking it and adding concepts different from those of a book mentioned in the biography.
My doubt is the following, in the biography can I also insert the books that I have read to deepen the subject without having used the concept of the book within the thesis but which have been useful to me anyway?<issue_comment>username_1: **There are several intertwined issues here, and it is going to be difficult to sort them out**:
1. Your supervisor is an expert. She likely knows things you don't. So if you suggest one way and she suggests another, it may be because she has seen that way tried before and knows that it doesn't lead anywhere.
2. Your supervisor doesn't seem to be great at leading, or doesn't recognize that you are not her colleague yet. If two people at the same level are trading ideas, shooting them down or poking holes to patch can be a very useful exercise. As a new researcher, you aren't at this level yet, but she may be treating you as though you are.
3. What you consider interesting and what she considers interesting may not overlap
4. What you consider interesting and what is actually publishable within the scope of a single paper or blog post may not overlap.
Let's treat these individually.
1. I have seen many grad students (and I have been one myself) who don't fully grasp the field. I've read papers, thought "Oh, I can fix that problem", then gone on to work for a week and *then* find the paper written 20 years prior that solves it. She has a much broader understanding of the field than you do, and she knows what's been done. Take her suggestions helpfully: "I want to do X, but my supervisor suggested Y instead. I'm going to compare and contrast the two methods in a literature review and see which is best". That's your job as a PhD student anyway.
2. This is time for an awkward conversation. Depending on your personality, I personally suggest being a bit blunt but polite. Tell her what you told us: "When I suggest something and you change it, it takes my enthusiasm away. Can we work together to make sure that my ideas are fully explored, even if they aren't the best?"
3. This is up to you two to figure out. This is more fun. Ask her what she thinks the big problems of the field are, why she's in the field, what interests her about new research etc.
4. My supervisor was *phenomenally good* at writing. I am not. He was also very good at focusing a paper onto the key relevant points. I was not. We fought over papers a lot, to be honest, and to be equally honest it was a mutual problem. Both of us had reasonable ideas, but he was better at it and knew what it took to get published. I did not.
If your supervisor thinks that you are proposing something too broad, that's a very, very good indicator that you are. Think of those broad ideas as your research program, and the individual smaller ideas as your research projects. Projects lead to papers, programs lead to careers. Don't take it as "this is a useless idea", but more as "this is not suitable for publication because you haven't actually solved the big problem. You have, however, solved a smaller problem that moves us towards the bigger solution. Let's publish that and keep making progress"
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with everything in the excellent answer posted already, and would like to add another aspect to consider.
As your PhD progresses, you are expected to **grow into an independent researcher**. And this includes a number of skills, one of which is to **be able to explain, *and defend*, your ideas in front of others**.
From what I see in your question (as it currently stands; this would become a bit different if you actually toned down how the supervisor addressed you), your supervisor wasn't impolite, and offered what seem more like discussion points than "orders". As an expert in her field, they are likely giving you comments representative of potential reviewers and readers of your potential publications. Your supervisor is just the first in a line of people you need to convince of the validity, importance and interest of your research.
My suggestion would be to try and treat it as an invitation for a discussion: an opportunity to better explain the nuances and the reasoning of the approach you propose as well as a chance to compare to different approaches to the problem.
Let me try and use the examples you provided:
* You said you had proposed to explore an approach X, and your supervisor suggested you try a different one Y.
If you had actually went on, used your X to obtain some results and submitted a publication, how would you react to a reviewer saying "I see that Y could also be applicable to your problem. Have you considered comparing your results with Y?"
Instead, if you treat this as an invitation to explain your reasoning, it will only strengthen your work. Why did you chose X over Y? Do you think X has more desirable properties, or Y has shortcomings?
* You proposed to work on a problem A, and the supervisor proposed to focus on a sub-problem B.
Is B a very important factor in A? Is it possible that using sub-optimal B would change the performance on A substantially? (In which case, if you do not do B well, maybe your work on A wouldn't be valid?) Or, do you instead think that your supervisor *misunderstood* the proposed scope of A, which you believe is a well-rounded and self-contained research question?
If your own advisor does not understand you well, it is an indication that the reviewers or readers might misunderstand you too -- and it is on you to express your ideas clearly.
In both of these cases, and in general, as a researcher you should not take things at face value. In addition to communicating your ideas clearly, this also means trying to understand *why your supervisor proposed Y/B*. If you do not explain your reasoning to your supervisor, or understand theirs, it is difficult for the supervisor to guess you do not agree with their proposed plan. **Discussion with your supervisor is the best way to refine how clearly you express your idea, and how convincingly you can demonstrate it.**
---
As a personal anecdote, I had a similar situation during my postdoc. As I was polishing our accepted publication, we had a discussion about future directions. I wanted to do A, and my supervisor wanted to do B. We had a passionate (but polite and respectful!) discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of A and B. As I realised I still have a few weeks to finish up my current task, and the prep work that would be required for either A or B could easily take another few weeks, I agreed to get started on it and asked if we could discuss it again after this prepwork was done. The next day, my supervisor called me back to their office and said that they have thought a lot about our discussion, and told me they would support my opinion as a researcher and that he wouldn't want to force me to begin a research direction I do not agree with. Firstly -- best feeling ever, I was beaming for days. Secondly -- this never could have happened if we didn't have a detailed discussion about A and B, supported by arguments from both an extensive literature review and our past experiences in our respective fields.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Right now, you and your advisor share the same goal - produce publishable research. Since you aren't an expert in the field, the advisor's job is to guide you towards research approaches that will lead to publishable work, i.e. papers that will be accepted by reviewers. It sounds like she is trying to do this, although I cannot tell whether she is doing it well from the information given.
From your post, I got the impression that you believe you know how to research better than your supervisor. I have to wonder why you are still choosing to be advised by her when it sounds like you don't respect her advice.
>
> I didn't know it at the time, or understand it, but she had totally killed my enthusiasm, not only for the piece I was working on, but for the project.
>
>
>
>
> I wrote a paper plan for her, something that I was interested and intrigued to get on with. The same thing happened again, she wrote back and said, "this is too broad, remove this [very interesting] part and focus on this [not so interesting but practical] part". Try as I might I could not muster the enthusiasm to continue and the paper has been shelved.
>
>
>
These statements are concerning to me because as a student, it is your responsibility to produce enough research to write a dissertation. Your advisor is trying to guide you towards approaches that she believes will produce research, but it sounds like you're losing enthusiasm and not producing anything. If you don't find a way to achieve a dissertation, you will eventually fail out of the PhD.
Also, enjoy the flexibility of research. Most jobs have a direct supervisor, and while you don't have to agree with them, you usually have to follow their directions if you want to keep the job.
Overall, I see only a few paths going forward:
1. Find a new advisor whose advice you respect.
2. Learn to work with your advisor and incorporate her advice into your research.
3. Figure out how to write papers independently without your advisor's ideas. If it's good enough for a good journal, it's good enough for a dissertation.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Choose one of two options:
1. Get out as fast as you can by finding a new (synergic) supervisor and, likely, a new research topic. It also may mean moving to a different department or even University.
2. Continue grinding until you get the degree done. Does not look as an enjoyable option given your experience with the current supervisor.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: This is much more of an interpersonal relations question than an Academia one. How to let another person know you would like them to behave differently? The best way is to just tell them, politely but directly! How will they take it? Can be anything, depending on what kind of a person they are, and also on how they see the situation.
But here are a few points, from her perspective:
* I don't know the country or the field, but typically she's on your side. She has invested a lot into you over these years: time, research ideas, possibly her grants, lab resources etc. If you fail, this is all wasted. Of course, as always, there's a point where she might decide that she should stop investing and write off the losses, but that threshold is fairly high.
* She is likely aware that Ph. D. studies is a marathon that can be hindered by burnout, lack of motivation leading to procrastination etc. So, I think that if you honestly admit to some of that, if she's a reasonable person, she will be oriented towards finding a solution.
* If my Ph. D. students had too many ideas of their own, that would be least of my problems!
That said, she might see the things differently than you. For example, it might have been that your idea was indeed flawed, and her "this other way" was superior, it was obvious to her, and she thought it was obvious to you, but it wasn't. When you talk to her, it's a good idea to explicitly admit the possibility that her suggestions were right, but you couldn't see why, and *that* hindered your enthusiasm. So, suggest that she lets you do things your way if the difference is minor, and request that if she thinks she really need to override you, she explains in more detail why.
Of course, if her suggestions were right *and you understood it*, but it still killed your enthusiasm, that's another story altogether, and you have to learn to deal with your idea being not-so-good as it looked to you. But that is and entirely different question well covered in other answers.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: An aspect that I haven't seen addressed in the other answers is the fact that you appear to struggle to maintain motivation and are easily deflated by contrary opinions even when these are offered in a constructive manner. This could be indeed a problem that is specific to the current situation - it's very common for the relationship between students and PIs to be tense near the end of a PhD, in part due to the significant external pressure (completing your training, submitting and defending, future career decisions etc.) and in part because increased independence from your supervisor is precisely what a PhD is for, and can change your dynamic in ways that make you less accepting of micromanaging.
However, nothing you mention about your supervisor suggest to me that she is behaving in an extreme or unreasonable manner, so chances are that you might have a better long-term outcome if you work on your own response. A couple of ideas from my personal experience:
* **Try to make yourself more resilient to criticism.** Easier said than done! I have ADHD, one symptom of which is Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria, an incredibly intense and physical reaction to even very mild criticism. I am not suggesting that you suffer from the same (I hope not!), but I have found some help in trying to detach myself from the immediate response to a critical comment, and try to avoid discussing it while still overwhelmed by negative feelings ("Hmm, that's a really interesting idea. I need to sleep on it before I can give you a good answer." Optionally, follow up with "For now, do you mind if we go back to my original idea?" if you think this can be constructive). Later, when you're on your own, try to consider the idea more neutrally. You need to consciously fight the knee-jerk response to oppose any idea that is not your original one and I find this is harder when in a conversation that feels confrontational.
* **Identify and cultivate academic partnerships with people who don't make you feel deflated.** Others have pointed out that the dynamics of shooting down other people's ideas change enormously with even small differences in status. Do you get deflated if a peer tells you that they think you should work on something else? What about someone with seniority but no direct power over you, like another PI? Being able to have your ideas challenged by colleagues is incredibly important in research, both for interpersonal reasons (people who offer you well-thought-out advice are giving you their mental labour for free; even if you decide not to use it, it's important to acknowledge this graciously) and because it enhances the quality of your research (they may point out weaknesses or possibilities you hadn't though of, reveal different ways of looking at the problem, etc.). However, there will be people with whom you "click" better scientifically - try to identify what their traits are and how you can seek out these types of people for future work (the trait shouldn't be "always goes along with what I say", ideally).
* **Learn to work productively on topics that you're not that fired up about.** There's a lot of drudge work in academia. There's the project that was really promising and turned out to have a trivial solution but you still need to write up. There's the collaboration set up for networking reasons that nobody is terribly invested in. There's the half-finished project that needs quite a lot of tidying up and the main author's now left. You need to find a way to make inroads into these things that don't make you particularly excited. Excitement is a poor long-distance fuel and research, at the end of the day, is a job.
All of this comes from an assumption that you want to pursue academic research longer term. Another possibility is that perhaps you would find it easier to maintain your excitement and motivation in a less hierarchical and more bite-sized approach like science communication, which you have already started with your blog. You could do a combination of novel research (e.g. analysis and visualisation of data using freely available datasets, of which there are many these days) and reporting on new findings from others that you find exciting. My suggestion is that you try to place yourself in a role that you find rewarding and motivating, rather than try to change the behaviour of individual people, not all of whom may be able or willing to meet your needs.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As a newly graduated PhD, my advice would be to understand and follow your supervisors' advice if they are really experts in your filed. What you considered as interesting might be something not achievable for a PhD project and for a student who just started to build up their expertise in the field. Experienced supervisors have the ability to look at the forest but not the tree, and yet we as students may only look at the tree.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/11
| 560
| 2,370
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was recently looking at the rates of PhD revocations of people who were found to have plagiarized large portions of their PhD theses by [Vroniplag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VroniPlag_Wiki), and it isn't that high.
Most people that were found by sites like Vroniplag whose PhDs weren't revoked are either established professors or are working outside of academia so it's kind of understandable that their PhDs weren't taken.
But there seem to be instances where someone plagiarized portions of their thesis and they are still promoted by their Universities and given funding.
**Why is PhD thesis plagiarism forgiven in some instances by academia?**<issue_comment>username_1: I certainly won't and can't speak for all cases, but it is still true that a doctoral student is a *student* and is in a learning situation. Therefore, some universities will treat plagiarism as they do other sorts of misconduct and try to turn it into a learning situation so that the student can improve their practices and ethics. The alternative of failing the student and expelling them from the program is extreme, of course.
I would hope that when plagiarism is found in a dissertation, and agreed that it *is* plagiarism, that the dissertation gets corrected and proper citations and proper quotations made. But that is a hope, not a certainty.
Sadly, too many people get out into the world without really learning all that should be learned, and, from the prevalence of plagiarism questions here, I think this is one area that probably needs to be explicitly addressed somewhere in the educational process. But, too often, people just make assumptions and assume others make the same assumptions without reflection.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Social and reputational factors play a big role here.
If a student gets away with significant plagiarism and is later found out, that does not cast a favorable light on the original assessment of the thesis--specifically, the role of the advisor, who should oversee the thesis writing process and ensure that the submitted thesis adheres to the methodological standards of the field.
A department involved in such an investigation might downplay the plagiarism to protect the advisor's reputation and avoid tensions between the advisor and other department members.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/12
| 3,644
| 14,622
|
<issue_start>username_0: The graduate teaching assistant I'm interested in taught one of my introductory courses. She needed research assistants, so I decided to join her lab. From all this we became very close. Ever since the end of that semester, we talk nonstop. It's been more than a year since I was in her class, but I am still an undergraduate. I am also applying to essentially the same graduate program she is in. We are not working with each other right now, but it is extremely likely we will work together again.
Would it be inappropriate to pursue this? The people in her lab know me. Would this make her look bad?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> We are not working with each other right now, but it is extremely likely we will work together again.
>
>
>
Really, this isn't the problem with the scenario, the problem is if she is *currently* in a position of power of you. Actually, you'll be much better off when you graduate. As a comment points out, this might mean you don't work in the lab anymore. If you don't work in the lab at all, nothing applies and you're both adults.
It sounds like the TAship is no longer a problem, either.
You haven't tagged a country, but most places don't outright ban grad student-undergrad relationships, the rules exist to protect *you* in this scenario.
If you enter a formal relationship, make sure you (she) tells her PI so everything is aboveboard, even if you don't work with her, just in the the same lab.
>
> Would this make her look bad?
>
>
>
Bad enough for her to get in trouble or shunned? No. It's possible she might encounter some light (inoffensive) teasing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I recommend that you keep your professional and romantic relationships separate. Even if it is not ethically required, it is a good way to keep your work from taking over your personal life (or the opposite).
It seems that, as there is *currently* no actual working relationship, you have no ethical problems with starting a romantic relationship. But expect that you might need to choose between the two later, either for practical, ethical, or policy reasons. Read your university's policies.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Since you are not working under her supervision right now, then assuming you are both adults, you are in the clear ethically, legally, and university policy-wise.
The only real caveats are that if you end up involved in a romantic relationship with her, she will not be able to write you a letter of recommendation, and will not be able to assume a supervisory role over you in the future. However, academia has plenty of dating and married couples working in the same department and sometimes on the same project. There are well-established norms for dealing with such situations, and no one thinks this is anything to get worked up about.
Good luck!
**Edit:** as I somewhat feared would happen, people are volunteering unsolicited advice about whether it’s a smart idea to enter a relationship with someone you may end up sharing a workplace with in some hypothetical future, based on further hypotheticals about what would happen if you end up splitting up or whatnot. Since I respect you as a fully autonomous adult capable of making your own decisions, I have restricted my answer to things you actually asked about and that are in the scope of the sort of advice this site is designed to offer. I would advise others to do the same. There’s nothing inappropriate about a romantic relationship in your situation. It may be a good idea or a bad one, wise or unwise based on numerous factors as with any question about whether two people are a good match for each other. But that’s not what you asked about, and has no connection to academia.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_4: Generally, dating inside the same institution is fraught with problems, especially if between levels. It always was that way, do not subscribe to the illusion that somehow things were better once, just because there were fewer regulations (which were introduced for a reason).
It's certainly not impossible, and there are good examples for that, but there are all kinds of problems that can emerge and it carries a clearly elevated risk.
Even if the institutional code is lax about that (which is unlikely, they become more stringent lately in view of changing societal norms), when something goes wrong and emotions go haywire, it can maximally escalate, to the detriment of both parties. In earlier times, the risk used to be concentrated on the more junior party, today, the more senior person is equally exposed.
Both of you, before you partner up, should be acutely aware of this. Especially if you both apply for the same grad program, there is significant potential that things could go wrong (competition, different rate of progress, authorship disputes, etc.). It might be good to stay away from working together until it's clear that you really get along even in times of crisis.
Proceed at your own (and your potential partner's) peril.
With sensitive issues comes the need for careful handling.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Would it be inappropriate to pursue this?
>
>
>
No. It is appropriate IMHO. It is also reasonable that we develop feelings and form personal relationships with people which life brings us into prolonged contact with.
If she has some official capacity in the lab, and you two do hit it off, you might need to mention the situation to the lab's ranking researchers; and that's still just fine.
But - don't use your lab / professional spaces as a stage for propositioning her about a relationship. Ask her to have chat in private, or somewhere out in the open etc., to talk about how you feel (or to ask her out on a date etc.)
Also, bear in mind she might only interested in you as a friend and a colleague, not as a romantic partner. And then it will be *you* who may feel somewhat awkward.
>
> The people in her lab know me. Would this make her look bad?
>
>
>
Being in a relationship with you - no. But being the focus of romantic attention while doing her job might be embarrassing for her (or for others), hence my advice above.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Here's three things you should spend some time thinking about:
1. Does your university or your lab have any relevant policies? In this case there's probably no relevant policy, but if there is that could immediately answer your question.
2. Does your current relationship have a strong mentor/mentee flavor? Would you say that you look up to her? Is she someone you turn to for professional advice? This kind of unequal dynamic can be really dangerous for forming a healthy romantic relationship. Furthermore, you may end up regretting losing a mentor.
3. Is pursuing her romantically likely to be awkward for her or make her feel uncomfortable in her workplace? Do you have any reason to think she's interested romantically in you and not just interested in serving as a professional mentor and friend? Can you bring this up outside the workplace in a low-stakes way where it's easy for her to turn you down? Are you going to be able to immediately drop it and not make things weird? Making a pass at someone at their workplace is a big no-no, whether they're a colleague or service workers. People deserve to feel safe and comfortable at their workplace.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: This is so sweet!
Before you proceed, do you know anything about her status, like maybe she has a significant somebody or obligations that would hinder the process?
Other than that, don't fantasise too much about the outcome, keep it lite.
Wait for her to be alone or make an appointment and invite her to go for a coffee. And then, just be a gentleman, don't jump ahead.
Work situations are not ideal and you may feel socialy inept, don't worry.
Give it a go and handle it with respect.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: As a general rule, it doesn't often work well when adults enter into a relationship and one has power over the other. In this case, she has power over you. If I were you I would wait to act until the application process is over. Once you are also a graduate student (**if** you are accepted into the same program in the same place), then you may or may not want to pursue a relationship with her. But there is always the chance that your attraction to her is in part **because of** her power over you. The only way to know is to wait until you have more equal status and see how you feel.
One respondent above asked what country you are in. A different way to phrase this might be to ask what cultures each of you grew up in. This is important, as power dynamics in relationships are different in different cultures.
You also have not made clear what your gender is (presumably because you are male). All of the other respondents seem to assume that you are male (presumably because they are male). So if you are not male, you may want to specify that for us. If you are male, do not assume that dating you—or even being asked on a date by you—will be an uncomplicated situation for her. Most female graduate students in the sciences have to negotiate a fair amount of misogyny and male privilege and she might see your advances as yet another inconvenience in a professional field full of inconveniences. Dating you might also make her look unprofessional in the eyes of her peers. If you do care about her, you will work hard to understand these things, and choose your actions with not only you and your feelings but also her and her career in mind.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: I'm 20, so I might be too young to answer this. But yeah, there are few things you might want to consider:
1. Is it really a deep feeling, or is it just attraction?
2. Does it matter to you and her, what others think of you two?
3. How will this impact your future, and her future?
4. Most importantly, what's her take on this?
If you know the answers to these, then I guess other factors such as peer thoughts, gender, age gaps, country, culture etc. disappear, since all of them can be tackles in some way or the other if both of you are looking forward to it.
Hope this helps, and Good Luck :)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: I'm a guy, and speaking for myself I can imagine heaven much more easily than hell, and that is a problem because I choose what I imagine to be the best option, but my "best" is biased by my dangerously positive brain. By that I mean that I can easily envision all the ways I might be happy, but it takes intentionality to consider those futures that could turn my life into a living dumpster fire.
I find it useful to ask "what are the ways this can turn into a dumpster fire".
These are some (non-exhaustive) examples of my consideration of "dumpster fire" outcomes:
>
> You approach it like a (dumb) guy and she reports it as hostile work environment, so you are ejected from the program, get a reputation that is public enough to destroy your career prospects, and you have to flip burgers for the rest of your life.
>
>
>
or
>
> It works well for a bit, you get romantic first, but then you act like a (dumb) guy and she reports it as sexual harassment, so you are ejected from the program, get a reputation that is public enough to destroy your career prospects, and you have to flip burgers for the rest of your life AND she can pursue suing both you and the university in civil court.
>
>
>
or
>
> It works well for a bit, you get romantic, and she gets pregnant, and then you act like a (dumb) guy and she reports it as sexual harassment, so you are ejected from the program, get a reputation that is public enough to destroy your career prospects, and you have to flip burgers for the rest of your life AND she can pursue suing both you and the university in civil court AND you are paying child support for the rest of your life and bring that into any future relationship. Or she has to drop out of the program.
>
>
>
This is just a two-body problem analysis. You can think through more two-body dumpster fires.
Let's add a third body, which could be any one of:
* Her advisor
* Her rival
* A rival to her advisor who wants to attack the advisor using you
and/or her as a weapon
* Another student at your level who also has interest
How can they put gasoline on any of the above?
>
> Someone could falsely report your relationship as professional conflict of interest where you get an unfair advantage. or where Where she gets an unfair advantage.
>
>
>
How can a lawyer turn this from a dumpster fire into a flaming sewage hell-storm?
>
> If you have met and talked with any reasonably smart lawyer-ish people, this question itself should scare the holy carp out of you... they can destroy you forever in ways you can't possibly begin to imagine.
>
>
>
If, and only if, you can navigate a few of these "potential hells" then you can also insert your presumed "heaven" with the possible outcomes.
UPDATE: So how do you mitigate it?
There is plenty of advice in stuff up there that seems judgy or paranoid but actually engages some of these forms of risk.
* To make sure it is not a favoritism/pressure make sure there is no
organizational power that can be contrived in an argument (or court)
to show one is in executive authority over the other.
* To keep it from being a hostile work environment, take baby steps,
and work on being aware of both how she reacts and how other folks in
the lab react.
* To keep from being sued, be extra specially careful not to go
anywhere near anything romantic until there is some strong and
consistent-over-time trend toward acceptance and enough concrete
evidence (not hearsay) to let you defend yourself in a court of law
or even worse a brief university hearing in front of political sharks
who would gut you for an ounce of push toward their next advancement.
* If it does get intimate, make sure you have both talked about and
agreed upon the method of "protection" ahead of time, so that
pregnancy does not become a disruption.
* Show enough consistent (and possibly expensive in terms of time or
work) pursuit so that it is both widely obvious and any contenders
can elect to join battle or forfeit in order to reduce human-level
contenders.
* At some point, chat with a lawyer about liability and such. There
might be free lawyers on campus that need volunteer work and could
help you make sure you are not setting yourself on fire.
*“Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world.” — <NAME>, The princess bride*
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/12
| 439
| 1,810
|
<issue_start>username_0: First, I know this question has been asked already [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148648/about-listing-papers-under-review-in-your-cv) but was never answered.
I am applying for an assistant professorship position (in CS) and due to overloaded teaching duties over the last years, I did not produce many papers. Currently, I am trying to compensate for this by submitting a lot of papers, which are under review. In my CV, I want to show the selection committee that I am actively working on research and actively submitting papers by listing these papers but I am not sure how they will be considered.
If you were a member of the committee, how would you receive this?<issue_comment>username_1: Obviously, we cannot predict how any individual committee member will react to this. However, I think it is quite common to list 'in review' papers on a CV. Two caveats:
* If the number of 'in review' papers seems unusually high (compared to your past output, and submission/review rates typical for your field) people may start to wonder whether these are serious submissions, or if you've just fired off a load of half-baked stuff in order to pad your CV.
* If it's on your CV, you should be prepared to talk about it during interview. Having to tell the interview panel that no, none of those papers have come out yet, in fact they've all been rejected, is not going to come across well. Personally, I would only include stuff that I'm reasonably confident will progress smoothly through the review process.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: From my experience I say that chances are it won't hurt and it won't help much either. There's no reason not to do it (if clearly marked as "under review") but don't expect it to make much of a difference.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/12
| 2,234
| 9,685
|
<issue_start>username_0: In India, the faculty have a provision of consecutive holidays for at-least 15 days to 3 months based on the college. After the completion of final exams of a semester/year, these holidays are given by institution to both faculty and students before the start of a new semester/year.
Almost all the colleges have such a provision. This includes universities and other academic institutions.
In top end institutes, the holidays are minimal (15 days). But, holidays are not absolute. This means that if the faculty receive intern requests then they have to guide the interns. And some private colleges have at most 3 months of consecutive holidays.
I am wondering whether US faculty have any provision of such consecutive holidays? And on average what is the range of number of holidays?
Note that the holidays in this question refer to consecutive holidays only and not to casual leaves, health leaves etc.<issue_comment>username_1: No, that isn't a real concept in the US, with a few exceptions. Most federal holidays have been moved to Monday for purposes of "celebration" (i.e. a day off resulting in a 3-day weekend). If Christmas falls on a Thursday, however, some places will also make Friday a non-work day. A few states have one or two other "holidays", normally celebrated on Monday. Some schools, however, will still hold classes on some holidays.
But the US treats Christmas as special for historical/religious reasons and so the week in which it occurs is likely to be a holiday week for almost all universities. New Years might be similar, or not. Some places have term break in Late December (covering Christmas) through early January, for example, though I've started a term on Jan 3 also. There may also be a "Spring break" coordinated with Easter, though the coordination has been disappearing for a while.
Most universities will make accommodations for some religious holidays of the various world religions, but not all, but generally only for individual days, not extended periods. People might be able to make some accommodations personally, but I doubt that a 15 day break for a "festival" would be easy (or even possible) to arrange.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I can't really make much sense of the question, but I can explain how time off usually works in the US, though of course there are variations.
Professors aren't really typical employees. They likely technically have a set number of days they can take off and need to register them in some HR system, but usually no one is watching closely to make sure they are working on a work day (unless they don't show up for class), and even being absent from an office is not a very good sign a professor isn't *working*. Taking an extended vacation (a month or more) might be more noticeable, but even then, no one outside their lab is likely to even notice unless they are missing committee meetings or other responsibilities. Professors tend to be pretty self-motivated to work on their own research, and they won't be able to keep up with expectations for funding and publication if they take too much time off. Smart professors will still take some time off, though: however much they need to keep some balance in their life and remain productive during their working time.
Some days of the year are "days off" for everyone working for an employer (for employees in the entertainment/hospitality/retail sector this doesn't apply to them). These typically occur around secular or Christian holidays, and are usually just a single day or sometimes two consecutive days (for example, December 31st and January 1st). In practice, professors may work on these days anyways.
Academic calendars have some other breaks, most often a week in the spring for "spring break" and some time between semesters (often much of either December or January). However, these are mainly breaks for *students*, not employees. Professors *could* take this time off, but in practice those with teaching responsibilities often use that time to get caught up on grading and prep or focus on research.
The rest of time off is covered by "vacation days" allocated to individual employees (perhaps this is most similar to "casual leave" that you mention?). In principle these can be taken whenever an employee wants, but in practice their employer may designate days they can't be used. For someone teaching a course, it would be expected that no vacation days would be taken that conflict with being present to teach the course, except under exceptional circumstances (during which a professor would be expected to find their own substitute and communicate with their students unless they are physically incapacitated).
Some faculty under teaching contracts are only employed for 9 months of the year, during the typical fall/spring semesters, and are either not paid for the summer or have their 9-month salary prorated to give an income over the whole year. They don't have summer responsibilities directly, but this is the time they would have to devote to their own research, side projects like authoring books, and towards preparing courses for the next semester. Most will try to get these months covered by another salary source, however, and then do not have the time off.
If it was important to a professor on a 12-month contract to take a month-long vacation in some summer month, they can almost certainly do so assuming no conflicting responsibilities, but that would use up most/all of their annual leave. For an assistant professor on the tenure-track, there might be strong personal pressure to not take this sort of break as it might make it harder to achieve tenure, but that's really up to the individual. Longer leave in the form of "sabbatical" may be arranged, but typically professors on sabbatical still use this time to be productive in some way (for example, writing a book, travel related to their area of research, visiting collaborators at other institutions).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the good answers already given, it's worth noting that a typical professor's work is actually a combination of 3 different streams, each with its own rhythm regarding holidays. (I'm assuming 12 month not 9 month appointments here.)
a) **Teaching.** During academic term, professors need to fulfil their explicit teaching responsibilities, plus ought be available more broadly to meet with students. And they have responsibilities right after term (grading and submitting final marks) and sometimes right before (coordination between different teachers of the same course, etc.) That makes taking a chunk of holidays during or around term time is somewhere between impossible and freakishly difficult.
b) **Research.** This is much more individually managed, and evaluated based on outcomes rather than punching the clock. Location of the work varies highly - from one's own lab (if applicable) or on-campus office, home office, collaboration with someone somewhere else. Some researchers even like working from coffee shops. There is very little oversight and a lot of self-driven productivity stress. Of course, if working/managing a closely knit lab, professors and others in their lab will tend to coordinate holidays (to either take common time off, or sometimes to spread out time off so lab/research coverage continues). And depending on discipline, the fieldwork calendar may well impose constraints. Finally, whether due to stress, habit/workaholism, or love of one's work, there are many professors who will find themselves working for a few hours most of the days of their "holidays".
c) **Administrative responsibilities.** These dominate for those with formal admin roles, but even others have committee responsibilities (e.g. evaluating admissions files, etc.) Fairly often, meeting times will be scheduled during or around teaching term, to avoid conflicts with faculty research travel or vacation in between, but not always. A professor who misses a meeting or two due to long-scheduled holidays is quite fine. A professor who would repeatedly shirk their responsibilities for any reason, including their holidaying habits, would likely get a talking to. Though to be honest, the level of consequences depends on the institution and the professor's prestige or chutzpah in this regard.
All of this means that you **cannot expect to really take any "consecutive holidays" at all during academic term or right around it**. **You can** (and most professors do) **take a couple of weeks** (total per year) **"consecutive holidays" in between if *you* manage the conflicts** with your research and admin calendar, and you stand up to the competitive pressures that will always make you question whether you can "afford" to. And you might be able to stretch that "couple of weeks" if it's a question of travelling somewhere for a longer period and both taking a holiday as well as continuing to do (some) research work while you are there.
Finally it is worth considering the overall cultural context. In my experience working in the U.S. as well as in Europe, and supervising teams (outside academia) in India, I've noted that in general people in the U.S. take much less "vacation" and time off, and the concept of regular "annual leave" in some parts of Asia and Europe is largely absent in the U.S. While academics, especially more senior ones, have considerably more leeway than other careers, there is a cultural standard that 2-3 weeks vacation in total is perceived as adequate, and many people in many careers struggle to take even a week off per year (for reasons ranging from financial to career advancement.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/12
| 1,086
| 4,382
|
<issue_start>username_0: A person (30-35 y/o) has an M.A. in History and drives Uber. Now, he wants to study M.Sc. in CS/CSE in Canada for better employment.
What/how would be the **pathway** to accomplish that in the **shortest possible time period** in Canada?
Can/Must he complete/appear for General Education Development (GED), Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), etc., and then enroll in B.Sc. in CS/CSE?
Or, can he complete some of the courses from [virtual online schools](https://www.ontariovirtualschool.ca/courses/) and then apply for admission to the University?
Or, Can he just appear for Graduate Record Examination (GRE) test, and directly start M.Sc. in CS/CSE?
Or, Can he enroll [in specialized programs](https://www.senecacollege.ca/programs/fulltime/CPA.html) and then transfer to M.Sc. in CS/CSE programs?<issue_comment>username_1: There are probably two issues they would encounter:
* **Competition for limited enrollment.** They wouldn't be very competitive compared with students with a B.Sc. in computer science or related field. They can probably get around this issue by applying to lower-ranked schools where there are sufficient open seats for qualified applicants. They should probably expect to have to pay for the M.Sc. tuition; competition for funded M.Sc. positions is even harsher.
* **Qualification for enrollment.** M.Sc. programs will expect students to have an understanding of undergraduate computer science, including years of programming experience but also extending to required upper-division classes like operating systems, formal algorithms, etc. They have to convince the admissions committee that they are prepared for graduate classes from day 1, which might require taking undergraduate classes as a non-degree student.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I admire the enthusiasm, that's for sure. The practicality of the situation, well that's different, but have a go! If the goal is to work in IT, which it sounds like it is, I'd skip the M.Sc. altogether and focus on, for example, software development, system administration, IAAS via AWS or Azure, network administration, whatever. The shortest path, as you ask for, requires laser focus at this point. Best of luck to all involved!
**Added**
There are numerous avenues in IT. Two roles that might not be obvious, but perhaps worth consideration for someone with a nontechnical background, are business analyst and scrum master. These tend to require broader skills, maybe with more emphasis on interpersonal skills, than others.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This might be better asked on the workplace stack exchange, and as a somewhat broader question. If you have a 30-35 year-old with an M.A. in History who wants to switch to tech to improve their job prospects, then "get an M.Sc. in CS" is trying to jump a *lot* of rungs all at once. You'd probably be better served looking into certifications and trying to get into tech that way. You can get some fairly solid certs within 6-12 months (faster if you're naturally good at the subject) and those certs can absolutely get you better employment than "Starbucks barista who drives Uber". Once you get into the field, further incremental development is significantly easier.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I would *not* try to go for a masters right away.
You have two options.
The "safe" but time-consuming route, that presumably you don't want to do, is to get another bachelor's degree in CS. I bet you don't need a masters to get a good job, but it will be much easier for you to get into a masters program, and you will do better, if you have the right background.
The "quick" way is to teach yourself the things you need to know for the job you wnat. If you can afford it, do a bootcamp. Take online courses like those on coursera. Take on a project where you code something yourself. Aim to get certifications in some skills that apply to the field you want to get into. Apply for jobs as you gain experience, and update your resume as you add more projects and courses and certifications. Eventually something will hit. You may find yourself in a job that is relatively low paying and low-level, but take it and use it to build up your experience and credibility so you can either rise up in the company or apply for a better position.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/12
| 1,523
| 6,111
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Summary:** Signed a contract with school A while waiting for decisions from school B. Now got offer from B, and want to back out of the signed contract with A
---
What is the best strategy to back out a tenure track faculty offer and minimize its negative impact on both sides?
I am in an awkward situation. I interviewed two schools, A & B, this spring. School A made me an offer while B is still in the interview process. I contacted the B's committee chair about A's offer, the committee chair just said, everything is slow, no way to control it.
I asked around for suggestions. I was suggested by many people to take A's offer just to secure a faculty position. Yes, I did. After I signed A's offer and got ready to start this August, B suddenly notified me and is gonna make an offer.
B is a big top university and is very close to my family. A is a small teaching university and is very far away from my spouse. I visited A and their faculties are very nice. The chair is very supportive.
What should I do? I feel very guilty if I tell A, say - sorry, I cannot join you now.
Should I ask B to defer the starting date for 1 academic year, so that I can fulfill my duty at school A for my first year's contract so that A will not get mad at me? What shall I do if B will not agree to defer a year? Just back out A's offer brutally?
Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated here.
Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: **There's no way to do this gracefully.** You call school A and tell them that you will not be joining them after all. Afterwards you deal with the fallout.
Before doing so you may want to estimate exactly how bad the fallout will be and whether it might affect your ability to do your job at school B.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with @username_1 that there is no good way to do this. If you do I would tell A that you suddenly and surprisingly have an offer that will let you live with your spouse (and near family, but that's less weighty a reason).
Do say you'd be willing to defer B for a year in order not to leave A stuck.
Act soon. Hiring is still happening and A likely has a second choice who may still be available.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I would tread very lightly here, and perhaps consult a lawyer.
If this is in the US then many states have “At Will” employment clauses - you can’t be forced to take a job you don’t want, and an employer cannot be forced to employ you. There may be exceptions to this, like no competition clauses, but it’s not likely you had one. You could, once you have signed and secured the offer from B, go ahead and apply
That being said, job offers, once signed, are legal contracts, and you are bound to whatever it is you signed under the prevailing laws of whatever country/state you’re in. For example, it’s entirely possible that you leaving immediately means that you failed to give a proper 30 days notice to A before quitting your job, which may make you liable to a lawsuit. A lawyer would give you far better advice than Internet strangers, and would ensure that your interests are protected.
I agree that it is *likely* that you are not doing anything legally wrong, or that the university will go into the hassle of suing you if you are, being sued by a university (which has a ton of money and lawyers, at least in comparison to the average budding academic) can be a lengthy, expensive and painful process that may permanently damage your career.
In terms of other costs, the biggest one may be to your reputation. Dropping offers is frowned upon and could burn bridges you cannot afford to burn. However, if you explain the situation and position it right (say, you would *love* to go to A, but your wife cannot bear living away from her family so B is a better option) you may be able to not make people too angry.
As @EthanBolker says, act quickly before the hiring season ends, and A can figure it out.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: This situation happens quite often and although other posters have already suggested all the *best* things you can do, here's my "do this and that" summary:
* Do not drop the ball on A under any circumstances: academia is a very
small pool and you don't want to acquire this kind of reputation.
Nothing prevents you from applying for jobs after a year of so in A.
You made a sub-optimal choice, but life doesn't end there.
* Check with B, if they would be willing to wait for a year. If so, get
that in writing. If not, forget B and move on with your life. If A
doesn't suit you, keep applying for jobs: something will come your
way sooner or later.
* If B is willing to take you a year later, then you should eventually
inform A that you'd be leaving just after one year. This is not
uncommon and shouldn't cause much damage to anyone. You should do
this before the next hiring season starts so that A is prepared. The
chance that if you tell A right now, they would let you off the hook
and happily pick the next candidate in line are very slim. Their
"next best" choices have probably already been hired elsewhere. So I
wouldn't recommend stirring the pot this way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I think that you'll find that school A will be very understanding. They'll be disappointed, but in the end, they're wise enough to know that they really don't want a faculty member who won't be happy living apart from his spouse. I don't think you have to worry about any fallout. I'm pretty sure most departments in most schools have had this happen at least once.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: Talk to your union.
-------------------
If you're a university professor, there's a pretty good chance you're represented by a relevant employee union. Yes, [even in the US](https://www.aaup.org/). Hopefully, they have some experience with these situations and will be able to better advise you based on cases they've handled before. They might also offer legal representation, or at the very least - references to lawyers with experience with academic staff member clients.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/12
| 513
| 2,177
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been struggling with the placement of a figure in my essay (using APA style if that helps). Basically, I reference it in a paragraph that is fairly close to the bottom of the page, but probably has about 5 more lines until the bottom. The problem is, I want to put the figure below the paragraph, but it would be too small to fit in the five lines, but if I move it to the next page then the gap looks too big!
Is there a correct way to go about this? Should I put it after the next paragraph so there is no space? Should I put it above the paragraph where I first reference it?
Thanks! Here is a screenshot of what I have at the moment:
<issue_comment>username_1: Because this is a question about style and layout, it could be opinion based, but from what I have read:
1. It is generally considered better to place a figure before the text that refers to it. This allows the reader to find the figure more easily. Because you state "figure 1 below" (well done!) this is not a problem in your case.
2. Professional editors sometimes shorten/rephrase prior sentences to solve the problem you are describing. Obviously there is no point to do this before the text is in its final form.
3. Your observation that a reader may want to see the figure and paragraph referring to it on the same page is correct, but the best way to solve the problem depends on the details of your manuscript. Typesetting and getting a perfect layout can be really hard. There is no "one size fits all" solution to your problem, and there are no strict rules about what is best.
Finally, and most importantly: don't worry too much. Perfectionism is a good trait (especially for a scientist), but most people will judge the content, not the layout.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you are writing a paper for publication in a good quality journal, the correct answer is that you should not adjust the figure layout. The copyeditor (or their computer) will do it over anyway; doing it yourself just leads to disappointment if they make it worse.
Do not make your figure too small.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/12
| 852
| 3,110
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international student on an F-1 visa in the United States and planning to pursue a PhD in mathematics. I've been looking into career options after graduation, and lots of people from my current undergraduate program who have gone on to complete PhD's (especially in pure math) have become professors at liberal arts colleges after graduation, with fewer of them doing postdocs or becoming R1/R2 university professors.
Considering my visa situation, would it be possible to become a professor in the future at a liberal arts college? Do they sponsor H1B visas or is this very uncommon? Could you work as a professor at a liberal arts college on an OPT or extended OPT?<issue_comment>username_1: H1B visas in the United States are intended for [specialty workers](https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-dod-cooperative-research-and-development-project-workers-and-fashion) and are appropriate for individuals with PhDs using those skills to teach students. H1B visas are awarded through a lottery system. Fortunately, non-profit organizations, including universities, are exempt from this lottery and can obtain H1B visas much easier. This visa is the most typical visa for someone in your situation. Reputable US institutions interested in hiring you should be willing to and have the infrastructure to apply for an H1B on your behalf. H1B visas are valid for 3 years and may be extended for an additional 3 years for a total of 6 years.
Optional practical training (OPT) following an F1 visa is required to be [directly related](https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/optDirectlyRelatedGuidance.pdf) to the student's area of study. Teaching in the field of your PhD would fulfill this requirement. As an individual in a STEM field, you would be eligible for a [STEM OPT extension](https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/students-and-exchange-visitors/optional-practical-training-extension-for-stem-students-stem-opt) for up to a total of 24 months. A benefit of this approach is that the application cost is lower ([$410](https://www.uscis.gov/i-765) versus [up to $4500](https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/h-and-l-filing-fees-for-form-i-129-petition-for-a-nonimmigrant-worker) at the time of this answer not including legal fees). Your employer may file a petition on your behalf to change status from F1 OPT to H1B.
Beware of J1 visas, as they are intended for "exchange visitors". These visas typically trigger a [two year home country physical presence requirement](https://internationalaffairs.uchicago.edu/twoyearreq) after completion of your stay before you are again able to apply for other visas including H1B and permanent residency.
Caveat: My experience is exclusively at R1 institutions, and thus may not be fully applicable to "liberal arts colleges"
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many colleges will not sponsor visas because it is inconvenient and there is a risk the visa will not be awarded. Some colleges will sponsor visas. So yes, it is possible, but not likely.
Upvotes: -1
|
2021/05/13
| 725
| 2,650
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it true that research (Ph.D...) in some fields requires more work and are harder than others ?
For example to publish an article in computer science is it more difficult than to do in telecommunications ?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: H1B visas in the United States are intended for [specialty workers](https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-dod-cooperative-research-and-development-project-workers-and-fashion) and are appropriate for individuals with PhDs using those skills to teach students. H1B visas are awarded through a lottery system. Fortunately, non-profit organizations, including universities, are exempt from this lottery and can obtain H1B visas much easier. This visa is the most typical visa for someone in your situation. Reputable US institutions interested in hiring you should be willing to and have the infrastructure to apply for an H1B on your behalf. H1B visas are valid for 3 years and may be extended for an additional 3 years for a total of 6 years.
Optional practical training (OPT) following an F1 visa is required to be [directly related](https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/optDirectlyRelatedGuidance.pdf) to the student's area of study. Teaching in the field of your PhD would fulfill this requirement. As an individual in a STEM field, you would be eligible for a [STEM OPT extension](https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/students-and-exchange-visitors/optional-practical-training-extension-for-stem-students-stem-opt) for up to a total of 24 months. A benefit of this approach is that the application cost is lower ([$410](https://www.uscis.gov/i-765) versus [up to $4500](https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/h-and-l-filing-fees-for-form-i-129-petition-for-a-nonimmigrant-worker) at the time of this answer not including legal fees). Your employer may file a petition on your behalf to change status from F1 OPT to H1B.
Beware of J1 visas, as they are intended for "exchange visitors". These visas typically trigger a [two year home country physical presence requirement](https://internationalaffairs.uchicago.edu/twoyearreq) after completion of your stay before you are again able to apply for other visas including H1B and permanent residency.
Caveat: My experience is exclusively at R1 institutions, and thus may not be fully applicable to "liberal arts colleges"
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Many colleges will not sponsor visas because it is inconvenient and there is a risk the visa will not be awarded. Some colleges will sponsor visas. So yes, it is possible, but not likely.
Upvotes: -1
|
2021/05/13
| 393
| 1,603
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:** CS Undergraduate applying for Fall 2022 session. (MS/PhD CS USA)
Knowing (and for obvious reasons) that it is "easier (higher chances)" to get into a masters program than a PhD Program:
**Question:** Should I apply for a PhD program at a lower ranked school than apply to a higher ranked masters program?
**Please Note:**
I love research and will go for a PhD even after the masters. My main motive is research. I ask because I can apply only to only a handful of programs and want to know which path is better.<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, in the US, applying for a doctoral degree is almost always preferable to applying for a masters. The reason is that doctoral admission almost always comes with some sort of funding and masters admission seldom does.
The advice is to apply to several institutions that cover a fairly wide range of "rankings". If you apply to only one or two programs you are unlikely to be successful because of the competition. If you want a PhD "eventually", do that now.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The only reason to apply to a MS program first would be to get some extra credits/experience with higher-level courses which may be needed for PhD programs at better schools. If you already have all that covered and want to do research, going straight for PhD makes more sense. In most departments these days they award MS just for failing your PhD quals, so there isn't much point of applying for MS except for that extra credits reason. (Or if you have money to spare and want a diploma of some sort.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/13
| 426
| 1,739
|
<issue_start>username_0: Challenge: I need to read a lot of documentations and websites, but often in random order. I need to track which articles of a website, or which pages of a documentation I already read. I want to mark pages as complete after reading, and read nothing twice.
So far I found no efficient tracking method. Copy-pasting urls to a text editor works for small sites, but with deep hierarchies it gets messy. For example, reading all [github docs](https://docs.github.com/en) would be hard to track because of it's deep hierarchy.
I highly appreciate any hints for Apps, Browser extensions or creative solutions.<issue_comment>username_1: If you read some page again, it presumably is because there are points you forgot/didn't get the first time around.
Who says you have to read *all* of it? Presumably you have some specific interest(s) in the subject matter, it is OK to just concentrate on the few documents that go to your points, work through them thoroughly, and at most skim over the rest.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Actually a simple spreadsheet seems adequate for what you want to do. A row for each publication with columns recording things of importance. Lots of room for comments and such, also.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: One method is to download everything you read as a PDF to a folder on your computer. Then use any PDF viewer that supports annotations/markup (e.g. [xournal](http://xournal.sourceforge.net/)) to make a mark on pages/sections you have read.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I went ahead and programmed a Google Chrome Extension for my use case. It colors the links to the pages that are read.
<https://github.com/synox/mark-as-done-extension>
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/13
| 299
| 1,248
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was invited to give a presentation in a lunch symposium of an important national medical conference. The symposium was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company (my talk was unrelated to their product).
Would this constitute an invited talk in my cv (or keep it a secret)?<issue_comment>username_1: You can put anything on your CV that you are proud of and that you think might be useful for someone to know. It is hard for anyone but yourself to really judge that. If it was paid and could be interpreted as a bribe, then it would be problematic, but otherwise probably ok.
So ask yourself, were they just currying favors or did they really want to know what you had to say.
---
Not trying to be insulting, but big pharma has a reputation that isn't the best.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Normally the sponsorship would be irrelevant to your CV, but in the unlikely case that you were invited by the company instead of the conference, you should specify that in your CV.
My expectation is that the organization of the conference presentations and the sponsorships are completely disconnected. The sponsorship is simply an opportunity for a company to place their advertisement during the symposium.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/14
| 1,044
| 4,634
|
<issue_start>username_0: I received a response from the editor in chief saying that he cannot recommend my manuscript for publication. But he encourages me to address all the 4 reviewers' comments and resubmit a substantial revision.
The manuscript was submitted the first time by the "second" author who used to be my PHD supervisor 2 years ago. Actually, i am the first author of this manuscript and would like to resubmit it by myself to the same journal. Is it possible to do that ?
I will keep the same authors and the same order as the previous version.
PS : I finished my PHD 2 years ago.
Why do i want to be the corresponding author ?
I have done all the job regarding this manuscript : writing, idea, simulations and corrections. During my PHD, I had too much troubles with my PHD supervisor. He even told me one time that if he modifies my manuscript he could put himself as the first author.
When I finished writing my manuscript, he offered his help to submit it to the journal in order to save time (because I had a full time job in a company). I accepted but told him to send me every update regarding the publication process. He didn't do that and didn't answer my emails. He waited 4 months to submit it without any modification or correction. Actually, he tried to delay the submission as much as possible so I give up asking about my manuscript.
Now, he is asking me to send him the corrections but this time I want to take in charge the resubmission to the journal.<issue_comment>username_1: If the advisor has a valid claim on authorship it would be misconduct to remove them as an author. Probably plagiarism. The journal would object if it knows, which it might, due to the earlier submission.
I think you would be wise to work this out with your advisor: who is author, what order, etc. It they decide to let you publish as a sole author you still need to give them an acknowledgement.
Who submits is much less important than the authorship question. That is more an administrative question than one of conduct. The only real issue is keeping some sort of good relations with the advisor (if possible).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There's clearly a conflict of interest here and it might clearly affect your reputation (if by chance, not your academic profile/publication). However, the way out will be to either ask your advisor to submit it or solve this matter with him first.
Then and only then, the matter of resubmission is to be taken into consideration.
If you're resubmitting to the same journal, it is best to address all the concerns raised by the authors during the rejection of the article when you submitted earlier. That in essence, gives EIC an understanding of your positive intent in improving the paper to a newer version. Although, it does not necessarily guarantee the chances of the paper getting accepted. But it surely is a best practice.
Even if you're to submit to any other journal and you already feel that the concerns raised by the reviewers earlier were up to the mark and in the best interest of your paper. Even in that case, it'll be great to address each concern one by one and improve the paper which will surely positively affect the paper and its acceptance chances.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: As far as the journal is concerned, your paper was declined (if I understood you correctly) and the next submission will be treated as a separate paper (even though the journal may know it's a new iteration of an old paper and it may still get the same associate editor and reviewers). This paper may have different authors, substance, or whatever -- it's a completely different manuscript, so anything goes. Whoever does the "submitting" is not important: in some places papers are still submitted by departmental admins who have no other relationship with the authors.
Having said that, from your personal perspective, the situation is tough. It's really the conflict with your advisor and how you can resolve it. Perhaps your advisor now thinks that the paper needs substantial improvement and that's why he wants to retain control of it. He probably thinks that there's something good in it (that's why he wouldn't just remove his name from the list of authors and allow you to do whatever you want with it), but at the same time, he may see some issues, so he also doesn't want to have it published in its current form. This situation is as old as the academic world, and the only peaceful resolution is to somehow settle your personal conflict to the level where you can productively collaborate on the paper.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/14
| 1,233
| 4,972
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm trying to inquire professors regarding whether they accept masters students for graduate research assistant and I'm having trouble phrasing the email. If anyone could take a look and provide comment, that would be wonderful. Also just fyi the professor that I am applying to her field is within social media and communication and I'm trying to say that my background in social science and psychology research will be useful if she were to accept me.
"Dear Professor XX,
I am an incoming masters student at the school of XX and I was I was wondering if you will be accepting graduate research assistant this upcoming fall semester if at all? I have fours years of undergraduate research experience in social science and psychology and I hope to use my background to contribute to your research/lab in anyway possible. I am attaching my resume for your reference and I hope to hear from you soon!
Thank You
My Name"<issue_comment>username_1: I think that [GoodDeeds' suggestion](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/167651/emailing-professor-regarding-availability#comment451476_167651) covers you well already, some extra suggestions I can give that are more specific to your email are:
* **Short sentences**: consider that the higher the position academics occupy, the more emails they get, the less time they can/want to dedicate to their emails. This occasionally means that they will spend an abysmal amount of time reading it and they might get bored with long, single-sentence emails. For instance:
>
> I am an incoming MSc student at the school of XX. I was wondering if you will be accepting graduate research assistant on this fall semester?
>
>
>
* **Whitespace**: this is always underestimated and not explicitly mentioned in most etiquette/style guides. Adding a bit of whitespace and paragraphing on your email improves readability (i.e., odds that the person will actually read what you wrote, in this case). Just don't go overboard and stick with the logical passages. E.g.
>
> I was I was wondering if you will be accepting graduate research assistant this upcoming fall semester if at all?
>
>
> I have fours years of undergraduate research experience in social science and psychology and I hope to use my background to contribute to your research/lab in anyway possible.
>
>
> I am attaching my resume for your reference
>
>
> I hope to hear from you soon!
>
>
>
* **Grammar**: this comes from a non-native speaker, I have been struggling with this in first person in my uni years. Some people will just straight-up ignore you if you use bad grammar in an email. It's prejudice, it isn't nice, and (depending on the academic culture in the country) might not be even explicitly mentioned at any point. Make sure your grammar in the email is on point through revision by another person (ideally a native speaker with experience in the target language, i.e. English in this case) and/or through online services (a common choice is [Grammarly](http://grammarly.com).
* **Greetings/sign-offs**: should usually be appropriate to the level of confidence you have with the addressee. I am assuming from your email and post you might not know them very well (please correct me if I am wrong), so I would personally rephrase it in something like:
>
> Looking forward to hear from you soon.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Firstname Surname
>
>
>
The last point specifically wildly depends on the country they're based in, academic culture, and (more importantly) their personal attitude towards this kind of formalities.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't want to sound mean or discouraging, but in my 15+ years of professorship, I received hundreds such emails and, after a split second look, discarded each and every one of them. All my colleagues would probably do the same. (Math, US -- maybe it's different in social sciences/other countries.) I am, in fact, genuinely interested to know if anyone ever succeeded in getting an RA this way.
There are two main reasons. First of all, if a professor has funding or there is a spot in their lab, there would be an official advertisement for the position to be filled, so you should respond to that, rather than try to get personal in a completely artificial manner. Second of all, your letter does not indicate that you have a clear idea of what the professor does/needs/wants or how exactly you may be useful to them. Take their classes, participate in their seminars, go to their office and talk to them about their research, etc. Most likely, if they feel that you can fit in their lab, or you could be a worthy graduate student, they would be the first to ask if you wanted to work with them. No matter how you phrase, "Hi, I am shiny, please, give me money!" -- it's just that. I can't imagine any sensible person responding positively to such an inquiry. (It's not to imply that every professor is sensible, of course.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/14
| 810
| 3,443
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently applied to a postdoc position in Norway, this was an advertised role in an engineering department rather than a fellowship application. I had a brief email exchange with the hiring professor in advance and they thought I would be a suitable candidate and encouraged me to apply.
The application was through the jobbnorge website which appears to be standard in Norway.
After 6 weeks since application deadline I have not had any contact and it still shows as submitted in the jobbnorge portal. I do not know of the portal would give an update if I wasn't successful.
My questions are
1. What is the typical time frame for hearing back on any decision in Norway for postdoc applications?
2. Is it typical to hear back if I am not invited for interview or can I assume no news is neither good nor bad?
There is a similar question here: [Hiring Process in Norway for Postdocs](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/68777/hiring-process-in-norway-for-postdocs?r=SearchResults)
Although it is not clear what time scales are involved in that question or if they were between application or interview, though it does imply the process is slow.
Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: More than anything, the amount of time is determined by the number of applications. But in general, the hiring process in academia in Norway is much slower than what you're likely to experience elsewhere (at least outside of Scandinavia). To give you an example, I once applied for a postdoc in Norway. Only two people applied, but it still took six weeks before I heard back, and the interview was scheduled fifteen weeks after the application deadline. If you haven't heard anything by the end of June, your application was either unsuccessful, or they didn't manage to sift through the applications before the summer. By that time, I would e-mail the professor you've already been in touch with and ask.
For a postdoc position, I don't think you can count on being informed if your application was unsuccessful, but this might vary by university/department.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is slow. I sent my postdoc application to NTNU 12.1. (day.month) and started work at about 1.9. or at most half a month before that. I suppose I was informed a month or two before I started working there; at most three. So it took about half a year, maybe more, before things were settled.
Jobbnorge does keep you informed to the extent that the employer sends information there. The public Norwegian universities are very diligent about the faculty recruiting process, but I have to admit forgetting the details of the postdoc process. But expect to forget about the application before you hear anything and apply elsewhere in the mean time, but don't give up hope.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The process is long and intricate, so I would not be worried after only six weeks.
The faculty needs to appoint a committee, following a nomination from the PI. Then the administration must grant the committee access to the documentation. The committee has no incentives to work quickly, except for being kind to the PI. The committee eventually agrees on which candidates that appear to be suited for the position. Finally, the administration makes an evaluation to whether the candidates fulfill the formal requirements.
After this, you may be called for an interview if you have not given up yet.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/14
| 1,607
| 6,677
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been accused of cheating on my math final. I did not cheat. There was no "trial" and the only evidence is that (1) my hands were out of the frame, and (2) my work "looked like a machine did it." The professor gave me a zero on the final, which gave me a D in the course.
Now she is offering me the chance to let her watch as I work through (previously unseen) problems. I guess I can "prove" I didn't cheat by getting the questions right and formatting my work in the same way as I did on the test. My concern is that, even though I am innocent, I could still "fail" this exercise in her judgment. **If this were to happen, is it likely that I could receive a more severe penalty than I have now?** Like if I don't "pass the test" in front of the department head, will I still have a D and 0 on the final? Or will something worse happen?
**More details....**
Here is a timeline of the events:
1. I got an email from my professor saying because my hands were not in the frame (it was a remote test), I violated the testing environment and am getting a 0 on the final. Additionally, it appeared my answers were copied from a "commonly used math website" so she is failing me in the course.
2. I emailed her back and asked to meet. Because that is the process at my school.
3. I met with her, she didn't say what evidence she had against me, said she already filed the report and that I will be getting a letter from the office of student conduct.
4. She also said I can talk to the department head. She decided not to fail me because she found that I haven't ever cheated in her class before but the issue was with the supporting work so I had to take the 0 on the final.
5. I got the letter, they said they won't file any sanctions against me and that it will say on the report "For Information Only" but I can get an academic penalty. I did. Which I can appeal.
6. Met with the department head, again didn't really provide any evidence other than that it looked like a "machine" did my work for me.
7. The department head offered this opportunity to work through a set of random problems and "prove" I didn't cheat. I am trying to decide whether to accept this offer.
8. If I "fail" to prove I didn't cheat, I do not plan to pursue it further (not that I would have many options left in any case).
Update: I took the "test" with the department head. She is recommending that my grade not be changed :/
I appreciate everyone's comments and concerns!<issue_comment>username_1: It is unlikely that the sanction will be increased if you protest your innocence. But you don't say whether you did *actually* cheat in some way. If you did, then you should probably accept it and move on.
But if you didn't then, to me, the "evidence" seems a bit circumstantial. If it were me and I was innocent, then I would protest vigorously to whoever would listen.
The "infraction" is likely in your file in case there is a repeat accusation. But, in most places, it won't follow you after graduation - and it would be improper if it did.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It should certainly be possible for you to challenge a finding of misconduct made in this way. Indeed, the fact that the student conduct office even *made* a finding without first seeking your evidence or input sounds extremely dodgy to me --- it constitutes a lack of due process in the misconduct assessment, and could also constitute evidence of bias.
Now, if you decide to challenge the finding, it is almost certain that the school would need to withdraw their present finding in order to provide you with due process in the matter. (The only exception to this is if you have been too tardy in appealing the matter and have thereby lost your chance due to delay.) Due process generally requires that you have a chance to see the evidence against you and respond to this *before a finding of misconduct is made*. Once you have given your version of events, the school would make a finding, and if they find that you have committed misconduct they could decide to impose a higher penalty than was their initial assessment. In this event you might have some grounds for arguing that the initial penalty should stand (e.g., that imposing a higher penalty constitutes retaliation against you for insisting on due process), and you might or might not win that argument.
As others have pointed out in comments, there are a number of aspects of your post that cast suspicion on you, including the fact that you never explicitly state that you did not cheat. (Though you do claim that cheating was impossible, which we can take as an implicit denial.) Ultimately, any misconduct process will need to have regard to the evidence, including your own statement about your behaviour and whatever was captured on video.
Ultimately, it is difficult to predict the outcome of these two avenues of action. If you appeal the misconduct finding you might succeed (or fail but receive a penalty no greater than the present penalty), or you might incur a larger penalty. If you did not commit the misconduct then I recommend you appeal the finding even just for the principle of the thing, but that is just me.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You can't prove or disprove that you cheated or didn't cheat by taking another test. There are two issues: if you want to contest the cheating accusation, you have to contest the accusation in a proper manner, especially now, once it has been elevated to the college level. A separate issue is improving your grade (which may depend on the outcome of the cheating case) -- that's where you can potentially make a deal with the instructor/department. You can pursue both lines or neither, or just one them. If you didn't cheat, I will also suggest that you fight vigorously to defend yourself. If you did, I don't really have any other recommendations than don't do it again!
EDIT: with regards to your specific question,
>
> If this were to happen, is it likely that I could receive a more
> severe penalty than I have now?
>
>
>
The answer is: check your college regulations. It should mention something about consequences of (first time) cheating...
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Appearances are strongly against you. But the proposed test is to check how you go about it when you are doing it yourself, not so much getting the answer right as such. If you do get the answer (approximately) right, that would help a lot. Then again, if you turn out to be hopeless at stuff no more difficult (or even easier) than the stuff you very strongly appear to have cheated on, you will have incriminated yourself even more.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/14
| 279
| 1,119
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to apply for a PhD program. What does mean when one requirement is "Outstanding academic record".<issue_comment>username_1: * Have you (co-)published a peer-reviewed article?
* Have you presented at a scholarly conference?
* Have you served as a research assistant?
* Have you served as a teaching assistant?
* Have you won any prizes, grants and awards for your studies?
* Have you had exceptionally good grades?
* Have you shown community engagement for your fellow students?
* Have you attended voluntary, extracurricular, academic activities (e.g., summer schools in Europe)?
If the response to any of the question is yes, then list it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: That means you have to have demonstrated that you're a really good student. Your "academic record" is what your undergraduate career says about you (transcripts, letters of reference, publications, awards). It must be "outstanding" - top of the heap.
Only very select schools (or those that think very well of themselves) can ask this explicitly of their applicants, though many require it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/14
| 736
| 3,462
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student and recently I solved an important problem in my domain. Unfortunately, the paper got rejected stating that the results are interesting but incremental.
I discussed this issue with my peers. They said that they have gone through the similar rejection scenarios.
This thing is worrying me a lot. I picked that particular problem statement thinking that solving it would be a great contribution. And, my supervisor thought the same. However, we were able to solve the problem based on existing techniques and there are about 1-2 novel ideas in our work. It means our solution is simple and elegant.
If somebody would have solved the same problem with a rather complicated set of techniques while overlooking the simpler ones; that paper probably would have got accepted. My question is why the paper is judged based on it being incremental while it still being non-trivial? Why a work is not given more importance based on the value of the result instead of the method of obtaining it? Furthermore, I believe that simpler results should be preferred by the community instead of the complicated ones. And, they should completely omit the term "incremental" in their reviews. It is quite frustrating. Even the [Google Scholar's](https://scholar.google.com/) tagline is "Stand on the shoulders of giants" :/<issue_comment>username_1: My interpretation is that the reviewer(s) consider that solving the specific problem is not a particularly significant outcome. Assuming that they are right in this judgement (they may not be), the paper must distinguish itself in other ways.
Maybe the problem/solution is shown to have parallels with some other problem/solution. Maybe the solution is radically different. Or maybe, as in your stated case, the solution is simpler than expected. You must identify which of these is most correct and focus on presenting that as the centerpiece of your work. If the simplicity/elegance is what stands out most, find a way to validate and quantify the simplicity, and use that as the central theme.
If, on the other hand, you are convinced that the solving the problem is an important outcome by itself, then stick with the paper and submit it elsewhere. It is very common that reviewer assessments of relevance/novelty vary widely.
Onto the larger point of incremental improvement being generally given less respect; this is the reality with most products, research output being one. The current model of scholarly publication favours work that will get more attention and generate more downloads/citations. This certainly has demerits, but it is the norm and it's best to live with it. This doesn't necessarily mean you should not pursue this line of enquiry, but you should assess what and why it can be more appealing to the readership. (A demonstrably simple, reproducible solution to a problem of my interest would definitely appeal to me).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The fact that the results are "interesting but incremental" means you have done something of value, so your paper is probably publishable *somewhere*. You have two options you should consider: (1) try to expand the work to make it more than incremental before trying to publish; or (2) accept the existing incremental result and try publishing in another journal. Either of those approaches are reasonable, depending on whether or not you think you can expand your work.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/15
| 204
| 831
|
<issue_start>username_0: Am I simply being impatient? It's a computer science/biomedical journal. Don't want to seem pushy, yet it seems like it shouldn't take 3 weeks to see if a manuscript is within scope and decide whether to send it for review. It's been sitting at the "with editor" status with no status updates.<issue_comment>username_1: Depends on both the journal and field, but at least in some engineering journals this would be too soon. Editors can often be overworked. Also, it can be difficult to find willing reviewers - and that's a process that the editor can't speed up even if they want to.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Probably too early. Don't assume that the paper isn't evaluated yet. Most likely it was judged in scope and they are simply looking for referees.
Wait a little bit more.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/15
| 2,222
| 8,973
|
<issue_start>username_0: So, I was taking my exam, and there were two questions I really had no clue on, and I was running out of time on. So I quickly went to a website and posted pictures of my exam questions and asked for answers. I immediately regretted doing so, and went to delete them, when I realized, it wasn’t possible. I then started freaking out, shaking, crying, etc. I know it was wrong, and I really don’t know why I did it. I just didn’t want to fail. They haven't seen it yet, and I hope they don’t ever, I didn’t even use it on the test, and was too frazzled to even fully finish the exam. I don’t know what to do, and my heart has been racing for 12 hours now, and I haven’t been able to sleep. The schools policy is essentially that the teacher will decide what happens, unless I already have a record, where the school will decide to expel me. I know I haven’t even been caught or anything, but I just want to do the right thing here, because I know it was wrong. But I also don’t want to possibly get expelled.<issue_comment>username_1: First of all, I understand that you ultimately just posted your questions but did not look at the answers. So technically you may have committed some kind of an academic violation, but not as bad as you could have. This is, at least ethically, a good thing- you overcame the temptation of cheating!
There’s a small chance that you’ll get caught in the attempt and then it will be very difficult for you to prove that you didn’t look at the answers. If somehow your request is discovered by a TA/student who dislikes you/bad luck, and it’s not anonymized then you can get in trouble.
You can try and explain the situation to your professor. Tell them about your emotional state, that you did not cheat and just did something stupid which you immediately regretted.
What happens next is really up to your professor and how seriously they take cheating vs. how much they want to reward honesty. I personally would have checked your exam, asked for the website where you posted the questions (to check you didn’t ask anything else), and let you off the hook. However other professors could feel differently, especially if you cheated before.
If it’s highly unlikely that you’ll get caught then perhaps it’s not worthwhile to risk the above scenario. You seemed to have learned your lesson and hopefully won’t do this again.
Another alternative is to speak to a student councelor or ombudsperson in your institution. They're usually required to uphold student confidentiality, and won't tell anyone about what happened without your consent. If anything - they will be able to assure you and help you figure out what to do with the specific professor better than strangers on the Internet.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I recommend you **report the incident to your course convenor as soon as possible**. What you have done is a breach of exam conditions (the other answer is wrong: what you did *is* cheating), but if you self-report then it is likely that this will be taken into account in your favour, and will mitigate the punishment. It will also make it more likely that the university will accept your version of events (e.g., that you did not use any answers from your posted question) and aspects of this may also act in mitigation of the offence. If you decide not to self-report and the university finds out about this conduct then you will not receive mitigation for this, and you will miss out on the opportunity to develop good character.
As to how to stay calm, that is not terribly important right now. What is important is to act swiftly to ensure that you obtain the benefit of self-reporting your own wrongful conduct. Once you self-report, you may experience the calm that comes from the fact that any conseqeuences are now out of your hands. You will also enjoy the psychic benefits that come from starting down the road towards honesty and good character.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Interesting. You are actually not asking an ethics question here; that one you could answer yourself, and very quickly.
I think your question has two aspects:
1. You are asking for psychological advice. You are suffering because your mighty superego just doesn't shut up. If that's any consolation, to me this means you are a good person. But you would like to come clear in order to have moral and mental closure.
2. You are (that's the on-topic part) asking for academic advice: You are interested in the likely consequences because they play a role in whether you will decide to confess. If it's likely that you'd be expelled you'd rather try to sit it out. If the likely reaction is stern admonition and a grade reduction you are perfectly willing to trade that in exchange for moral and hence psychological relief.
I cannot really answer the academic question; it probably depends a lot on the country, the school and the teacher, none of which you can reasonably disclose.
But if there are clear guidelines — whatever they are — it may not make a great difference whether they find out or whether you confess. Or it may work to your disadvantage: Unless your name or a unique identifier is on the photos you posted (and if you were that stupid you don't deserve your degree anyway) they will have a hard time proving that it was your exam, and not somebody else's. **Unless you go and confess!** All jurisdictions accept the right for the accused to be silent. No jurisdiction requires you to indict yourself. This is the time to call on this privilege and observe the prime directive for all accused: [Do not talk.](https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE)
My advice: Take this as a lesson. You'll remember it for the rest of your life. Don't go and serve them your own head on a silver platter. We all have done things in the past we were not proud of; we all have probably hurt people emotionally by acting less nicely than we wish we had. If we could, we would go back and fix it. But here, *no damage has been done;* there is literally nothing to fix here except your future behavior.
Unless you can't bear being a "pragmatic coward", I'd simply live with having been an idiot, not do it again and hope not to get caught this one time.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: If I were you (and I’m not), here’s what I would do ...
First, keep quiet. It seems highly unlikely that your posting will be discovered. Teachers might search the internet for people posting their exam questions, but searching won’t find a photograph. Even if they do find the posting, there’s no way to know who it came from, is there?
If your school somehow gets proof (and I don’t know how this is possible) then you can admit to posting the questions. Your exam paper proves that you didn’t use the answers given on-line, so you can just say (truthfully) that you realized the posting was a mistake, and didn’t follow through. Maybe no answers were posted. Did you look?
If you confess now, then, if you’re unlucky, your school authorities might decide to make an example of you, and your life could be ruined. I don’t think you deserve that, so I wouldn’t take the risk.
You did a stupid thing, but you realized this, and you didn’t gain any unfair advantage from it, so no great harm done, in my view. Don’t do it again.
Of course, this plan is somewhat dishonest. I could live with the dishonesty, but maybe you can’t. No-one can make that decision for you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I would advise against reporting this to the school or the teacher. Not only because of the potential negative repercussions, but what is the use, if you'll do it again in the future? If you need to unburden your heart, confess to a priest, imam, a friend, etc.
If you regret it, remember good this experience. Maybe it will help you to fight the temptation to do it again in the future.
*Footnote: Long time ago, at the end of an exam, I couldn't fill in an answer, and somehow I overheard another student whispered it to other student (not me). I promptly wrote it on my exam paper. Later I got almost perfect score, and I regret writing that just one answer I overheard. Even without it, my score would still be very good.
Afterwards, I don't care if the students before or next to me cheat during exams. They should know better for themselves. I just don't do it anymore, except that once. My score whether perfect or not, is mine alone. I rather flunk an exam or even a course, but I know I pass it on my own, without cheating. Something that I can be proud of myself.*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: What's done is done. You could go admit your guilt to the professor and be destroyed. That sounds like a *really bad idea* to me.
I recommend you:
1. Vow to never attempt to cheat again. As you can see, cheating is bad
for the soul.
2. Improve your study skills so you're not tempted.
That the episode upset you so speaks well of your character. Everyone makes mistakes.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/15
| 1,253
| 5,512
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose that a physicist has discovered that the presence of **X** causes **Y** in a certain kind of systems. So they go a step ahead and try to work on a similar idea of **X** being the cause of **Y** in a *little* different kind of systems and it takes them months to arrive at the results.
But lo! That relation does not hold true here.
Is this result publishable? In general, what kind of failures in research are not failures from the point of view of writing papers about them? For example, if someone starts off hoping to prove the Riemann Hypothesis and discovers that it is *not* true, that is 100% publishable since *a lot* is riding on the RH.
Is *a lot riding on it* the only thing at work in such situations?<issue_comment>username_1: What is publishable is up to the publisher with advice from some reviewers who, ideally, know the field and what is important.
But, since research is supposed to lead to knowledge, the fact that something is not true can be as important as knowing what is. In particular, this situation that you describe gives the limits of what you call causality here, which could be important.
But the only way to know is to get feedback from others in the field and submitting for publication is a good way (normally) to get that independent feedback.
Not everything is as fundamental as the Riemann Hypothesis, of course, nor does it need to be. Lots of things with less "impact" are published every day. Several times a day, in fact.
---
And, don't interpret negative results as necessarily failures. A failure is when the methodology doesn't support the conclusions or errors are made along the way. A negative result is just a result.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Well there was that whole Michelson-Morley failure, a few interesting things followed it. Give some thought and look for the insight your results suggest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: A lot depends on the message which is conveyed by the paper and how it is formulated. In your example, essentially, researchers take system A, use theory A' to explain the experimental results observed in it, publish 1st paper, then take system B, use the same theory and find that the theory does not work in the sense that it cannot describe the experiment there. So, a paper saying "system B shows interesting behaviour which is not captured by theory A', see how" has higher chances being published than a paper saying "we tried to apply theory A' to system B and it does not work".
Further, it is very common that if you achieved a "failure" (which is not the best word if applied to research), that is, a negative result, you can reformulate your message to make it sound "positive". In particular, you can analyse why exactly your attempts did not work, what was lacking in your theory (theories usually have assumptions and/or model simplifications) and how further theories can be improved to actually do the job. This is valuable information and often is perfectly publishable.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: In physics, lots and lots of papers are published discussing models which turn out (or are even known at the time of publishing) to be failures.
One possibility is that the model fails but is published on the chance that a similar approach taken in the paper might lead to a model which ultimately does work (see, [for example](https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.035020)).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In some cases where experimental tests are involved there's a high chance of results being published despite the predicted results were not shown up. it's because they mostly commit the results of experiments which may be expensive for others to do. By publishing them even with a failed hypothesis create a bases of truth(tests) for other researched to work (evaluate) their models. it's like registering test results.
As an example in some Engineering fields like Aerodynamics (or maybe chemistry) this is the case. Testing models in wind tunnels require high amount of energy consumed and wind tunnel itself is expensive, then it's common that you would see some papers from well established wind tunnel facilities in research institutes (which has trustable test results) that despite having trouble showing their theory, or even with clear failure will see their results being published.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: As with all things in science, you must be explicit with what you mean by the word "failure". A null or negative result is not in general a failure, and are often just as valuable or even more so than positive results. For example, in the search for neutrinoless double-beta decay, only null results have ever been published, yet these results are important inputs to many theories of particle physics and universal evolution.
A "failed" experiment is not one that does not observe an expected effect, but one that cannot objectively answer whether the effect was observed or not. If some background completely obscures your signal so that you can't perform any analysis whatsoever, it may be a failed experiment. But **even in this case**, it is sometimes useful to publish, as a "cautionary tale" to help other researchers avoid that background in the future. In that way even the "failed" experiment is still contributing to the sum of human knowledge.
Pretty much the only completely unpublishable work is "we have no idea what we're doing".
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/15
| 323
| 1,310
|
<issue_start>username_0: I learned from [this thread](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/3628/22560) that review articles are often written by experienced scholars, but I wonder if a graduate student can publish a tutorial as his/her first publication? For instance, [Tutorial on Variational Autoencoders](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05908).<issue_comment>username_1: It is not up to you (or a collection of random people on the 'net) to decide if the tutorial paper you want to write is up to your target venue's standards. In any case, you not being one of the stars of the field should not be a criterion to accept/reject. Sure, a rockstar has probably a wider perspective and experience teaching the stuff, so they'll probably (possibly?) write it up better.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Actually, I find that a relatively inexperienced (but not naive) person can write a valuable tutorial for novices. The reason is that they may remember how hard it was to get started and, especially, to gain insight. More experienced people, especially experts, often lose the sense of how difficult it once was.
I once specifically wrote a treatise on a topic I was learning in order to capture the wonder of it all along with the difficulty and what to look out for. It turned out pretty well.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/15
| 797
| 3,513
|
<issue_start>username_0: Finished my MRes recently. My supervisor has told me that their ex-PhD student (graduated a year and a half ago) had some results in their thesis that they hadn't published. He asked me to complete some additional lab work and tweak a draft paper the student had put together, then I could be looking at getting a lead author position.
It sounded great initially, but I was a bit curious about the situation with the old PhD student and asked one of the post-docs (who is connected to this work). They explained the ex-PhD student was working on the paper after they graduated, but after some personal situation (unsure what but sounded serious) they basically vanished and were uncontactable.
I was a bit uneasy about this. I asked my supervisor and whilst they said the PhD didn't confirm they were happy to have someone else write their paper they didn't respond to emails saying that the supervisor was planning this. So from my supervisor's perspective this is all above board.
For extra info I looked up the university's policy and it says that the copyright for the thesis, and all of the data described, is owned by the PhD student.
Could writing this paper potentially get me in major trouble? Wanting a career in research and a paper would be good but this feels like this could easily go bad given the universities position on IP ownership and it using the work carried out by the PhD student.<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming that the original PhD student is kept as an author, and the paper states clearly who did what, I'd say you are in the clear.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think in this case, the easiest solution would be to publish your paper with a reference to that other student's thesis (or unpublished work).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Let summarize formally. Publishing requires the positive active consent of all authors. Publishing something done by another without having them as author is plagiarism. So you are a bit stuck. But you have some options - I hope they don't put you at odds with your advisor, but some things are more important.
First, you can contact the original student/author and ask them what they intend to do and whether they would be open to having a co-author. They might not reply, in which case you are stuck. They might reply that they are completing it themself, and a non reply might actually imply something like this.
If they do publish it alone then you are free to publish extensions, citing their work as usual. You could even offer to help them get it done without co-authorship, but just an acknowledgement to hurry it along and open the work for extension.
No reputable publisher will publish under conditions lacking consent. Self publishing without consent (arXiv...) would put you in an untenable position, just as it would put a formal publisher.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: This could be research misconduct to include that person I think. Typically all journals require consent from all authors – some by signature. If you can not obtain consent, that individual cannot be put on the paper.
If I was your advisor, I would tell you to repeat the work, expand on the work, and advance knowledge base on the topic. The topic does not belong to the PhD student, and even the data belongs to the university, not the student. You should rewrite the paper as well. Then you are first author – and the missing ex-student is put in the acknowledgement.
Upvotes: -1
|
2021/05/15
| 706
| 2,961
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to know if a research lab at a university should normally include specific roles in order to be considered a lab ?
I explain, for a newly joining Ph.D. student, i expect the lab to include a post-doc and at least other Ph.Ds, is it reasonable expectations ?
Thanks for clarifying this.<issue_comment>username_1: If the lab is small(ish), there just won't be that many people around to assign a lot of roles. How it is structured is quite irrelevant, what is important is (a) the results it puts out, and (b) (probably more important to you) do the people participating there get their degrees in a timely manner, with good results (publications).
I've seen labs that had a few master's students (working on their theses), a bunch of undergraduate students (on their theses or preparing for them) and some interested undergraduates hanging on. There was no PhD program here in that time frame,
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: No, there are no standards for what is considered a "lab."
I know of labs with many postdocs, lots of staff, and few students. I know of other labs that are more focused on undergrads, with a few grad students and no postdocs.
Of course, you can take the lab composition into account when deciding whether it is a good fit, but there is no criterion to point to and say "ah, this is a poorly structured lab."
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As others have said, this is very dependent on the nature of research. I'll share some trends that are common to many engineering research labs. The commonality derives from the following:
1. At least some of the equipment is specialized and high-end,
requiring extensive training to be used. This means that senior PhD
or post-docs are generally tasked with transferring skills to new
students.
2. Some part of the research is directed towards
building/improving/expanding machines or processes. So some students
build skills in a specific subsystem over the PhD, and often future
students work on extensions of the same. If so, you may find within
the lab some students focusing on (for example) developing
instrumentation, others on finding new uses for it, and so on.
3. The turnaround time for PhDs is often limited by grants/funding,
so its necessary to keep things moving. That can happen when
knowledge and skills are continually passed down across student
generations.
In such a setting, each PhD student, over their tenure, would typically mentor 2-3 generations of students (doctoral or masters) and meet two post-docs (since they usually stay for shorter periods). The post-docs may not have any academic/technical overlap with many students since they are working in very specialized areas. It is therefore not a great idea to think of post-docs as being there (or being able!) to help fresh students. Ideally, once the lab is established, other PhD students will partially shoulder that responsibility.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/15
| 777
| 3,471
|
<issue_start>username_0: Currently, I am in 4th year of my Ph.D. and my area of research is very big and quite active. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever written a survey paper that could summarize the important results of the last 20 years. A few survey papers that I have found till now, span a very narrow variety of results.
I have made a notebook for myself where I have written down all the major results that I have encountered through my Ph.D.. I find it very useful from time to time; for example when I write the introduction of a paper or look for an open problem in the area. I keep updating the notebook whenever any new result appears.
Right now, I have enough knowledge to write a survey paper. And, I would have to study a bit more to make it more complete. But I am finding it wasteful. I think that writing such a paper would only benefit other researchers and not me since I already have my personal notebook with me. Also, I think, I would be wasting my Ph.D. time writing a survey paper when I could be solving my own research problem.
Are there any self benefits for writing a survey paper? If so, maybe I can get the motivation to write one. Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: As a publication, the result might be a minor item, but for the practice of writing clearly it might be very valuable when it comes time to write up your research, and beyond.
I'm assuming that this is in your major field, and even in a fairly small subfield. In such a case, writing up what is already known will help firm it up in your mind, and in some fields (mathematics) might lead to additional insights into the subfield and even additional research opportunities for when you finish your degree.
You are doing well, by the way, in keeping a notebook. Writing is more valuable than reading for helping your mind work retain ideas, integrating them, and extending them. An idea in your notebook isn't the same as an idea in your brain, of course.
Of course, it shouldn't be a distraction from your dissertation, and it need not be.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In many fields, well-executed literature surveys are widely read and widely cited because they help a lot of researchers not have to retrace the steps of the survey authors. Readers can quickly benefit from getting a big picture of the domain and then be guided into specific articles to dive into according to their specific interests. This is a very valuable kind of research contribution.
So, the primary intrinsic benefit would be that you would be providing a valuable service to your research community. By "intrinsic", I mean a benefit that is its own reward--in this case, the satisfaction of sharing helpful research.
For extrinsic benefits that would justify the time and effort (that is, indirect benefits that lead to other things that might be valuable to you), a well-executed survey article would be widely read and highly cited, so your number of citations would go up. For this reason, a highly reputed journal would like to publish such an article, since they want those high citations. High citations in reputable journals should generally be good for your career.
All that said, it would be good to talk to a more experienced researcher in your field to get their assessment of if your ideas would indeed be valuable and appreciated, since it is often difficult to assess that yourself, especially if you are a junior researcher.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/16
| 833
| 3,667
|
<issue_start>username_0: My friend has taken a unusual route in academia. She first did a bachelor and PhD in electrical engineering, fully funded by her scholarship. However, she told me that she has little interest in engineering, and only did it to please her parents. Her real interest is in art history. Hence, two months after completing her PhD in engineering, she took up a masters in art history in the UK, which is her dream. She did very well in her masters, and started applying for a PhD in the UK earlier this year. As of now, she has received multiple offers to study for a PhD in these universities. But, she has little success in obtaining scholarship for her PhD in art history.
I cannot help but feel a bit 'unfair'? I know many students who have spent a lot more time taking art history classes, such as those who did a bachelor and then a masters, but cannot manage to get into PhD programs. Hence, I have a few questions on the process that the UK universities have in selecting PhD students. Are the UK universities quite relax in choosing PhD students who have their own means of funding (assuming that they can get a supervisor there who is willing to supervise them)? Does the pandemic causes the UK universities to relax their section of incoming PhD students? Does having a PhD in a separate field made my friend easier to be accepted into a PhD in the UK university?<issue_comment>username_1: As a publication, the result might be a minor item, but for the practice of writing clearly it might be very valuable when it comes time to write up your research, and beyond.
I'm assuming that this is in your major field, and even in a fairly small subfield. In such a case, writing up what is already known will help firm it up in your mind, and in some fields (mathematics) might lead to additional insights into the subfield and even additional research opportunities for when you finish your degree.
You are doing well, by the way, in keeping a notebook. Writing is more valuable than reading for helping your mind work retain ideas, integrating them, and extending them. An idea in your notebook isn't the same as an idea in your brain, of course.
Of course, it shouldn't be a distraction from your dissertation, and it need not be.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In many fields, well-executed literature surveys are widely read and widely cited because they help a lot of researchers not have to retrace the steps of the survey authors. Readers can quickly benefit from getting a big picture of the domain and then be guided into specific articles to dive into according to their specific interests. This is a very valuable kind of research contribution.
So, the primary intrinsic benefit would be that you would be providing a valuable service to your research community. By "intrinsic", I mean a benefit that is its own reward--in this case, the satisfaction of sharing helpful research.
For extrinsic benefits that would justify the time and effort (that is, indirect benefits that lead to other things that might be valuable to you), a well-executed survey article would be widely read and highly cited, so your number of citations would go up. For this reason, a highly reputed journal would like to publish such an article, since they want those high citations. High citations in reputable journals should generally be good for your career.
All that said, it would be good to talk to a more experienced researcher in your field to get their assessment of if your ideas would indeed be valuable and appreciated, since it is often difficult to assess that yourself, especially if you are a junior researcher.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/16
| 1,257
| 5,421
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'll soon be leaving the faculty position I've held for over 20 years at a private college in the United States. Do departing faculty typically keep books that might have been purchased with university funds? After all of this time, it's hard to know which books I paid for, which were given to me, and which were paid for by grants or departmental funds. My department (which I head) is being shut down, so nobody will remain to whom the books would be useful.<issue_comment>username_1: First, figure out which books you want to keep at all. Then ask the responsible person what you should do with the books you don't want to keep. That answer may reveal the answer to your actual question in your particular case.
I think the convention is that books bought by the university remain unless given to you, which a dean or VP might do. Those you bought are, of course, yours. Examination copies given to you by publishers are yours, even if they were trying to influence the university. Books bought with grants depend upon the provisions of the grant, but probably in general belong to the university, not the principal investigator.
Do not concern yourself with with ownership of downloaded material. Libraries expect scholars to download, use, and ultimately keep such material. That's why they have subscriptions.
Finally, if there are books you will not use, regardless of ownership, but that might be useful to a scholar in another department, see whether the library will take them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There's the "legal ownership" element, but given the situation you've described, I'd attach even more importance to the moral/ethical element:
>
> Who is most likely to use these books?
>
>
>
I suspect if your department is being shut down, no one will care about the legal ownership specifics unless you provoke them to. So you could consider triaging:
1. College library, for books which in your professional judgment students or faculty in other remaining departments could use.
2. Keep yourself, for specialized material or your favorite books that you expect to use in the next years or decades.
3. Gifted to colleagues elsewhere for other useful material in your field.
4. "Free" box outside your door, for the stuff you'd otherwise throw out.
I have fortunately not been in quite this situation in academia proper, but I did leave a private sector research institute that got effectively disbanded with my (and others') departure. This is the approach I followed.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I have been in similar situations three times when moving between universities and when retiring, in Norway. The tradition was, and is, that the books are kept by the professor.
My advice is that you honestly ask the dean what would be best to do with the books for the college. Chances are that the college is at most interested in very few of your books for special retain reasons.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: That really depends on where you are. It seems that (albeit implicitly assumed) US, or Anglosaxon in general, consensus of the other asnwers is that a professors keeps their books.
However here, if university pays for a book through a grant or through department funds, the book gets registered into the library register and is marked appropriately with the numbers. These books are then sometimes marked as being borrowed from the library, sometimes just silently transferred, but either way remain a property of the library (and can even be requested for borrowing by other persons).
That does not include books that were sent to you from someone, only those bought through university money.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: At our department, this can go two ways: If I request a book for a class that I teach, the department will get me an "instructor's" copy, but will keep the book (although I can generally keep using it unless someone else decides to use it for their class as well). We also have a pool of money that can be spent on miscellaneous expenses, such as inviting visitors, attending conferences, books, or minor equipment. I can buy a book and request to cover the expense; if the department head/business office approves it, I will be reimbursed and can keep the book. There's no guarantee, however, that such a request will be approved and overall the money is more likely to be given to junior faculty with no external funding...
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.
Go along with the assumption that you can keep them all. Keep the ones you want, and decide what to do with those you do not.
If you ask first, you may trigger the cupidity of a petty official who wants them for himself (for no reason but for the ownership) and it will then be far harder to retain control yourself of the ones you are particularly fond of. But if you have already taken your pick, and put them on your shelves at home, then it is far harder for an officious busybody in the university administration to claim them for the university.
It is also a fair bet that nobody will either know or care what books you have in the first place. Mind, it's a good idea to know exactly where they all are, in case someone with a list on a clipboard comes sailing into your office to mark off the ones they are particularly keen on reclaiming.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/17
| 1,695
| 7,066
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently in an unbeneficial situation with my PhD supervisor/advisor. At the beginning of my PhD, I've targeted non-top but reasonable venues for my papers and quickly succeeded with 3 publications. Since then, my supervisor has encouraged me to target top-10 Computer Science conferences or h-index > 100 journals for further papers. I've submitted 3 papers to such venues and have received 2 rejections and 1 major revision, which is not great, but better than 3 rejections.
In our regular meetings, my supervisor and I used to discuss the content of my papers. However, every since I started targeting top venues and trying to do research at the required level, my supervisor was clearly not able to follow/understand my work. This went so far that, now, during our regular meetings, 95% our time is spent by me (unavailingly) trying to explain my work to my supervisor.
I don't expect my supervisor to understand my papers as good as I do, yet in my opinion there should at least be a certain minimum understanding. After all the reviewers at the top venues seemed to understand the paper quite well and gave me accurate feedback.
Regardless, my supervisor keeps pushing me to submit at top venues and over-optimistically states that my work will be accepted there. However, I typically know where my paper's flaws are, and I receive no help there from my supervisor. After submission, the (meta)-reviews stated precisely these flaws as main reason for rejection.
How do I get more qualified feedback on future manuscripts before submission? Changing supervisor is not really an option, since they are my employer and since my PhD is anyway soon complete.<issue_comment>username_1: *Is your supervisor overly optimistic?* At least not obviously so. Getting a major revision and two rejections is a 1/3 success rate. That is actually pretty good for a round of first submissions, especially to top venues. But in the end it's of course your choice where you submit your work, and if you don't plan on staying in academia, you may wish to be more pragmatic.
*Is your supervisor unhelpful?* At least not less helpful than other supervisors of advanced PhD students. It's not uncommon for PhD students to eventually surpass their supervisors with respect to their research topic. At some point, you become the foremost expert on your specialization. All your supervisor can then do is offer hands-off guidance and mentoring, which they seem to be doing by evaluating your papers on an abstract level and suggesting suitable venues.
*How can you get better substantive feedback?* I understand you also need substantive feedback that goes beyond soft guidance. Here are some sources:
* Submit early and often to respected journals to get feedback by reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their specialization, so the feedback will be more specific than what you seem to get from your supervisor. (You're already tapping this source, good.)
* Attend specialist workshops and conferences (especially if, like me, you're in a "[journal field](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4472/31917)" where conferences are largely for work-in-progress).
* Approach selected specialists and ask them for feedback on one of your drafts. The worst that can happen is that they ignore you, but many people are surprisingly generous, and specialists are often interested in what people in their subfield are working on. As incentive, you could also offer to reciprocate. (Even if you feel you're not senior enough to offer *them* advice, there's often something you can do - be a discussant in a panel, read a draft for overall consistency etc.) And who knows - this might even lead to a cooperation.
* Share drafts with other students on your own level. Even if they don't have the specific expertise you are looking for, their feedback can improve your paper, and their misunderstandings can improve the clarity of your exposition (and thinking).
* Finally, you might also consider looking for a more specialist co-supervisor. I know of some graduate programs that even require a second supervisor that can be selected at a later time.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I really don’t understand what the problem is here. What are you’re career goals? If you want to work in industry just apply for jobs and graduate when you get one and stop worrying about more papers. If you want an academic job, then your advisor is right, you’re going to need to publish in top venues and you clearly weren’t being aggressive enough about where you were sending papers since they weren’t all rejected. It’s natural that a strong student who is ready to graduate is going to spend a lot of their meeting time explaining things to their advisor, so again it’s not obvious that there’s a problem there either. You may have already learned most of what you’ll learn from your current advisor, but that’s fine because you’re about to go do a postdoc with someone new. You’re ready to move on to the next stage of your career, so do that!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> After submission, the (meta)-reviews stated precisely these flaws as main reason for rejection.
>
>
>
So you know what was wrong with the article. Which is good because you understand what you are doing.
>
> How do I get more qualified feedback on future manuscripts before submission?
>
>
>
Since you are one of the very few (if not the only one) who completely understands the topic, you have a great person to discuss these topics: yourself.
In software development, and IT in general, we have the rubber duck technique: you explain to a rubber duck what you are doing, speaking loudly. Since I do not have one handy, I have a dog who is enthusiastic about what I am saying (and it is annoying because he obviously does not understand so I have to do better), and a cat who is not cooperative and always seems surprised by what I am saying (so I have to explain better).
This works wonders to make sure that what you want to do is more or less consistent.
I am writing all this to say that research is sometimes a lonely journey - you can discuss with some people about general topics, but you are on your own when it comes to the tiny bump you are making to human knowledge in your specific field.
Do not underestimate your PhD advisor. They may help you with areas where they are good (administrative stuff, grants, teaching).
I had two supervisors because of the novelty of the work I was doing for my PhD. They were not helpful **to my research** because this was something nobody did before. They were **extremely** helpful in helping me to navigate the muddy waters of academia.
>
> my PhD is anyway soon complete
>
>
>
As others stated: if you plan to leave academia afterwards, it does not matter at all. Nobody will ever ask you about your papers. You will be lucky if someone asks you about the topic of your thesis. Depending on the country, the PhD can be a great asset, or just a diploma like others.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/17
| 732
| 3,109
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it better to have a publication in a high/medium-rank journal co-authored with a very famous professor or would it be better to publish the same paper solo, in a lower-ranked journal?
I am asking this considering the fact that sometimes, writing a paper with an expert in the field opens doors to more opportunities in terms of higher-level journals. Of course it is not always the case, but assume for this question that it is. What would be the best thing to do?<issue_comment>username_1: Technically, this probably isn't an answer, but information that I hope will be valuable to you in your early career.
It isn't really a matter of either-or, here. But, you want to publish "good" papers in "appropriate" journals working with "helpful colleagues" when possible. What is "better" is better papers, actually.
Publishing low quality papers, in whatever journal, does you little good. The "fame" of a co-author might actually cloud your participation/contribution and might, when taken to the extreme, result in misconduct: i.e. "gift" authorship.
But collaboration is good. Not because it "puts points on the board" (which is IMO a foolish quest) but because it leads to better papers, deeper insight, and the faster advancement of a field. The collaboration can be, and usually is, among peers, though student/advisor collaborations are also common.
So, the advice is to write the best papers you can, collaborating as appropriate and as valuable, and submit to the best journals that you can. Think more about the fun of research and the advancement of the field and less about "winning" some imagined game.
Write a lot of good papers, singly or in collaboration, send them to good journals and your career has a good chance to succeed.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Exactly my dilemma many years ago. Moreover, I am from small european country which is not exactly well known for its scientific contributions. I thought that I dont stand a chance publishing in top tier journal. The paper I was tried to publish was already rejected in top-tier journal in my field, however, I tought that reviewers didnt even read the paper properly. Adding renowned professor, who I am friend with, could have helped but I tought it was my responsibility. I thought that if I cannot publish in top tier journal all by myself that I do not deserve to be a researcher.
So I decided to try to publish my paper as the only author in the best journal in the world (at the time) for my research field and the paper passed like a charm. Reviewers were fantastic and had good ideas how to improve the paper. In the end, tha paper was published and it ended up better than I envisioned it because of the review process.
After that, the number of people who wanted to collaborate with me on similar topics increased, which resulted in publishing even more papers (in collaboration with others). In fact, I may say that I started to enjoy my life in academia, collaborating with other researchers and doing research itself.
Being brave sometimes pays off.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/17
| 1,027
| 4,526
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some background first.
I recently graduated (a couple years ago) with a Master's in applied mathematics. During grad school I began working on a paper, which I continued to work on in my free time post-graduation. A complete rough draft of the paper is nearly done and is ~115 pages in length. The work contained in the paper is completely original and solves an open problem (the problem is open but not anything necessarily revolutionary).
It was of my opinion that the paper contained publishable material. To verify, I emailed a professor at my alma mater with a copy of the current draft. The professor did reply stating that the work was publishable and even suggested some Q1 and Q2 journals that might accept this type of work. While this was useful feedback, I received the reply in just a few days so I doubt the professor in question had the ability to read my paper in depth.
The problem:
I have published a couple papers before and thus have some experience in the world of academic publishing. That said, the scale and complexity of this paper is something I have never dealt with before and so I am not comfortable with proceeding to publish it without help/guidance, i.e. on my own. In particular, I suspect I am going to have to divide the work into small portions and publish a few separate papers but don't know how to do this. Also, the paper is very dense and I am concerned that its "readability" is not exactly optimal. Given that I do not have a ton of experience and am essentially working in a vacuum, I also really desire to get feedback on the quality of my proofs, which I suspect are not as concise as they should be. My situation seems a little unusual and I suspect that the feedback I am looking for would typically be provided by an adviser in a PhD program (not claiming the paper is worthy of a PhD).
>
> Given that I do not have an adviser that can provide detailed feedback, what should I do?
>
>
>
I thought about reaching out to professors/experts with relevant backgrounds and proposing to add them as coauthor in exchange for helping navigate the process of publishing my paper. Is this an absurd proposition? I wonder how such a request may be viewed. Are there any other routes one might suggest I consider?<issue_comment>username_1: Most journals will make any page limits public. Some will take long papers, but that assumes some significance to the result. The best way to find out is to make a submission to one that doesn't clearly state a shorter limit.
Navigating the publishing process isn't co-authorship and shouldn't be offered.
It might be necessary, however, to split the paper into two or more papers, assuming that there are intermediate results worth publishing independently. In applied math, it might be that some intermediate results have their own application. That might be a way to look at it. But the sum of several smaller papers can be expected to total more than the original.
If you make a submission, the editor and reviewers will comment on the writing and if it is "too dense" will suggest edits, though maybe not in specific terms. But you can decrease the density by increasing the length (more explanation) and this, again, leads to the possible necessity of splitting the paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I suspect this may vary by field of study, but I don't think bringing someone on as a coauthor is an absurd proposition at all, even this late in the process.
It sounds like you are looking for someone to do significantly more than just help you navigate the publication process, especially if you decide to break the paper up into separate manuscripts. If that's the case, then I would frame it more as a collaboration on an ongoing project than a late-stage coauthorship on a paper that's about to be submitted somewhere. This would allow you to communicate "fit"--i.e., why you chose to contact them, specifically, and what you think they can add to the project.
Note that his means you need to be open to the possibility that they may have different ideas for what the paper(s) should look like. That's one of the benefits of having coauthors. In my experience, even completed manuscripts can take weeks of rewriting and reframing to get to a stage in which they are ready for a particular outlet.
In any case, beyond communicating fit to a potential coauthor, I think it's important to be clear and transparent about what you want from them on the project.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/17
| 1,160
| 4,784
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a postdoctoral researcher in physics in the USA right now (my Ph.D. is in physical chemistry). I want to move to Germany and eventually become a research professor. I am aware that one route I could take is by applying for Junior Professor positions, but my understanding is that a Habilitation is a bit more collaborative with your advisor. As I am planning to move to an entirely new system, I think it would be good for me to have a few years working closely with someone who already knows the system so I will be in a better place to help my students navigate it. Anyway, I can find Jr. Prof. positions on the job boards, but I have no idea how to find Habilitation positions. Can any of you help me with this?
Many thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: The following is about habilitation and junior professorships in general, not particularly about physical chemistry.
A few things about junior professorships first:
* Depending on the field, a habilitation is no longer a strict necessity. Having done a successful junior professorship is formally sufficient for a professor position as well. You of course don't know in advance if the hiring committee for the position you will be interested in at some point isn't preferring candidates with a habilitation, though.
* There are nowadays also tenure-track junior professorships. They ensure that if you do good work, you get a permanent professorship afterwards, without the need to have a habilitation. Once you showed that you can do a good job on a permanent professorship, the habilitation should then cease to be important if you apply elsewhere later.
But more importantly:
* There are no designated "habilitation positions" in Germany. Rather, there are positions as "wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter" (scientific employee) that you can hold while working towards your habilitation. The possibility to write a habilitation thesis while holding the position *may* be mentioned in the job advertisement, but is also often not. If you see a position that may be suitable offered somewhere, you will have to ask (the respective professor) if he/she thinks if you should apply as someone interested in working towards a habilitation.
* The important part for writing a habilitation thesis is that you have a position with a perspective to stay for a longer period of time, as necessary for this purpose. A position in a newly started EU starting/consolidator/advanced grant would be suitable, for instance. A "Landesstelle" (not directly attached to a third-party funded project) is suitable, too - but you will have to convince the professor having such a position that giving it to you is a wise investment for him/her.
* Sometimes you see a position for an "Akademischer Rat", which is a permanent somewhat glorified postdoc position and should be suitable for writing a habilitation thesis. These are very rare, though.
Note that positions suitable for habilitation are not always publicly announced, and it's not uncommon to have your current professor/advisor phone up a few colleagues in the area you want to move to in order to check if there are any suitable not yet announced free positions upcoming in their research groups.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: * [According to the GDCh](https://www.gdch.de/fileadmin/downloads/Ausbildung_und_Karriere/Karriere/Statistik/Habil/2019_NCh_Artikel_Nachwuchs.pdf) (as the relevant professional society), there were about 3x as many people doing a habilitation than junior professors (end of 2019). The ratio is even more in favor of habilitands in physical chemistry.
So you definitively want to discuss the possibility of doing a habilitation.
* [According to wikipedia](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation#Stellensituation_der_Habilitanden) 1/3 of the junior professors is working towards their habilitation in parallel.
* In addition to the job descriptions mentioned by @DCTlib, (Nachwuchs)gruppenleiter is something to look at as well.
* You may find that some professors tell you that they'd want to collaborate for a while with you (there) before proposing you to start a habilitation.
* Habilitations are (in their beginning) possibly somewhat informal. Like for a PhD, the German system allows one to show up with basically a finished thesis. You still formally need to find a mentoring professor, though, and of course you need to get the required teaching experience. But the formal procedure really starts only when you hand in the thesis.
As always, details are specified in the local Habilitationsordnung.
Thus a professor may suggest to their PI that the work already done there may be used also towards habilitation, in which case the Habilitand will seem to start halfways through the habilitation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/17
| 2,686
| 11,610
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had an interview where I was asked to tell the committee about a situation where I had a conflict with one of my previous supervisors.
I told them the truth, which is "I have never had a conflict with any of my supervisor before". But they gave me a couple of minutes to think carefully so maybe I remember something. I could not come up with an idea.
Is it bad not to answer this question? In other words, should I have been not honest and make up a story?
How much of an effect can this question have on their final decision?<issue_comment>username_1: I think it would be worse to make up a story. I'm not particularly a fan of this sort of "trap" interview question (alongside other common ones like "what's your biggest weakness?") but presumably the interviewer is asking because they are hoping to elucidate something about how you handle conflict. If you brush the question off, well, that tells them something about how you handle conflict, doesn't it? Maybe they won't mind, maybe they will care deeply, but especially because they gave you extra time they are signaling that, to them, this was an important question, and yet you weren't able to answer a question that was important to them. That said, it's impossible to measure the effect this will have on the decision. It seems unlikely that the answer to this question would be literally the only thing between you and another candidate that was interviewed, but ultimately if it is a choice between you and someone else then *anything* could matter as the proverbial "last straw".
Instead, in the future I would consider interpreting a question like this much more broadly. A "conflict" doesn't have to mean you came to fisticuffs, it could be any level of disagreement. If you truly have never had a disagreement with a supervisor that may not be a good thing, either, it suggests you aren't bringing anything to the table of sufficient substance to disagree about or lack the confidence to support your own ideas when a supervisor suggests a different direction.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Impossible to predict, actually. But the question seems a bit strange. I wonder how they expect to get truthful answers to such a "gotcha" question. Perhaps it was just somebody with a strange idea.
Asking for how you might behave in a hypothetical situation might be different, but still strange.
Hopefully it won't affect you at all. But if it does, then you might take it as a warning and go elsewhere.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it bad not to answer this question? In other words, should I have been not honest and make up a story?
>
>
>
There is a third option in this kind of situation: take your best guess at the purpose of the question, and then offer them some other way to get the information they're after.
In this case, the purpose of the question is most likely to explore whether you're capable of communicating and resolving such conflicts in a productive manner. So one could instead offer something like this:
"I've actually been really fortunate with my supervisor/s and we haven't had any significant conflict, but perhaps I could tell you about a conflict I had with one of my course coordinators, if that would be relevant here?"
(Or anybody else who you've had a conflict with, but the more similar to a supervisor/supervisee relationship the better.)
If that's not what they're looking for, they can clarify what the point of the question is, but this kind of approach shows a willingness on your part to work with them.
Footnote: while each question in an interview might be there for a different purpose, *every* question is also a *de facto* test of communication skills and collaboration style.
If I have to choose between working with the candidate who says "I couldn't do the thing you asked me to do, so I did nothing", and the one who says "I couldn't do the thing you asked, so I thought about what the next best thing would be, and did that instead"... I probably want to work with the latter.
Footnote #2: since none of us are perfect at divining the intent of such questions, especially in the pressure of an interview, it is important to phrase this as an *offer* (note the "if that would be relevant?") rather than assuming this is the correct interpretation and going straight on to answer one's own version of the question.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: This question is designed to ask you how you deal with conflict. It's a standard interview question outside of academia, and it can be very important in hiring decisions. Your interviewers have adapted it to an academic setting in a narrower-than-usual way - outside of academia, the question would just be "How do you deal with conflict", specifically to avoid the situation you're in. The "your supervisor" version may also be intended to reveal how intellectually independent you are, by giving you a chance to talk about a time when you realised something your supervisor didn't believe.
The correct answer is to describe a time when you convinced your supervisor of something. That is, think of a time when you had an idea that your supervisor initially didn't think would work, but you eventually convinced them (or they eventually let you try it despite thinking it wouldn't work, and it did). Explain what your idea was, why your supervisor didn't like it, what you agreed on, and how that vindicates you. This shows that 1) you have your own, good ideas, 2) that you can argue for them, and 3) that you can listen to other people's input and take it on board.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: What they are asking is: "Everyone has conflicts and different ideas. Tell me about how you communicate and negotiate with other people when these conflicts arise".
They weren't asking about you and your professor, but how you interact professionally. The better way to answer is to come up with an example how you had a conflict with a fellow student who you were doing a big project on, or conflict at work outside of Academia.
Any big time conflict and how you resolved it would have been acceptable. Something like "Well, me and my professor got along rather well, we sometimes had small disagreements, but let me tell you about when I was doing research with a fellow student and had a huge conflict that almost cost us months of work..."
These questions are asking you how do you operate, how do you organize, how do you communicate, how do you resolve problems. More people than you'd imagine don't keep notes, or schedules, or have any regard for their colleagues, and the interviewers are trying to weed out those people.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You (like most people) have a very high bar for what is called conflict. Especially if it was solved amicable. And how it was solved is what the interviewer wants to hear. So lower that bar until you find a conflict. Let me start with the lowest possible bar (and increase):
* One time my supervisor wanted to eat lunch with me and proposed canteen X, while I wanted to go to canteen Y, I ...
* I prepared the draft for my first paper, but my supervisor thought it should be revised substantially, I ...
* When discussing research directions/implementations my supervisor had a different idea/didnt like my idea, I ....
These things have to be thought out before the interview, look for the biggest (resolved) conflict you can find, and tell it (if you look good how you solved it, otherwise pick another conflict)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: This is something that stumped me when I first started interviewing for jobs — I figured they asked questions because they wanted the answers. So I gave short, factual answers. I've had to learn that interviewing is much more like an improv game, where they give you a prompt and you talk for a few minutes about it.
Every question you answer is an opportunity to show something about yourself. The factual information matters, of course — they're taking notes, so don't lie — but what's going to stick with them afterward is what talking with you *felt like*. They're going to forget the facts (since they can reread their notes later), and they'll just be left with that impression. You're painting a portrait of yourself with your words.
Given that, saying, "I don't have an answer," is possibly the *worst* answer. Not only are you not giving them the information that they (nominally) asked for, you're also passing up an opportunity to talk about yourself!
So when you get a question like this, what they're really saying is, "Talk to us about conflict." Anything you have on the subject is fair game, as long as you're showing how you approach conflict — e.g., how you get along with difficult people, how you de-escalate, or how you try to understand different viewpoints. I'd take the specifics of "with your supervisor" as a suggestion. If you have something, great! Otherwise, start widening the search criteria until you do have something. If not a supervisor, maybe a senior colleague? Coauthor? Instructor? And if you haven't had Conflict (with a big C), what about disagreements? Intense discussions? Misunderstandings?
In the end, I think what's most important is just to talk and be earnest. Make it a conversation. You're helping them to understand who you are and why they should like you, not filling out a form letter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Yes, it is bad, because *they* think your answer to the question will elicit relevant information about you, and declining to answer is almost always considered a completely negative score.
On the other hand, it is not a question I would directly ask as a seasoned and professional interviewer. Perfectly sane people are often stumped and embarrassed by this kind of very confrontational (and boringly generic off-the-shelf) questioning.
So you were not interviewed by a very professional team, which I am afraid is the norm in academia.
A professional interviewer (usually the HR representative, who is in many cases the only one in the room with high-quality training in personnel interview techniques) will only proceed to "how did you handle this" when in the course of a previous answer the candidate brings something up that hints in this direction.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: This question is standard and not gotcha. Conflict is normal, how you handle it is important. I would neither like candidate that avoids conflict on all costs by holding back their opinion nor a candidate that use everything to create conflicts.
It is also perfectly fine if there were no big conflicts especially people with little experience.
In my case, for over 15 years I had no real conflicts in a sense of a **real** conflict. But then I had.
I can share this situation in an interview, tell how things went, how I would try to react in a better way in case such situation arised in the future.
Also I can share about situations of disagreement, which is sort of a conflict. This would also count as a reasonable answer if I interview.
This question is also an opportunity to show that you are a honest, confident and have the ability to learn from your own experience. There surely is risk as well that the interviewers will not like you for whatever reason. But then maybe you don't want to work there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I've answered similar questions with general principles on how to manage conflict, rather than describing specific cases. One principle is that prevention is better than cure. ;)
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/18
| 1,223
| 5,013
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have 2 last names due to my hispanic background. Soon, I will have to think about my very first publication (field: Medicine/Psychology). Could I use only the first last name for my publishing or will I get into legal trouble with that?
My goal is to avoid hassles after marriage, since we are planning to fuse our last names. So, assumed that my maiden name is <NAME>, after marriage I'd be called <NAME>, and my publishing name would be <NAME>.
Is that possible, or is it mandatory to use the entire last name for publishing?<issue_comment>username_1: You can use whatever name you want. If you want to publish papers as Ms Hamster, that's fine too.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You can use any name you like for publishing - even a pseudonym. You are wise to consider the future so that publishing will always be under the same name, simplifying searches and keeping the maintenance of your reputation simple.
In some ways, keeping a birth name as your official "professional name" is the simplest for most people.
And people who are active in more than one field, might want to use different names in those fields, just as novelists often do.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: It is perfectly legal and possible. In fact, many people face a dilemma when changing names due to marriage or any other reasons (e.g. some people change names when immigrating). I personally know people still publishing under their maiden name (which is legally not their name anymore), just because they started to publish before getting married and want to maintain their "academic identity".
So go ahead and use only one of your names. The only thing to consider is: maybe there are several other A. Smiths (even in your discipline), but no <NAME>. If that would be the case, you might consider publishing as <NAME> anyway and just keep publishing under your maiden name to avoid confusions.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: As the other answers pointed out, it is good to think what name you will use for your publications. You should try to stick to that name also for presentations and other official uses. People might get confused otherwise. I know a very well known person, how publishes with his first name, but writes emails and gives takes with a kind of nickname. I know several persons who were excited to attend a talk by him, were disappointed that he was a different person as the first name did not match - and they did not realize that it was him using his nickname.
It could happen that people don't find your academic page, hesitate to contact you, if they cannot find your "publishing name".
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I agree with the other answers that it's a good idea to already think about what name you will use in the long term, and to strive for consistency - and that there are no "rules" you could break here.
I would propose yet another possibility: since it sounds like your marriage is already planned for certain, you could already use the name you will legally use afterwards. That way, there will be no confusion between your "publishing" and your "normal" name.
Of course, if the wedding gets canceled, you are stuck with a publication under a name you may not want to be reminded of. You will be the best judge of that.
Alternatively, either push back the publication, or pull forward the wedding. You could also submit under one name and take the decision under what name the final publication appears later in the publishing stage - any editor will understand a late change under these circumstances.
(Fun fact: my wife and I married right before she published her first papers, exactly for name consistency.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I dont see any legal issues. As an example, [<NAME>](https://dblp.org/pid/67/5036.html) has over 10 publications to its name, and Ekhad is a made-up last name.
Well, the entire name is [made-up](https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/%7Ezeilberg/ekhad.html).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: There are no laws dictating the names you can or cannot publish under. Your choice doesn't even need to have any relationship with any name you have or had in the past. If you want to sign your articles as "The Physcho Boss", you will struggle with your reputation, but not with a court of law.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: As someone who has a complicated name by non-French standards, please make sure to use something simple, without à or ñ. Sooner or later they will be rendered as "Ma*error*ana" and you will cry. Yes, you will get an erratum but it is too late. Been there, done that.
Maybe today there are fancy ways to link an ID to a name but still, I would go for "<NAME>" instead of "<NAME>" if you refer to yourself as "Anita" in the everyday life.
And use that version everywhere, insist at the university your full name is "<NAME>" on papers, publications, email and whatnot.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/18
| 484
| 2,084
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated university (UK University) a couple of years ago with a first. My friend is currently enrolled at the same university and was struggling with an assignment I had completed and still had a copy of. I let him have a look at it to help him but he ended up copying some of it and it was flagged by turnitin. The head of governance at the uni has emailed him and heavily implied that he knew that I gave him a copy of my assignment.
I spend the whole morning googling potential repercussions for a graduated student "colluding" and am now terrified that my degree might get revoked or my file will be tagged for misconduct.
Does anyone know what the repercussions could be??<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know what honor code you agreed to, explicitly or implicitly, when you studied. It is possible that, under a strict code, collusion, even after graduation, could result in loss of a degree, though I doubt it.
But if the university treats it as a serious matter, they have little hold over you other than degree revocation. Whether they choose to do that is up to them and their lawyers.
Since you were explicitly helping him with an assignment, rather then general help for the course, it might be difficult to claim innocence. But it is only the university that can answer specific questions about this.
You might explore what sort of honor code is expected of you. That may be available online.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I highly doubt that you will face any consequence more serious than being blacklisted from that university for future enrollment. You've already graduated; I'm sure they dislike you sharing answers with current students, but that hardly seems like justification to revoke a degree that you previously earned. If they do contact you about revoking a degree, lawyer up. Sharing answers to old homework problems does not seem like reasonable grounds for claiming that a degree was granted incorrectly.
On the other hand, your friend will probably face the standard consequences for plagiarism.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/18
| 935
| 3,708
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student at a large public university in the US. I am working on completing my defense and trying to graduate before the end of the summer term. I found out recently, rather accidentally, that the university's official account had blocked me on social media. This is presumably because I had posted critical comments on a number of their posts.
**Are public universities allowed to do this?** I believe this violates some federal precedent based on President <NAME>, where he was made to unblock politicians he disagreed with on social media. I would like to address this for the sake of future students.
**If I pursue this, is this likely to harm my academic career?** I am concerned about potentially starting a legal battle with the university since I hope to graduate soon and am currently asking for letters of recommendation. The last thing I would want is for a professor who would disagree with my take on a certain issue in favor of the university's position and have that affect possible letters of recommendation.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Can a public university block me on their official social media
> account if I am a student and/or employee?
>
>
>
De facto: yes. De jure: we don't know (see username_2's answer and the comments), but I don't see a compelling reason against it.
>
> I am concerned about potentially starting a legal battle with the
> university
>
>
>
Then don't.
>
> But I'm not sure I should even worry about it because of how close I
> am to graduating and whether it will affect my job search.
>
>
>
Starting legal battles simply because of political disagreement or because you cannot accept being blocked (after a twitter fight with you using multiple accounts) means there will be a public record of behavior which many people will find unpleasant. Such a reputation can obviously affect future job prospects. To avoid this, don't do anything which earns you a this reputation (i.e., let it go).
>
> At the same time, even if it will have no long-lasting effect on me, I
> don't want the problem to go unaddressed for other students.
>
>
>
As you only found out "rather accidentally" about being blocked, there seems to be not that big of a problem. Possibly other students avoid this situation by avoiding posts which get them blocked in the first place.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If you want legal advice you should hire a lawyer. I'm surprised to discover this, but from a cursory reading of [Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019.07.09_Opinion.pdf) and reports on the decision, it sure looks like it would apply to public universities. If that's the case, then public universities would be quite restricted in the reasons they could use to block accounts. Of course, we don't know why they blocked you, and it's possible they did so for reasons unrelated to viewpoint. But I'm not a lawyer, and it's quite possible that there's a key point I'm missing here, and at any rate the issue has not yet been litigated so it's impossible to give a certain answer.
As to whether it's a good idea, username_1 gets it right on this point: there's no possible good that this can do you, and a lot of potential for harm to you. This is especially true if your posts in question are insulting or otherwise paint you in an unprofessional light. If they're genuinely unoffensive content, then probably suing won't harm you much, but it'd still be expensive and time-consuming, and some people might be nervous about interacting with someone who brings lawsuits at the drop of a hat.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/19
| 651
| 2,714
|
<issue_start>username_0: I published a paper, the code for which is uploaded in GitHub.
Is it possible to add the GitHub link as an entry in Google Scholar? If so, can the citations be monitored in the same way as regular publications?<issue_comment>username_1: Google indexes things by crawling the internet, you don't usually add things to Google except to help collect the things Google has found into your personal profile (you can also manually add items to your profile that Google has not indexed, but I do not believe these will appear in searches by others or have any other functionality besides appearing in your profile; see also <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/143964/63475>).
Generally, if there is a paper that goes with some code, people will cite the paper rather than github. If they link to github this will probably be in their *code*, not their paper, and isn't an academic citation but rather *attribution* as often required by the license you distribute your work under. There are even particular journals like <https://www.jstatsoft.org/index> that primarily publish papers that describe/link to software packages.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The way with dealing with github repositories in a citable way is to draw a DOI from Zenodo. Zenodo allows you to create a tag or release in the github repository and make that citable.
I don't know specifically whether google scholar indexes that, but at least it is something you can put into a list of references.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There are two aspects:
* In your profile, you can manually create any kind of entry you would like to, including GitHub repositories.
* However, the citations of your GitHub repository will probably not be tracked, because Google only tracks citations of things that it considers as actual publications (and which are maintained independently of your profile). From all I have seen, GitHub repositories are not among the kinds of items whose citations are tracked.
Instead, you might want to give people a hint to cite the associated paper. To this end, add a disclaimer at a prominent location in your repository's Readme.MD file:
>
> **Cite as:** (bibliographic information for the associated paper)
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You can cite the URLs of your repository with @misc in your BibTeX file
(see <https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/35977/how-to-add-a-url-to-a-latex-bibtex-file> )
If your goal is to receive indexed citations, the clean way to do it is to write in the beginning of your README something like:
"This repository contains the code relative to [paper]. Please cite [paper] when referring to this repository."
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/19
| 638
| 2,725
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently got a paper published. One of the affiliations (for the 4th author, more precisely) is right but it has a misspelling in the address of his university. The right address is "University X, Street y, no.1780" but we published as "University X, Street y, no.1879". Is it problematic enough to ask for a corrigendum if the other data about the affiliation (without the number) is right?<issue_comment>username_1: This mistake does not matter at all. In the extremely unlikely case that anyone is actually going to use this particular address to send physical mail to your co-author, it would in all likelihood still reach them.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: You should not do anything about this. Nobody will use this information for anything.
Do not assume your coauthor was responsible. It could be the journal.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: It happened to me in a recent paper. Luckily this was not yet printed and only in the "first online" format (but after final approval of myself and co-authors).
The mistake was that they (not sure who "they" is whether the editors or us) had placed San Francisco (California, USA) in China and it appeared as "San Francisco, China" in the official paper. The mistake was only noticed a few months later by a colleague.
I reached out to the editorial board mentioning it and they changed it almost instantly. Again, this was prior to printing, but already beyond final approval by the authors.
In any case, I don't think it matters too much. I doubt anyone reads it. I'm sure I don't.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I have several papers where my university affiliation has changed after acceptance but before actual publication. Another reason I use my gmail and not university email for email contact - it tends to be a bit more permanent.
The affiliation address (I believe) is mainly for your university to get credit for the research done there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: So i'll echo what the others said and say the don't worry about it and do nothing. Also your not alone, I once tried to work out which universities where citing my work. I gave up when when i realized it was more surprising when two papers agreed on the same address for the same department than when people got the address wrong. Its amazing how many ways people can format (and spell) their own departments address wrong.
At least you spelled the universities name correct (which is the main thing to get right, as if anyone cared to send you a letter though the post then I assume the University would be able to eventually find you even if some of the numbers where wrong), which is more than some people accomplish.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/19
| 1,309
| 5,431
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a Ph.D. student in Germany, what's the maximum allowed holiday time per year?
I heard of 1 month per year.
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: The answer will be specified in your job contract, stipend agreement or whatever source you get money from. Most PhD students in Germany are employed under one of the collective labor agreements (TV-L, TV-H etc.), according to which a full-time employee has a right to [30 days of paid vacation per year](https://www.oeffentlichen-dienst.de/tv-l/urlaub.html).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the answer given by username_1, I think it is worthwhile to point out the following points more explicitly, since the comments indicate that there is some confusion about the status of PhD students at public universities in Germany.
**Disclaimer:** The following information is certainly far from comprehensive. I'm also far from being an expert for any kind of legal questions, so beware of the usual rule: If you want legal advice, you have to ask a lawyer.
Strictly speaking the question is not well-posed since a status as a PhD student does not constitute a status as an employee of the university. More precisely, the system works as follows in Germany:
* In general, being a PhD student only means that you have agreed with your advisor that they will advise you while you do research on a certain topic which is intended to result in a PhD thesis. Sometimes (though not always) this is accompanied by somekind of formal agreement between the PhD student and the supervisor (there's the wonderful bureaucratic notion "Betreuungsvereinbarung" for this in German). Many PhD students are also formally enrolled as PhD students at their universities (although this is not always the case).
However, none of this gives the PhD student a legal status which is comparable to a contract of employement. In particular, merely being a PhD student does not include any concrete obligations concerning numbers of working hours, or the legal obligation to carry out any particular tasks assigned by the advisor. Conversely, this also means that there is no such thing as "vacation" for a PhD student - simply since there is no contractual obligation to do any work from which a PhD student could take a vacation.
Employment - and thus, vacation - enters the game when it comes to the question of funding. Typically, there are three ways in which a PhD student in Germany can make for a living:
* The PhD student gets a job a "scientific employee" ("wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter" in German) at the university (strictly speaking, the employer might not always be the university itself, but sometimes the federal state where the university is located; but this is probably not too important here).
Such a position can either be a so-called "Landesstelle" - (i.e., it comes from a pool of positions which are permantly at the disposal of individual professors, and it typically comes with a certain amount of teaching duties), or it can be paid for by a research grant (in which case it does typically not involve teaching duties).
In each of these two cases, a PhD student with such a position is employed as a public servant and thus, a collective wage agreement for public servants applies. As a consequence, the employee (i.e., the PhD student) is entitled to 30 days of paid leave per year (those 30 days are *in addition* to public holidays, for which all employees are also granted paid leave in Germany, no matter whether they are employed in the public or in the private sector).
* The PhD student wins a scholarship which funds them for the time of their PhD. Such scholarships do not constitute an employement contract in Germany. In particular, the concept of "vacation" is not well-defined since the PhD student is not an employee.
Of course, this does not mean that the PhD student has to work all the time. Since there is no employment contract, there is, again, no legal obligation to work a specific number of hours or days, and thus, the PhD student can of course "take days off" by simply not working on some days. (Although the regulation for the scholarship might contain some terms which require the PhD student to "put a reasonable amount of effort" into pursueing their PhD, or something similar - but this will be much less specific than what is defined in an employment contract.)
* Finally, there's also the possibility to do a PhD and to do, at the same time something completely different for a living. For instance, a PhD student might be employed part-time in the industry. In this case, the student will of course have a contract with their employer for this job, which again entitles them to a certain amount of paid leave (by law these are, independently of the employer, at least 20 days per year for a full-time job - which are, again, granted in addition to the paid leave for public holidays. Many companies grant more paid vacation, though (often 30 days), and some are even obliged to do so since this is required by some collective wage agreements with unions).
But since, in this case, the job is completely unrelated to the PhD position, so is the vacation. The question how much of their time the student spends on their PhD is again not subject to any contract of employment in this case, so again it is not possible to talk about "taking vacation" (in a legal sense) from the PhD studies.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/19
| 485
| 2,165
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently submitted an article containing several images from other publications. I made sure to give the appropriate attribution both for open access images (including stating e.g. CC BY 4.0), as well as those I asked permission for. From those sources I had to ask permission for, some had clear and lengthy requirements as to how I had to attribute (e.g. permission obtained from / name of journal / name of paper / year / name of all authors / copyright / copyright holder).
After my article got accepted, I received a message from the journal editor to proofread the article and to change the image attribution and limit them to: "reprinted with permission from [1]. Copyright / year / copyright holder", and even only "reprinted from [1]" for open access images.
In short, the journal asked me to omit a lot of the information that I am actually supposed to (or even legally required to, if I understand correctly) attribute to use the images in question in a sound and appropriate way.
So my question is: can I insist that the correct attribution remains with the images even if this is against journal practice, or is this something that regularly happens and in case the copyright holders complain, the journal (and not I, the author) can be held responsible?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know whether you can insist on the exact wording the copyright holders asked for, or whether you should, or whether you or the journal faces legal consequences if you don't.
I suggest you write the editor quoting the specific requirements directly as they came to you in support of your wish to honor those requests. If the editor says no and there are consequences that's the journal's problem, not yours.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: One option you have is to go back to the copyright holders and tell them of the issue, including what the editor suggests. That might make the problem go away or, at least, reduce it a bit.
With that information you can go back to the editor and try to negotiate any additional issues. It takes a bit of time, of course, but so do most things in publishing.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/19
| 1,087
| 4,520
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some journals require authors to submit a photograph and a short biography to go along with the publication.
The question I have is: Would it strike you as weird if said biography had a gender neutral tone, using "they/them" pronouns? As in, could a non-binary author that is not out use those pronouns and not have a conversation (comments by advisors/co-authors) occur? Would it be something that could be passed by without a second glance?<issue_comment>username_1: The answer is: it would probably strike most people as weird, odd or different, yes. But: that is not a bad thing, as all change will probably at first inconvenience a not inconsiderable amount of people.
And if every non-binary or otherwise happier-without-gender-specific-pronoun person would start doing so, then maybe in a few years time, it will not be odd anymore but normal. So while it may take some courage now to admit you non-binary (or whatever else) status to a bigger audience, it will pave the way for those to come.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: As a reader, familiar with the gender-neutral usage of *they/them*, I wouldn't consider it weird. Beware, however, of two facts:
1. Papers are read by international readers with different levels of English who may not clearly understand the usage.
2. Frequently copy editors (e.g. I'm familiar with IEEE on this) heavily edit the biographies to adapt them to the publishers' editorial styles: sometimes, I have found that in doing so the copy editor introduces significant errors (because e.g. they do not understand local information). So, if you submit a biography using the pronouns *they/them* check carefully the proofs and be prepared to ask for changes defending your choice.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Certainly, some people may find it weird or ask about it. However, it is also true that if you ask to be called by they/them pronouns when meeting in-person, some people may find it weird or ask about it there. My advice is to use the pronouns that you are most comfortable with when writing a biography about yourself.
You can also write a new biography for each paper, meaning that you can use different pronouns on the biographies for different papers, if your preferred pronoun changes.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> As in, could a non-binary author that is not out use those pronouns and not have a conversation (comments by advisors/co-authors) occur?
>
>
>
It seems to me that as soon as a person uses the pronouns they/them to refer to themselves in a journal publication, they are effectively outing themselves as someone who uses those pronouns. So, an author who wishes to maintain their status of being not out might want to avoid such a move. If they go ahead with it anyway, people may notice, and there are no assurances that they will not make any comments about it.
In other words, if one is going to come out selectively or gradually, the pages of a journal are maybe not the best place to start from.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I think it would stand out, but only in the sense it might read like a plural "they". Using "they/them" for gender still seems very context-oriented. Articles about an avant-guard artist can do it without confusion, often giving an extra hint. But just today I saw a business news article with something like "<NAME> invented the technology, they are...". It only took a moment to consider it as a genderless pronoun, but I had to pause -- it seemed just as likely I'd somehow skipped the paragraph explaining who John's partner was, or "they" referred to the technology.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: A decade ago this would have been extremely weird and stick out like a sore thumb; while it has been common for some time to use they/them when the referrent is unknown, it was unusual for a known person. But in the past few years recognition of non-binary genders has become much more common. I've heard that some conferences even ask registrants to specify their preferred pronoun, and will include it on the name tag if desired.
So in many contexts, it is becoming common to accept people's preferred form of address. I would be surprised if any journal would object to using the author's pronoun prefecences these days.
I'm answering this from a US perspective. I expect there are some other cultures where this would be less acceptable. I'm sure the journal editors will let you know if there's a problem.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/19
| 1,458
| 6,157
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let me start with the following remark (which surely I am not the first person to bring up). When things work as it should, to get a job one usually needs to prove that one is competent in doing that job. For instance, for teaching at any level between primary school to high school, you need to have been trained as a teacher (for the appropriate age group and subject). This suddenly breaks down at university: courses at university, particularly the advanced courses, are mostly taught by professors, who in order to get hired need to prove that they are competent enough... no, wrong guess: not in teaching at university, but in doing research. I will never completely understand what the reasons for this are, and where the assumption that good researchers also teach well comes from (evidence to the contrary abounds). Mostly historical reasons, I guess. Nevertheless, I do not want to discuss the reasons for the status quo any further here, and I am not claiming that it is necessarily always problematic. Rather, in this question, my aim is to find out whether there are any universities, and particularly pure mathematics departments, that do things differently.
Here is the background information: I am a PhD student in pure mathematics in continental Europe and I really enjoy teaching at university level. I would even like to do this as a full-time job. But I am not sure that I want (or could) go on to do research as a post-doc in pure mathematics until eventually becoming a professor.
Some clarification: I know of the existence of some rare full-time teaching positions at some mathematics departments, but they are usually either non-permanent, or relegated to teaching courses for prospective high school teachers or basic courses that need to be taught to really many students (also from other scientific subjects). Nothing against these positions, but it is not the kind of positions that I am asking about here.
Now the question:
>
> Is anybody aware of any university that has permanent, teaching-only (or mostly-teaching) positions in pure maths (including advanced courses)?
>
>
>
In other words: Is there any place where one can make a living out of teaching at a university? Or does one really need not be a full-time researcher who by contract is obliged to do some teaching as well?
Answers about universities all over the world are welcome, as I believe that different countries have very different traditions in this respect. But I am mostly interested in universities in Europe (including UK, about whose criteria/system I don't know much about).<issue_comment>username_1: University rankings are usually based on the expertise of their faculty. The way faculty show such expertise is by being recognized experts (recognized for their research) in certain topics. Therefore, top universities prioritize hiring faculty who are productive researchers. Most universities want to know that the faculty they hire are ready to teach also, but since faculty are hired for their expertise, having extensive teaching skills does not replace having research skills.
There are many "teaching-oriented" schools where faculty often teach a 3/3 course load but are not expected to do research. There are also non-tenure-track "teaching professor" positions at top universities for departments who need professors to cover required classes but do not have enough TT faculty lines. Both of these types of positions typically come with lower pay, and teaching-oriented schools usually do not have the competitive rankings of research schools. I don't know how common these positions are in Europe, but both are common in the US.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In the UK, what you're looking for is called the "teaching and scholarship career pathway" (distinguishing it from the "teaching and research career pathway"). A jobs.ac.uk search for the word "scholarship" reveals quite a few vacancies on the teaching and scholarship career pathway.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: **Finland**
Though the horrible tenure track system is gaining ground, maybe you can also find some positions as yliopistonopettaja or yliopistonlehtori (university teacher or university lecturer). Knowledge of Finnish (or maybe Swedish at the west coast) might be required.
There are also so-called universities of applied sciences, that is, professional higher education facilities which give out mostly bachelor degrees. There is engineer studies there. Knowledge of Finnish (or maybe Swedish) is almost certainly required.
**Norway**
There is a researcher career path, postdoktor-førsteamanuensis-professor, and a teaching path, lektor-førstelektor-dosent (but note that the equivalent of "dosent" means a very different thing in Sweden and Finland). I have a førsteamanuensis position at one of the newer, more profession-oriented, universities, and there are lots of people on the teaching path here. There are also professional higher education institutues, høgskoler, here, which employ same kinds of people as universities do. Lots of teacher education at these institutes. Knowledge of a Scandinavic language is very useful for getting these jobs.
The way I got here is that I had a PhD in mathematics and teacher education elsewhere, moved to take postdocs in Scandinavic lands and picked up the language(s), without which I would not have gotten this job.
**In general**
I would recommend figuring out if there is the equivalent of bachelor-level education that employs mathematicians (maybe engineering, finance or teacher education) and also take a look at relevant faculties in the less prestigious universities. I do also recommend seeking for postdocs as a back-up plan; they will allow you to move around while employed and get familiar with academic culture, organization, and the language of the country you move to. It is hard to get teaching jobs without knowing the language and hard to even know if and where they exist without knowing the culture.
Getting some explicit teaching education would not hurt, either, or even studying didactics or pedagogy.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/19
| 1,429
| 5,780
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my childhood, I have had ADHD. My last visit with a psychologist was over a year ago and he said ADHD is gone and now is filled with anxiety. I agree that I might be anxious sometimes.
My problem is one thing: There are things, courses I do not like, and do my best to procrastinate them and even if I commit myself to do them, I get distracted surfing the web and social media. I also close them but open them later.
In contrast, in those courses in which I'm interested, I have good focus (maybe hyperfocus) and have good efficiency. The problem is that most part of the university doesn't amaze me and hence it is boring and my efficiency is low.
I'm currently an honors bachelor's student and I'm doing good. But how could I increase my efficiency in doing tasks that I HATE? As you know, a bachelor's degree is filled with miscellaneous courses
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: Here is what got me through Undergrad:
* Sit in the front row, even if you stick out like a sore thumb.
* Write down everything the professor says by hand. Don't type it out, just write.
* Focus on one subject at a time. If writing a paper, just write that paper for a couple of days.
* Turn off your phone. If you don't need a laptop for the class, don't bring it.
* A spiral notebook helps you focus more than a binder. Loose pages are the enemy.
* Avoid scheduling classes in the evening or around times where you would rather be doing something else.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just as a preface: ADHD is a spectrum, you might not have it anymore or maybe it just diminished enough to not meet the threshold. Don't feel like you have to be perfectly focused at all times.
Here are a few tips that help me deal with my symptoms:
* **Use detailed todo lists:** Split tasks in *VERY* small chunks, probably smaller than you think. I find that starting tasks is the hardest part so making each task easily doable helps to get going. Depending on how you feel on a specific day, it might be as small as "Read paragraph X". Plus, crossing off items gives a nice little dopamine boost which helps keep going.
* **Use the pomodoro technique:** Set a timer for 25 minutes and start working immediately. After that 25m, take a 5m break. You can keep a piece of paper nearby and note down unrelated things that come to mind during the working period and check them during the break. Just be careful to get back to work after the 5m, it's easy to get distracted.
Lastly, don't be too hard on yourself when things don't go great.
It's easy to chastise yourself with things like "if only I worked harder...", "if only I was more motivated..." and fall into a vicious circle. **Keep in mind that ADHD is a neurological disorder, not a personal failing on your part.** When things dont go great, take a moment to calm down and start again. It's hard and you'll need to put in a lot of effort, but you can learn to live with it and succeed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist to see if you need prescription meds? I don't (for mental health) but I could see them helping some people.
Apart from that, I personally motivated myself by saying "I (or my parents) paid a lot for me to take this course, so I want to pass it!". Such a self-statement may help others, and make things worse for some people, so do what is applicable for you.
To me, music actually helps me study, but his also will vary from person-to-person.
Some people study better in a group, for me, (except for watching training videos) I do better strictly alone.
So do what works for you.
My daughters are not taking a full load at college, but only a partial load. Again, you would have to decide what works for you, and what is best for your situation.
Best wishes to you (and all who read this).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: My ADHD trick for social media is to use my ADHD to restrain my access to it.
First of all I deleted all Facebook/Instagram/LinkedIn/etc applications from my phone. This worked decently until I started using web browser to access them. For that, I changed my password to one that is very long, has special characters and there is some uncertainty in them ("Was the last word upper or lower case?"). Of course I logged off and prevented my browser from remembering passwords for those services. With this setup it became **incredibly** tedious to log in (ADHD does its job here). Of course, if I needed to access a class facebook group, I could do it (but ideally from an incognito card, so I am logged out on close). However, when I picked my phone during classes and subconsciously went to facebook.com, I faced the wall of having to guess that password again. This effectively killed the habit.
Things got a bit problematic when I joined a sports club which utilized facebook a lot for announcements. Without a constant access I was cut out of the context most of the time. What worked really well was to simply set up a second account "Firstname LastnameSports", add no friends, and link my main account in the profile picture. Unfortunately, this way I have access to the default facebook wall, but thankfully with no follows and friends the content is so dumb and boring that I don't have any urge to use it.
---
Regarding the general problem of sitting in a class and paying attention, medication really helps. Just note that there are different substances and it is advised to figure out which one works the best. A caveat to that is that, at least for me, they work much worse, if not sometimes negatively, while I am hungry. They also lower appetite making things more tricky. A good thing is to remember to stay well fed, and to always have some water around you.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/19
| 1,062
| 4,013
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a researcher, I often need to quote from the previous authors. Sometimes, it happens that there are spelling mistakes in the part I want to quote. I treat this as a human error and write the correct spelling. However, I am unsure how should I handle if there is some (relatively) serious error? For example, I found the word *choosed* (instead of chose). Should I simply copy with the wrong word, or fix it?
If I change it, the previous authors (from whom I took the quote) may be unhappy. If I do not change it, the reviewers (who would be reviewing my paper) may be unhappy by seeing my lack of care while writing a paper.
This question is different from [this](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/331626/where-does-the-sic-go-in-this-sentence), as I am confused whether or not to correct. Since I am writing a formal paper, I cannot use *sic*.
*Originally asked here <https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/567310/grammatically-wrong-quote>*<issue_comment>username_1: On both the original EL&U post and this one, people have asked "why do you believe that you cannot you use "[sic]" in a formal paper? On the EL&U post, you wrote:
>
> I don't [sic] about other areas, but in science/technology where I work on [sic], [sic] would be considered a cheap way to discredit others. It is acceptable/understandable there will [sic] be editorial mistakes (the paper is about some other topic, and it is fine so long [sic] it makes unambiguous sense). In certain cases, [sic] where we see [sic] the result is indeed wrong, we say it politically correctly (e.g., we are not able to reproduce the same result [quotes missing in original]). In all likelihood, pointing out editorial mistake would be taken badly by the community.
>
>
>
So the perceived issue is not really about formality, but about offending the original authors. And indeed, quotes with many mistakes will require many instances of [sic] (as above), which hinders readabilty and, I agree, seems rather passive-aggressive.
On the other hand, [you absolutely must not "fix" quotes](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/94282/quoting-a-typo-do-i-really-have-to-do-sic-or-can-i-just-fix-the-sentence). Even benign changes can cause problems; for example, think about how many well-meaning editors might change "iff" to "if" in a math paper. It is probably acceptable to insert missing words in brackets [like this], but that's probably as far as you can go.
So, to your question, I would suggest the following:
1. If there is a single mistake you could either use [sic] or (in the case of a missing word) insert the missing word in brackets. No reasonable author should be offended by this.
2. If there are many mistakes, you should probably not quote it at all. Instead, summarize it in your own words. As a last resort, if you absolutely cannot avoid quoting a lengthy, error-ridden passage, you could say something like "[spelling and grammar errors in original]"; this would at least reduce the awkwardness to a single sidebar rather than peppering the quote with [sic]s as I did above.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You can certainly use [sic] in a formal paper. There are plenty of contexts where [sic] is too formal (it is, after all, Latin), but I can't think of any where it is not formal enough.
If there are multiple mistakes, I see no reason why you can't just put a single [sic] at the end of the quotation, and this is much less distracting than peppering them throughout (this also avoids the danger that you fail to spot one of the errors, leaving the reader to worry whether you introduced it). Using [sic] simply attests that you have reproduced the quotation exactly. You don't need to indicate which part(s) you have reproduced exactly, because that should always be "all of it".
If you are using LaTeX, you could even include "sic" in the citation with `\cite[sic]{MyRef}` after the quote, which will appear as e.g. "This sentence has a typos" [4, sic].
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/19
| 1,333
| 5,589
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a new assistant professor. My department is very weird — a combination of very different fields. An associate professor sent out invitations for her students' dissertation defense to all the faculties in my department. Should I attend them?
She is not in my research field and none of the topics are related with my research, so I ignored them. However, one of my friends (who is at a different university) says that I should attend them to show my interest. So I am unsure.
Any thoughts and advice will be truly appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: It's normal to advertise PhD defenses broadly in some systems; in many cases defenses are open to the *public* (at least in part; detailed questioning by the committee is often separate), but as in [just about everything in Academia](https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie#4478) this varies by university/field/country.
It's not expected that everyone that receives such a notice/invitation should attend, but there may be some benefits for you in doing so: you see how defenses are carried out in the department, you learn what your colleagues are up to, you participate in the community of your department.
There are also advantages for the student. I'm in an interdisciplinary field myself, and while I don't understand all the details of research for people in areas further from mine, it is expected that a thesis defense cater to both a broad and narrow audience. Someone who can fit in the same department should be able to get *something* out of it, even if it isn't narrowly in their research field. PhD students in my program were even required to have one outside person from the department on their thesis committee (not outside the university, as is common in some other areas, but outside their field of interest) to help encourage that breadth of target audience.
I doubt everyone in your department attends every thesis defense in the department, but one good way to find out is to *just show up for one*. Hopefully you'll learn something new, and maybe you'll have an opportunity to ask a useful "outsider" question. I think it's extremely unlikely you will suffer any direct harm from not attending (that is, I doubt anyone will see it as rude or keep a written tally of who doesn't attend defenses), but you might miss out on opportunity.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally there are different customs at different places, and it is never wrong to follow those in such situations. Where I used to work, the principles were roughly these:
A. E-mails are sent to all staff members, so this is not an invitation but rather information that the defense will take place.
B. You should come to the defense (if you can, of course, that is, you have time and such) if (one yes is enough):
1. you are interested in the work of this particular PhD student;
2. you are specifically asked (in person) by at least one other staff member to come to the defense (can be in the form of "are you going to this defense?");
3. the PhD student asks you to come (this never happens, but...);
4. you (actively) collaborate with the supervisor (promoter) of the PhD student.
I am not saying that this is a perfect system, but it worked quite well and was never made public explicitly (as a PhD Defense Attendance Code or something similar), so I suppose it has more in it than just a set of arbitrary rules.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: 1. If there are only few defenses per years, you should consider attending. Every one is a big deal.
2. Whether the field is different or not does not really have an effect in the beginning. If it is close to your interests, you can learn something and maybe it will scientifically useful. If it is far from your interests, you can get an idea of what those people do, which seems valuable, as you are in the same department. Maybe it is even interesting. Note that the value of getting familiar with the exotic goes down after you have attended to a few seminars or PhD defenses and the field is no longer quite as exotic for you. Then it becomes more a matter of interest.
3. For the social expectations, consult your mentor or colleagues. These vary enormously from country to country, and vary even from university to university in smaller countries, not to speak of the larger ones. In a comment <NAME> added that it also varies from department to department.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm with Bryan. At UT Austin, my department (Aerospace Engineering) had public defenses, and for popular students, lots of people came to support the student. I went to several in my last couple of years just to see how they were run. The non-committee members and the examinee were thrown out of the room after the student's presentation so that the committee could grill them. Then the student was thrown out into the hall to await their decision or they were immediately congratulated and the signature page was signed. Hard-core friends waited in the hall for the results and to be further support.
If you go in advance of the time of the talk, you might get a chance to ask a fellow faculty member if they are public events (except for the grilling), and then you'll get the opportunity to watch how your new school conducts these events. I would want to see a couple of them before I had to be on a committee or lead one. At the same time, you'll get to meet a few of your new colleagues from across the department that work on different things.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/20
| 923
| 3,826
|
<issue_start>username_0: Per title. Undergraduate tuition often costs tens of thousands of dollars per year, but postgraduates are commonly paid a stipend. Not a lot of money, but still much better than having to pay for tuition too.
Why do undergraduates pay, but postgraduates are paid? A first guess is that postgraduates contribute to the "output" of the department so they deserve to be paid, but that doesn't seem like a complete explanation because [the number of students taught is also an "output"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104796/what-generally-happens-if-a-department-is-unable-to-attract-students).<issue_comment>username_1: (US-specific) As was pointed out in the comments, grad-level professional programs generally do charge tuition, often a lot of tuition. Many academic master's programs do too, as do arts master's like MFA and MMus.
But very few people would make the commitment for an academic PhD if they had to go deep into debt to pay 5+ years of tuition in order to earn an assistant professor's salary (if they're lucky) at the end of it. Even lower-ranked law schools have been having trouble attracting students because most lawyers just don't make enough money to pay back the loans.
Universities can recoup some of the cost of having grad students by using them for teaching and lab duties, but having a grad program is overall a money-losing proposition. They do it because it enhances the reputation of the university and because faculty want to teach grad students (and want grad students to do the work they don't want to do).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: PhD students are paid to do work.
Undergraduate students pay money to learn.
There is nothing similar about these situations. You can tell because PhD students who do their research and teaching work, but do not learn anything (perhaps because they knew the material it already) continue to get paid. A PhD student who learns but does not do teaching or research work will not continue to be paid. A portion of the PhD students' pay may be in the form of education.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You're looking at it the wrong way. Both undergrads and grad students are charged tuition by the university. This tuition is used to pay faculty, administration, operating costs, etc. *Some* undergrads receive full or partial scholarships. You might say they are not "paying" for undergrad, but the university is still getting paid, just from a different source. The same occurs with grad students; many of them are given research assistantships, meaning that their advisor found external grant money and is using it to pay both tuition and a stipend to the grad student. Grad students without teaching or research assistantships, such as many MBA or law programs, still have to pay tuition out of their own pockets.
Teaching assistantships are not external money, but essentially a department is saying that they have to pay someone to provide instruction, so it's cheaper to pay grad students to assist a professor than to hire more faculty. The university is still getting the tuition paid by the department.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: In addition to the other fine answers here, I think a more general answer is that, as with other markets, price is determined by **supply and demand** (and any distortions in the market). Looking at things from this economic perspective, the main reason why postgraduates are more likely to obtain substantial amounts of scholarship support than undergraduates is that postgraduates have far better employment options than undergraduates, so you need more money to attract them away from these available alternatives. (In economic parlance, the supply curve for postgraduate 'labour' is higher than for undergraduates.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/20
| 1,181
| 5,047
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a very objective person and I don't mind constructive criticism.
I have submitted a research paper to an IEEE journal with high reputation.
The co-authors of this paper have broad experience in this field with hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. Hence, the paper is of good quality.
I provided the implementation along with full theoretical and experimental analysis of the proposed novel algorithm, so they can replicate the results and make sure that we are genuine.
The reviews were as follows:
1. Reviewer 1: Very positive feedback, highly appreciated the work, its novelty and quality.
2. Reviewer 2: Wasn't very clear for them about the contribution of this work with respect to this journal. With some very few minor feedback.
3. Reviewer 3: Same as Reviewer 2.
The Associate Editor decision was: Two of the reviewers think the contributions of the proposed method are not clear ---> **Reject**!
This is not the first time I submit a paper and reflect upon the feedback. I already have accepted paper in high reputation IEEE journals.
The decision was as a shock to me!
I've seen worse reviews/feedback, yet the Associate Editor usually goes with a Minor or Major Revision.
I truly believe that we deserve another chance to make the contribution "clearer" as much as they want.
Is this normal? Should I appeal to the decision? Should I go to another journal since I didn't get a real feedback to improve the paper, and most likely the other two reviewers were too lazy or lack of required knowledge to evaluate the paper?
Your advice is very much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: Based on your description I suspect an appeal will not work. That's because you are not disputing the reasons that went into their decision, you are only disputing the decision. But they have already made the decision. Saying "your reviewers were right, but your decision was wrong" is not likely to change their minds.
To have a real chance at changing their minds, you need to argue that their reasons for rejection were wrong, e.g.:
* Reviewer said X, but X is provably incorrect, because [reasons].
* Reviewer said this topic isn't worth spending time on, but your journal published [these papers] on that very topic.
* Reviewer said your manuscript doesn't explain Y, but it does, and here is the paragraph.
That's not to say you can't appeal - you can if you want to - it's just that it probably won't work.
I think, based on your description, the best course of action is to rewrite the paper such that it's clearer, then submit to another journal. See also [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5865/what-to-do-if-reviewers-reject-a-paper-without-understanding-the-content?) about the same situation where the reviewers didn't understand the paper. You can also ask the two co-authors, they should be experienced enough to offer suggestions on what to do next.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Wasn't very clear for them about the contribution of this work with
> respect to this journal
>
>
>
2 reviewers out of 3 had this feeling. The editor, considering these reviews and possibly some private communications, decided that in spite of the title and the abstract you provided at the submission stage, the paper in itself does not align with the goals/topics/focus of the journal and it would be not of interest to the readers.
It seems to me that you can submit the paper, including the minor reviews, to a different journal and be confident it will be accepted.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Was it a reject or reject-resubmit? There is a big difference.
I have been an AE for two IEEE journals. One journal follows the standard accept, reject, major revisions, and minor revisions publishing paradigm. Poor-quality papers are often desk rejected, with the option to resubmit if the idea is good. "Me too" papers that propose minor enhancements are frequently desk rejected. Those papers that make it to the review stage are typically not rejected unless there are major issues with the paper or suspicions of plagiarism.
The other journal follows a different approach. It uses the reject, reject-resubmit, minor revisions, and accept paradigm. Any paper that is good, but basically not in a camera-ready format, will be given a reject-resubmit designation. It doesn't matter if all of the reviewers are in agreement about accepting the publication; it happens if there are any changes that the reviewers want made. Reject-resubmits are frequently issued to stop the review clock and hence game internal publication metrics.
I'm not a fan of the latter approach.
If your paper was actually rejected, then address the issues that the reviewers raised. Prominently highlight those changes in the paper and your comments to the reviewers. Then have your co-authors help draft a letter to the EIC if they think it's worth appealing. If not, then just take the responses in stride and submit the revised paper elsewhere.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/20
| 796
| 3,112
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let's say in a paper when I am talking about a theorem someone else proved, I state the result in the exact same way, word for word, as in their paper. Is this considered plagiarism? I would still give credit and citation to the result, just that I don't paraphrase the statement.<issue_comment>username_1: In mathematics, often there are highly optimized/perfected statements of theorems. It would be silly to alter them (introducing damage?!) just for the sake of avoiding exact quoting. Cite, that's all.
That is, unless you have something to add to their idea, there's scant point to changing the wording... apart from the risk of mis-stating them!... just to meet a sort of fake goal. Cite and acknowledge. Be honest. With citation, what could possibly be the objection to quoting a perfected assertion of a good theorem?
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is not plagiarism if it is cited and credited correctly.
What would make it plagiarism is obscuring or hiding the citation or referring to the work of others in a misleading manner.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The first sentence on the [wikipedia article for plagiarism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) reads:
>
> Plagiarism is the representation of another author's language,
> thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.
>
>
>
If you state a result or definition that someone else came up with, (in your own words or theirs), and say that you came up with it, then that's plagiarism.
If you state a result or definition that someone else came up with, (in your own words or theirs), and properly attribute it to the original author, then that's not plagiarism.
Things are a bit different when talking about "classical" results, if I would have need to state, say, the fundamental theorem of calculus, I would either:
1. state the theorem in my own words and give no attribution,
2. copy the theorem from e.g. a textbook and give proper attribution.
The point here is that in this case there is no risk of me giving the impression that I'm trying to pass off the result itself as my own.
Further, in the case of 1, I am actually using my own words, so there is no risk of plagiarism. In the case of 2, I am using someone else's words, and thus give proper attribution.
It should be noted that plagiarism is distinct from, but related to, copyright infringement.
If you directly copy a passage of text (or piece of music, etc.), no amount of correct attribution can absolve you of copyright infringement. However, this does not mean that you can never copy text directly. Doing so might be considered fair use, or you could have permission from the copyright holder, or the work might be exempt from copyright in the first place.
In general, you should make sure that you commit neither plagiarism, nor copyright infringement.
(In the above example, I would feel confident that copying a single theorem from a textbook, and using it in a longer work would not be copyright infringement, but I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/20
| 947
| 3,788
|
<issue_start>username_0: My question has some similarities to [Should I omit some of my qualifications in my application materials to “surprise” with during an interview?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/36824/should-i-omit-some-of-my-qualifications-in-my-application-materials-to-surprise). However, in my case, the additional "surprising" information came after the application was submitted, so there was no chance for me to include it from the beginning.
Let's say (for a teaching-heavy job) that I received an amazing teaching evaluation after submitting my application, or I came up with a teaching plan that addresses the department's recently updated course curriculum.
I guess that I can in any case *mention* this information, but I thought about giving it a bit more focus, since that information might be really useful for landing the job. Therefore I wonder: Would it be appropriate to prepare some materials that I would show live during the interview?<issue_comment>username_1: In mathematics, often there are highly optimized/perfected statements of theorems. It would be silly to alter them (introducing damage?!) just for the sake of avoiding exact quoting. Cite, that's all.
That is, unless you have something to add to their idea, there's scant point to changing the wording... apart from the risk of mis-stating them!... just to meet a sort of fake goal. Cite and acknowledge. Be honest. With citation, what could possibly be the objection to quoting a perfected assertion of a good theorem?
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is not plagiarism if it is cited and credited correctly.
What would make it plagiarism is obscuring or hiding the citation or referring to the work of others in a misleading manner.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The first sentence on the [wikipedia article for plagiarism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) reads:
>
> Plagiarism is the representation of another author's language,
> thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.
>
>
>
If you state a result or definition that someone else came up with, (in your own words or theirs), and say that you came up with it, then that's plagiarism.
If you state a result or definition that someone else came up with, (in your own words or theirs), and properly attribute it to the original author, then that's not plagiarism.
Things are a bit different when talking about "classical" results, if I would have need to state, say, the fundamental theorem of calculus, I would either:
1. state the theorem in my own words and give no attribution,
2. copy the theorem from e.g. a textbook and give proper attribution.
The point here is that in this case there is no risk of me giving the impression that I'm trying to pass off the result itself as my own.
Further, in the case of 1, I am actually using my own words, so there is no risk of plagiarism. In the case of 2, I am using someone else's words, and thus give proper attribution.
It should be noted that plagiarism is distinct from, but related to, copyright infringement.
If you directly copy a passage of text (or piece of music, etc.), no amount of correct attribution can absolve you of copyright infringement. However, this does not mean that you can never copy text directly. Doing so might be considered fair use, or you could have permission from the copyright holder, or the work might be exempt from copyright in the first place.
In general, you should make sure that you commit neither plagiarism, nor copyright infringement.
(In the above example, I would feel confident that copying a single theorem from a textbook, and using it in a longer work would not be copyright infringement, but I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/20
| 523
| 2,017
|
<issue_start>username_0: For ATER positions in France, is the teaching always in French or it depends on the university? I've written to one or two departmental contacts for ATER position, but they replied that the teaching was in French, so I ask.
If I've to look for a teaching position in France at a university level that's not a 'poste de vacataire', what are my options?
**A bit of background if anyone is kind to read:** I'm in a bit of difficult spot as my permit will run out in a couple of months, but I love France and I'd like to stay here. Ideally of course I'm looking for a research position in statistical/mathematical machine learning (more specifically geometric learning) but I'm keeping myself open to teaching positions if the research positions don't show up quickly enough. But the "postes de vacataires" don't usually sponsor a work permit, unlike postdocs and ATER, so my question in general involves resources for teaching positions in English in France at a university level.
Thanks a lot!<issue_comment>username_1: Usually, for ATER positions, the teaching is in French. This is essentially due to the fact that for such positions, the majority of the teaching is done bachelor degree, and the number of classes in English at this level is really low. It is possible that an ATER is in charge of a class at Master level in English, but it will not cover the majority of the teaching duties (96 or 192 hours per year).
There are also ATEN positions ([see](https://universiteouverte.org/2020/09/18/aten-quesaco-un-nouveau-type-de-contrat-precaire-a-luniversite/) here for instance) where you are not supposed to do research, but you have to do 384 hours of teaching.
But there are also some offer of post-doc. Maybe you are already aware of [this site](http://postes.smai.emath.fr/postdoc/).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The only case in which you would teach in English would be if you were an ATER inside a language department and you taught English as a subject.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/20
| 764
| 3,335
|
<issue_start>username_0: Do any of the academic search engines provide a way to limit a free text search to just those papers which are cited by a particular paper? In normal google, as an analogy, you can append `site:bbc.co.uk` to your search string to only get results from the bbc.co.uk web site. I have checked the Google Scholar advanced search settings and there is no such facility.
My motivation for this question is that I am trying to track down a definition to where it has either a) been first used, and/or b) defined in the fullest terms.<issue_comment>username_1: I do not know of a tool with such functionality built in, but with automation (using a tool like iMacros or Selenium), you might be able to obtain the result you seek. (Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of my answer to explain how to use such a tool, so I understand that my answer might not be useful if you do not already have such skills and are unwilling to learn them.) The procedure might be something like this:
* Navigate to a web page with the full list of references of the article whose references you want to search. This should be in a full text database like EBSCO, ProQuest, etc.
* For each listed reference, use the automation tool to copy the title, authors and date of the reference.
* Use the automation tool to search for the referenced article in the database. If you enclose the title in quotation marks, the first article that comes up should usually be the referenced article that you want. But you should use the automation tool to record the full citation details of this first article so that you can manually verify later that it is indeed the article that you wanted. (This latter step is important!)
* Use the automation tool to click on the first article that comes up, then search for the words you are looking for.
* Use the automation tool to save whatever results you want.
* Finally, double check the list of full citation details of the articles that the automation tool actually searched on (that is, the first one that came up for each search) to make sure that they are the correct articles you intended from the references list. Whenver you found that the automation tool guessed wrong, then manually search for those articles.
Again, this answer only helps if you know or are willing to learn automation tools. (If you do choose to learn a tool just for this project, you will probably find that it opens new opportunities for lots of projects in the future, so it might be worth your time.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: In a [separate answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/167976/20418), I proposed learning an automation tool like iMacros or Selenium to help you. If you do not have the time or will to learn such a tool, but you have a modest budget for your research project, another option would be doing the same procedure but instead paying a human to do the "automation" for you. A good site that I have used to successfully recruit such people is [Fiverr (search on "research assistant")](https://www.fiverr.com/search/gigs?query=research%20assistant). As long as you give very clear instructions, you can get quick, decent results. However, I sometimes hire two independent assistants to do the same task so that I can use each to double check the quality of work done.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/20
| 764
| 3,280
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a 3rd year physics PhD doing high energy theory.
This field has two large communities -- phenomenology and formal theory. I am interested in formal theories.
Faculties hired with either background join the theory direction of the department. Not until I had already fixed my advisor, I found out he mainly does phenomenology, which requires simulation more than derivation and math.
My advisor asked me to join some projects, without asking me if I am interested. Most recently, even though he asked me if I am interested, he did not understand my tactful refusal.
We talk every several months about my career. He believes that doing simulation for phenomenology is the only path to success (that is being hired eventually). However, I am extremely not interested in this path, and would rather quit academia if I would have to do simulation.
As I said, my advisor mainly does phenomenology, but not completely. He is able to give me theory projects, but not willing to do so. When I tell him I wish to do a certain theory topic, he asks me to look for questions myself and eventually discourages me out of it.
I am extremely discouraged and spend most of my time arguing with him virtually in my head.
Should I explicitly tell him I don't like the future he plans for me? I tried several times with tactful wording. He couldn't get my point and ended up persuading me harder and harsher.<issue_comment>username_1: You should clearly and explicitly state to your supervisor what you want to work on, and realise that this may not be possible in their team.
Once your supervisor knows what you want, they may be able to help you find a different supervisor to collaborate with during the remainder of your PhD, if the proposed research is not possible in your current group.
Of course, there is the possibility that your supervisor is right: maybe the theoretical problems you are proposing to work on are not publishable, or too difficult to complete during the time you have. This is something you can talk about with them. Maybe it is possible to work on your topic of interest, if you can convince them that it can be completed in time, that it is publishable, and preferably related to the current research topics of the team.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you have three options. Any of these might work for you as they have for others, though they aren't equal in effect.
The first is to go along with your advisor's advice. I can't judge it, but whether it is good or bad, it might get you to your degree quickly and you could then move in a more theoretical direction later, once you have established yourself.
The second is to tell him directly of your desires. Perhaps they will support you, but maybe not and, worst case, they might drop you. Bad, but not the end of the world if you can find a different advisor, even at a different institution. Loss of time, perhaps.
Third, you could just drop the advisor proactively and find someone else, perhaps at a different institution. Hard, but do-able.
But what should *not* be an option is to silently try to subvert them and just stumble between worlds. That will probably lead to no good result. You need to get to a stable position, whatever it is.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/20
| 614
| 2,642
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working as software developer in a company. I had filed one patent and published one research paper. I want to apply for Master's in a top university (like NUS at Singapore or German universities) next year. I am working on some new IOT projects and deep learning ideas. What is more beneficial to get admission in Master's at a top university:
**A Patent or a research paper on an idea/project?**<issue_comment>username_1: The best answer, I think, given so little information, is "it depends". But for things of equal quality (however that might be measured) a paper might hold a bit more weight, given that academia is more about ideas (papers) than products (patents). The specific university department, however, might have its own ideas about the balance.
There is also some controversy about software patents, that you are probably aware of.
But it is quality and innovation that will be the important consideration for most.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A patent won't matter to many universities or degrees, but to technical ones of course it might be quite impressive, particularly if it turns out to be a key innovation for a relevant sector. Assuming patents matter at all, there is no one answer to your question. But there are many factors to consider:
* Having more than one kind of contribution, showing flexibility is often good, so well done so far. I mention this here for others who might not already have one each.
* Now that you do have one of each, you should look at quality, not just quantity. How good of a paper? Where was it published? How many authors are on the patent? You might see a way to strengthen your credentials in one of those areas.
* What kind of degree programme are you trying to get into? Could another paper or another patent illuminate more or different of your relevant strengths to that programme than your previous output?
* Finally, don't forget that your present employer can matter a lot, not only if you don't get into the programmes you want, but also for letters of reference. So if it seems like a coin flip to you, ask your boss which they would prefer you to work on.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Both are good ways of showing your talents and productivity. However, something to keep in mind is that a patent often takes 2-4 years to get approved from the time a patent application is submitted. Until then, it is just an application, and difficult if not impossible for academic departments looking at your CV to evaluate (more so than an academic preprint, the analogous thing in the context of journal publications).
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/20
| 783
| 3,266
|
<issue_start>username_0: Many of the students I teach do not have English as their first language. Also, my English tends to fall on the British (Australian) side of the divide, and I'm teaching in US institutions. Sometimes, this has led to misunderstandings of exam questions during standard exam conditions.
The pandemic has led me to move my exams to being oral exams (taken online via Zoom, Discord, or Teams). This allows me to correct these misunderstandings at exam time.
However, more recently I've moved to [**publishing my exam paper before the exam**](https://kootsoop.medium.com/open-exams-and-brackets-71e89ffc1d41) (making it "public" to the class). I generally include far more questions than can adequately be covered in a given oral exam, but I make it clear that only a subset of the stated questions will be asked of the student. I generally release the exam two weeks before the exam period.
This allows me to address any misunderstandings to the whole class well before the exam. My only rule regarding answering student questions about the exam before their oral is that my answers must be in front of the whole class --- either in class or on the class discussion forum.
Does anyone have an educational reference for this approach to exams? Or whether there is a term for "open exam" exams?<issue_comment>username_1: *(Too long for a comment, but not really an answer…)*
I unfortunately do not have a term for this particular practice, but I've seen similar organization in two higher education institutions in the United State. The approach was as follow:
1. Release a "Homework", containing ~20 small exercises and ~3 longer problems,
2. Answer any question about it in front of the whole class,
3. Have a written quiz (1 or 2 weeks later) that contains ~5 of the small exercises (with, at times, small changes),
4. Later on during the semester, pick longer problems from the homework set and have the students solve them during exam (again, with possible small changes).
The "homework" were not due nor graded, but "smart" students would understand that the incentive to complete them was present nevertheless.
I'm not aware of any term to describe this way of doing, but I find it extremely beneficial, for multiple reasons:
* it allows to clear any misunderstanding, as you noted,
* it allows direct and meaningful feedback,
* it helps soothe students' stress (after all, they "know" what will be on the exam),
* it is an iterative process (if you missed / did not do too good on the quiz, you can still go back to the homework and practice again for the exam).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: [This](https://www.keele.ac.uk/catalogue/current/pty-20042.htm) module specification from Keele University uses the name "oral seen examination" for a procedure that I think fits your description. In particular, 'based on formative development of case scenarios introduced within the module' in the module specification appears to correspond to 'address any misunderstandings to the whole class' in the question; and 'random allocation of case to be discussed' in the module specification appears to correspond to 'only a subset of the stated questions will be asked of the student' in the question.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/20
| 1,738
| 7,240
|
<issue_start>username_0: I don't think I have a concrete question to ask but I want to hear other researchers' opinions. I am pretty sure that there are many researchers who went through this and others will go through it in the future unfortunately.
I am a postdoc researcher with a limited contract and aim to apply for professorship positions. Therefore, I am actively submitting papers (working more than my contracted hours as there are no PhD students to co-supervise and publish papers with) to come up with a good and long list of publications. However, a lot of my papers are getting rejected with a huge disparity in the reviewers' scores. As a reviewer in almost all conferences I submit my work to, I find that my submission is better or equal to top accepted papers (I don't know whether this is a bad lcuk or just an illusion).
I focus mainly on top conferences with acceptance rates of less than 30% or 25%. I was almost sure that my last paper would be accepted because I am an expert in the area and because I learnt to assess paper quality, but it got rejected a few days after another rejection. Now, I am doubting my research capability (although I used to publish easily to these conferences when I was a PhD student). I am wondering whether I am a bad researcher or just an unlucky author.<issue_comment>username_1: This sounds like a pretty common case of the human condition. In my single days, I used to think of dating like "strikes and gutter balls". That is, either I was getting many dates in rapid succession or going through a prolonged dry spell. In the former, I was feeling pretty good about myself and was quite down in the latter.
In my current research days, I find a similar emotional oscillation. This is the nature of research, in my opinion, and it builds character. You actually sound quite productive, and the results will come. In fact, I would encourage you to try to get more enjoyment from the process of seeking truth rather than putting all your eggs on the often opaque 'accept/reject' decision. If I may with another analogy, it's like learning golf. It's a slew of mishits, duffs, shanks, slices, hooks, flubs, and ineptitude until suddenly you smash a beauty down the fairway and are the envy of your friends. If the one great shot makes up for the many bad shots, you're hooked. If not, you're probably going to quit.
Also, pragmatic advice holds: get sleep, review diet, practice self-care, take mental health breaks, seek advice from colleagues/advisors, confirm writing and presentation adequately represents results, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is likely that you are neither a bad researcher nor an unlucky author. The repeated rejections you describe are common in academia: even for the best postdocs it can be a long process to get papers accepted, and it is really (really really) hard to get a professorship (depending on the country and field of study).
Of course it is hard to know what is going on without further information, but reasons for the rejections could be, for example:
* a less than perfect match between conference/journal subject and submitted paper,
* a research subject that is not "fashionable" enough to be accepted by the best journals and conferences,
* conference organisers and journal editors could be biased towards people they know or have met before,
* you are focussing too much on A\* conferences, maybe accepting a "lesser" conference or journal could get you started,
Also, there is more than one way to get a professorship: experience in the private sector is often highly valued, getting noticed during a non-tenured teaching position (with a percentage of time allocated for research) is a possibility, and looking for positions outside your home country could also help (if your personal circumstances permit this, of course).
In addition, there are other very nice jobs that are not professorships (arguably, there are many better jobs). It is not a failure to find a job in the private sector or to take a different (research or non-research) position at a university. It may help to look a little broader than focussing on the professorship alone.
Finally, as mentioned in the comments and other answer(s): get some rest: working 16 hours per day is not healthy and not productive. You (anybody) will perform better when they are well rested. It is better to focus and concentrate for 8 hours per day (or even less) and you will get more done than in 16 hours while tired.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: There is nothing called a bad researcher or an unlucky author. Getting a paper published or in general, having a successful career is less to do with sheer talent or hard work and more to do with management. Most successful academicians are excellent salesmen. And becoming an excellent salesman requires training.
My Ph.D. supervisor has 1000 papers to his name and sits on numerous committees and gets a felicitation every odd year. He has close to $15M funding currently. He gets funding not because of his technical expertise but because of his mastery in writing, connections, and excellent man-management. I hate that but it is the system we work with.
He is a bad researcher but a highly successful academician. I say bad because I did my Ph.D. under him and had to ignore him and rely on my co-supervisor because he simply does not know any of his research areas in-depth; but could talk for hours on the future possibilities, research trends, and research directions like an expert. He spends all his time collecting specific keywords from his connections and thanks to his excellent communication skills knows how to weave a story to get the funding.
My supervisor is an extreme case. But to be a good academician you need to get many things right. So firstly start collaborating. Appear as a second or third or tenth author in a number of papers. Look for A\* conferences but also submit some ideas to A- and B-ranked conferences. Start building a citation network. It is criminal to engage in I cite you-You cite me, but this is how a large number of academicians thrive. You need a high H-index in your job application and for future promotions.
You are living on the other extreme. Spending long hours in a dingy room, alone working like a mad scientist won't get you anywhere. You may be good at what you do but that is simply irrelevant.
Find a balance between these two extremes. Once you are established as an academician, focus on your research, your style. You need to spend a few years doing this drill. Who knows, maybe a Turing award or a Nobel awaits you. But, even Nobel laureates or other award winners, win their prize only when recommended by their colleagues: People like my supervisor.
Be it academia or any business only people who communicate, collaborate, and establish quid pro quo relationships, thrive. Talent, scientific expertise, in-depth knowledge of a field are secondary.
In conclusion, it does not matter if you are a good or bad researcher. You need to take certain actions to become a successful academician. And believe me, those actions are a lot easier than solving a complex problem, which I assume you are good at.
Best of luck!
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/20
| 1,656
| 6,802
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have created a course independent of the community college I substitute for. I contacted the CE department about a year ago to see if my course would be something I could offer as a CE course at the college. They were excited and after several meetings my course is scheduled to begin this fall.
However, there have been a few red flags that have me concerned that maybe the college will try to take my course and teach it without me being the instructor. No compensation for all the hours creating the course has been paid. Besides substituting for one of the technical programs, I am not currently a paid staff member. They did not ask me to create the course for the college, I came to the department with the course already created.
I guess my question is: how do I ensure they don’t take the curriculum as property of the college if something goes sideways?<issue_comment>username_1: From the terminology you use ("community college") it sounds as though you are in the U.S., so standards/laws are a bit familiar to me:
First, since you certainly did not create that material as a part of your employment, by even broader international standards your *eventual* employer does not "own" the intellectual property rights to it.
Second, in the U.S., *mostly* faculty\* creations are not considered to be owned by the university, though with patentable stuff there may be some insistence on sharing. But there is the technical issue of "who is faculty?" Conceivably a college/university would want to rationalize that not-so-traditional-faculty are doing work-for-hire, which, in the U.S., would exclude them from the protections otherwise given to faculty. *BUT* since you'd done the work prior, I'd imagine ("I am not a lawyer") that they'd have no claim.
The more mundane issue of whether they could re-use your course notes, overheads, homeworks, exams, etc., is more dependent on specifics. If you've put them on-line, then of course anyone can literally capture copies of them.
If the question is whether they can somehow *compel* you to surrender all the material, ... I'd think the answer is "no".
But/and if you've already given the administration copes of all your stuff, without clear rules for its use, it's hard to know what they'd imagine they could do with it. Unfortunately.
Can you clarify your situation?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you do not agree to any contracts and accept no money from the community college, you can be sure you retain the copyright to your work.
Otherwise, copyrights are governed by the faculty contract or faculty handbook. These documents may or may not say that course materials are the property of the community college.
>
> No compensation for all the hours creating the course has been paid.
>
>
>
That is normal in American higher education.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm going to come up with a different answer.
Sometimes I've taken over a course from someone else. They've offered me their slides, exercises, questions, etc.
Sometimes I've stopped teaching a class, and I've offered my successor my slides, exercises, questions, etc.
I haven't been able to use anyone else's material, and I'm pretty sure no one has used mine. It's not much use - unless it actually tells you what to say, when I write a slide, I have some idea what I was going to say. No one else does, and they can often fail to make much sense of it.
They can't steal your course, your course is in your head.
(My favorite example of this was when we were giving a talk to prospective students. I usually did this course for our department, but on one occasion, a colleague did it instead. The colleague took my slides, and figured that these were going to be slides that introduced the department. What could they possibly say? I was told later by someone else who was there that there was a slide with a picture of my cat. My colleague said "And this slide has a picture of Jeremy's cat. I've no idea why." [I'm sure that it was there for a good reason, or to make a point, but I completely forget what that point was.])
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You have been getting different answers here because "create" is a rather broad and vague term.
Things like powerpoint slides, written exercises etc. are just part of teaching a class. The school kind of owns them by default even if your legal position may be stronger in theory.
If the overall idea and conception of the course is novel with you, I can well understand your frustration but unfortunately you have undermined your legal position by telling them about it. Because they can always maintain that they entertained very similar ideas long before you came along, and to be honest this may even be the truth.
If you created dedicated software, and particularly if it is innovative in some way or form, you have every right to feel ripped off. Your legal position is complex in this case and you should seek counsel.
But. A word of warning. The community college will not be very rich, but I bet you are not very rich either, and legal procedures are hell expensive. Obstinate clients is what buys a lawyer his second yacht.
So, if you do get ditched as an instructor, your best bet is to take your lumps and let it go. If you find yourself sitting at home, fuming and brooding and losing sleep, you will have to take a deep breath and go ask them why.
There may be a solid reason why you are not suitable. Take this away from the experience and improve on these points.
There may also be a reason that really has nothing to do with you as a person. E.g. Todd had already promised Brad that his second wife could teach the course. This is infuriating, but it is the way of the world.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: They pretty much have to "take it away from you". It's going to be listed in the course catalogue with a blurb. Right now you're obviously the only instructor (for one thing, there's no possible way your untested outline is good enough for another person to successfully teach from). But then it's on the books. If there's demand for it at a time you can't teach it, and if they have someone who probably could, of course they'll offer it w/o you as the instructor. If they need you to substitute for another class at the same time and also have an instructor who could probably teach "your" class, they'll try to do that.
And then from the little that my community college teaching friends tell me, any hint of "prima-donna"-ness is is the signal to quietly get rid of that person. The correct attitude here, from their PoV, is "I'm so glad to get this opportunity and look forward to working with you on it however it works out". Hard-to-work-with genius's can get tenure at a 4-year college.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/21
| 1,377
| 5,701
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been offered a place as a PhD student in an English-speaking university, however, I'm a little concerned that the department may be a bit broad and generic (not the project though; it appeals to me greatly and is specific to my interests). It's not a big university, and as a consequence doesn't really have a granular department/group structure.
When it comes to the concept of the work a PhD entails, I understand it well; however, (rather ashamedly) I am questioning my understanding of the relationship between the University name, the school, and the research topic in the formulation of the PhD title, as well as how one might refer to the degree in official situations. It was my understanding that, technically, a PhD should be a standalone demonstration of novel research, and can stand on its own merits without further qualification of which group/department you did your research under, rather than the department forming the basis of the answer to the standard sort of, "What's your PhD in?" questions.
For example, a *quite specific biology-related project* might be attached to a Biology Department, Computer Science department, or to Engineering etc. depending on the disciplines involved.
Would that individual refer to their study as a "PhD in *Biology Department*"/"PhD in *CS Department*" etc. on record, e.g. a faculty page/LinkedIn or would they more likely use "PhD in *A quite specific biology discipline*" based on the content of their PhD, e.g. viral microbiology or cancer bioinformatics?<issue_comment>username_1: For formal purposes, a university will make a specific designation, but it might be pretty general: mathematics, or humanities (terrifically broad, that last one).
But informally you can almost always say what you like. My degree is in mathematics according to the university, but my preferred designation is (mathematical) real analysis. Actually, I studied a lot of math just to pass prelims and I took quite a few topology courses as well. But my dissertation was in real analysis and that is what I'll say when asked. Even if it is fairly formal, such as a job application.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Most departments I am aware of award one PhD (as opposed to some that might award BAs and BSes, etc). So the math department will award a PhD in math, but the applied math department - if it exists - will award a PhD in applied math.
So formally, your PhD is in a broad topic, but any place it matters will give you space to elaborate.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this might vary across countries, but in Germany, you have to register as a PhD candidate in a specific department, with the department being more (or often less) related to the research topic of the PhD, but mainly being the department that your supervisor is in.
People then mostly say I did my PhD in *specialty of the department* about *topic of your research*.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In my experience, almost every time someone asks that question, the question that they actually want an answer to is "give me an abstract of your thesis, in a form which is understandable with my level of familiarity with the subject".
On paper, it's almost always "PhD, [broad subject]". Mine is "PhD, Mathematics" on my CV, for example.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: My Ph.D. isn't officially "in" any subject. Unlike my undergraduate degree from the same institution, there is no subject area on my diploma, and at my doctoral commencement, all doctorates in the school were awarded together, regardless of the departmental affiliations of the new graduates. However (especially earlier in my academic career), it was sometimes important to answer questions about what subject my Ph.D. was in. I was located in the mathematics department, in the applied math program. (The doctoral programs in pure and applied math had separate admissions processes and somewhat different requirements.) However, my advisor was in a different department (which was not uncommon for applied math grad students). When I was looking for jobs, I applied to positions in both applied mathematics and physics, and a explained that I had earned a "Ph.D. in applied mathematics," although my advisor has been in the physics department and my dissertation work was in theoretical physics.
For somebody doing computational biology (or whatever else), the appropriate answer to a query about the subject of the Ph.D. would be analogous. For example, they might say, "My Ph.D. is in biology, although my thesis research was on programming predator-prey models of parasitoidy, and my advisor was...," etc. This gives the official answer and also provides what is really the most important information that another academic might be interested in: What was their thesis work about?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: This varies by country (and perhaps by university), so there is no general rule. In the US, for instance, where I did my PhD, you're typically admitted as a PhD student to an academic program, and your PhD is "in" whatever that program is. In my case, I literally have a PhD "in linguistics", and this is written on all diplomas and transcripts issued by the university.
But in Norway, for instance, where I am now, you're not admitted to any program to do a PhD, you're hired by a department to complete a PhD, and that's it. Technically speaking, you don't get a PhD "in" anything here, you're simply getting a PhD degree from the school/university. Informally, of course, people say they're doing a PhD "in [name of field]", and many also put that on their CV, even though it's technically incorrect.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/21
| 1,801
| 7,203
|
<issue_start>username_0: When one encounters a journal one does not know, one way to obtain some information about it is via the journal's "aim and scope" in the journal web site.
However, I noticed that for many journals, this section provides virtually no information about the journal.
Here are two examples that I think demonstrate my question.
**Inventiones mathematicae** - this is clearly one of the best mathematical journals, generally considered one as the top 3 (or 5) journals. Yet, nothing about its level is mentioned in its aim and scope. Instead, it says:
>
> This journal is published at frequent intervals to bring out new
> contributions to mathematics. It is a policy of the journal to publish
> papers within four months of acceptance. Once a paper is accepted it
> goes immediately into production and no changes can be made by the
> author(s).
>
>
>
**Mathematische Zeitschrift** - while clearly not a top level journal, it is still considered a good general journal. Its short aim and scope contains a bit of history about the previous editors, and then says
>
> "Mathematische Zeitschrift" is devoted to pure and applied
> mathematics. Reviews, problems etc. will not be published.
>
>
>
In both cases, there is not even a hint about the level that the journal aims at.
My question is — why do journals make the choice of providing so little information about the type of papers they wish to publish?<issue_comment>username_1: No information is probably better than misleading information. Any journal can talk about accepting "outstanding contributions", or whatever, on their homepage, without actually having high standards in practice. If you want to know how good a journal is, their aims and scope is not a good place to look. Either go to some independent source (e.g. [Scimago journal rankings](https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php)) or (more work, but perhaps more reliable) have a look at what they've been publishing and try to get a feel for how strong it is.
Most mathematics journals, however, will be specific about which areas of mathematics can be published, or at least, as specific as they need to be. A journal that specialises in a particular field will usually say exactly what parts of that field they like (and don't like). Here's a random example:
>
> The research areas covered by Discrete Mathematics include graph and hypergraph theory, enumeration, coding theory, block designs, the combinatorics of partially ordered sets, extremal set theory, matroid theory, algebraic combinatorics, discrete geometry, matrices, discrete probability, and parts of cryptography.
>
> Discrete Mathematics generally does not include research on dynamical systems, differential equations, or discrete Laplacian operators within its scope. It also does not publish articles that are principally focused on linear algebra, abstract algebraic structures, or fuzzy sets unless they are highly related to one of the main areas of interest. Also, papers focused primarily on applied problems or experimental results fall outside our scope.
>
>
>
The journals you mention simply don't need to say anything about areas, since no area of mathematics is off-topic for them. If the paper is of sufficiently high quality, they will publish it. However, it's worth bearing in mind that some journals which do in principle publish in all areas still have preferences making the bar higher in some areas than others. A good way to gauge this is to search for papers published in that journal on mathscinet in, say, the last ten years, and see what proportion of them have the relevant primary classification (this breakdown is available with the search results). For example the figures for Inventiones are:
Algebraic geometry (126)
Dynamical systems and ergodic theory (89)
Differential geometry (75)
Number theory (70)
Partial differential equations
(45)
Group theory and generalizations
(41)
Several complex variables and analytic spaces
(38)
Manifolds and cell complexes
(31)
Topological groups, Lie groups
(22)
Probability theory and stochastic processes
(20)
Global analysis, analysis on manifolds
(19)
Functional analysis
(14)
Commutative rings and algebras
(11)
Functions of a complex variable
(11)
Nonassociative rings and algebras
(10)
Statistical mechanics, structure of matter
(9)
Algebraic topology
(8)
Quantum theory
(8)
Associative rings and algebras
(7)
K-theory
(7)
Fourier analysis
(7)
Combinatorics
(6)
Convex and discrete geometry
(6)
Mechanics of particles and systems
(6)
Operator theory
(5)
Relativity and gravitational theory
(4)
Mathematical logic and foundations
(3)
Measure and integration
(3)
Fluid mechanics
(3)
Field theory and polynomials
(2)
Category theory; homological algebra
(2)
Special functions
(2)
Ordinary differential equations
(2)
Systems theory; control
(2)
History and biography
(1)
Linear and multilinear algebra; matrix theory
(1)
Real functions
(1)
Potential theory
(1)
Approximations and expansions
(1)
Abstract harmonic analysis
(1)
Calculus of variations and optimal control; optimization
(1)
General topology
(1)
Statistics
(1)
Astronomy and astrophysics
(1)
Information and communication, circuits (1)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's not just mathematical journals: most journals do not specify a "level of significance" or degree of selectivity that they intend to operate at.
To understand why, consider the question from the editor's point of view.
At every decent journal, every manuscript starts with editorial review to determine whether it is worth the time of reviewers. Journals, like everything else on the internet, are under constant siege by a wave of incoming junk. In the case of journals, this wave is made of people required to publish for their jobs but who don't care, people doing bad science who don't realize it, scammers who want to claim their work is science, people pushing personal or political agendas, cranks and crazies, etc.
All editors thus have to make decisions about whether a manuscript is likely to be "significant" enough for their journal or not, and even "lower level" respectable journals are much more selective than you may realize. But that decision is inherently subjective and not subject to quantification. Consider: how would you meaningfully declare in your scope that "this is a mid-ranked journal that is sort of selective, not as much as the top ones but more so than these other journals."?
In practice, the de facto selectivity is just a dynamically determined product of:
* How many papers they are willing to publish per month, versus
* How large is the community that wishes to publish in the journal (combination of scope and reputation)
and an editor makes decisions according to their best understanding of that relationship.
For a megajournal like PLOS ONE, both numbers are high. For a "prestige" journal, the papers per month is low and the community is large. For a niche community journal, both numbers are low. And for a scam journal, the first is higher than the second.
Upvotes: 4
|
2021/05/21
| 443
| 1,767
|
<issue_start>username_0: I received admission to a Ph.D. offer in the US with an assistantship that would cover my tuition and living expenses for Fall 2021. At the same time, I received a 10 days consultancy contract with the WBG to be completed by the end of June 2021. This consultancy contract may be extended based on performance and needs. Now, I have always wanted to work for the WBG, but I am very confused whether I move on and accept the PhD offer while doing the 10 days, then withdraw from the Ph.D. if am offered a longer contract. Or, I just move on with the Ph.D. because contract extension is not really guaranteed. Bear in mind that I am an international student and I need to start the visa process to move to the US by fall. What can I do? Is it ok to withdraw from a Ph.D. after accepting the offer and before starting the classes?<issue_comment>username_1: In the US, you can withdraw at any time, even after starting. If you have signed a contract for some services, then you may have to deal with that, but most universities will let it go since those services can almost always be handled by other people.
People leave doctoral education for lots of reasons.
But I suggest you think long term about your career and whether a job is preferable to a doctorate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Bear in mind that I am an international student and I need to start
> the visa process to move to the US by fall. What can I do? Is it ok to
> withdraw from a Ph.D. after accepting the offer and before starting
> the classes?
>
>
>
That is the tricky part. Depending on circumstances, your visa may be linked to the PhD, it may even be a visa that prevent you from working. Too many unknowns to give you a specific answer.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/21
| 2,173
| 9,065
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am looking for potential PhD opportunites in engineering and I found a potential PhD supervisor. Personally, I plan on entering academia after my graduation. However, it seems that during the past 12 years, the professor had no students staying in academia after their graduation. I also found that some of the PhDs have very good publications in top journals and excellent experience in being a research associate but they all eventually entered the industry or even finance companies.
One reason for this might be that nearly all of these students were sponsored by industry. For me, I wonder if it is normal for a PhD supervisor to have no academic "descendants" in universities or other research institutes and if the professor is suitable for me if I plan to enter academia after finishing my PhD. I would appreciate it very much if you could give me some suggestions on this.<issue_comment>username_1: The first thing to bear in mind is that only 3.5% of those that graduate PhDs will end up in faculty positions. If one takes on a student year year of a 30 year career, that means that on average each supervisor will have one student that eventually becomes permanent faculty. This makes sense, as each supervisor needs to replace themselves with one person to keep the academic population stable. If on average, 1/30 students will go on to be faculty, 0/12 is not particularly worrying. Also bear in mind that 12 years is a very short time to make it from starting a PhD to making faculty in many fields. In biology for example, I believe the average time is more like 15 years.
However, it's not quite as simple as this, as some supervisors do have many students who go on to be faculty, so it stands to reason that there are some supervisors who will have none over their whole career. Some of this will be random chance, but my feeling is that the variance is too high to just be accounted for by pure chance.
Things will also vary from discipline to discipline. In some disciplines, the industry options are very attractive, in others there is not much to do directly related to your PhD other than academia. If you are in a computing or engineering field, it is likely that there are so many options that are more appealing than academia, that an even larger number of students than average will leave academia for industry.
In conclusion: it is not necessarily a red flag that 0/12 students went into academia, when that is what you want, but it is obviously more comforting if they do have students that have taken that path.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: To use a favourite word of <NAME>, your question *appears* somewhat jejune.
If you are primarily wanting to be an academic, you have to get as supportive an academic working environment as possible. While it is *physically* possible to have an A-rated academic research occurring within an A-rated teaching department, I do not feel that - in the present academic climate - it is *humanly* possible.
Your "researching" past PhDs at the professor's department is wise. But you do not say why you chose this professor particularly. Was it because of his/her research achievements ?
Have you sought out any other professors with a good record in producing academic "descendants" regardless of their areas of research ?
More to the point, have you conceptualized and put into words what you expect by way of mentoring towards a career in teaching and academic research from your would-be supervisor ?
Even more to the point, have you asked yourself what attributes you think you have that make you a worthy candidate for challenges and anticlimaxes of a career in academia ? I guarantee you that you will be asked this question if you ever do encounter a true academic whilst searching for a PhD supervisor.
You're not as jejune as you'd have us believe, I feel. You're too cute by far, if anything. I get it. You want to *avoid* the challenge of a genuine academic apprenticeship under a dedicated academic supervisor, get the PhD title from a 2-3 years outsourced and taxpayer-funded industrial research project and then proffer your candidacy on nominally equal terms to more honest candidates for tenure track academic posts.
In the old days when PhDs were scarce, you might pull this off. The odds delineated by other posters here should tell you that this attempt is just not on today.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: The idea of academic descendants is common in some fields and for a number of people, and you will find many answers around here that are written around this idea, suggesting e.g. to check the academic descendance, but in many other fields (e.g. in many branches of engineering) and for many people there's no interest for this.
First, beware that there are many more PhD students than academic positions, even more so in certain fields and certain areas of the world. So, most of the graduates, sooner or later will eventually end up in industry. Actually, this is one of the first things that I make clear to my PhD students and prospective ones: not to demoralize them, but because I think that keeping the feet firmly on the ground avoids many delusions in life.
Second, many people don't consider being an academic as a dream job, a goal to be pursued at all costs. For many people, it's a job like another, and if they cannot find a position in the area where they live, they move to industry to stay where they like. For instance, I applied to just one position, and if I couldn't get that one, I wouldn't have looked for another position elsewhere. And this is something I tell to my students too: be practical, don't be obsessed about an academic career.
And finally, there are professors who have many connections with the industry, who find PhD students who are interested in pursuing these kind of projects, and who frequently then get hired by those industries. Isn't this a form of successful advisorship?
Thus, don't take the lack of academic descendance by that professor as a red flag: discuss with them yours and theirs goal, and see whether they align or not, and then decide on the basis of this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Great to ask these questions. Many prospective graduate students don't.
I'm not in engineering, but have hopscotched STEM-related fields and between academia<>industry.
As others have answered, only a fraction of awarded Ph.D's stay in academia. So many or even all of someone's descendants leaving is not necessarily a red flag. But it is very appropriate for you to want to make sure your supervisor is a good fit for *your* desired career path. This is particularly true since, like it or not, connections and network matter in academia -- so an effective "placement engine" through the descendant tree may be quite valuable and make your life more challenging if unavailable. And a small but important number of advisors have quirks that make their students' lives more difficult, for instance pathological disorganization in writing reference letters, or an inability/unwillingness to match the tone of positivity expected of such letters in your field.
With all that in mind, I'd:
a) Look at this factor only in comparison with other advisors in your chosen (sub)field. If your prospective advisor has no academic descendants in 12 years and others have 80%+ of their students with academic jobs, it may mean something. If that field of engineering has had pent up industry demand and anaemic academic hiring demand for a couple of years, it may mean nothing.
b) Use it to focus your conversation with the prospective advisor. "I'm really hoping for a career that looks like this ... Do you see that as feasible?" "Have other of your students gone in such a direction?" "What do you think it will take for me to be successful in going on to ... from your group?" You're not being challenging and judgmental, but you're asking positive questions. You may be reassured by comments on how their students had academic offers but chose not to take them, etc. Or you may be very appropriately put off by clearly uncaring/uninformed, or even worse, defensive replies.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: It is perfectly normal, especially at lower-ranked schools. In engineering, there are many good opportunities for PhD graduates in industry. This professor has successfully supervised PhD students to graduation, so there is no reason to believe that you wouldn't obtain a PhD and be qualified for academic jobs.
That being said, I think some professors or programs are more successful than others at placing students. For instance, my advisor has less than 12 years experience, and so far 3 of his PhD students joined academia and 2 joined industry. Academic jobs are competitive and completing a PhD does not guarantee a position. I attribute my own success to my advisor's guidance. Advisors with a track record of placing students in academia may have more experience or better guidance for students who want to enter academia.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/21
| 373
| 1,478
|
<issue_start>username_0: A colleague scholar was an editor for my latest published article, in which I heavily used her work and cited it. She then sent me one of her papers, so I could review it informally and give her my comments on it.
At one point in the paper, one of my articles could fit perfectly as a citation. Is it ethical to suggest that she does cite my article? And how should I go about asking her? Directly in my comments to her paper?<issue_comment>username_1: [If the reference is pertinent](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/153888/31917), it's perfectly fine to suggest it. "Suggest" is key, rather than "ask":
>
> By the way, I've published a paper on the topic you're discussing in section three. Perhaps you'll find it useful. See attached.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If this were a "professional" review situation, that is, if you would review the article for a journal in a peer review process, then it would not be very ethical to suggest such a citation. Especially if the author of the paper might feel pressured by such a comment to add the reference to avoid the paper being rejected.
In your mentioned, rather informal, review setting is is perfectly fine to tell your colleague that you think your paper might add valuable insight to their work—she asked you for your feedback, this might include citation suggestions.
As Henning has already mentioned, be polite and not too pushy about it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/21
| 1,050
| 4,486
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've just completed the first year of a biological sciences PhD program and I still haven't chosen a lab for my doctoral studies since 3 of the labs I rotated in were not good fits and another had insufficient funding. I recently reached out to another professor and on May 13th we had a Zoom meeting wherein he seemed very interested in me and said he would gladly let me rotate in his lab this summer and I would be welcome to do my doctoral studies if it turned out to be a good fit. Before we wrapped up our conversation, he said he would email me some scientific papers related to his research for the coming weekend and reach out to one of his postdoctoral assistants whom I would be working with to arrange a meeting time, presumably the following week.
However, a week has passed since our Zoom meeting and I haven't yet heard anything from him or the lab assistant he said he would contact. On the 16th I emailed him a friendly reminder about the papers he said he would send to me and on the 18th I asked if he had reached out to the lab assistant to arrange a meeting time. But as of this writing on the 21st, he still hasn't replied to me. If he doesn't respond by the 24th, I plan on sending another friendly email reminder. I'm very and anxious and unsure what to make of the professor's lack of response.
It's important to mention that this professor is the PI of a lab and head of a University department so I know he must be an extremely busy person with a lot of responsibilities. I should also note that before our Zoom meeting, he often required email reminders and one time did not respond at all to an email. In fact, he even forgot about the Zoom meeting we had on the 13th at first and had to reschedule for the following hour before we spoke.
If he doesn't reply to the reminder that I plan to send him on the 24th, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to try calling his office phone. I'm also considering emailing the postdoctoral lab assistant. During the Zoom meeting I asked if he wanted me to reach out to this assistant but he told me that he would do it himself because the assistant doesn't yet know me. I'm concerned that calling his office phone might come across as stalking or that reaching out to his lab assistant may violate the preference he expressed to contact him himself at the Zoom meeting. Would doing these things become appropriate after two weeks have passed since our last contact?
I'm generally a very anxious person by nature but this situation is significantly exacerbating it since my standing in the PhD program depends on me finding a lab by Fall. My ultimate fear is that his lack of replies in the past week means that he's no longer interested in having me in his lab but I don't know if this fear is well-founded or if I'm just being overly anxious. So, in summary, what do you think I should make of his lack of response in the past week and should I reach out to his assistant or call his office phone if he doesn't respond by next week?
Thank you so much!<issue_comment>username_1: >
> 3 of the labs I rotated in were not good fits and another had insufficient funding
>
>
>
Definitely be in contact with your department about this. They need to be aware you're having trouble finding a lab; doing 4 rotations without a home is a concerning circumstance, though I've known people in that same situation that found a lab and did quite well.
>
> a week has passed
>
>
>
A week is almost nothing in academic time, especially for a busy professor and especially around this time of year when for many universities the semester has just ended and people are either finishing up with end-of-semester business (grades, graduations) or perhaps taking some time off after their semester responsibilities have ended.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: No one knows what that prof thinks. They are just human like anyone else. Just send a brief email, with something like "sorry just wondered if my earlier emails hadn't arrived since some have been getting lost". Then if no response, call the office and explain. If it pisses them off then they are unreasonable and, unfortunately, you can't do anything about that.
There are a million possible reasons they have not responded. When I worked in academia my colleagues' email answering ran from, all emails answered ASAP students too, through, never answers any emails to anyone other than superiors.
Upvotes: -1
|
2021/05/21
| 509
| 2,127
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student working in the USA. My advisor has funding from a foreign (say Country X) agency. I worked on a problem that was proposed by the agency. However, I am not using their data. I am about to publish my findings. However, my advisor wants to add another one of his student's name to the co-authors, despite him having absolutely no contribution. This student is a native of Country X. My advisor's argument is that he does not want to upset the agency, hence wants to add this student to the author list.
Is it possible that such a discriminatory clause would exist as terms of funding. One piece of information the makes me super suspicious is that earlier, another PhD student (not from Country X) worked on the same problem and my advisor did not raise such a concern.
I also strongly suspect that my advisor is quite partial to students from Country X, due to prior instances where he tries to involve them in everyone else's projects and looks for avenues to add their name to those projects.
What makes it even more strange is that my advisor is not from Country X, although I am not sure if he has other personal ties.<issue_comment>username_1: No, it isn't appropriate and is a form of academic misconduct. Those listed as authors need to have made some significant contribution to the ideas in a paper.
But this stuff happens. Too frequently.
Your advisor's motives don't matter. It is misconduct. However, your relationship to your advisor *does* matter and if opposing this will poison the relationship you need to act cautiously so as not to jeopardize your own career.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Of course this is inappropriate.
It may also be happening without the knowledge or consent of the sponsoring agency, i.e. it may just be your advisor's perception that they would be pleased if they were to see a familiar name on the paper.
However, I don't recommend you cause a ruckus over this. It's not a big deal, it happens a lot of places, and nobody is actually getting hurt here, except maybe [Veritas.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas)
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/21
| 771
| 3,350
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student and I wrote my first paper. The term open access is a new concept for me. I already watched YouTube videos about the subject, so I now understand that you have to pay a fee to the journal to get your paper published.
The question is: can I just go for traditional publishing or am I obliged to pay for open access if the journal offers it ([example journal](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/arx))?<issue_comment>username_1: Most journals labeled "open-access" are "open-access ***only***". You don't have any other option for these. Because they are open-access, the journal can't make money in more traditional ways like selling access to university libraries - who would pay to access content that's already open? (I'm aware I'm simplifying a bit here) Be wary that predatory journals also fit in this category, so while there is nothing wrong in principle with open access you do want to make sure you're only paying for publication in legitimate journals.
Other journals use a more traditional model, but also offer an open-access *option*, often in part to comply with funding agency requirements that require authors to publish with some level of open-access. These journals will give you a choice when you submit, but make sure you are complying with the requirements of any funding you've received. Also note that many journals (including reputable ones) require some page charges for authors whether they are open-access or not; open-access costs more, but non-open-access isn't necessarily free.
If you want to publish under a different model than a journal offers, you need to find a different journal.
Two other things to think about: 1) PhD students shouldn't ever be paying out of their own pocket to publish; funds that pay for students to do research are often also available to pay publishing costs. Talk to your advisor. 2) Some journals have some sort of discount for financial hardship, which you should be aware of in case you can qualify.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To add to username_1's answer: In my area (stats/math) in the traditional subscriber-paid journals you can make the choice whether you want open access or traditional after being accepted, you don't have to choose upon submission. Most of these even allow you to have the accepted version (before final edits) open access on arxiv or other preprint servers. Also hardly any journal enforces page charges - these are usually optional. I have published in about 20 different journals and I have never paid page charges.
And then there are a handful of journals that publish open access for free. These are self-organised by researchers or funded by scientific societies or universities. One example is the Journal of Machine Learning Research.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: 1. Students shouldn't be paying for journal submission anyway
2. The question is one of department / institutional policy / the policy of the funding organization of your project. One of these may insist on open access / have funding for it, or not.
3. You should be asking your advisor rather than here, who will hopefully be aware of anything to do with no 2
I can think of at least one institution where not selecting open access is an ethics violation (something to do with the grants)
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/21
| 823
| 3,470
|
<issue_start>username_0: My professor had said the midterm was 2.5 hours. This was told by all the students for weeks. The midterm comes, and there is no countdown for when submission is required, thus meaning the midterm is unlimited. I followed academic integrity and submitted at 2.5 hours; however, many students were submitted at 3+ up to 4 hours. I did not have enough time to finish 2 questions (10 marks total), because I submitted them at the correct time. This caused me to fail the course by 0.28%, meaning I would have needed 1.5 marks on the midterm to pass. This will result in me being held back a year and retake the course. My professor had not made a bell curve, neither a grade adjustment for the error she had made because there was "statistically no significant difference between students who submitted early and those who had extra time."
My question is, what are some reasonable courses of action in this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: Perhaps it’s better that you first ask yourself what is it that you *want* from this situation. Imagine a world where your every academic wish regarding this situation is fulfilled; what would you ask for? Is it achievable or realistic? Do you want to retake the test? Get 2/5/15 extra points on the test? Get a passing mark? Get the professor fired? Get your fellow students disciplined for breaking the rules? If you think about your goal here (and make sure it’s not just vindictive/abstract justice you’re after) it’ll be much easier to understand what you need to do.
I think your best case scenario is a passing final mark, but I don’t know what’s the norm in your school.
With this desirable outcome in mind, think what you can do to fulfill it.
If you have proof that students submitted late with no good reason (eg internet connectivity issues), then you could certainly contact the professor and complain. They may offer you a chance at extra credit. They may ignore you.
The situation you describe is precisely why some professors rarely accommodate requests for extensions from my students. It’s not very fair to the other students who don’t ask for one.
If you can show that some students got a massive unjustified extension but you didn’t there’s a chance that the professor will be forced to resolve the issue somehow, especially if your university has a strong culture of backing students. However, I imagine that it’ll be difficult to find evidence for such behavior. You could escalate your complaint through whatever channels the university offers, but it’s going to be tedious and may not lead to a good outcome.
Finally, it’s quite possible that you simply don’t have all the facts. Maybe your fellow students had accommodations. Maybe their internet disconnected; maybe they started late for whatever reason.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me restate what happened:
1. The professor informed students of the exam rules.
2. You followed the rules and failed the course.
3. Other students did not follow the rules.
4. The professor, as far as you know, has not punished the students who did not follow the rules.
Certainly, the professor should have punished students who did not follow the rules. I would expect that students who turn in an exam late would get a grade of zero. However, punishing other students will do nothing about the fact that you have failed the course.
Your reasonable course of action, as the student, is to retake the course.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/22
| 659
| 2,723
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international student who is completing a master's degree. I am very happy working with my professor at the university. I am a good student. My professor and I have some successful projects and publications.
My sibling is looking for a Ph.D. position, and since my professor is a very reliable person, I would like him to start a Ph.D. under my professor's supervision at the same school.
He told us to introduce good students to him. I am wondering if it would be awkward if I directly ask my professor to hire him as a Ph.D. student. If so, how should I ask him? What is the best approach? Is it ok to ask this?<issue_comment>username_1: I would worry a bit about asking the professor to "hire" your sibling. On the other hand, telling the professor that your sib is looking for a position in the same field and would like to meet them to talk about the possibilities would be entirely appropriate.
If the two of them, without you, come to some understanding it would be better. And even if that isn't possible, the prof may have some good ideas for your sibling to pursue.
So, I'd suggest a somewhat less direct approach.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In Academia, seeking employment for a relative (nepotism) is considered a bad behavior. I suggest you don't ask for your relative to be hired.
The exception is that, when you have been offered a job but not accepted it yet, you may ask for a job for your relative (typically a spouse) as part of employment negotiations. This is rarely successful, and in some places universities cannot legally hire certain relatives.
Your sibling should use the usual PhD application process for your university.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: According to your question, your professor has specifically asked you to introduce good students to him, so if you think your sibling fits this criteria (and you evidently do) then you should feel free to introduce your sibling to the professor. I see no reason why that would need to be awkward.
In terms of how to go about this, *don't ask your professor to hire your sibling* (that is extremely presumptuous); just introduce them and let things go from there. You can introduce them, but your sibling will need to do the work to interest your professor. From your perspective, the easiest thing here would be to frame this as a response to your professor's request ---e.g., "You mentioned earlier that you are interested in having us refer any good students we know to you. My [brother/sister] is a strong student in [subject] and is looking for positions in a PhD program. Would you mind meeting with [him/her] to see if [he/she] is a good fit for your research group."
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/22
| 5,429
| 23,469
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the third year of my four year PhD, which is funded by the department. My supervisor a week and a half ago called a meeting with me, after an email complaining about sending off an updated version of a manuscript to a conference without full approval. During the course of this meeting, when two others were present, he said a lot of things. However in this meeting he stated that I was on a "final warning" to be kicked out of the university (I had not received any previous warnings, and I'm not sure he has the capability to do this) and also his research group. He also said that he was engaging in a 'strategy of intimidation' so that I would be scared to make similar same mistakes in the future. I found this to be very worrying.
Following on from this he was especially nice via email, asking whether I would like to collaborate with a prestigious professor abroad. Indeed, the next day he spent 2 hours helping me prepare this manuscript, along with a postdoc.
This is part of a pattern of behaviour from this gentleman. Two months previously, after he said I shouldn't apply for IRB approval only weeks before, he had stated that I had committed severe ethical violations and that I should scrap the paper that I had worked on for the previous 7 months due to these violations. He also asked me whether I would like to go to jail for these violations.
Apart from this, my publication output has been relatively good. I got into a top journal in my field in my second year as first author.
I am very close to trying to switch supervisors and am just wondering, is this a stupid idea? Am I being overly sensitive? Is this psychological abuse?
Clarifications:
1. My aim here is not to raise a stink, I would be subtly switching supervisor, not reporting this to anyone, giving vague excuse of differences. I still have a lot of respect for the advisor as a scientist and fear of him.
2. If not clear enough in the initial question, part of my problem is that I was told not to go through the ethics process, then latterly reprimanded for not applying for ethics and committing unethical research. There may be a point here with regards to ethics in the first place.
3. I am thankful for some of the more hostile responses here, as they have made me aware of things that I may not have considered . Indeed they have made me aware of how this would be likely to be perceived. It has also made me slightly more cognizant of my own role in this.
4. I am a native speaker and have copied the quotes verbatim.
One final clarification:
Being asked too many questions here, will leave thread as is and not reply further. Thanks for all replies.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I am very close to trying to switch supervisors
>
>
>
Since you do not trust your advisor, switch.
Your descriptions show your advisor was dishonest, rude, and made counterproductive remarks. The definition of abuse seems to hinge on what the abuse did to the victim's mental state; making you worried does not seem to fit the definition to me. I'd suggest that instead of asking "Is this psychological abuse?" ask "Is this good supervision?" to which the answer is "No."
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A more important question is whether or not you can actually switch, and what the consequences, if any, will be for doing so. You say you are in your third year and graduating next year - I interpret as meaning you are graduating spring 2022, which is 1 year away. Does your program even allow switching advisors so late? If you did switch advisors will your current advisor still have to be on your committee, considering you have done a considerable amount of work with them? How will switching advisors impact the letters of recommendations you receive when you are applying for your next position after graduating? More importantly, who would actually be your new potential advisor?
If you had another 3 or even 2 years before graduation, switching advisors should be pretty easy. When you only have 1 year left? Your priority right now should be to wrap up your dissertation research and prepare your applications for the coming hiring cycle.
You should consider that you will only have to endure this situation for 1 more year before you will move on to something bigger and better. Just putting some distance between you and your advisor could be a feasible solution.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It sounds to me like your professor has noticed a pattern of poor decisions on your side, and they cannot handle another one. Professors are human beings, and this one seems to have reached their limit. Whether they are being reasonable or overreacting is hard to judge without knowing all the details of your interactions and collaboration.
But your professor is acting *very professionally* by not letting their serious warnings affect the way they collaborate with you directly afterwards: being nice and supportive after a serious warning is an excellent way to try and remedy the situation and give you all the possible chances to succeed.
An important question is whether the professor is right or not, and if the stern warnings are reasonable, or an overreaction. Again, this is impossible to tell without having been there and having seen all your past interactions, but to me it sounds like they may indeed have a point in the two cases you describe:
* It is true (but rare) that people go to jail for violating ethics: the professor is asking you, in no uncertain terms, to take ethics more seriously. Violating ethics is serious academic misconduct and could indeed be a valid reason for being kicked out of a university.
* submitting an "artefact" (do you mean abstract?) without explicit approval of all co-authors is generally considered very bad from, and depending on the exact circumstances even bordering on academic misconduct (associating your professor's name with ethically questionable research, for example). The professor is telling you clearly that this is *not done*, and that you should take more care next time.
If you think you can prevent the (serious!) mistakes the professor has warned you about, and they are indeed being nice towards you outside of the warnings you have received, I would recommend trusting your supervisor and learning from your mistakes.
However, I do want to emphasise again that without knowing the details of the interaction between you and your professor, it is hard to judge if a line was crossed during these interactions: you, and possibly your colleagues are the only ones who can judge this. If you have a colleague you trust, and who knows the professor, it may be helpful to ask their opinion on this matter.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: You write that your advisor said that you "committed severe ethical violations." But you don't say anything about what specifically you did, whether the accusations are true, or how you responded to that accusation. We simply cannot give you good advice without knowing more about these violations. Honestly it sounds like you don't understand what the accusations were, which is extremely worrisome!
It's sadly common that there are advisors who are abusive bosses, but this is not one of those common situations! Either your advisor is completely disconnected from reality and is making up ethical violations, or you are a serious danger to your research group because you commit bad ethical lapses and don't bother to understand what you did or how to avoid it in the future.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Usually a good practice with dealing problems that could endanger a project, intellectual property, etc, is the use of **rules** (you should be given those rules from the start or at the first violation) and **escalation** (there should not be no radical step or measure at the first violation), eg., 1 warning + **informations (what was done, the consequences, the reasons for which is it wrong)**, 2 warning + light measure(s) , 3 fire + measure(s).
If your supervisor is not mentionning the rules of the lab/university at the first warning, or is lying about them, or is **acting or communicating inconsistently** (eg., different messages depending on present witnesses), or is involving **hidden or implicit pieces of information** including **personnal judgements/comments/features (ethny, gender, appearence, behavior etc)** or **blurry consequences**, or is using some sort of **surprise** (when you know the rules, there should not be any surprise at all), or is invoking some subtexts or surprising and strong moods. Then it is psychological abuse (sometimes named moral abuse).
The ideal communication in case of problem should be **at all times extremely clear for the present and the future (predictable), written, objective, with escalations and as cold as possible (without any kind of mood, affect, surprise)**.
If there is psychological abuse, I recommend to document everything (and try and document everything (voice record, email/chat copy) from the first suspect communication), and refer this to the chief of doctoral school to request piece of advice for your next steps and report the case.
The same way, you are subject to rules, warning, explanations and escalation, your supervisor is also subject to them for the problem involved. If there is no possible or desired resolution (you may feel permanently uneasy to finish you PhD), then indeed do switch your supervisor, again with the recommendations of your doctoral school's chief.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: I feel your boss is far from the best boss, but could not tell whether good or not for your research career.
Based on your record (the first author on the top journal), your future can be promising. Of course, although it depends on the field you are, you might be able to find a good place to continue your research after recieving phD.
So, I feel two points look important: Will your boss give you phD; After getting phD how will the relationship between you and your boss last. I guess you can see old members of your lab to get information about this points.
If it is possible for you to receive phD and, afterwords, get a position for another PI, staying current place is worthwhile. Unless so, switching a supervisor might be good choice.
In any case, a stable state of mind is very important in research. Your boss seemed to be having a negative impact on your mental state, maybe in the short term. If you feel this way, I suggest you use a school counselor where your privacy is protected.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: The situation you describe is an uncomfortable one, and for what it's worth, I am sorry that you are going through it. I tolerated similar behavior during my master's degree and tried to be more proactive during my doctorate.
The first thing that stuck me was your advisor **having others present** while reprimanding you. *"Praise in public, punish in private."* In my opinion, what they did was wrong. Perhaps they were having a bad day, but unless your advisor specifically apologized for having done that, they may feel that it's acceptable behavior. His admission that he was engaging in a form of intimidation is evidence that they think it is acceptable, and that statement, word for word, is something your should write down and share with anyone with whom you raise your concern. **Intimidation is bad, openly admitting to doing it because they think they are allowed: people have lost tenure for that.**
Now, all of the above assumes you were at fault in the first place, and it doesn't seem to me like you did anything wrong at all. You mention that you were being given a "final warning." I would take a moment and go back to the other times you advisor had "warned" you and see if there is any common thread among them. I'm not defending your advisor here, I'm suggesting that you may want to have this information handy for the next part. **Collect up emails, notes from meetings, etc. as your evidence to show this pattern of behavior in black and white.**
And the next part, is to approach your department's graduate program head; the person who oversees the overall progress of graduate students in your department to ensure they are making progress, and to be the first person to get involved in any advisor-student disputes. A short email requesting a meeting to discuss the most recent reprimand, and then going over prior times to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of your advisor. From there you can show that this was not a one time thing, that your advisor is handling things inappropriately, and that **it is adversely affecting you ability to move smoothly through your doctoral program.** Say those words, because that point falls clearly within their purview.
The times when you advisor seems to have tried to make up for their behavior with nice emails and kind behavior after the fact is akin to other types of abuse. **It's not ok**, because all your advisor is doing is covering their backside. It's also a **sign of guilt on their part, because they know they are being abusive** and hoping they can wallpaper over the damage with niceties. Don't fall for it.
After you've spoken with your grad program head, it's time to reach out to the department head, and repeat everything you discussed with the head of the grad program.
When you meet with the department head, in addition to everything you bring to the prior meeting, **come with the suggestion of at least one other advisor that you would be comfortable switch to**. If you can have an off-the-record conversation with a prospective advisor asking if they could take you on as a student, that will help clear the way. You department head will appreciate your boiling everything down to them making a decision, rather than asking them find a solution. Department heads, are executives, and **the job of an executive is to make a decision**. Give them one or more well-thought out options for them to choose from. Otherwise, you risk them saying "I'll look into this, andget back to you," which may never happen.
Hopefully by this point, you'll have more than enough evidence to show a pattern of unacceptable behavior on your advisor's part, and a path to graduation by having an alternate advisor identified. As long as you are being moved to another advisor, **your advisor's behavior is not your problem**, let the department head deal with it. Your only responsibility is to provide any evidence you've collected from your experiences.
If none of this works, some universities have a Graduate College, whose job it is to oversee all graduate programs across the campus, covering all departments. There should a Dean, or many Deans whose job it is to address issues like these when the department can't or won't take care of their own issues internally. If it comes to this, **make sure you've also collected emails and notes from conversations with your grad program head, and department head to show that you've gone through the proper channels.**
It's a not a fun process. I've been through a form of it, but I am nonetheless glad that I did. I stood up for myself and in the end graduated. There was no retribution from anyone, I was able to find employment without issue, and can tell you with confidence that your own moral compass is something worth listening to in times like these.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Before dealing with your professor, who did cross a line by stating he'd be using intimidation as a tool, you must ask and answer (to the best of your ability) how honest are you with yourself?
Most professors don't take this approach unless there were prior incidents which indicate that you have ignored earlier problems and corrective feedback. It is always possible you have a professor that is a horrible person; but, it is far, FAR, more likely that you have a professor that has formed an idea that you are not manageable. This idea might be supported by facts; but, even if it isn't, you need to provide evidence through your actions that you can work with him.
Your work in a lab under his name is not independent because everything you do carries his name on it, whether your or he likes it or not. If you present something with a flaw in it, it will reflect on his lab long after you've graduated or dropped out. You must understand his point of view, or you will not be able to work with him. You submitted work to a conference without review, work that is expected to require some review because you're not an experienced, independently vetted, professor.
Maybe the work was excellent; but, there's a high chance that extra sets of eyes could have improved upon it. Odds are the work wasn't that great, and you may know that, as you decided it couldn't stand up to review and submitted it without his review or knowledge.
So yes, you can use his wording to point out he's crossing a line; but, these investigations don't stop at what you submit. They will see if you have "unclean hands" or in lay terms, "if you threw the first punch." I doubt you would have enough of a stand to overturn that he should discipline you, and by your going public, there's a great chance that the discipline will have to be converted from "your prof being very angry with you" to real consequences (academic probation, reassignment to a different PI who has been warned of your prior conduct, likely resetting your research efforts to day one, and possibly dismissal from the school).
Play carefully, because every brilliant move is less brilliant when you don't consider the obvious responses which lead to you losing more than you would ever gain. When you come to your decision on how to proceed, again ask yourself, "how honest are you with yourself" because you'll be inclined (as we all are) to think you're playing out a master move when in result you're just giving away every opportunity to win.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: **TL;DR.** *Get out, get out, get out!* If you can... I don't what field you're in. Changing supervisors may not be feasible. Is there a suitable alternative supervisor whom you could work with?
Fair or not, these are statements that need to be considered before making a definitive move.
That said, I am very sorry for this horrible, abusive situation you are in.
It is not fair on you.
---
Intimidatory behaviour is not acceptable. There are arguments as to whether *parents* should be allowed to discipline *their children* like that---I am not commenting on this---but certainly a *supervisor* should not behaviour like this towards a *student*. Trying to scare you with "go to jail comments"---disgusting.
I worked with someone who treated me extremely badly during my PhD---although it sounds nothing like as bad as your case! Sometimes we had disagreements about whether to look into certain questions; he wanted to investigate something, but I didn't. This is fine by itself, but he *explicitly* told me that his time was more valuable so I should investigate it and get back to him. The fact that I didn't want to didn't matter. He told me that he's the senior collaborator so I should do it. Incidentally, he was a postdoc when we started and had just got a permanent position when we finished.
I won't go into further details regarding his behaviour---it's not relevant to your question. I should have tried harder to end the collaboration earlier, in hindsight. I *really* regret this. His behaviour made my life miserable for months and months. I'm done with the collaboration with him now and I am *so much happier!* I've found lots of other people to collaborate with who are not toxic and treat me with respect.
This person wasn't my supervisor, but rather a collaborator. My supervisor went "supervision-AFK" with me about 1.5yrs, so I was working with other people therein. I'm in maths, so choosing with whom I work is relatively easy. I didn't even have the option of working with my supervisor for half my PhD, as I said. Changing supervisors is more of a big step than changing collaborators. I don't know exactly what field you're in, so I don't know how easy it would be to just not work with your supervisor but work with others instead? Not a perfect solution, but perhaps better than your current scenario.
Unfortunately, there's very little accountability in academia. People who hold power have little to no training in *utilising*, not *abusing*, this power. You can report this, but I highly doubt you have proof that he said these things---after all, who gathers proof of all interactions? I don't. It can also negatively affect people's perception of you. Lots of people will have had only positive interactions with this guy---not all toxic people are toxic *all the time*---and will try to defend his behaviour. Just look at other answers here. Imagine the response from his peers?
One answer suggests that you *intentionally didn't get his review on your work because you thought it wouldn't hold up to his critique*. Quite where the answerer got this information, I have no idea. You say it was an *updated* manuscrip without *full* approval. There was no indication in your question that you were intentionally. His behaviour is abusive, regardless of your mistakes.
In a fair world, you would report this person, their behaviour would be investigated and they would go on some type of supervisor-training programme. Alas, *in a fair world*...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_10: >
> he had stated that I had committed severe ethical violations and that
> I should scrap the paper that I had worked on for the previous 7
> months due to these violations
>
>
>
If this is accurate, it really seems to me like you've been accused of Research Misconduct, and this is a big deal. I could be very wrong, but you're not providing any form of clarification, so this answer relies on this assumption.
Research misconduct is a big deal; a potential career ender for you, as the offender, and for your supervisor, if they knowingly let any findings involved with the misconduct out the door.
This would certainly take a supervisor way out of their comfort zone. Protecting their career may be their first impulse. There is a strong possibility that there has been discussion of this situation with your chair and your Dean. If not, there probably should have been.
The meeting with "others" strikes me as an intervention to attempt to correct your behavior, or perhaps your advisor wanted witnesses around to confirm the details of the meeting. Of course, it would help if you could share who the "others" are, but I understand your reticence.
So, if you did commit research misconduct, I think your adviser's actions, in which he finds a way to prevent further misconduct and provide you with interesting educational opportunities ending with you getting a degree, while possibly not perfect, might be acceptable (people don't tend to have much practice responding to such situations). I would certainly believe him when he says this is your last chance.
Also, if you did commit misconduct, your realistic choices might be limited, as it is unlikely another supervisor would pick you up.
Again, I could be entirely wrong here, because you won't share details, but this is my "between the lines" read on your situation. Only you can gauge how close your actions come to misconduct.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/22
| 564
| 2,431
|
<issue_start>username_0: A few years ago I did a month lab rotation in a lab. At that time I was doing my masters and I was directly supervised by the Ph.D. student (X) of that lab. He taught me all the techniques and corrected my lab report. Then I sent it to the group leader. So basically I worked closely with the Ph.D. student and also the work I did during this one month, X used them in his further test and analysis. So that year, he published the paper and acknowledged me in that article.
Now I want to apply for a Ph.D. position and I wrote to that group leader who did not reply to me. So is it ok if I ask X to write one for me? (He completed his Ph.D. that year and I think he's a postdoc somewhere). we were not connected after that lab rotation but I got no choice except to ask X or that group leader who did not reply to me yet.<issue_comment>username_1: Everyone can write a recommendation letter for you. So the answer is an absolute yes. Nevertheless, the question now becomes: how strong can a recommendation letter written by a Ph.D. student be in order to have a strong application in order to get accepted? But this is a different story.
You may want to send it *in addition* to the other recommendation letters.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Letters from postdocs are definitely fine. Letters from people who have worked closely with you are definitely better than letters from people who have only met you two times or only experienced you in a lecture.
Then again, the issue with a only-just-now postdoc is that he/she has little, if any, experience in writing recommendation letters - and, in fact, even in *reading* recommendation letters. So it will likely be difficult for whoever receives the letter to judge you properly - either because the letter is not written in the usual way, or because whoever reads it *knows* that the writer did not have experience with recommendation letters. And finally, it will be hard for a PhD/postdoc to make meaningful comparison over a large sample ("best intern in the last 10 years").
The ideal situation would be a joint letter of the group leader and the PhD student/postdoc (whoever actually writes it). Ideally this would be sent by the group leader, stating that it was written with significant input from the postdoc. Then again, there's nothing wrong to ask the postdoc if they could ask the group leader to write a joint letter.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/22
| 380
| 1,595
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose you have a well-written paper that, in your supervisor's opinion,deserves a bit more of a Tier 2 journal, but it is difficult to get published in a Tier 1 journal. Would you suggest, in general, trying the higher rank journal first, getting a rejection (likely), but also possible improvements and eventually try a second-tier, or would you aim to the second straightforward to save time?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you (or the hypothetical person here) are gaming the system to your own disadvantage. I'm reading the first sentence as "...more *than* a Tier 2 journal...".
You don't know you will be rejected. The suggestions of the reviewers might, when incorporated, result in acceptance.
And there is no guarantee about the time to publication for any journal. It is highly unpredictable for most journals, depending on the work load of reviewers, etc.
Moreover the break between "tiers" is pretty fuzzy.
Send it to the "most appropriate" journal for the work itself.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Circumstances can differ, but generally, unless you're in a sort of time trouble to get it published, it's never wrong to try a higher-impact journal first. In the worst case, you paper will be rejected by editor (and not sent for peer-review), which means that you won't lose too much time and will be able to submit it elsewhere.
Of course, it does not mean that you should send every paper of yours to Nature. In case of doubt, ask your supervisor if it has chances to be published in your journal of choice.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2021/05/22
| 1,256
| 5,226
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been doing some research for my masterthesis. I had a supervisor for this task, who was (to my opinion) quite harsh and unhelpful in his feedback. I pursued it nevertheless, and continued on the work that I had been doing; but got somewhat annoyed.
Some time ago, he sent me a (edit: yet unpublished) paper by one of his colleagues (with whom he had previously been working with) on a topic that somewhat overlaps with the topic I had been working in. 3 out of the 5 concepts that I used in my paper are also presented in this paper (with a somewhat different name, but the construct on its' own is the same); although the actual question, and other concepts were also added to it - so it's not quite a copy-paste, but I had a sense that this (not yet published paper) was in some ways inspired by my work. The most troubling aspect I found was how my supervisor treated my ideas as 'unoriginal' and also did not give me much support throughout my work while he then send me something that I felt was actually originally coming from me.
I have contacted already a third person about this (edit: an ombuds-person, who is also a professor at my faculty), and am thinking about sending to my supervisor regarding my disappointments and questions about this issue later on, once I finished my exams and obtained my master.
But I don't expect much helpful answers back (I am slightly resentful of that moment, and I am wondering how I can do this at the same time politely and honestly).
I was wondering whether anyone had some similar experience, and could help me figure out what I should do? Should I let it go, later on? Do I also have any say in this?
It is not only my own personal situation that worries me, it's also about all future students who might have him as a supervisor who might go through something like this - which is everything but a nice way to finish a degree.
So if anyone has any experience, I'd love to hear about it.
**Update**
I send an email to my promotor, in which I somewhat mentioned my problems. He replied to me back that he was sorry that he was not more present to help me, that I should tell something to my advisor and that he will be there to support me if there is any conflict; that definitely something needs to be fixed here and that he is willing to repair the wrongs. So to anyone feeling stuck in a similar situation, I guess my best advice would be: talk about it, and with as many persons as you can - you might not have the answer directly from one person at one moment, but it also just helps figuring what the problem is in the first place. Thanks for everyone having replied in the comments, that was really nice & helpful! :)<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I have contacted already a third person about this (edit: an ombuds-person, who is also a professor at my faculty)
>
>
>
This ombudsperson is probably the person best suited to give advice about whether misconduct occurred and what your options may be. Given that you are already talking to an ombudsperson, I would not want to add my own speculation into the mix.
>
> [I] am thinking about sending to my supervisor regarding my disappointments and questions about this issue later on, once I finished my exams and obtained my master.
>
>
>
Your instinct to wait until after finalizing your degree is probably a good one. As for the advisability of writing such a letter at all: well, I am afraid I do not see much point. Certainly it seems unlikely that your advisor will say "Egads! I have seen the error of my ways and am overcome with remorse!" Your desire to protect future students is admirable, but unless the ombudsperson recommends further action, I suspect your options will be somewhat limited.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is no way for us to know which (if any) of the following two things is true:
1. your supervisor stole your ideas, wrote a paper about them with one of their colleagues, and is now feeding it back to you;
2. your supervisor and a colleague of theirs had been submitting a paper of theirs two years ago, it has been going through a tortuous and so far unsuccessful peer review process, and in the meantime your supervisor asked you to work on variants of parts of those ideas for your Master thesis.
If you cannot conclusively rule out option 2, do not assume that option 1 is actually the case.
---
As extra anecdotal evidence: a PhD student of mine approached me two months ago with the idea to collaborate on idea X. However, in 2019, another PhD student of mine had started working on a variation of that idea, let's call it X'. The paper on X' has just been accepted and appeared online in a journal publication three days ago. I haven't yet talked to the student with idea X about the paper on idea X', because I think that X and X' are different enough to merit separate publications, and the paper on X' had not yet been published. But if the student with idea X now finds the published paper and reads the abstract, and if they reason like you do, they will think that I stole their idea on X.
You might be in the same situation here. You might not. It's impossible for us to know.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/22
| 3,403
| 14,348
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:**
I studied Physics and Mathematics (double major) in my Bachelor, and now I'm working in the field of (theoretical) biophysics (I'm a Master's student). I have had a fair amount of research experience so far which gave me a lot of ideas about how research is being done. Most of my contributions to such a project involved wiring a bunch of code, improving an experiment, improving the data collection process etc. but nothing mathematical.
**Problem:**
I have no problem reading papers, especially theoretical ones; I would describe myself as familiar with a lot of fundamental ideas employed in research. If I want to dig deep into theoretical a paper, I don't have a problem. But the issue is that I feel like my mathematical competence is eroding, both high-level and low-level. I do a lot of errors in algebraic calculations, forget how to integrate certain functions, etc. and I am internally scared from finding out I am bad at mathematics, given that I used to love mathematics.
But unfortunately, right now there is nothing that challenges and pushes my limits. Because, to my experience, physics students only use certain mathematical methods, so once you learn how to do those (all of which can be done via Mathematica), there is nothing that can push your limits, unless you are doing very mathematical research.
So, now whenever I need to calculate something, I go and put it into Mathematica because I have done the same type of calculations over and over again many times, and I don't want to do it again.
I'm afraid that if I start working on a theoretical project which requires mathematical competence, I'll fail because I haven't been practising the art of doing mathematics in a true sense for a while.
**Question:**
Given all these, how to keep up my game? How to push my mathematical skills even when I am not working on a theoretical project?<issue_comment>username_1: It's quite normal for knowledge and skills to fade if you don't regularly use them. Since you don't want to do routine but possibly tedious/lengthy calculations by hand and prefer to keep using Mathematica, how about learning some new mathematics? Find a book on something that strikes you as potentially interesting - it doesn't necessarily have to be directly related to your research - and work your way through it. Just be sure to check the prerequisites for the book first so you don't jump into something too difficult for where you currently are and end up frustrated.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: First there’s no magical “being good at mathematics,” so it’s not something you can suddenly lose. If you want to get better you can practice more and get better, and if you practice less you’ll get rustier, but neither state is permanent. Your anxiety around your math skills may be due to this kind of black-and-white thinking about math skill.
In terms of practical advice, one thing that really helps keep you sharp on the basics is teaching. Maybe try signing up to do a little tutoring, or do something with the undergrad math club.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I like to see knowledge as three-fold - there is what you know, what you don't know and what you know that you don't know. As you time goes by, many things of the first category fade out and find themselves in the third category.
I remember when I was preparing my finals and I knew all common integration techniques and some tricky trigonometric substitutions. Now I forgot most of it, but for my research, if I stumble upon such problem, I can easily find those in my old books or online. So practically, this shift of category for my knowledge is transparent for my work.
And what it was traded for, is a kind of mathematical soft-skill but the kind that make someone "great at mathematics" (not that I am particularity great; rather better, this is obviously a spectrum), which is a deeper theoretical insight, a wider mathematical culture (mathematical culture is eminently in the third category!) and some kind of a problem-solving creativity.
So in the end, it's your mathematical ability at large that you may want to enhance or maintain and now the task is way more enjoyable - first such abilities do not fade away so fast and second, to enhance it, like username_1 suggested, you can just look for a new topic that you have leisure or work interest in and "work your way through it".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: This is a tough one, and something I myself wrestle with. It is also one of the current issues I have with academia/advanced degrees as a whole (overly specialized leading to atrophy of your general skill set).
All I can offer is that advanced degrees seem to build your "learning ability" in that they require you to jump into a complicated, foreign area and learn it quickly.
Thus, while you might lose your general skill set, you are gaining the ability to learn complex topics quickly. The answer to your conundrum then becomes "if I forget/lose skill x, I will be able to quickly re-learn it in the future if I ever need to use it again".
As other posters have mentioned, however, it is also not a bad idea to try to maintain your general skill set if you have time. Many of us don't, but if you do have spare time, tutoring or working though a textbook or online course can help keep you fresh.
If you don't use it, you will lose it. If a skill is not being used in your current job, you need to find an extracurricular avenue to continue to exercise that skill set if you want to keep it strong. Otherwise, the only solution I have found is to accept that it is going to fade but to have hope that I will be able to re-learn it quickly if I ever need to use it again.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Frame shift: being good at math doesn't mean getting the right answer, but rather knowing how to solve the problem (or knowing where to find how to solve the problem).
Computers are almost infallible; humans are not. So you, and everyone else in the world, are going to make computational mistakes. It is as inevitable as death and taxes. It is not something to fret over. In fact one could argue that if a calculation is complicated enough, it's irresponsible to *not* check it with a computer.
Your skill as a mathematician is not tied to how many computational mistakes you make. It's much more important to know what to do and how to do it, because once you know these things, you can always program a computer to do the calculation flawlessly for you.
As an aside, ask one of the many mathematicians on this SE how much of their work is done on pen-and-paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Similar personal experience:
No, your abilities are not fading. At least, not as much as you assume at the first glance.
What really happens:
You face challenges of the same domain, but of increasing complexity. The increasing complexity comes from two sources:
1. The natural development of the scientific knowledge in the field (remember, you are not in the high school anymore and the development happens as you learn)
2. Your own increasing experience, encouraging you to skip more and more "trivia" as you are thinking.
Both processes promote simple and innocent mistakes and ommissions. They can slow you down while you double-check and cross-check, but they can't fail you.
And there is nothing bad in refreshing some memories and abilities if you have to.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I studied physics. About the second year I started to realize how things were interconnected and it was a revelation for me. Fantastic times. Then I started to teach and it is only then when I fully grasped what I was teaching because I had to understand (and not only learn).
**Teaching will help you a lot to keep up.**
Then I moved to industry and all my physics and mathematical skills started to erode, to the point that when I once looked at my notes in physics I could barely understand what was there.
I was very disappointed and sad because I loved physics (and to some extent - math) and realized that it will go downhill.
Fast forward many years. I now have children who are starting to learn some more advanced maths (differentials for instance).
This is at this point that I realized how deeply math and physics is engrained in my mind. They had a hard time understanding differentials. The main reason was because they simplycould not see the reason for these strange operations. I **explained** them what a differential is for, and what it is (in that order, going though some examples from physics). It helped me to overcome the feeling, and I see that it will still be a quite some time before I stumble upon something in their curriculum that will make me go into "well, dad cannot help you on that one" mode.
So try to teach somewhere (I took some volunteering help with more advanced homework for children who are not helped at home) - the higher the level the better.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: There are some excellent answers touching on the role of time on task, teaching or tutoring, and solving problems for fun. To this, I would like to add the aspect of mathematical creativity, which some people feel does drop off sharply with age.
In this [article](https://www.chronicle.com/article/are-mathematicians-past-their-prime-at-35/) and [blog](https://www.massey.ac.nz/%7Ermclachl/overthehill.html), <NAME> evaluates the hypotheses that in mathematics in particular, young people are more capable of breakthrough results. There are a lot of citations of practioners that think this is true. A counterargument is that mathematics has expanded rapidly, so there are more young than old mathematicians. They also mention the Fields Medal, which is for mathematicians 40 or younger. Furthermore, there is an argument that older people might have the same capability, but are just not able to focus as much because they already have a larger set of responsibilities.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I used to be good at algebraic manipulation and at integration tricks, too. Now, I'm not, but it doesn't matter, because Mathematica can do those things far better than you or I ever could.
The world has changed, so the skills needed to survive and prosper have changed, too.
Many of us used to know how to...
1. Do long division with a pencil and paper
2. Add weights expressed in ounces, pounds, and stones
3. Use a slide rule, tables of logarithms, and a desk calculator
These skills are all obsolete, and I'm not too worried about the fact that they're now pretty rusty. I've learned new things, instead ... how to write code, how to use a calculator, and how to use Mathematica.
Of course, not everything we learned in our mathematical youth is obsolete. I personally still get great value from my knowledge of classical geometry, my intuition about approximation, my ability to draw pictures, and my ability to express ideas clearly.
So, when considering how to "keep up your game", the first decision is which skills are worth preserving, and which should be replaced by new ones. The game has changed.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: @NoahSnyder makes an excellent point about teaching. However, we've recently had a couple of questions on here from people who felt their skills and/or productivity were lower than they would like, and who disclosed that they were working unhealthily long hours. So, just in case, I'll advise: make sure you're taking the time to get an appropriate amount amount of sleep, a healthy diet, and sufficient physical exercise. I think I can safely leave it to you to carry out a quick (and occasionally repeated, since it's still an active research area) literature search to find out how much sleep is appropriate, what constitutes a healthy diet, and how much exercise is sufficient, from the point of view of cognitive function.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: **how to keep up my game? How to push my mathematical skills**
Karsten mentioned "solving problems for fun"
Some publications have "problem" columns, with problems to solve, and solutions published later based on what was sent in.
See [Are there any more mathematical journals or websites with the “problems and solutions”?](https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/q/17700/127)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: ### Skills require an application. It's normal to let skills lapse if you don't need them, and to only refresh your memory when you do need them.
Some people solve maths problems for fun. You're probably not one of those people, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Assuming maths ability is merely a tool for you to do your job and not an end-goal in itself, then you will inherently get good at the bits of maths you use, and let things go which you don't use. That's just how it goes. You will still be good enough to learn or refresh whatever you need in future, though. Either you already know it and just need to remind yourself how to do it, or you have enough basic knowledge to work through the learning process.
Your supervisor should be fine with this. A scientist/engineer won't know all the answers when they're doing new work, because if they already had the answers then it wouldn't be new! The important part is that you know in general terms where you're going with it. You should be able to be up-front with your supervisor about this, and just put the time in to get your skills up the curve. Chances are that your supervisor doesn't know it either, so they should welcome a post-grad expanding the scope of what his team are capable of.
No-one remembers everything forever. You're only at the start of your career here, so you probably didn't learn this more than a few years ago. As you go forwards, you can absolutely expect to see something in 20 years time where you think "hang on, I did something about this as an undergrad" and have to go back and refresh your memory. You aren't expected to have this at your fingertips forever, because humans don't work like that. :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: If you have the time and inclination, consider contributing to (or at least perusing) [Mathematics SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/): this is a *good* (and humbling) way to keep you on your mathematical toes.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/22
| 774
| 3,353
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing a paper as a Ph.D. student, and I'm starting to feel a little bit unsure about the general approach and results. My supervisor isn't a great help here, and I thought to maybe send a preprint to a couple of authors with more expertise than me, whom I cited a lot, and ask their opinion and if they would find it of interest.
Is this appropriate? I wonder if it would look like I ask them to work as my reviewer or supervisor for free, or I would even look like one of these crazy persons sending researchers their huge manuscripts with fringe theories. On the other hand, I would get feedback during peer review anyway, so I'm further unsure about it.<issue_comment>username_1: You can do this, but a blind email with a large attachment isn't the way to do it. Instead, you could send an introductory email, introducing yourself and briefly describing your work, perhaps with any notable contributions/results. Then ask them if they would be willing to give you feedback on the paper itself.
Don't neglect to tell them the length and any time constraints you might have.
Even better if this intro email is from your advisor. Or, if that is impossible, copying your advisor (with permission) on the mail. It is harder to turn down a request from a colleague/peer than from a student.
But, in addition to getting feedback it is a way to expand your circle of contacts which can be valuable in the future.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my field (mathematics) it is somewhat common to send out preprints like this, especially for junior researchers like yourself.
In my experience, the most common way is to send a copy of the paper as an attachment, briefly introduce yourself and the paper, and say something like "I would welcome any comments if you have any. Thank you very much."
In particular I would not recommend asking *questions*, at least not in an initial email. I would especially avoid questions such as "would you find this of interest", which can be very awkward to answer. As you said, you want to avoid looking like you're asking them to serve as a reviewer or supervisor.
That said, in my opinion, sending a paper and indicating that you'd welcome feedback is a perfectly fine thing to do. I've got some interesting feedback this way as a grad student, and more recently I've responded to similar emails coming from students.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If the author you send it to is close enough that you cite her/his work, then it might be ok. Make sure that the person is still active in the area.
If your field puts papers on arxiv, sending a link after putting it there is ok (but also, I have gotten emails where the intention is to put it on arxiv in the upcoming week).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: It might be field dependent. To me, the most critical aspect isn't the reaction of the contacted expert but rather that of your supervisor.
Sending your ms out without knowledge on the part of your supervisor seems a bit uncommon.
Obviously all this depends on the "supervising style" of your supervisor and eventually on the relationship between groups etc.
This is to say that you should frankly discuss your idea with your supervisor instead of asking here, because we don't know the scenario and its details.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/23
| 1,057
| 4,191
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate right now, looking to apply to Grad schools. I am just confused about the kinds of degrees offered by graduate schools. Some state they have a "M.S, M.S/PhD, and PhD" programs. I have read a lot that students who quit their Ph.D in between after realizing that the program is not for them can leave with a masters but is this available for (almost) any PhD program or just the M.S/Ph.D program? Does a university that simply states an offering of a "Ph.D" program also allow students who quit in between to leave with a masters?<issue_comment>username_1: This varies, but in my experience (US/Canada, biology/math/statistics),
* entering an "M.S." program assumes that you will want to complete the Master's degree and leave (for industry or a PhD program elsewhere).
* in an "M.S./Ph.D." program you are initially enrolled for a Master's; if, toward the end of the Master's program, it looks like you are doing well *and* you want to continue on with a Ph.D. in the same program, you can do some paperwork (in my old institution this was called a "Master's bypass") and be automatically enrolled in a PhD, *without* writing your Master's thesis, defending it, re-applying for the PhD program, etc.. In this case your Master's work would typically be rolled into the first chapter (or two) of your Ph.D. thesis.
Under this option there would not be any stigma associated with stopping with a Master's degree; part of the intention of an M.S./Ph.D. program is precisely to allow students to decide whether they want to continue with a Ph.D.
This option may be limited to students who plan to continue with the same supervisor.
There may also be an option for students who want to go through the process of getting their Master's degree (written thesis, defense, etc.) and then start the Ph.D. program; not much difference except that you do have to do the write-up and defense, and you get to add a degree to your CV.
* In programs with an M.S./Ph.D. program, entry into the Ph.D. program would *typically* be reserved for students who already had a Master's degree in the relevant field.
Many schools will "offer" a **terminal master's**; this is a consolation prize for students who enrolled in a Ph.D. program but for some reason are unable to complete it (e.g. they are performing so poorly that they are being kicked out of the program, but well enough that some level of certification of achievement seems appropriate, *or* because they decided they were unhappy). "Terminal" means that such students would *not* typically be eligible to apply for a Ph.D. in the same program.
At most programs that offer both MS and PhD degrees, whether or not they have a formal MS/PhD track, it is usually pretty easy to get accepted into the PhD program if you do well in a Master's degree.
---
As may be clear from all of the above, these programs are usually flexible; if you started a "Ph.D. only" program and decided to drop out, you *might* have the option to write up your work and finish with a Master's. The M.S./Ph.D. is somewhat less stressful as it gives an explicit choice point.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My field (economics) in the US generally works the way you're describing - you can quit in the middle of your PhD and leave with your masters. At my program, once we completed some number of graduate credits (I think it was around 2.5 years worth) we simply filled out an application on the student management portal for a masters, and they awarded it. It was like five extra minutes of work, so I think all of my classmates did it. They called it an "incidental masters degree"
That said, PhD programs frown heavily on entering a PhD with the *goal* of leaving in the middle with a masters degree. They offer funding to PhD students with the goal of putting quality applicants on the job market, which masters students can't do. Conversely, students who enroll in a masters program not only aren't funded, they usually pay a lot in tuition.
It does make for a nice consolation prize for the few classmates I have who never finished though, since they at least come out of the program with a masters.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/23
| 2,054
| 8,350
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate student who hopes to switch my major from engineering to Physics. Although this switch is possible, I lack several crucial foundation courses in Physics such as electrodynamics and quantum mechanics in my transcript and I hope to offset this by self-studying, either by:
* Going through a textbook, make notes for each chapter and attempt some of the exercises at the end of each chapter.
* Or, go through the MIT OCW courses and attempt the problem sets, projects, exams etc.
(I am personally leaning towards the latter as it feels more organized and less overwhelming).
But whichever path I take, I hope to type up all my notes and solutions on LaTeX and post it publicly (mostly a GitHub repo). I realise that doing this is not even remotely as rigorous as actually taking the course at university and being graded for it, but I would like to try.
My question is, how do graduate admissions committees and potential supervisors view self-studying of this sort? Does it carry any importance?
Note: I hope to apply to graduate schools in USA/Canada/Germany. My research experiences are all in Physics. [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116125/showing-proficiency-in-a-subject-without-taking-a-course) is pretty similar to mine, but this question is for a specific CS course, and I would like a more generalized answer.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Does it carry any importance? (to admissions)
>
>
>
Little to none. Anyone can claim to have studied something independently. If you want to increase your chances of admissions, you need to provide evidence that the admissions committee can easily check. Your repository does not count.
You should, however, do sufficient self study that you are able to succeed in graduate school. You may be required to complete graduate courses and to take qualifying exams; do start preparing for those things if they are applicable.
Successful research experience is more important; the purpose of a PhD is to do research. If you have already done it, that is very convincing to an admissions committee.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_1's [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/168078/12339), keep in mind that there may be opportunities to fill in certain gaps early in your graduate studies, at least if these gaps aren't too severe. In some countries in which a Master's degree is the normal route to a PhD, you might be able to take one or two upper level undergraduate courses as part of the Master's. Or you may be given the opportunity to do a "Pre-Master's" course and spend a semester filling in more substantial gaps. The latter option is common, even required in some cases, in the Netherlands.
Of course, by all means self-study courses to improve your chances of succeeding at your studies, but don't count on this having much affect on the admissions procedure. You could for instance mention it in a letter of motivation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: A lot of grad programs require you to take an entry exam, and also write-up an essay to send to the grad advisor.
Self-study won't necessarily help you pass the entrance exam. Depending on grad program, you often get stuck with a generic GRE exam that just ensures you know basic stuff you should have learned.. like reading, writing, math, etc. Some programs have had issues with foreign student language, so they may ask a foreign student to also pass a language test. (The tests must not be very hard, because I had quite a few exchange students in my grad program that could barely speak English.)
Where your self-study will shine is if you keep a portfolio of projects / work you do on your own, and you can reference that in your entrance essay.
Grad advisors are like hiring managers at jobs. They see tons of run-of-the-mill essays that just try to BS. But, if you can write an essay that specifically references things you worked on, are working on, etc, the grad advisor might be more impressed.
EG: I applied to info sys grad program at my college. I had years of experience in the working world as an analyst. So, in my essay, I explained how I had focused my career on doing info sys work, how the undergrad had helped me, but also how, because of my experience, I knew the undergrad was not enough to take my career to the next level. So, I really wanted to shoot for the grad program to do that, which had more focused studies. I pointed to several research projects I did on my own to help show that I was serious about what I did... I quit my job and went to college full-time to get my degree(s), too. Grad advisor was impressed with my work and essay, because it stood out.
For a Physics program, professors and advisors would probably be more interested in someone that's so into Physics they like to mess around with it in their spare time. So, self-study could help.
Self-study would also make it easier transitioning into a grad program, because a lot of times the classes start with a refresher. You'll be able to reinforce knowledge you already have, and can possibly have a leg-up on others b/c you already know some of what's going on.
If you're serious about pursuing physics, then do a project portfolio. It can't hurt, and it can only help. A lot of careers are wanting folks to have portfolios of work now.. not just art folks, but programmers, analysts, etc. It's just the direction we're all going in.
There's mixed signals about this, though... Hiring Managers say they're interested in seeing someone that has personal projects; shows the person is dedicated to what they do. But, recruiters and hiring managers also say they barely glance over a resume, let alone side projects someone has done. So, it can seem pointless.
So, my opinion about personal projects is to work on ones that you are interested in and have fun on. When publishing a project, explain how it can apply to real-world application (applied science), because there's a lot of folks that have trouble taking high-level theory and translating it into application. We need people to "translate".
EG: I'm trying to implement a physically-based rendering lighting model in a video game. My head spins reading a lot of high-level white papers. But, I give kudos to folks that have taken the time to interpret that into real-world application in tutorials. If I was a hiring manager or grad adsvisor, I'd look at that and go "this person added value by translating academic speak into something more practical folks can understand."
I could go on and on about this...
But, side projects and self-study will help you get into a program if you can leverage it to show a grad advisor that you're serious about the field.
Some colleges are bypassing GRE's, and just letting folks into grad school now... I think it's for certain things grad programs that are hurting for money... like MBA's and junk. Colleges are in business to make money, so as they saw less folks pursuing masters (b/c the cost is outrageous, and the benefits are not as good as they used to be), they try to entice (sucker) more folks to sign up for grad programs to since $40k of their life away.
You need to be really sure the grad program you want to shoot for will actually help you.
I got a masters in info sys, and it's been pretty useless. In the analytics industry, a degree is just a check-box. All most folks care about is that you have a bachellors. A masters doesn't really get you anything else. What folks are really interested in is if you have 5 yrs exp in specific software suites, ERP's, etc. OR, that you have 5 yrs exp as a data scientist.
So, if you love physics, make sure the masters in physics would actually help you before pursuing it. Some folks (like myself) jumped for a masters thinking it would put them ahead, and all it does it leave you in a dead zone.. b/c folks think you're over-qualified for entry work, and under-experienced for senior work.
My masters in IS would help me if I had management experience, b/c it's what CIO's, IT managers, etc need. But, I've never had management experience, so nobody's going to hire me out of the blue and take a chance on me as a manager.
You have to make sure your degree is going to be worth the time, effort and expense.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/23
| 984
| 3,796
|
<issue_start>username_0: Siblings contributed to a research paper. The publisher asks to fill no competing interest form. Citing the [journal in question](https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/286/supporthub/publishing/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNjIxNzc5NjMyL2dlbi8xNjIxNzc5NjMyL3NpZC9mVUxJdGFtd0NQOURIRTdVTmZIeXZVZF8ybmpBU19RdV94WDZPUzNlcDM5NGl2cWI0a3lMYjVGRUNwaVdyU3B0TVFoT29HUTFXRzhOQnJZdTZFZkZTVzEyOThqbGlHWmFueVlxc2EzYU1scER5JTdFRVZoVmxNekJLQSUyMSUyMQ%3D%3D/), it contains the following check box:
>
> ☐ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
> interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
> influence the work reported in this paper.
>
>
> ☐ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal
> relationships which may be considered as potential competing
> interests:
>
>
>
What the siblings are obliged to declare? Does "personal relationships" requires them to declare their personal relationship? But what if their relationship certainly does not influence the work? Any suggestions on whether to declare their relationship or not?<issue_comment>username_1: There is already an assumption that authors working together have some level of positive relationship - whether colleagues, advisor/advisee, or relatives. These things need not be declared, because they don't influence the content of the work besides all the authors standing by it (which is a minimum requirement for even submitting the paper).
If a sibling has a stake in a company selling widgets and the paper is about how widgets are superior to doodads, then this likely should be reported because the paper could be influenced by a sibling's desire to help their relative's business.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A conflict of interest is when you (the person with the conflict) has an interest in the results that counters or competes, or appears to counter/compete, with the desire to discover the truth.
The fact that the co-authors are siblings, doesn’t in itself, cause a conflict of interest. In fact, I find it rather difficult to come up with a hypothetical scenario where it would lead to a such a conflict. At the most, I suppose that one of them might be participating in order to bolster the other for some reason, but in that case, I would assume that the sibling has an even stronger motive, which should be disclosed or obvious (confirming their own previous research).
A conflict of interest should be understood as a motive sufficient to cause you to endanger your career and reputation by falsifying data. This is frequently monetary, but it doesn’t have to be. But it has to be comprehensibly compelling. This is why companies frequently have a limit on the value of gifts to employees, because it’s not expected that someone would jeopardize a job for a single gift that was of no real value. If you are investigating the effectiveness of a drug, and the CEO of that company once gave you a pack of gum at a trade show, that’s not going to cause you to knowingly make up your results as a way to say thanks. If on the other hand, the same CEO had gotten your child into an experimental trial for the drug, and saved your child’s life, you might, out of gratitude, be willing to exaggerate the effectiveness.
The reason for the rules on disclosing conflicts of interest, are two. One, it gives the opportunity for heightened scrutiny, to find those that have let the conflict override truth. Two, disclosure increases trust, and conversely non-disclosure is superficial evidence of fraud.
If you owe a life-debt to someone or they are your primary source of income and fail to disclose that, upon discovery everyone will assume your results are both fraudulent and useless.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/23
| 1,285
| 5,207
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am finishing my PhD at a famous research institution located in Europe. I am quite delayed due to COVID-related disruptions, which forced us to devote most lab equipment to vaccine development and trial assessment instead of doing some experiments I needed to validate my hypotheses.
Nonetheless, I will obtain my degree within the next few months. My thesis has already gone through a mandatory internal assessment process, which is similar to peer review. And my advisor has already appointed examiners.
I have some interesting publications in good journals (Nature Comms and equivalent ones), but a big part of my thesis is only published as a preprint in medRxiv. My findings are very novel and, in the words of my supervisor (who is a big name in the field), it's a major breakthrough. We've contacted other big names in the field, who are also really interested in this new approach, and they are helping to validate things. We already have enough for submitting to a top journal, which is good.
My advisor and his peers are writing grant applications and preparing clinical trials based on my findings. I am interested in continuing with this line of research, but I will need to find a different host institution once I graduate. I would like to continue as soon as possible in order not to loose a head start on my own ideas.
I am a bit confused with research-oriented Assistant Professor openings. Is it appropriate to apply at this stage? I have contacted one US professor behind an open position, and he encouraged me to apply. However, is this the norm for most American and European positions?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes it is appropriate to apply now, at least in the US. Don't wait. The competition is fierce for jobs in many fields. Consider a post doc as a backup strategy. But now is the time to start applying.
The process will take a while and you don't really want to have a gap in your career if you can manage it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: In most biology/biological sciences departments in the US and Canada it would be unusual for someone to be hired into a tenure-track assistant professorship immediately following their PhD; most candidates would have at least a year or two of postdoctoral experience. (This may be different in biomedical and/or clinically oriented programs). If you have a spectacular research record that could make you an exception.
Postdoctoral experience is less expected in math (although 1-2 years is probably still the median), and even less in statistics; this is probably also the case in other fields such as engineering where people with a fresh PhD can get well-paying jobs in industry.
It doesn't hurt to apply for such positions, but I would say if would be safer to at least consider a few post-doctoral positions as a backup plan.
Finally, as with most questions like this, **you will get the most relevant advice from your supervisor and colleagues in your lab/program**; they know the most about the norms of your particular sub-field and geographic region. Unless you have some particular reason *not* to, you should probably ask them.
---
Here is some data from a reasonably recent survey of (mostly North American) ecologists (note, this paper was contentious because of the way it handled gender and informed consent of respondents):
>
> Recently hired TT assistant professors of ecology typically were about 4 years post-Ph.D. at the time of hiring (mean 4.2 years, median 4). 69% had anywhere from 2 to 6 years of post-Ph.D. experience, with a range from 0 to 11 years of post-Ph.D. experience. The majority of ecology faculty job seekers also are 2–6 years post-Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
> These data are consistent with a job market in which most hiring institutions prefer applicants with at least a year or two of post-Ph.D. experience. But once you have a few years of post-Ph.D. experience, the marginal value of additional post-Ph.D. experience appears to be low at best, though it's hard to say precisely based on the available data.
>
>
>
<NAME>. “A Data-Based Guide to the North American Ecology Faculty Job Market.” The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 101, no. 2 (2020): e01624. <https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1624>.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Is it a norm? Probably more of an exception than a norm. But it is also an exception that a Ph. D. student has a major breakthrough under his/her belt at the time of graduation. From the point of view of the hiring committee, the reason to hire someone with postdocs is because they would have shown some ability to conduct independent research, or at least work in other research environment than their *alma mater* and their supervisor. But if they are convinced that you were the main driving force behind a major breakthrough, that's obviously a moot point. A committee faithful to the purpose would not pass over such a candidate in favor of someone who did regular work over the course of a couple of postdocs.
Answering a question of what is appropriate, I don't think that if a position is openly and internationally advertised, you are ever committing a *faux pas* by applying.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/23
| 2,628
| 11,412
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is being a poor writer a serious impediment as a researcher? I mean if you're particularly bad at writing reports and always get bad feedback as a student for your reports, does that mean my research career would never take off?
The question asks whether researchers working in teams are all required to contribute to composing the reports or can you get away with it if you compensate with other skills?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you need to be able to write to be successful in academia, as in many things.
But it is a skill that can be learned. You can take courses and you can practice. And, as with most learning, practice with feedback is the path. It isn't a short path, necessarily, but it is one that you can follow.
Actually, there are courses in both creative writing and technical writing.
You need to write with both precision and clarity and sometimes those are in opposition. But practice (with feedback) helps.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends what kind of a research team you're on. It will be hard to succeed in an academic (tenure-track) research professorship if you write poorly, because you would always have to find collaborators to help you with grant proposals and research papers; and, there is an expectation that you will be an **independent** researcher, which will be harder to establish if you always have to co-author grants and papers (for example, the main source of funding for many Canadian STEM researchers is the *Discovery Grant* program, which is a solo rather than a group submission).
There may be some niches in industry or governmental labs/research groups where you could successfully delegate the writing to someone else. You could also aim for a permanent technical position in a large academic lab, but these positions are (1) rare; (2) often based on "soft money" (i.e. you or your supervisor would have to keep writing successful grants for you to keep your job); (3) less well paid/less prestigious than typical solo-research-professor positions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If one truly cannot write coherently, yes, that is a serious impediment.
Yes, when/if you get negative feedback on your reports, it means that you need to improve the quality of your writing in those reports.
That's it.
But/and one's writing ability is not an immovable object. One can improve, with effort. Effort.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It is a serious impediment, but I personally know people who, despite being successful researchers, have immense problems with writing a paragraph of clear text in a grammatically correct english. There are not that many of them though.
Regarding how to deal with that, apart from the obvious solution proposed (improve with effort), another possibility is to find and join a team where you'll be responsible for something you're good at, another person would be responsible for writing, and you'll publish together. This is very situational and does not happen too often, but it exists.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In order to be successful in academia, one has to be performant in teaching, research, applications for grants and administrative tasks. If being a poor writer is not a so huge problem if you have to fill a form, this can be a problem:
* in teaching, as it will be harder for the students to understand your notes;
* in research. One can have the best idea in the world, but it might not be appreciated or even publish if one is not able to present it in an understandable way.
* In application for grant (but more generally in any application), as it is difficult to be convincing by writing poorly.
This being said, the good new is that there is always the possibility to improve. Sometimes it is difficult to have criticism on what we wrote ourselves, like the phenomenon where you mentally correct some typos. It can be a good way to read what you wrote as if it was written by your worst enemy and you would like to criticize it as much as possible.
Also, take profit of the feedback you got on your writing.
To answer the last question, contribution of the authors is usually very dependent on the field you work. An understatement is that everybody would prefer to work with a good writer than a bad one.
To conclude, one can have in mind the 5C-rule for writing:
* correctness
* concision
* completeness of the information
* clarity
* coherence
and each text/report you write should satisfy this.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It's hard to properly answer this without having samples of your writing or of the edits made by your critics.
One of the saddest - and stupidest - things in academic work is **academese**. Months and even years of work and thought on a topic should result in conclusions that are clearly communicable both orally and in writing. Yet so few papers can be easily read. It may well be that you are the type who can speak clearly about something but have been repeatedly discouraged in writing about it with the same simple style: it's not *professionally sophisticated*, not the *done way*, etc. If this is the problem, then you may well be better off than those of us who adopted the orthodox way of (mis)communicating things in reports, reviews and papers - you can teach yourself how to do it right without having to unlearn the habit of writing pompous nonsense.
You need to do two things, I think.
1. As username_1 said, attend a professional writing course for people in your general field.
2. Ignore criticism of your writing that seems to be based on lack of orthodoxy to existing academic writing styles.
For real feedback look at what your own peers are writing and how it's expressed. Select the best ones *in your own assessment* and try to get their genuine views on your writing. The older generation tend to become more traditional and orthodox. *And try to get opinion from peers who are not native users of the language. It's a good sign if they can get it on first reading.*
One sure way to improve your writing in English is to translate your own papers (or at least the abstracts) into some other language. The simpler your phrasing for an idea is, the easier it is to translate it. There follows the great conclusion - why didn't I write it as simply as this in English from the start ?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: **No, poor writing as a student is not necessarily an impediment to becoming a good researcher. You will just need to work hard to improve and find a good advisor or fellow researcher to critique your writing.**
I think that good writing is linked with good thinking. I have spent a lot of time reading work by non-native English speakers. Sometimes, even if the grammar and word usage is wrong, I can easily tell what the writer is trying to say because their writing is logical and well-organized. I have a colleague whose mother tongue doesn't have articles. He will probably miss some necessary "a"s and put "the"s where they are not needed for the rest of his life, but this is quite easy for any native speaker to clean up since his arguments are always very clear. Writing style is less important than **logic and organization** and, for students early in their career, this is often the biggest problem. This sometimes has nothing to do with writing style and everything to do with the fact that they don't really have a broad understanding of the research field they are writing about: they include many small irrelevant details and do not make the necessary big picture arguments. Also, they often put no thought into organization and just spill out the ideas in a random order with no links between them.
Of the several graduate students and postdocs I've mentored (~15), almost all started out as what I would call poor writers. **They all improved through writing their own papers and going through many drafts with me.** I suggest that you find an advisor who you consider to be a reasonably good writer and is willing to go through your papers with you, making specific comments on how you can improve. If your advisor won't help you, see if you can find another researcher willing to help. Talk to other students in the group and find out if they are good at mentoring their students through writing.
Writing is absolutely essential for an academic research career, and after becoming relatively senior you will spend most of your time writing.
**If you are a non-native English speaker**, you may think you are a poor writer because people correct mistakes in your grammar or word usage. **I wouldn't worry too much about this because these things can be superficial.** Focus on a logical argument and good organization, and you can probably find a coworker (or pay someone) to fix your English.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: The following assumes that "poor writer" means that you have profound problems in explaining yourself in written manner. If this is the case it is a serious impediment.
Presenting results is almost as important as obtaining them. Especially when trying to get funding or get published in high impact factor journals. I've seen drafts that were almost incomprehensible and required massive editing to carve out the obfuscated but substantial results. Writing up results is a large aspect of academia and I don't think that someone who lacks the ability to present their results in an intelligible manner will prevail on their own. Most of the time, you can find help in some form, so not all is lost, but it is certainly a hurdle that one needs to take.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: This is from a non-native-speaker, STEM perspective.
* It is common for undergraduate/graduate students to be bad at
writing at the beginning.
* In countries like Russia and China, an undergraduate or a graduate student often obtains their first good results while they still lack English skill to write them up. Old-generation Russian professors used to write up the results of their students (without being listed as co-authors).
* Most of the accomplished researchers have decent writing skills. It might be, of course, selection, but I suspect they just learn. If you are able to make progress in modern science, then you are smart and hence you can learn to write (of course, barring certain medical conditions).
* In STEM fields, minimal sufficient level is rather low. It's OK to use simple language and a toolbox of standard expressions, follow a standard template (e. g. "Definition - Example - Lemma - Proof - Theorem - Proof"). The outcome may be dry and not "beautifully written", but if the result is interesting enough, this will not prevent people from reading.
* While it is true that there are courses that teach writing (and it's good to take them!), I suspect that, just like generally with languages, most learning happens through osmosis, exposure and practice. As you read many research papers, you will start picking up from them. Also, you will inevitably practice writing up you own results.
* No, not all team members have to participate in writing. It suffices
that one member of a team of co-authors writes the text. If someone takes up this task and the result is not satisfactory, the co-authors who are more qualified will edit.
* Don't shy away from writing tasks in a team if your writing skills are poor, use this opportunity to practice and learn.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/23
| 2,223
| 8,824
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the last few years I have been working on a controversial topic **A** of my field. As usual, I started doing the state-of-the-art and talked with some scientists, and I discovered that the scientific community is divided in two groups:
1. ~80% of the scientists don't think **A** can work
2. The remaining ~20% think **A** can work
It's difficult to formally prove **A** (no one has done it yet) and basically not possible to experimentally verify it (we only have some not-so-strong empirical evidences). There are also some sort of philosophical issues (even if the topic is really technical). However, if formally proved, it would have a huge impact on both research and industry.
I think that group 1 is wrong and also group 2 is wrong. The truth, in my vision, is in the middle, and my research focuses on this: trying to find a different modeling or trying to formally prove only part of **A**, or **A** but with some extra assumptions, and so on.
However, during the years, these two "factions" started to diverge more and more on opinions, to such an extent that the group 2 now always bases their claims on a couple of very controversial papers (which most people, including me, think are flawed). This way of reasoning of group 2 made most of the community (group 1) to believe that any research claiming **A** is just wrong (which is not true).
And then, there is me. Probably because I arrived at a later stage of this "discussion", I see things in a different manner: there is hope for **A**, but we need to recognize the limits of **A** and the fact that the state-of-the-art works on **A** have problems. However, when I submit a paper on this topic (from a position paper, to a super-technical paper), I very often get reviews like:
1. From group 1: "**A** is a shitty thing", "Oh no, another paper on **A**", "This is not interesting for the community" \*
2. From group 2: "We already proved **A**, why we need this work?"
\*These are textual transcripts of sentences in reviews of top conferences/journals.
And often these reviews are opinion-based and not fact-based, which make me very frustrated, because they don't criticize the work itself (formal proofs, etc.), but the topic.
Luckily, I have sometimes received reviews that really appreciate my work and some scientists have told me that my way is the right thing to do. However, publishing (especially in top journals and conferences) is very difficult in this way, because I always get at least some reviewers against me (in one sense or in the other, often both of them). Editors most of the time don't care about the controversial reviews, they just reject the paper.
What I'm doing now, for papers on **A**, is to publish in less-important journals or in journals not 100% on topic, but this reduces the visibility of my works (and unfortunately impact my career...). This makes me sad and I'm really thinking to abandon this topic. Getting a rejection is always frustrating, but getting many rejections based on opinions is really terrible...
I don't know if there is a solution or what I should do. For the pure research spirit, I may publish just on Arxiv or so, hoping that someone will notice them... but you know, an academic career requires you to publish, and to publish in good journals/conferences...
Any suggestions?<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like your problem is that peer reviewers are criticizing your research topic instead of the content of your research. The only things you can do about that are:
* submit your work to venues that specialize in your research topic.
* change your topic.
Ultimately, the peer review system allows people to write poor quality reviews. There is nothing you can do about that if you are an author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A principle in rhetorics and the art of persuasion states that it is useful to preemptively address any criticism that you expect will be leveled at you after you make your argument, by raising the objection yourself and then explaining why it’s not valid *while* you are making the argument in the first place. \* If you do this in a thoughtful way, a potential critic might be converted into a supporter.
Thus, instead of laying out your case following the rough template of
>
> [make a claim/hypothesis/etc]
>
>
> [present first supporting argument]
>
>
> [present second supporting argument]
>
>
> [etc]
>
>
>
you could instead use a structure such as
>
> [make a claim/hypothesis/etc]
>
>
> [present first supporting argument]
>
>
> [present second supporting argument]
>
>
> [etc]
>
>
> [raise first possible objection, then address it]
>
>
> [raise second possible objection, then address it]
>
>
> [etc]
>
>
>
Now, it is not always possible to foresee all objections that could be raised by someone. (This is especially true since we are mainly thinking here about objections that are invalid, and can therefore be successfully defended against!) However, in your case you have already heard the main invalid objections raised several times, and can therefore preemptively defend against them according to this recipe.
Here’s how this can work in practice. The way to defend against the objection
>
> "Oh no, another paper on **A**"
>
>
>
Is by making it very very clear in the first place that your paper is not “another paper on **A**”. That is, suppose that in the introduction to a rejected paper you wrote
>
> In this paper we show that **A** can work in a scenario in which [some extra assumptions].
>
>
> [*proceeding to describe your solution*]
>
>
>
While accurate, this may not provide enough context to differentiate what you’re doing from the typical “paper on **A**”, which can lead to the sort of knee-jerk reaction from the reviewer that you quoted. Instead, maybe write something like
>
> Many papers have been written claiming to show that **A** can work. We do not make such a claim, and indeed believe the earlier attempts to show this are incomplete and that the problem may continue to resist attempts at a rigorous solution because of the inherent difficulty of either formally proving or experimentally verifying **A**.
>
>
> Instead, our goal is more modest, and therefore more achievable. We show that, if one is willing to assume [extra assumptions], the problem becomes tractable. In that case, a *version of **A*** can indeed be made to work through a reasonably straightforward application of [technique].
>
>
>
It seems to me that someone from the anti-**A** faction is likely to treat your claims with a bit more respect after a paragraph like this.
Similarly, the second objection
>
> We already proved A, why we need this work?
>
>
>
can also be preemptively addressed by carefully considering what the reviewers’ misconception is about what your paper is doing, what the other papers about **A** are doing, and how those two things differ, and making sure to explicitly point out that possible source of confusion and clarify it. For example, you can insert somewhere a paragraph along the following lines:
>
> It should be emphasized that the earlier papers [X, Y, Z] have proposed interesting ways to make **A** work, as well as reasonable arguments to support those proposals. Thus, it might appear that the current work, which shows that **A** works under additional assumptions, is superseded by these earlier results. That is not the case; the reason is that the current solution is in fact completely rigorous, and thus demonstrates **A** under the extra assumptions in a more satisfactory and complete manner than the previous works. Moreover, our formal verification gives further insight into the nature of **A** that may turn out to be applicable to additional situations, perhaps leading to future results, or even to an eventual completely rigorous demonstration that **A** can work in full generality.
>
>
>
Summary: at the end of the day, there is always the possibility of getting unfair and invalid criticism, either of a kind that you didn’t expect, or of a kind that you did expect and tried to address preemptively but where the critic simply isn’t receptive to your reasoning. However, the method of preemptively addressing criticism will be able to successfully shoot down at least some of the objections, with some probability. It gives you the best shot at convincing people that your arguments are valid and “interesting for the community”. That seems like the best that one can hope for in this situation. Good luck!
\* Source: this is a “principle” that I invented. However, I’m pretty sure I’m far from the first person to discover the usefulness of this technique, so maybe it actually is a principle that was explicitly formulated by someone at some point.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/24
| 1,536
| 6,198
|
<issue_start>username_0: I plan to pursue a graduate school "career" in theoretical condensed matter physics in the US; however, getting into a grad program as a theory student is quite difficult due to limited spacing, little funding, and high competition. Should I instead apply as an experimentalist and then switch over to theory in grad school? Or should I not say "experimentalist' or "theorist" in my statement of purpose and instead focus on the topic(s) in condensed matter physics that interest me and include names of professors in theory and experiment? In the former case, is the action ethical? In the latter case, will it seem that I am not focused? Please advise, since I do not want to narrow my options.<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like your problem is that peer reviewers are criticizing your research topic instead of the content of your research. The only things you can do about that are:
* submit your work to venues that specialize in your research topic.
* change your topic.
Ultimately, the peer review system allows people to write poor quality reviews. There is nothing you can do about that if you are an author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A principle in rhetorics and the art of persuasion states that it is useful to preemptively address any criticism that you expect will be leveled at you after you make your argument, by raising the objection yourself and then explaining why it’s not valid *while* you are making the argument in the first place. \* If you do this in a thoughtful way, a potential critic might be converted into a supporter.
Thus, instead of laying out your case following the rough template of
>
> [make a claim/hypothesis/etc]
>
>
> [present first supporting argument]
>
>
> [present second supporting argument]
>
>
> [etc]
>
>
>
you could instead use a structure such as
>
> [make a claim/hypothesis/etc]
>
>
> [present first supporting argument]
>
>
> [present second supporting argument]
>
>
> [etc]
>
>
> [raise first possible objection, then address it]
>
>
> [raise second possible objection, then address it]
>
>
> [etc]
>
>
>
Now, it is not always possible to foresee all objections that could be raised by someone. (This is especially true since we are mainly thinking here about objections that are invalid, and can therefore be successfully defended against!) However, in your case you have already heard the main invalid objections raised several times, and can therefore preemptively defend against them according to this recipe.
Here’s how this can work in practice. The way to defend against the objection
>
> "Oh no, another paper on **A**"
>
>
>
Is by making it very very clear in the first place that your paper is not “another paper on **A**”. That is, suppose that in the introduction to a rejected paper you wrote
>
> In this paper we show that **A** can work in a scenario in which [some extra assumptions].
>
>
> [*proceeding to describe your solution*]
>
>
>
While accurate, this may not provide enough context to differentiate what you’re doing from the typical “paper on **A**”, which can lead to the sort of knee-jerk reaction from the reviewer that you quoted. Instead, maybe write something like
>
> Many papers have been written claiming to show that **A** can work. We do not make such a claim, and indeed believe the earlier attempts to show this are incomplete and that the problem may continue to resist attempts at a rigorous solution because of the inherent difficulty of either formally proving or experimentally verifying **A**.
>
>
> Instead, our goal is more modest, and therefore more achievable. We show that, if one is willing to assume [extra assumptions], the problem becomes tractable. In that case, a *version of **A*** can indeed be made to work through a reasonably straightforward application of [technique].
>
>
>
It seems to me that someone from the anti-**A** faction is likely to treat your claims with a bit more respect after a paragraph like this.
Similarly, the second objection
>
> We already proved A, why we need this work?
>
>
>
can also be preemptively addressed by carefully considering what the reviewers’ misconception is about what your paper is doing, what the other papers about **A** are doing, and how those two things differ, and making sure to explicitly point out that possible source of confusion and clarify it. For example, you can insert somewhere a paragraph along the following lines:
>
> It should be emphasized that the earlier papers [X, Y, Z] have proposed interesting ways to make **A** work, as well as reasonable arguments to support those proposals. Thus, it might appear that the current work, which shows that **A** works under additional assumptions, is superseded by these earlier results. That is not the case; the reason is that the current solution is in fact completely rigorous, and thus demonstrates **A** under the extra assumptions in a more satisfactory and complete manner than the previous works. Moreover, our formal verification gives further insight into the nature of **A** that may turn out to be applicable to additional situations, perhaps leading to future results, or even to an eventual completely rigorous demonstration that **A** can work in full generality.
>
>
>
Summary: at the end of the day, there is always the possibility of getting unfair and invalid criticism, either of a kind that you didn’t expect, or of a kind that you did expect and tried to address preemptively but where the critic simply isn’t receptive to your reasoning. However, the method of preemptively addressing criticism will be able to successfully shoot down at least some of the objections, with some probability. It gives you the best shot at convincing people that your arguments are valid and “interesting for the community”. That seems like the best that one can hope for in this situation. Good luck!
\* Source: this is a “principle” that I invented. However, I’m pretty sure I’m far from the first person to discover the usefulness of this technique, so maybe it actually is a principle that was explicitly formulated by someone at some point.
Upvotes: 3
|
2021/05/24
| 874
| 3,786
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a research master student in STEM field. My supervisor and I have weekly meetings. Each meeting lasts for about 15-20 minutes. Before each meeting, I will summarize the most important work I have done in a week in a powerpoint and will present my work to him in each weekly meeting. Then my supervisor will ask me some questions based on my work and I will explain some particular details to him. If there is anything I cannot answer him, I will look into that particular details after the meeting, revise my design and reply to him in the next meeting. This supervising style sounds good because both my supervisor and I are both responsive to our duties.
However, whenever I have technical difficulties (too often actually), I cannot get help from my supervisor or my labmates. For example, when I did some theoretical proof work and sent my work to him, he did not read it and give me comments (though I understand that it takes extra time or non-meeting time for him to read my work and he is busy with other duties). Also when the system I have been designing generates simulation errors, he would not look into the simulation details with me. Instead he would just say something like "there must be some problems, you need to solve it". Or he would just ask me to break the whole system into smaller modules and look into each of the modules. But I have already been doing this. It seems that every time I need to solve the problem by myself. I try to ask my labmates for help. But their research topics are somewhat different from mine. So they cannot offer me much help. Though I am happy to look into the technical difficulties by myself and regard it as an opportunity to learn (and get some self-satisfaction when I get the problems solved), it takes me so much time which makes me look like an inefficient researcher.
Now my research has been progressing very slowly. And I am very worried that I cannot graduate on time. Also I still want to achieve a good result in my research and hope I can publish a paper. Is there anything I can do to accelerate my research progress? Is there any technique to solve the technical problems in a more timely manner?
Also, is the supervising style a typical one? Is it reasonable to expect my supervisor to look into the details of my work with me? Or professors would usually regard technical details are too trivial and expect their research students to have adequate experience and knowledge to solve these problems?
Thanks a lot.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is it reasonable to expect my supervisor to look into the details of my work with me?
>
>
>
No. Some supervisors might do that, others might not. It is reasonable for you to expect your supervisor to identify resources that will help you work independently.
>
> is the supervising style a typical one?
>
>
>
There is no typical supervising style.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I’m not sure what the answer to this question will give you.
Suppose that you are told that all advisors are like this; how will this help you any more than hearing that your advisor’s style is way off?
It sounds like a fairly typical interaction a professor might have with a masters student. Weekly meetings are good, checking in to see that you’re trying stuff is good, but perhaps not reading your results quickly is less than optimal.
Perhaps a more apt question to ask is: is this supervision style good for *you*?
From the way you describe it, it sounds like the answer is no.
I suggest you try to ask your advisor for more detailed/personal attention (unlikely to happen), direct you to resources that will help you move forward (like a fellow grad student/postdoc, or a class you can take), or be more self directed.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/24
| 741
| 3,472
|
<issue_start>username_0: I read all comments for fixing my problems regarding my Google Scholar profile. When I search my name in Google, my Google Scholar profile appears in the Indonesian Language. I fixed the cookies, I changed the language to English from this link (<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_settings?hl=en#1> ), I manually changed the URL, but as soon as I leave my Google Scholar profile and search for it on Google, the same problem still exists. It seems I never changed the language in my profile. I checked my account languages to make sure that there is no Indonesian language there.<issue_comment>username_1: **There is no language associated with a profile**. Anyone who searches for your profile from Google Scholar when logged in will see it in the language they have specified in their own settings. This only changes the language of the UI, and does not affect the content (publications, etc.) in your profile.
In addition to this, **Google's search results are personalized**. For some reason, Google's search algorithm seems to have decided that the Indonesian version of your profile is the most relevant to your account and location. This need not be the same version that appears in the search results when someone else, using a different account at a different location, searches for it, and there is no way for you to influence this.
So, there is no problem here that needs to be fixed, and **changing how the search results appear to you, even if possible, would not have any effect on how it appears to others**.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the software is written a certain way, the IP address of your ISP is typically used with a service that associates it with a geographic location.
The only way to work around this is to use a VPN service, which (when running) will take your requests locally from your machine and send them (in a secure way) to a machine in another country. To the applications you are using (Google Scholar), this country's machine will seem to be the only one making the request.
[This is the first link about VPN setups I found with a Google search](https://pixelprivacy.com/vpn/change-ip-address/). It's not a promotion that I benefit from; but, beware that it's nearly impossible to find information about these services that don't also advertise their services. Before using any of them, do some comparative reviews, as they'll all guide you to their product.
Occasionally you can create an account, and sometimes the software will use the preferences of your account to configure your language. From my lack of using Google Scholar heavily, I cannot state if Google did the programming to store and maintain the overridden location to language lookup with a logged in Google account clearly asking for a different language. If they did implement this, it still doesn't mean you always get your desired language, as there can also be bugs in the overriding, or scenarios where you launched a search without logging in first.
Note that all of these are how you would look up your information. What other people see when they look up your information is completely dependent on their IP address geolocation information and their account preferences. You can't force your information to display in your chosen language for someone else; mostly because that's not how they wrote the software. They wrote it to service the expected language of the requestor, not of the presentor.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/24
| 1,610
| 6,912
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been working in the UK for 8+ years, partially in academia and partially in industry, with satisfying results in both cases. I have been working fully-remote (from the UK) for the last year and I find this situation ideal for me. I am now thinking of moving back to my home country, Italy.
I know that working fully-remote from the same country of your employer is one thing, working fully-remote "from everywhere" is another, and they require different types of contract.
I can easily find jobs as a fully-remote employee from my country if I am looking for industry jobs. However, I would really like to keep working in academia, and I have not been able to find any University ad that talks about the possibility of a fully-remote position "from everywhere" (or even just a "fully-remote" position from the same country as the University).
Does it mean that Academia will NOT make these types of fully-remote contracts? Or it's possible that this arrangement will be discussed separately once the first contact is made?
Notice that I am not limiting myself to UK Universities. Anything is fine. My field is Machine Learning research so I need nothing more than my laptop (the heavy work is often done on remote servers).
EDIT: Please consider that when I am talking about "working in academia" I am referring to "pure" research job, with little to none educational obligation. If this seems crazy to you, consider that it's what I have been doing for the past year.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not aware of any username_3 positions advertised as being fully remote. For universities with a sufficient number of online classes (which occurred even prior to the pandemic), it might be possible for someone to work remotely. There are still committee meetings and meetings with grad students that are usually expected to occur in-person, as well as research that might be difficult to do remotely. Some professors choose to live such that they have a long commute (possibly even requiring air travel) and are only on campus 2-3 days per week during which they fit their in-person meetings and classes.
Given that there are many more qualified applicants than positions for academia, there is less incentive for schools to give a fully-remote contract when they have many applicants willing to work in-person.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: No doubt there is someone, somewhere, who has a fully-remote contract from a university. However, it is not something I have ever encountered, and I think it is inherently unlikely to be something any traditional university wishes to offer in the near future. A university's 'business model' is built around advertising that their campus is a better place to be than the competition's (because libraries, or labs, or equipment, or people, or sports, or...). Advertising 'fully remote' jobs would simply serve to undermine that message. In addition, having remote (and particularly overseas-remote) employees creates administrative and legal concerns that universities are not well-placed to manage.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You probably have at least a couple of options, but I'm not sure any of them are good.
* You say that you are currently being paid through an external grant. If this grant pays your entire salary, and you would just like a university *affiliation*, then you might be able to line up some sort of "Visiting Scholar" position, similarly to a professor on sabbatical from their home university.
However, it is probably impossible to transition to a paid position at the same university, if your external funding disappears.
* Universities with a big online presence may hire online faculty. For example, [Southern New Hampshire University](https://www.snhu.edu/about-us/employment/online-adjunct-faculty-teaching-jobs) is known for enrolling a large number of online students, and they hire remote.
If going this route I would expect mediocre working conditions, poverty-level wages, and non-existent job security.
If you want working conditions, job security, and compensation similar to a research university, then for now your plans probably aren't workable.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If you have soft money and simply need a hosting institution, there exist institutions (not necessarily universities) that will host you and allow you to work anywhere. One possible example is [here](http://ronininstitute.org) (this was the first I managed to find, and my linking to it does not constitute a recommendation; do your own due diligence before entering into any financial relationship). Or you may be able to find a university department willing to do essentially the same thing.
Some university research staff positions (probably not teaching positions post-COVID unless it's an "online" university) can be fully remote, but realising that potential may require an existing relationship with the department and some flexibility in the department. I live and work 600 miles away from my university, but I worked there first for four years and gained the trust of my research group leader and the department. Our group now includes multiple people that work remotely, one even from a different country, and some that didn't physically work at the university for a time. However, our university is a private institution, which gives it more flexibility than a public institution would, and I can't speak for any institution in Europe.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I am also a machine learning researcher and have worked as a postdoctoral fellow (PD) and principle investigator (PI) at a Japanese university for more than five years.
I am not good at legal issues. So, I would like to mention about the culture of Japanese universities. So, please understand that this post is not related to administrative constraints.
As for the PD position, you may be able to find a position that is completely remote. As far as I have encountered, it depends on the PI's decision as to how flexible they are willing to work. If the PI is looking for someone to publish a great paper, you can say, "I'm willing to work completely remotely."
Of course, the level of flexibility will be determined by Japanese law and the rules of each university. But here, as I mentioned earlier, I am going to ignore them).
In fact, when I was working as a PD, my lab members could join any meeting using remote conferencing tools. One of my colleagues used to come to the lab about once a month.
If you are interested in, you can search for username_3 positions in Japan at [J-REC IN](https://jrecin.jst.go.jp/seek/SeekJorSearch?ln=1&dispcount=10&keyword_and=english). If a PI who is open to remote work is recruiting PDs there, you may be able to work full remote.
Unfortunately, if you are looking for a full remote PI position (tenure position), it is not possible in Japan.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/24
| 2,531
| 9,736
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am nearing the end of my bachelor's degree and wish to know what my options are for continuing. Optimally, I would be able to immediately pursue a PhD, but I get conflicting information on the matter by different professors, advisors, and online sources.
The institutions I am mainly interested in are: [EPFL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_F%C3%A9d%C3%A9rale_de_Lausanne), [ETH Zürich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETH_Zurich), [University of Edinburgh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Edinburgh), [Technical University of Darmstadt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technische_Universit%C3%A4t_Darmstadt) (TU Darmstadt), [UCL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London), and [University of Warsaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Warsaw), as this is where I could find advisors most relevant to my research interests.
I was told that, besides the advisor being interested, the university has to have a precedent or a way for the master's degree requirement to be bypassed, but I am having a hard time locating such information. Any and all insight on previous cases of the aforementioned universities accepting or explicitly denying a PhD candidate on the basis of not having a master's degree is very useful.
Personally, I will have four to eight publications to my name by the time I graduate, but probably six at the time of sending out applications, and a very very strong research thesis. If that is not enough regardless of universities accepting without a master's degree or not, that would also be some useful information to have.
I repeat; I do not care about the rest of the criteria, just whether or not not having a master's degree is an absolute deal breaker for a PhD in the aforementioned institutions.<issue_comment>username_1: At least in the UK, a Master's is not a typical requirement for PhD entry, with the minimum level usually being a good undergraduate degree. E.g. pulling a random CS PhD project from the University of Edinburgh website, it says under candidate profile:
>
> A good Bachelors degree (2.1 or above or international equivalent)
> and/or Masters degree in a relevant subject (computer science,
> artificial intelligence, engineering, mathematics or related subject)
>
>
>
Similar language can be found in other PhD advertisements, indicating that while a Master's is desirable, it's not a requirement. And I imagine this phrasing is typical across the vast majority of PhD advertisements in the UK - I obviously can't exhaustively check, but I can't recall seeing any which explicitly require a Master's degree.
Mainly, what they're typically looking for is evidence of ability to conduct good-quality research in the field, so I think a good portfolio of papers would serve as evidence of that even moreso than a Master's (particularly given I imagine the median number of papers among UK PhD applicants is 0).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In contrast to [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/168137/4249), which holds absolutely true for the UK, the situation in most of continental Europe is the opposite.
On the continent, it would be very unusual to start a PhD directly after one's BSc, hence the suggestion to look for *"precedent or a way for the Master's requirement to be bypassed"* at your Unis of interest. This is in direct contrast with the UK, where *this is not even a requirement*.
(Source: PhD from France, professional network from all over the EU, followed by a postdoc and a permanent position in the UK.)
As a side-note, PhD programmes in the UK often offer different levels of funding for *home* and *international* students (it used to be *home+EU*, but, alas, Brexit) -- or worded alternatively, some/most PhD programmes in the UK are only fully funded for British students. In my anecdotal experience, the international students that do apply to a very limited number of available fully-funded positions tend to be finishing an MSc while applying (or already hold one), despite it not being a requirement. And given a choice between an applicant with an MSc and an applicant with a BSc only, the one with an MSc typically has more to offer simply because they have had more time to demonstrate their skills. (However, your specific situation of 6 publications at the time of application + 2 submitted is definitely "a lot to offer" from your side, and on par with MSc applicants.)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In Germany, it might be possible to start a PhD with only a bachelor's degree. Not all universities allow that, though (you will have to check their websites). To get accepted with only a bachelor's degree, you normally have to have very good grades, and it might be that you have to take additional courses.
Be aware though, that this is (still) quite uncommon and it might be hard to find a supervisor that will accept you with only a bachelor's degree, but it is possible.
You can find some general information (in German) [here](https://www.hochschulkompass.de/promotion/promotionsvorbereitung/zulassungsvoraussetzungen/deutsche-studienabschluesse.html).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: University of Warsaw has a list of PhD programs for international students, and having a master degree is one of the requirements to apply. This list is not exhaustive though, so if you're interested, please contact the responsible person and ask directly (there is an english webpage).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You provided a long list of universities and I bothered to check two of them, which took me about 5 minutes each at most. The ETH Zürich, as a Swiss federal institute of technology, is governed by Swiss regulations. Specifically, for the doctorate it's SR 414.133.1, available in [German](https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/cc/2008/872/20131101/de/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-cc-2008-872-20131101-de-pdf-a.pdf) and other languages that you can look up for yourself. In SR 414.133.1, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 5, 2., f. you can read that
>
> Kandidaten und Kandidatinnen mit herausragenden Qualifikationen.
>
>
>
can be admitted to do a doctorate at ETH Zürich. That is, you need "outstanding qualifications" and nothing else, not even a Bachelor's degree. It's up to you to prove that you are indeed outstanding enough.
For EPFL, the regulation is SR 414.133.2, available in [French](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/300/fr#art_5) for example, where it says you must prove qualifications equivalent to a Master's degree from ETHZ or EPFL, but you aren't required to have any specific degree. There is an exam after the first year of doctoral studies which you can repeat once on failure and if you fail again you are expelled.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm an american who did this as part of a special program at a university following the Bologna accord (which is the standard throughout continental Europe for some time now). On my records with the university they would write I was in the PhD (bridge) program to explain why I was taking 2 years of masters classes.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: My ten cents: In France, if your bachelor was 5 years long (some Latin-American countries have 5 year long bachelors) your advisor can fill a document asking the university to waive the Master on the basis that you already have 5 years of schooling, which can be considered equivalent to the French bach(3+2) system.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: A frame challenge: **Are you sure bypassing the masters is really the right thing to do?** Depending on your underlying motivations, there may be more effective ways to achieve them.
On the one hand, the main good motivation I’ve heard for going directly to a PhD is to *finish* it sooner. But instead of skipping the masters, you can also achieve this by completing a masters and PhD more quickly than average — a 1-year masters and a 3-year PhD. Many (?most) institutions allow early completion, especially if (e.g.) you have existing high-level course credits that can be transferred forward, to reduce the course-load during the masters/PhD. Taking this route, you sound like you’d be a very strong applicant, so you should have opportunities at excellent institutions. By contrast, applying for PhD’s without a masters in continental Europe shouldn’t be impossible (as other answers say), but would certainly make the competition harder and reduce your options.
On the other hand, completing sooner has some disadvantages that many students overlook or underestimate. In many ways, working conditions as a grad student are *excellent* — you have more time and support for research than you probably ever will again. As you progress in an academic career, administrative and service duties soon take up more time and energy than most people foresee. And many jobs and grants are only available for a limited number of years after PhD completion — so cutting the time you take in graduate study will reduce the research track record you’ll have while eligible for such opportunities. (Of course, I do agree there are trade-offs too — I’m not suggesting that stretching graduate studies longer is always good.)
So going for the standard masters+PhD route, and aiming for early completion, seems to offer the same main benefit, but with several advantages, including being more competitive for your preferred institutions, and the possibility of falling back to the standard timeline either if you have difficulty completing quickly, or if (as you become more experienced) you reconsider and decide you don’t want to complete so quickly.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/24
| 626
| 2,733
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an MS student in machine learning just finished my first semester at a U.S. university, and I plan to apply to PhD programs in computer science in electrical engineering or operations research for next year (also for machine learning and optimization).
I took three STEM advanced graduate courses this semester (two EE, one math course), did well on the engineering courses but only got a B on the math course (measure theory) because of a bad final. Even though B is not exactly a disastrous grade, but it is not good at our school because the graduate courses are heavily curved. My school offers an option this year to get a special Pass/Fail grade, where they will mention something like "pass/fail because of the global pandemic". This past semester was indeed hard for me as I was living in a different time zone because of travel restrictions and the classes usually took place at 1-3 a.m.
I am still thinking whether I should use this option. On one hand, I have heard multiple times that graduate schools frown upon P/F grades, but on the other hand, this course is not directly related to my research area (may be useful one day, though). I would appreciate any advice!<issue_comment>username_1: Grades matter when applying to graduate programs...until they do not. For the most part, a B is never a disqualifier for getting into a PhD program. (Getting a C or D...or F might be more worrisome). As long as you have a 3.8 or higher in your masters program, I usually would not even dig too far into the specifics of your grades if I was reviewing your submission.
When I evaluate graduate student applications, I place much more weight on letters of recommendation and personal statements. Especially where the measure theory class is not a core topic in your field, getting a B should not matter too much. Get strong LORs and write a good personal statement and you should be fine. You even could mention the challenges of COVID in your statement. (Although, I honestly would not even bring up the B. Least said, soonest mended).
I would not recommend changing the grade to a Pass; this looks like you actually are trying to hide something. Move on from the B and focus on building a good resume of experience and connections.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Especially if the course is not relevant to your research area, leave it. Even then, a B in a graduate course isn't all that bad. As you noted, many schools will understand that some people may have faced difficulties over the past year because of the pandemic as you have mentioned. Just focus on getting more research experience, since that will be better, both for PhD admission and in your long term career.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/24
| 475
| 2,092
|
<issue_start>username_0: I accepted a request to peer review a manuscript from a journal, but was not able to view the attached files correctly and reached out to the journal three times about this problem. They finally responded and addressed the issue, but now I am less than 3 days away from their original deadline for submitting the review and I know I need at least 1-2 weeks to do an adequate job. How should I ask or state my request for more time? Is it necessary to provide the reason or justify my request for the extension in my email?
For added context, this is a journal that I'm likely to submit to in the future, so I would like to maintain an amicable relationship with the current editor.<issue_comment>username_1: Just tell the editor how much time you need to do a good job. You don't need to give reasons, and certainly not to apologize. They will accept it or not. I suspect they will, since sending it to another reviewer will take even more time.
There is no problem mentioning that there was a delay in getting necessary files, of course, but these delays happen to everyone eventually if you review a lot.
---
In this particular case, I'm assuming that the editor already knows why the delay has occurred. In the general case delay is common enough that it is planned for by editors and doesn't disrupt unless it is excessive.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Simply write the editor telling that you need an extension of the deadline of two weeks. In general I would not write reasons for the request of extension, and especially here. Indeed, in this case you would have to tell the real reason of the delay, and it may sound "by your fault, I could not respect the deadline".
It happened to me several times to ask for an extension of the deadline as a referee. The only thing that would spoil an amicable relationship with the editor would be let him/her without news.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: "I only received the attached files yesterday, so I will need another two weeks to review them". What's the problem?
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/24
| 1,287
| 5,374
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've made an internal decision to leave my doctorate program of 3.5 years. The reasons are many, but the major one is that I have realized that I don't need a doctorate to fulfill my career dreams, and that I am at a point in life where I prefer to start a family and build my marriage with my husband. I'm a more conservative girl in many ways, so some may not understand, but that's ok. I own my values 100%.
I got married to the love of my life who is also a PhD student about a month ago. He is defending in about a month from now and has a job offer in another state. I am younger than him in both age and my graduate progress. If I were to stay in my program, I probably would defend in about 1.5 to 2 years.
To me, at this point, it is simply not worth it to stay. I have learned so much from my program and the field I'm studying and am extremely grateful to be surrounded by a network of highly motivated talented scientists and engineers. However, there has also been tremendous toll taken on my mental health, and I dread the 60 - 80 hour work week that is required to be "successful" in my field.
So I have made my decision to leave with my masters after I wrap up the project I'm currently working on. But does anyone have advice on how to go about telling this my advisor without marring our professional relationship?
She doesn't see it coming, and I don't think she'll fully understand my reasons, but this is a necessary conversation to have.<issue_comment>username_1: Whether you can do this without marring the professional connection with your advisor depends more on who she is than on how you go about telling her (yes, the conversation is necessary). Do thank her for helping you learn all you have.
Your commitment to wrapping up your current project is important.
If she's the kind of advisor she should be, she will wish you well and tell you she hopes you resume your research some day and keep in touch, even if she does not fully understand your choice.
(I like your SE handle.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This doesn't address the question you ask, but is more long term advice from someone looking back, rather than forward. For a good answer to your actual question, see that of [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/168158/75368) here.
You may find in coming years that you wish to return to academia and continue doctoral studies. It might be after your children are grown, but it might be sooner. If your spouse gets established then it might be possible to manage studies and family and all the rest. Finishing a degree later (or even late) in life can lead to both satisfaction and a career. That was the path my former spouse took and she wound up doing very well.
But, if you take simple steps now it will ease your return should you later desire it. At this moment, you could talk with your current advisor about keeping in touch in case you later want her assistance. If she thinks well of you she will be more than happy to do this. Do the same with others in your circle, especially those who helped you get in to the current program. Some people will write a letter for their own files with important information.
If possible, keep in touch with these people. Let them know about your life (kids and all) and whatever you then see your goals as. Too many people lose touch with those who would be happy to support them but tend to forget over the years.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It's great that you are asking about this, because it shows some concern for your advisor. Students sometimes do not appreciate all the hard work that goes into advising a PhD candidate, so it is great that you are cognisant of this, and you want to be gracious to your advisor as you exit.
I think you will find that most academics are understanding of changes in students' career choices and life goals, and we appreciate that our own career path is not for everyone. Your reasons for leaving sound fine to me, and you needn't be worried too much about defending them. Life and marriages and love are important, hopefully not just to conservative girls.
I would recommend that you go and speak to your advisor face-to-face and let her know your change in goals and let her know that you appreciate all the work she has done with you. I don't usually recommend that students buy gifts for advisors, but if you wanted to buy some flowers or a nice box of chocolates to say thank-you, it might help to soften the blow of her losing a student. In practical terms, if you have any outstanding projects/papers, your advisor will be interested in knowing what you want to do with them (particuarly if you are writing any joint papers) so you should be prepared with a plan for answering this. In terms of leaving without marring your relationship with your advisor, the most important things will be to be thankful, show your appreciation for her work with you, and try to arrange things in a way that minimises any inconvenience to her in relation to the projects you are working on.
If I understand correctly, it sounds like you are converting your program to a Masters program, for which you have satisfied the requirements. That is the best way to do it; if you can leave with a lower credential (instead of no credential) then that is obviously much more satisfying.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/25
| 1,613
| 6,586
|
<issue_start>username_0: Quick background: I am currently pursuing two master's degrees, "Data Engineering and Analytics" from TU Munich and "Computer Linguistics" from LMU Munich. I am in my second semester and plan to finish both in 2 1/2 years. The time frame and work load seems reasonable as of now, I am having fun with it and don't work crazy times. Both degrees deal with quite different topics, though they might seem similar. My master's at TUM is very mathy and proof-based. The other master's is rather practical. For the first Master's I'm expecting a 1.7+- and for the second a 1.3+-.
My motivation to do this is mainly based on my wish to pursue a PhD: 1. LMU is very good in (deep) NLP (<- broad description of my research interest) and one of the Prof's work is very interesting, hence I am currently looking for touch points. 2. I personally don't think the Computer Linguistics programm is super sophisticated, the stuff we do is rather shallow so I think knowledge-wise it's not such a huge gain (I consider my TUM master's my "main" work). **Here is my question:** 3. I want to distinguish myself. I am looking for an internationally renowned Uni for my next step so I am assuming I have high competition. Under these circumstances could you confirm / give your view if pursuing two degrees is a good idea? Should I channel my resources to do something different (e.g. look for actual research experience, publications, etc.), I don't know many people in these fields yet, the Bachelor's programmes in Germany are quite anonymous.<issue_comment>username_1: Pursuing a dual Master degree to distinguish yourself is likely to be detrimental.
You are doing good in learning the analytical foundations (i.e. the TUM master) then you want to apply these foundations somewhere (i.e. not the LMU master).
Have a look at <https://www.s-a.uni-muenchen.de/praktikum/index.html> and then propose yourself for an internship at companies or at the LMU department/professor of your interest. It will be much more effective in providing you additional insight and experience (well, it is an internship, it is designed exactly for that reason).
>
> I am looking for an internationally renowned Uni for my next step so I
> am assuming I have high competition
>
>
>
You have only one competitor: yourself.
PhD candidates applying to a certain position usually are not really compared one against the other, they are quite often evaluated in an absolute way, something along the lines "30 applicants, 4 are a good fit? ok, is there the perfect fit? no? keep on searching"
If, on the other hand, you are aiming at a PhD in the US, it can be slightly different, but PhD in the US is often a Master+PhD thing ... do you want to have 3 Master?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I'd say, having two masters degrees could definitely help you if you consider the 2nd one as a back-up plan (in terms of research fields/directions) if you cannot find a good PhD position in the field relevant for your 1st (main) one. It should, of course, depend on the availability, so ideally, there should be higher competition in the field of the "main" one, and not vice versa.
If you already know that you only want to continue in the field of your "main" one, and see the 2nd as an additional line on your cv, I doubt it is going to help you much, maybe unless your 2nd one is more math-heavy than the 1st one (which is not the case, as I assume from your question). In that regard, considering your 2nd masters direction a back-up plan could be quite smart.
Yet, if your 1st one is more fundamental and your 2nd is more applied, one way I can think of how your 2nd masters could help you obtain a PhD position in the field of the 1st one is: if during your 2nd masters, you learned a specific technique, or software etc, which is highly relevant for the PhD project you are aiming at. There is always a bit of luck involved though, unless you make a thorough analysis of the PhD positions market a few years ahead.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If you want to work in industry:
A HR person is mostly tasked with sorting out applicants. They assign them to job candidacies and within the candidacies they assign them for follow up or no follow up.
The assignment to candidacies is already so streamlined to save the HR person's time that basically the candidate must tell the HR person exactly what job they are applying for. A dual master's doesn't provide leeway on "I'm applying for jobs A or B" as this creates the potential for unhealthy competition within the company over a single candidate. So, you'll only apply for a specific job, and if you apply for a different job with the same organization, you'll have to wait a grace period (to overcome their anti-application spam handling, where one applicant applies for dozens of jobs).
Assuming you have a job role that requires both of the disciplines, it could be of great benefit to you; but, most job roles will only have one discipline in mind, so you would likely be a "better" candidate only after all other factors were considered equal.
In academia:
The next step in academia is to obtain a PhD diploma, the effective minimum requirement for obtaining an Assistant Professorship, but in all honesty there will likely be one or more post-Doc research positions before you build a sufficient resume to gain such a position. After you obtain the PhD, your Master's degree details will be a curiosity at best.
There are teaching positions where you only teach, which don't require a PhD. A Master's degree will give you an advantage here, but an additional Master's will not give you much of an additional advantage, unless they want you to teach in both subjects. These kinds of positions pay extremely poorly and have little to no job advancement, but they are favored by those in industry who look to bolster their careers with "university credentials". Some consultants take this route to great success; but, you'll never gain the benefits of being a tenured professor.
In short, if the fields overlap a lot, it could be immediately beneficial in industry. It the fields don't overlap, probably much less so. In Academia, if the fields overlap a lot, the benefits will probably only impact your PhD Application and be long lost by the time you hit the wall of getting the Assistant Professorship (no tenure).
I'd only do it if it involved less than a semester's additional courses, or if the two programs combine with synergy to obtain an additional benefit not present in each one individually.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/26
| 1,434
| 6,197
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a particular background, I studied biology and Chemistry in Highschool, some engineering in college, and I am now majoring in mathematics with a minor in computer science.
To some extent I feel like being able to do research is on my life goals bucket list. Diving into unexplored territory definitely excites me. So I somewhat feel I need to take advantage of the broad spectrum of fields I have knowledge of, although almost insignificant, it is still there. I thought maybe bioinformatics mixed with some data science algorithm research would be a good path to pursue. Would my prior experience in Biology give me an advantage? For example the ability to pick up technical biology concepts quicker?
Any insight and guidance on the topic would be appreciated.
Kind regards.<issue_comment>username_1: Sure. There are many people who transitioned to Bioinformatics from a math background. As one example, there is a lot of machine learning being applied to various aspects of biology, and that could be a good fit for you.
But I would just caution that when choosing a Ph.D. topic, you should really think about what you want to do in the future, rather than what you've done in high school, or even taken a couple classes on in college. In a Ph.D. you'll anyway have to learn a lot about some very narrow topics and also (possibly) take some broad classes, so the fact that you know a bit extra about some biological concepts is not that important; a student without that background could probably catch up by reading a couple of books or taking a Coursera class, and both of you will be way behind an actual Biochemistry major (but still OK in the end). Pick your topic and advisor based on what sort of problems you want to solve for the next five years, and where you really see yourself ten years from now.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are a range of different things covered by the broad terms "bioinformatics" and "computational biology".
Some bioinformaticians are (like myself) biologists who use a computer to carry out their experiments rather than a pipette.
Some bioinformaticians are genuinely informaticians - they are interested in how information is stored, organized and structured. They are into databases, data formats, the right types of metadata that need to be collected etc.
Some bioinformaticians are basically applied statisticians. Then it is all about the stats knowledge.
Finally some bioinformaticians develop and build algorithms and new methods to analyse data in new ways, or automate or performance optimise previously designed analyses. These people far more likely to be computer scientists.
This is before we even consider mathematical biologists and biological theorists.
---
None of these paths is closed to you. I am of the "biologist with a keyboard" breed of bioinformatician, and have taken on students from a CS background in the past, and would taken on students from the CS/maths background in the future. But you will have work to do to learn the biology, and you won't get very far in my lab without developing an expert level knowledge of at least the biological area your thesis is in. UK PhD students don't as a rule take any classes. But I have send CS background students to undergrad classes in the past.
On the other hand, you are probably perfectly placed for a PhD in an algorithm development and optimization lab. You'd need to learn some biology, but probably wouldn't find it so onerous.
However, in neither case do I think advanced level high-school biology would make much difference. Our biology undergrad requires chemistry, and recommends maths, but does not require biology at high-school
---
A final word of warning - biology still very much has a culture that the reason to do a PhD is to spend your life in that field. Not necessarily stay in academia (although some of the older faculty might still be reluctant to take on someone who doesn't want an academic career), but at least start with a desire to stay in some sort of bioinformatics. I'm not saying its a good thing, but it is a thing.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> Would my prior experience in Biology give me an advantage? For example the ability to pick up technical biology concepts quicker?
>
>
>
No, not relative to most applicants for a PhD program in bioinformatics. There will be others who studied a quantitative field more related to biology than your math/CS pairing. Modern approaches to every area of biology involve increasingly quantitative methods. Graduates with undergraduate degrees in molecular biology, neuroscience, ecology, biochemistry, etc, are all potential candidates for bioinformatics PhD research, and they've all had an entire undergraduate education in biology beyond highschool. There will be students who initially pursued a medical/health profession and have taken courses in physiology. There will also be CS and stats undergrads who worked on biological or medical problems in their undergraduate research, people who primarily studied biology but with a minor in statistics/data science/bioinformatics, etc. High school biology, even "advanced" high school biology, will have you below the par for biology expertise in a bioinformatics field.
However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible for you to pursue bioinformatics (which itself is an *incredibly incredibly* broad area, the term itself has completely different meanings to different people). Instead, I think you'd be better off thinking about the ways that your prior experience in *mathematics* and *CS* gives you an advantage in bioinformatics, rather than a topic you last touched in high school. You probably have a lot to catch up on in biology, and that's just fine, as long as you realize how much there is to catch up on. We get quite a few questions over at Biology.SE from askers who learned about a bit of AI in their CS classes and now want to solve the big open problems in biology without taking the university-level courses in that area. They're a bit frustrating to deal with, and come off exactly like this physicist does: <https://xkcd.com/793/>
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/26
| 925
| 3,674
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m a highly competitive (currently undergrad) student with the end goal of getting a position in academia. I’m about to graduate undergrad this summer; afterwards, I will do a Fulbright research grant, and try to apply for the top graduate schools.
Now due to the difficulties of the semester, I couldn’t finish my thesis in Spring 2021 but instead moved it to Summer 2021. Normally my scholarship (fully paid, public university) would cover tuition fees. However, this scholarship has just ended for me and will not cover the summer fees. And I’ve realized that the summer tuition for this one thesis credit — in which I’m getting minimal guidance from my busy advisor and am taking no classes — is $1,750.
I do have enough money saved to cover this, but it’s really a stretch. I’m kind of pissed really, paying this much money for literally a thesis credit is insane!! However I see my education as an investment. I really wanna be super competitive, and if doing a thesis is part of that, I’ll go hungry to make it happen.
But at the same time, I’m really doubting whether a thesis will be so much better than turning my topic into 1-2 research papers. Plus I’m about to do a year long Fulbright research project, which I think will overshadow my senior thesis anyway?
Can you guys help me sort this out? Any advice is helpful!!! I’m so angry my public university is so exploitative and not sure if I should buy into that.<issue_comment>username_1: Several things about the question are unclear, but...
* If the thesis or corresponding credit is not required to get the degree, do not pay the $1750. You will no benefit from paying it.
* Do publish your work *if* you can publish it in a reputable journal or conference. Check with your advisor before you try this.
* Probably your advisor will be writing a letter for you. If so, *do* finish the thesis and send it to your advisor. Do not expect your advisor to help you finish the thesis; presumably, if you do not pay the $1750, the university will require your advisor to do something other than help you with your thesis. This does not mean your advisor will not help you, but you should not expect it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you can publish your thesis in a journal, you should aim to do so regardless, and in addition to a thesis (if you choose to write one). Papers in a good journal are more highly regarded than a thesis.
Writing an undergrad thesis *might* increase your chances of grad school admission. If you have papers accepted into good journals, I doubt an undergrad thesis adds much to your application. However, most undergrad theses are not good enough for a journal publication (although yours might be).
Your thesis advisor is probably willing to help you continue your thesis research and/or turn it into journal papers even if you are not enrolled as a student.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: 1. I would recommend you try to separate your anger from the practical problem you face. Even if in your judgment your university is screwing you over, I'd recommend you decide based solely on what you think is in your best interest.
2. Talk to your supervisor. They might be willing to help you supervise your thesis on an informal basis, and/or help you turn it into publications, even if you don't enroll. Conversely, even if you are willing to pay tuition, your supervisor's obligations likely ended with the spring semester, and they might have other plans for the summer.
In either case, I'd recommend that you make a plan to have something concrete to show for your work, and that you consult with your supervisor. Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/26
| 500
| 2,046
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:** CS undergrad applying for FALL 2022 CS USA PhD Programs
By the time I apply for the programs, I will be finishing 3 and a half years of coursework/labs/tests. Out of this, 2 years of coursework/labs/tests has happened through Zoom and etc.
**Main Question:** Does this bring down the value of coursework and GPA for a PhD Panel?
Sub-Question: Does it provide more importance for other things like research/projects/internships than from before?
Note: Please assume *standardised tests are not required for admissions*. (Many programs have told that they will not be required)<issue_comment>username_1: Since most doctoral level admissions decisions are made by humans, it is impossible to say in general. Some will consider online course grades less relevant, others won't. But admission in the US has always (in my memory) been based on a wide variety of things with letters of recommendation rated fairly highly. Grades need to be "good enough" but other things are also given heavy emphasis. What do you say in a statement of purpose? What exceptional things have you done (research, writing, ...)? What do your professors think of your likelihood of success.
Another factor here is that it is still too early in the general disruption of the pandemic for general policies to have emerged in lots of places. So, committees are "making do" with what they have.
But, yes, research and such is highly valued as it has always been.
The "complete picture" needs to be good. A few wrinkles around the edges won't be a big handicap for most. And professors hate having to depend on zoom as much as students do, I think.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: What college you did your work at matters more. Online courses in CS would be looked at with the least amount of concern.
There would have been three semesters plus two summers affected by the pandemic. I do not see how 2 years of online learning could have been caused by the pandemic, so it was a choice for you.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/26
| 1,439
| 6,110
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was going through the files on canvas of my course, then I saw a file called like Examination\_(coursename)\_2021 and was like "it's probably the practice". I opened it and it seemed like the actual exam, so I sent a message to course group like is this the actual exam? It seems like it is and they asked me to share it with them, which I did. Then I started thinking I should tell my professor that I have access to the questions. I also checked if other people in my class could find the file which they did. So now I'm kind of lost, obviously, I want to do well on the exam but also I don't feel good about it. Although the exam is tomorrow and it is an open book exam, I feel like I should tell my professor just because now my mind isn't focused on the exam at all, I feel I am morally obligated to tell them. Though I would have to tell everyone in my group that I told the professor which I don't think they would be happy about because I asked them if I should tell the professor and they already said no. Another reason I'm worried is that the professor might be able to see when I first viewed the questions, which was a day before, I'm just so lost about what I should do.
Edit:
I think I will tell my professor. However, now I don't know if I should tell the people in my class or just keep it anonymous. I'm worried that if I don't tell my class, some people will only have prepared for the questions and not for the actual course. I definitely regret sharing the exam with the people in my class now, it would've been much easier to have told my professor, if I hadn't shared the questions with the people in my class.
Edit 2:
So I did send an email yesterday and apparently, it was just a past exam from another year. So it's all good. I just completed the actual exam today and feel quite good about it. Thank you to everyone who helped give advice!!<issue_comment>username_1: Tell your professor. I don't know whether Canvas keeps logs such as you describe, but it doesn't make any difference. Your feeling of moral obligation is correct. You are obligated to tell your professor.
Here is some general advice. Author <NAME> has one of his characters say, approximately, "In the case of any ethical decision, the thing you least want to do is probably the right choice." (Quoted from memory, which is why it's approximate. I think <NAME> wrote something similar.)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Two things to add to the excellent answer of Bob:
Not only should you tell the prof, but you are in the right to request anonymity.
Your fellow students will likely not be happy and, be aware, that, despite you doing the right thing, there is a high likelihood that will feel that you cheated them. Unfortunately, that's not the desired thing, but that's what typically happens.
You may need to ensure that your post is anonymous if you do not trust faculty to keep your identity as whistleblower confidential.
And, of course, do request that the paper is invalidated, so that students that were not informed about it do not end with a disadvantage.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It is your unequivocal ethical duty to let the professor know about discovering the exam file. If you knowingly take an exam whose contents you know in advance even though you are not supposed to know them, then you are guilty of cheating, plain and simple. There isn’t any way to make such an action appear morally justified.
Second, your professor also has an ethical duty to act in a way that minimizes the damage from this incident. They must rewrite the exam. And they must announce to the class that the exam has been rewritten so as not to leave students with the false idea that they know the contents of the exam, leading them to not prepare well for a genuine exam. (Some might argue that that would be their problem if they chose not to prepare; however, deliberately leaving them with such an idea is a form of entrapment in my opinion, and itself unethical). So in your email to the professor it might be reasonable to express your concern about the classmates not being told, and suggest that the professor make such an announcement. It should be the professor who announces it, not you, to avoid jeopardizing your relationships with your classmates.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Many academic ethics problems are reasonably well addressed by the "Golden rule", i.e. treat other people the way you would like to be treated if roles were reversed (sadly, this is sometimes exactly what the maxim in Bob's answer suggests).
If you were the prof. you would probably want to be informed *immediately*. They would probably not want you to share it with all of your friends as that may well invalidate the whole assessment for every student (meaning you may all have to sit a second exam).
You may want to check whether this violates your universities plagiarism and collusion regulations. Giving material to other students that is likely to improve their performance is likely to be regarded as collusion.
I would recommend letting the prof know exactly what happened *immediately* so they can do what they can to salvage the situation. Whether you do this anonymously or not is up to you, but next time I would think about the ethics of the situation before acting.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: The mainstream opinion here does not generalize well. I agree that it's ethical to tell the professor, and it seems from your words you are not afraid of repercussions.
But for the people in different situations, remember that often **no good deed goes unpunished**. You can derail your academic career or even *get in legal trouble* just for discovering security issues.
Do not ever, in any circumstances, access files you shouldn't have access to, even if you just want to help. They can blame you and accuse you of hacking.
It is very risky to help people. If you can report something anonymously, you will avoid lots of potential trouble - but take care that you actually left no identifying trace.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/26
| 315
| 1,342
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working on a paper together with people from another university. In one of our meetings, after I have mentioned that I do not have any funding from the university for open access, they suggested that we can pay the publication fee from private money.
This puzzled me, as I have never heard that somebody is doing this.
Is it common to pay a publication fee in an open access journal from private money?<issue_comment>username_1: People would rather avoid doing this, but, yes, it is possible. I can't say how common. Most academics will try to pay such fees (and other publication fees) out of grant funds. Some university departments will provide funds if asked.
But there is no prohibition about paying as a private person. Independent researchers have few options otherwise.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Is it common to pay a publication fee in an open access journal from private money?
>
>
>
No. According to Google Scholar, the majority of my publications are available open access. As far as I know, nobody paid any publication fees for any of them, and certainly nobody paid fees with their own money.
Open access fees should be paid by taxpayers as part of grants. If you do not have such a grant, publish in a closed journal and use the appropriate preprint repository.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/26
| 661
| 2,755
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have the following sentence, where the citation refers to the first part of the sentence. Because of how it appears in the formatting of my paper, and how it reads, I would like to have the citation at the end of the sentence as below. Is this acceptable in APA style formatting?
>
> However, location controls should control for variation common across regions, while my placebo test does not provide evidence that an unseen trend in weight gain is responsible for my results (Mincy & De <NAME>, 2014).
>
>
>
The citation refers to a study which uses location controls, while the placebo test refers to something I did myself, but that I mention here to provide additional support to the plausibility of my results.
Even if it's not your personal preference, would it be OK by APA to have this reference at the end of the sentence?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the bigger problem is with your sentence structure.
>
> However, location controls should control for variation common across
> regions, while my placebo test does not provide evidence that an
> unseen trend in weight gain is responsible for my results (Mincy & De
> <NAME>, 2014).
>
>
>
By starting the sentence with "However" a contrast is implied. I'm assuming the contrast is against a (hopefully simple) point made in the prior sentence.
What really kills comprehension is the "while" in conjunction with the "however". "While" is "coexisting in time" and since we have two items in contrast, it is not clear if the commentary is referring to the placebo test or the contrasted item. This uncertainty impacts the citation, making it equally ambiguous.
I'd just start with the subject, the placebo test:
>
> The placebo test does not support that an unseen trend in weight gain is responsible for
> the results.
>
>
>
With this simple idea as an independent sentence, it is easier to place the citation with it or not. The citation will be fully clear if placed in this sentence, as it is only supporting one idea; not a portion of a compound idea containing a contrast where one of those items occur simultaneously with a third item.
Incredibly long sentences and complex grammar are superficially brilliant; true brilliance is making a complex idea simple.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: When the purpose of the reference is to provide supporting evidence for an assertion (as appears to be the case here), I like to place the reference directly after the verb in that assertion (in this case, after "should"). However, I publish mainly in journals that use numerical citations, and you may find that, with the author-date scheme you've got here, that approach breaks the flow of the text too much.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/26
| 775
| 3,166
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first year PhD student and the last month has been nothing short of a crucible of stress. I had to do 2 exams, wrote a 3k approval thesis, finalise my research objectives, plan the project and prepare a 30 minute presentation for a Q&A session. And I've had to write a bunch of code to produce the plots needed
The presentation is due to be done next Thursday but in the meantime I need to find the time to get a new desk because mine is falling apart. I'm at the point now where I'm feeling incredibly burnt out and I'm balancing so many plates.
I'm pressuring myself to work over the weekend even though I've drilled the presentation and know it'll fit precisely in the time I'm allocated. How do I stop my project taking over my personal life?<issue_comment>username_1: My answer might look too late now, but it will help those who find it later. I will try to keep it in few bullet points.
1. first of all, reach out for help. As you just did, ask for some help, emotionally or motivation wise.
2. Try to explain your topic to few people, for example, any family member ot one of your friends. This will help you to relieve some of the stress.
3. Try to reduce the work load by noticeable amount that makes a difference in reducing stress level, crediting @ Captain Emacs, 10% is reasonable in my opinion.
you earn my respect for not letting your academic work load take over your personal life.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Start by embracing an uncomfortable truth: ***If you continue on an academic career, work will never ever be done.*** In the past, it may have been a viable strategy for you to work until you have completed everything you needed to do, and to then have sufficient time to recover before more work materializes. This will no longer work, and it will probably get worse in the future.
There are very different strategies that work for different people. I know colleagues in academia who have strict rules on when is and when isn't work time. By reserving a reasonable amount of time off (and sticking to it), you can obviously prevent work life from expanding to encompass everything.
A more flexible strategy can be to self-monitor for signs that you need a break (whether its 10min, an afternoon, a week, etc), and then to take it. If you are in it for the long haul, sacrificing your physical or mental health just isn't worth it. Whether you take time off on a schedule or when needed, be clear with yourself that you need and deserve time off, and avoid feeling guilt about not working.
Of course, when carving out time off, you also need to make some decisions about how to prioritize tasks for the remaining work time. This is in itself a massively complex topic, but some basic notions are:
a) Plenty of things just need to be good enough. This includes qualification exams and initial documents.
b) Just because someone wants you to do something does not necessarily mean that you need to do it. This holds even more for the "by when"-part.
c) The vast majority of academics is going to be aware of these struggles, and few of us are superhuman. Reach out when needed.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/27
| 6,934
| 30,078
|
<issue_start>username_0: Climate change and mass extinctions are happening, so in my private life, I try to be as sustainable as possible. For example, I eat almost exclusively organic vegetarian food, I have no car, buy most stuff used, have a renewable energy contract and avoid flying (especially intercontinentally).
But when I look at my professional life, it is a different story: I am doing my PhD at an institute, working on a side branch of microelectronics. Our institute reportedly uses the amount of electricity in a year that is comparable to a city of 25,000 people. While certainly a lot of what we are developing might end up being useful, other developments aren't leaving the prototype stage once a project is finished. We produce a huge amount of electronic waste on the way to success and other not very sustainable stuff is happening along the way, too.
My dilemma is that I really enjoy working there. I love my colleagues, my supervisor is great, the work is challenging, but extremely interesting. I have a lot of freedom and support, and a good career outlook. And: I am really good at what I do. I published papers and I built a great network.
But on the other hand, I really question the need to integrate electronics everywhere. I cannot really stand behind a lot of what I/we do and the unsustainable practices in our industry. To make matters worse, we even sometimes work on projects for the military — which goes totally against my political beliefs — but the projects themselves are interesting and fun to research.
I am really torn between what my personal beliefs are and what I do at my work / during my research. I try to convince myself that what I do is ok because it is better to have critical people working on a topic, that aren't afraid to question the necessity of new developments, than just the ones who blindly think everything is great. But this sometimes feels like I am gaslighting myself into thinking that what I do is great, even though I know in my heart that it is (kind of) wrong.
What are strategies to deal with this, apart from changing careers (because that train has kind of left the station)?
**EDIT**: Thank you for your insightful and thought provoking answers. I cannot choose the one answer that is better than the rest, as many of the answers contain important aspects.<issue_comment>username_1: The fact that some projects lead nowhere is natural to research. That is not "wastage", it's investment. If something works, it can be scaled up and benefit humankind. You can try and concentrate on projects where, if successful, it will save energy, optimize water, etc.
I suggest it is legitimate to waste material and energy to develop these to viable directions, because it will save orders of magnitude more than you waste now. So, I do not necessarily see a contradiction in finding good topics that correlate with your lifestyle/philosophy.
As for defense research, that's quite a different matter. If you really do not believe in defense work, there is no way you can justify to yourself to do it. To take the advocatus diaboli: some people may say that it is in the nature of things that there are less than friendly actors around in the world; neutral and even friendly relations can sour to a point where it is essential to have the country you generally agree to live in the military option at least in the hope that its use will not be necessary.
But if you are strictly opposed to this, either as fundamental principle of non-violence, or because you believe that with all lofty aspirations, the military-industrial complex and/or the political echelon has too many ulterior motives, then I do not see a possibility to reconcile your private beliefs with defense-related work.
The argument of people effectively supporting an activity they fundamentally disagree with by offering a "critical" perspective is not something you can easily get away with, unless you live in a dictatorship and have no reasonably good other choices. And there, being "critical" means being subversive.
To use a similar picture: If you like the taste of steaks and want to protect animals, there is a contradiction; unfortunately, that means that the best you can do at this point are vegan steak replacements. The ones I know are so yucky that it's better to identify genuinely vegan food that does not pretend it's something else.
Standing up to principles requires sacrifice - not always, but more often than not.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: A few possible measures that spring to mind:
* for your prototype/test circuits, try using reusable breadboards and pluggable/unpluggable components, rather than etching printed circuit boards and soldering components to them;
* if the previous suggestion is impractical because the breadboard process is less thoroughly automated than the printed circuit board process, then there's a postdoc project proposal for you right there, improving the level of automation of the breadboard process;
* maybe your skills would be well suited to research in nanostructuring photovoltaics, to improve their energy conversion efficiency by extracting the higher-energy electron-hole pairs before they can decay to the band edges;
* you might consider investigating (as a future research direction) the use of thermoelectric layers for partial waste heat recovery in integrated circuits (although as with all demand-side energy efficiency improvements, beware of the possibility that doing something really efficiently may still have much worse environmental performance than not doing it at all).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Ultimately it is up to you to decide how important your values are compared to liking the work, the colleagues, and the workplace.
Anyway, here are some thoughts. As was mentioned before, it probably gives you a good potential to do good and valuable things according to your values to become a PhD with strong research skills, so one justification for doing what you currently do is to try to get there.
I'd advise you however to think through for yourself as good as you can the potential impact of what you are doing, your role in it, and what would happen if you didn't do that. Obviously you can't know these things for sure, but you can use imagination and all the information that you have. Working on different projects, the outcome may differ and you may decide that some things you're working on are better to justify to yourself than others, so that you can become more "picky" when it comes to what you're working on. In may turn out that you can justify enough to yourself that you can go on working but may drop or decline the odd project. Or it may not - ultimately it's for you to evaluate. (I recently read this book on values in science: <https://upittpress.org/books/9780822946267/>)
Another thing is communication. Have you talked with colleagues/fellow students about this? Raising consciousness is surely a good thing. You may even find the odd person agreeing with you and you may want to start together something like an initiative for more sustainable microelectronics research, more awareness for these issues etc., aiming for consequences to be drawn at institutional level or at informing the general public better. It is hard to predict how this could affect your work and your relations to colleagues, it depends on what thoughts they have and what kind of people they are, but surely on the bigger scale such things these days are needed, this is generally well known and appreciated, and may actually be well in line with a good career, grant opportunities for sustainable developments and the like. And actually, we also need proper experts making the point, from within the research world, which could be a reason to go on, with open engagement in these matters.
I also add (prompted by a comment) that continuing you may at some point be in a position to influence or set departmental (or even further reaching) policy decisions as compatible with your ethical values.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: ### Eliminate the hypocrisy by abandoning either your beliefs or your job.
The bind you're stuck in is that you're feeling like a hypocrite, by doing work that contradicts your personal beliefs. Well, that's because you *are* a hypocrite who's doing work that contradicts your beliefs. I'm not saying that to attack you personally; I'm just stating the facts, as presented by your question.
So, the obvious solution to this is to resolve the tension by abandoning one thing or the other. Abandon your beliefs about climate change, the importance of sustainability, and anti-military [pacifism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism), or find somewhere else to work and quit your job.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: There is another perspective, I think. This work you're doing now clearly does not align very well with your values. This conclusion is somewhat unavoidable, and it would be a shame to try and twist the truth to make it fit the story we would like. However, this PhD is just one small element of your career, and it may equip you to do things you truly feel are of great value.
To paraphrase [Voltaire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire);
>
> Do not let the great become the enemy of the good.
>
>
>
Sure, it would be great if you could work as part of a really sustainable project for you PhD and then *go on to work on technology critical to combating climate change.* But if you can complete your PhD where you are right now, then *go on to work on technology critical to combating climate change*, that is good! Don't throw away the good opportunity just because it isn't perfect.
You sort of suggested this yourself in a comment;
>
> @henning--reinstateMonica I certainly could try [to work in sustainable electronics] (and I even work
> sustainability considerations into what I do already). But at least
> for the rest of my PhD I kind of have to keep on doing what I am
> doing. – Sursula yesterday
>
>
>
You are right. Keep going; it is admirable that you are looking to follow your values, even at personal sacrifice.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: You're at the PhD stage, in a field that is close to energy-saving technologies. Remember that the vast majority of people in this world are only in a position to make small personal and political choices on environmental matters. Suitably skilled and experienced you can contribute in a much bigger way.
You can't address your institute's power consumption, though you may be able to plan wisely on a local scale (as I try to with a cryostat that draws about 15kW). Doubts about why you're doing a PHD are also common; yours may be deeper than some, but you're not alone.
I started in a similar position to you. My own PhD was also semiconductors that could be involved in energy efficiency, but are IMO more likely to lead to more capable technologies than to save energy. Some was also funded by government-military projects, but not related to weapons (e.g. communications).
Once you've got your PhD, you will very likely end up working on different projects in a different place. At that stage you have a chance to move into a field that better fits your priorities, especially if you can relocate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Another perspective: your current approach to living a life aligned with your goals (goals, that, by the way, I entirely agree with and commend) is to think about your personal behaviour, almost as a sort of "purity". I think you're doing this thoughtfully and in an evidence based manner (for example, focussing of meat consumption and air travel, instead of almost entirely cosmetic actions like bamboo toothbrushes and electric cars), which makes me think that you're doing your research about this.
However, individual actions are ultimately limited in scope: if you went completely off-grid and ate only discarded fruit and wore sackcloth, you might save 10-40 tonne of CO2 a year. That is, objectively, a complete irrelevance. Small changes that propagate *beyond yourself* are likely to have a much higher cumulative impact than your entire personal carbon footprint.
The other aspect is that if you abandon this academic career, you won't leave an empty footprint: your place will be taken by someone else. So the challenge is: can **you**, in the academic career you enjoy, make the world better (according to your aims) than *if you were replaced by a person who doesn't care about these aims*? The answer really depends on whether you put your principles into **action**. Here I can only speak in general terms, because microelectronics is not remotely my field:
* Can you identify academic groups or companies that do environmentally sound work and align with your expertise? This could mean (I'm guessing here)
+ Reduce the use of rare metals or other unsustainably sourced materials
+ Improve the lifespan of devices and components to reduce waste
+ Build equipment directly involved in the production of e.g. sustainable energy
Get in contact with them, get ideas about possible joint projects or discuss postdoc/job options. A PhD isn't forever; the next step of your career is much more important to define your trajectory. To give you my personal example, I left my postdoc in a very prestigious neuroscience lab for a data analyst job in a national public healthcare body. My scientific career has not been wasted; in a way, I have "donated" my science expertise to a purpose that is much more aligned with my priorities. Can you find a similar path? It can be outside academia, like in my case, but also within.
* Can you leverage your position within your institute to bring about positive change? For example
+ Many Universities have active divestment campaigns, some of which have resulted in genuine changes in investment priorities; look for one and get involved
+ There are movements in many disciplines to reduce emissions associated with conference air travel, such as organising virtual and "semi-distributed" conferences (local in-person hubs with remote connections to each others) and supporting alternative modes of travel; now is an incredibly good time to get into this (bonus, this is also great for inclusion given that not all institutes have the budget for intercontinental conference travel)
+ Find other members of your institute who share your concerns and organise with them to identify and create pressure to change some of the most wasteful practices (some may be inevitable, but I'm sure there are things that are done out of habit and convenience that could be addressed)
Others have brought up much more specific examples; my main suggestion here is to *link with others* and not focus on individual action. Climate collapse is a concern that is shared by the majority of PhD-age people. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, and you can be part of a much bigger wheel than you could ever hope to build yourself.
As per the defense stuff, I'm with username_1 on this - if you disagree with it, then the only route is disengagement. If these are specific, circumscribed topics or projects, I think you are absolutely within your rights to refuse to work on them. It's up to you how outspoken you want to be about this, but if you think you can handle it, I would encourage you not to hide your motivation. Others may share your reservations but fear to go against the groupthink that everything is fun and exciting and consequences are for others to worry about. As another personal example, my institute at one point discussed the possibility of expanding into primate research. I was strongly opposed to this and, once I made my position known, quite a few people who'd said nothing before actually spoke up against the proposal. I have no way of knowing if our opposition made any difference to the decision, but the proposal was nixed.
Feeling conflicted is a good, good thing: it means you have ethical principles, you stick to them, and you recognise when you're not abiding by them. However, just *experiencing* this tension does not "absolve" you and, crucially, won't make you feel better about yourself. The way to address it is action. You have identified one action - disengagement. This solves the problem *for you* but actually makes little difference to the things you care about. Look for other actions that bring what you believe and what you do closer together. It may be that you come to the conclusion that you can't bridge that gap (a friend of mine who worked in consultancy came to that conclusion and left the industry); but look for other options beyond staying and accepting practices you know are wrong, and leaving altogether.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: As username_1 said its important to realise that research will always produce waste, and may end up saying nothing more than we can't do whatever we were trying to do/doing this is impossible. However when more efficient methods are found they can be expanded worldwide where even a 1% saving in usage from one result may outweigh the "waste" your entire department produced during your research. If you take computers for example, they were originally expensive and energy hungry but fundamental to climate research, but now you can run a simple climate model on a raspberry pi (though still more sophisticated then the earliest climate models).
However, this by itself is not a very strong argument to resolve your moral dilemma, especially since there are sociological effects where if something is cheaper people can use more of it so the total usage ends up higher. But something you could do is try to fast track your knowledge into research on climate change and bioconservation, keep in mind that while they are experts, they probably don't even realise that some of the things you know is possible exists. So what you could do is to see if there are any climate change/biodiversity/urban planning departments or groups in your university or nearby ones and state your motivation and ask if you can join their seminars/group meetings in the hope of finding an eventual collaboration. In my (admittedly limited) experience, people who work in these fields are quite happy to have other experts with similar motivations join them.
Since your work is in smart fabrics it may be possible to develop a side project to develop or manufacture a plentiful source of unobtrusive sensors for these researchers to collect better/more data to help their research. E.g. perhaps you could provide patches that are placed over a city to get more resolved/continuous data for people studying urban environments/green cities, this kind of data would not only be useful for research but could form the basis for motivating politicians and the general public to do something about climate change for economical/quality of life reasons. Another idea might be that you could provide unobtrusive sensors for studying migration patterns that might last longer and collect more data than what they currently use.
While this might seem like a distraction from your PhD work, it will probably make you more productive when you work on it since you will have less ethical concerns while also allowing you to develop yourself as an independent researcher and find near term uses for the technology your are developing. Keeping in mind that industries, which you probably need to broadly deploy more efficient technologies, don't want to touch anything until prototypes have been developed to a sufficient degree.
With respect to military funding, this is a bit harder since you probably don't have as much control yet on where you get your funding from. One thing that may be worth being aware of is that climate change research originally came from military motivations, things like having better predictions of the weather allows battle plans to be optimised, and the ideas of climate warfare/defense being in mind (I've found "the discovery of global warming" from <NAME> interesting for this historical perspective). It might be possible to resolve this discrepancy in your mind if you perform your work purely with civilian applications in mind, if a technology appears in civil life then militaries will co-opt it for military applications. Better/smaller/cheaper batteries have many civil uses, including for transitioning to green energies, but would also be of interest for militarys for soldier equipment. Though you'd have to make sure all your work is published in journals rather then just reports to the funding agency. If you take this route you should have a careful think about how you could feasibly (and probably infeasibly) use what you will develop for military applications. Then you'd need to decide if the civil applications are worth the new military applications (e.g. are better search and rescue algorithms worth better seek and destroy algorithms). The last point from a moral perspective is that if you do all this, funded by military industry, the military will be immediately aware of this and have networks with people with looser morals who understand your work and can help apply this technology. But also in contrast they most likely have many people who will search through published papers for potential new military technologies.
Ultimately it will depend on what your beliefs are and how willing you are to trade off producing technology and knowledge that has military applications if it also has civil applications. And if you want to stick with your current research group you may have to resolve this dilemma in some way, either by deciding the positives outweigh the negatives (and that at least this way the money isn't being spent on more/bigger guns), or excuse yourself from projects that are funded by military. At least until you reach a stage where you can decide on where your funding comes from.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: Let me offer perspective that uses a little bit of economics. Economics tells us that any decision involves trade-offs and that rational actors should not choose absolutes but think on the margin.
For example, if you care about environment it is not rational to think about this in terms of either tolerating as much waste as possible or not creating any waste at all.
Rather you should think on a margin and ask yourself what can I do to reduce waste. Since you say switching carriers is a constraint you won't cross, then think about following:
What can I do on a margin to reduce waste at my job?
Can I use less paper by not printing every paper I read?
Can I use my voice in the institute to try to advocate for more sustainable research projects in our institute?
You can always nudge your institute to be more sustainable.
However, at the same time you should not kid yourself, if the institute is pursuing environmentally wasteful research, then even if the research is successful it will have negative effect on environment (unless the technology you work on is some carbon capture or zero net emission technology). If you don't want to switch jobs you should accept that you will be able to just make some marginal changes here (but this is rational so also do not beat yourself too much because of it).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: I'm just answering a small, but crucial part, of this question.
>
> I try to convince myself that what I do is ok because it is better to
> have critical people working on a topic, that aren't afraid to
> question the necessity of new developments, than just the ones who
> blindly think everything is great.
>
>
>
My advice here is to abandon this particular piece of rhetoric. In my experience, that's never true. I say this because it's also been my instinct for a *very long* time, and I now have *very long* experience with that hope being dashed over and over again.
Generally speaking, you need to get into projects that you believe in, and that the overall project goals align with things you want to see happen. Being one grouchy cog in a large system is not going to have any beneficial effect -- you will aggravate people around you, and you will be perpetually frustrated and unhappy.
I've heard a military wargame consultant refer to this issue as [Command Intent (CI)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(military)), with the implication that if your goals are fundamentally at odds with the stated goals of the commander, then you're simply going to get run over every time.
Again, this is an instinct that has been very difficult for me to abandon, and I've had to work very hard to convince myself to take action on it, so as to avoid these kinds of always-frustrating and failed situations. Only engage in projects where you share the same end-goal. For projects that you know are misdirected and doomed from the outset, then there's nothing you can do but just let them fail on their own (unless you're an executive who can cancel it by fiat).
This is not to say that maybe you can't decide that you *do* share the same end goal, ultimately, as your current research facility. Perhaps in the long-term your work really does reduce energy consumption -- or maybe not. Other answers address that in more depth, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: You may want to discuss with some fellow scientists that are also religious (or make an introspection if this is your case).
It always mesmerized me how someone can be a scientist (especially in hard science) during the week and religious on Saturday/Sunday/[the holy day in their religion].
I am not trying to be controversial - I personally think this is something that is completely incompatible but there are people who live with that. How they manage to do that could be an indication of how you could deal with your concern.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_12: Life is long. It is never too late to change careers
----------------------------------------------------
I don't agree with much of your question, but the most wrong is the idea that the train has left the station on changing career. You're a PhD student, at the very start of your working life. Since you're doing a PhD it seems safe to conclude that you already have a strong academic record, the world is your oyster should you wish it to be.
Your skills are in demand in a range of industries, and should you choose to, you could easily move into industry working on something related to your priorities, or into the third sector, or whatever you choose.
You can choose to work on projects that reflect your beliefs
------------------------------------------------------------
There's no reason you can't move on from your PhD to work on projects directly related to efficiency, sustainability, renewable energy, or the like. Either in academia or industry.
But you need to change something
--------------------------------
Work defines you. Perhaps you'd like that to be different, but it isn't. You will be spending most of your available time for the next 30/40/50 years working, and it is not good for your mental health to spend it doing something you believe is harmful. Either you need to adjust your thinking to bring your beliefs in line with what you do, or change you work.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_13: It is very difficult to work in STEM academia without contributing (at least nominally) to the military and to the interests of capital. There simply isn't money for research otherwise. I see a few options:
1. Lie. I know many academics who lie about the probable applications of their research to get grant money. That would be one, albeit dishonest, way to continue to work in STEM academia without compromising your beliefs.
2. Become a committed radical. Organize other researchers and join organizations so that you can strike or take some other collective action if you're asked to work on projects you disagree with.
3. Convince yourself that there's nothing you can do. It's true that one person alone can't accomplish much, but positive changes have been brought about by people who pursue option 2. If you choose this option, you'll be lying to yourself, but I know many people who have quelled their cognitive dissonance this way.
4. Convince yourself that whatever you currently do to resist work you disagree with is enough. If your personal beliefs are what you say they are, this probably isn't really true. If you aren't routinely putting your career at risk, you probably aren't doing much more to resist these things than anyone else would in your position.
5. Convince yourself that whatever harm you're doing now can be offset by more virtuous work you'll have the opportunity to do later because you kept your head down. I personally disagree with this attitude. I challenge people with this perspective to provide an example of someone who has changed the world for the better by working against their principles until they have the resources to unilaterally work in alignment with their principles. That said, I know many people who have been able to overcome cognitive dissonance this way.
6. Find a different line of work. With your skills, you will probably have a hard time finding work that doesn't conflict with your beliefs. It is, however, possible. You will likely have to do something less profitable and prestigious.
For what it's worth, I think 2 is the best option. There is very little a person can do on their own. But when people get organized, they can change the world for the better.
You're experiencing a very difficult but also very common dilemma. You can either try to handle it on your own or try to solve it with other like-minded people. Chances are there are many people at your institution who feel the same way you do.
In any case, I don't think you really need me or anyone else to tell you what your options are. You just need help deciding. Unfortunately, only your conscience can tell you what is right. I hope you're able to make some peace with whatever you decide.
Upvotes: 0
|
2021/05/27
| 636
| 2,485
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a non-European applying from outside of the UK. I need to come up with realistic external funding ideas for the next three years. I have a good idea of what kind of research I would like to do but there is no definite plan. Any resources to consider for funding are greatly appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: The first place to look will be UKRI (UK Research and Innovation), and the funding bodies within it that relate to different subject areas. There is also some charity funding available, the website 'Research Professional' is a pretty good resource.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm from a physical science field in the UK, so things could vary in different faculties.
From my experience, new faculty at research intensive UK universities are usually required to apply for a New Investigator Grant during their first 3 years as part of their probation. Hiring committees will therefore be looking to see that you have plans which have a realistic chance of winning such an award. It's important that your plans for this award have an appropriate scope. You can find information about the [ESRC](https://esrc.ukri.org/) New Investigator Grant here: <https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/esrc-new-investigator-grant/>
That is probably the most important one to mention. But mentioning other plausible pathways to funding is also helpful. Depending on exactly what your research interests are, a few other popular UK funders which may be relevant are:
* [Wellcome Trust](https://wellcome.org/grant-funding)
* [Leverhulme Trust](https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/research-project-grants)
* [Royal Society](https://royalsociety.org/)
If you have experience with EU grants such as [Horizon Europe](https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en) (which the UK remains a part of despite brexit), this would be worth mentioning. But I get the impression applying for such grants is not common/expected from junior academics. If you are working in Clinical psychology then you would probably need to look for more medical related funding, in particular through the [MRC](https://mrc.ukri.org/), which I am not very familiar with.
UK academia is very interested in the impact of research due to the [Research Excellence Framework](https://www.ref.ac.uk/). If you can show how your research has/does/will generate impact this will be to your advantage.
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/27
| 1,633
| 6,648
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just started a STEM PhD before last christmas and whilst things are going okay, I still feel like I'm not good enough and don't deserve the opportunity. I guess it's some form of imposter syndrome but it's driving me to become irrationally attached to my work because I lack confidence that it's good enough to impress my supervisor.
I consistently overwork myself and as a result my personal life is suffering- I even feel bad about taking weekends off. None of what I do feels like it's good enough and I constantly feel like a failure- I have a presentation in the next few weeks to present my project progress and I'm dreading it.
How do I ditch this mentality?<issue_comment>username_1: Many universities have a "counseling" office that can help with such things. But, I agree that it is probably imposter syndrome as you have moved to a situation in which your peers are more skilled than in the past. You probably stood out from the crowd in the past and now you don't, most likely.
But you have affirmation, just by being where you are, that you are worth it.
It is hard during a pandemic, but developing some social relationships with your peers can help. When I was a doctoral student, some of us played paddleball, rode bikes, played softball, etc. just to help keep our sanity.
But if the pressures are mostly internal, you can also set limits that seem artificial. For example, exercise for an hour before lunch every day. Get some aerobic exercise for a few hours every week end - on schedule.
You may find that these breaks aren't unproductive to your work, actually. Your brain will continue processing "stuff" even when you aren't staring at a computer screen. In fact, too-long hours can be counterproductive, producing blocks.
Give yourself a break, but also try to talk to a professional.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: What @username_1 said!
Try not to worry about trying to impress your supervisor. A supervisor should view a PhD student as a colleague in training and they want to help you to realise your potential. There will come a time when you will impress your supervisor, but it is likely to be later in the project when you know more about your particular topic than they do, because you have studied it in detail and they haven't. This is part of the progression, just like an apprentice cabinet maker or any other profession.
Overworking leads to doing less work of lower quality because you will be tired. Treat resting and enjoying your leisure activities as essential preparation for work\*?
* may contain trace amounts of hypocrisy ... or perhaps not trace at all. This is much easier said than done, but try to get into the habit early because it gets progressively harder to break as you get older and tireder.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The short answer is: hard as it may seem, remember that *we have all been there*. You will be shocked to think back in a few years how little you knew at the very beginning. It's normal. You will catch on. Just keep in mind that your supervisor gave you the opportunity, so they think you are capable of succeeding.
As for overworking: it seems to me to have a root in perfectionism. I like the idea of countering perfectionism with perfectionism: once you realize that the situation is not sustainable, you know that it isn't ideal, and you need to change something to stay productive in the long run. It seems you have already figured that out. I recommend doing some reading on productivity (I really benefitted from reading How to be a happy academic by Clark and Sousa). Start by implementing small changes right now, e.g., take an hour every day for playing your favorite instrument, make a strict rule not to work on Sundays, tell people close to you about this so they assist you with it, etc.
For more theory on how to stay sane in life in general, you may want to reflect on the [eight ways to well-being](http://www.8waystowellbeing.com/).
Finally, if you compare yourself to others, don't just look at the "rock stars" for which everything seems to work out easily. More common are situations like in [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/131936/my-phd-seems-daunting-and-overbearing-how-shall-i-regain-motivation-and-interes), or in [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/130423/how-to-cope-with-regret-and-shame-about-not-fully-utilizing-opportunities-during).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree with everything username_1 said: this is very common for graduate students and that therapy can help a lot.
I want to add something which is difficult to carefully state but which I think is also important. I have no doubt that you belong in your graduate program (the experts on who to accept to that graduate program chose you!), and no doubt that you can get a PhD. But there's an entirely separate question here which is whether you're happy and whether graduate school is a good situation for you to thrive. Being a PhD student is a job, and if you're unhappy in a job you might try finding ways to make yourself more happy in it, but you might also consider whether there are other jobs you'd like more. Academia is very challenging from a time-management point of view, and a lot of other jobs make it a lot easier to not feel guilty about not working on the weekend. Which is all to say, you deserve to be *happy* as well as successful, and you should also give yourself permission to ask whether you'd be happier in a job that had more structure. Therapy is also a good way to approach this kind of question of whether the reasons you're unhappy in your job are about your approach to the job or about the job itself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: What is your goal? What is your objective?
If you don't have a clear goal, you will end up measuring yourself against others. And that is a slippery slope.
So make clear achievable goals, and work towards them.
If you end up having to work the whole weekend, it means your goal was too ambitious. And you need to set yourself more time, or reduce the target. Learn from experience to estimate tasks.
It doesn't matter how smart or experienced you are; at the end of the day it boils down to performing a large volume of work. And there is no shortcut. There are no Mozarts in PhD land. Nobody gets to rattle off a symphony.
Just make sure that your effort is well aligned. Before starting out on a large task, talk with others more experienced than yourself, and sanity check you are aiming in the right direction before you put a huge amount of energy through it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2021/05/27
| 554
| 2,388
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a paper accepted at a X conference. I have been working on changes for the camera ready version. I have some results from experiments that I ran after the paper's initial submission.
**Questions:**
1. Can I include the results of this new experiment in the Camera Ready version?
2. Will I need to inform the program chairs of this change?<issue_comment>username_1: I'll guess the answer from the committee would be no for a conference because of time constraints, but you can ask. Once camera ready copy is provided any changes require time and cost and are likely reserved only for minor changes.
But you can certainly ask. You can also discuss the updated material in any conference talk you give, but it won't likely show up in proceedings.
It is possible, however, that there are two stages and the current copy is just for distribution to attendees with a later corrected/updated version done for publication in proceedings. If that is possible, the chair will let you know.
But you should also consider a follow up paper to extend the one given at the conference.
---
For a journal paper, the answer might be different, but it might also lead to a delay in publishing or even a new round of reviews. So, it might be best to skip it in any case.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: **No**, this would usually not be allowed. One important aspect has not been explicitly covered in username_1's answer: **bypassing peer-review**.
Adding new experimental results can significantly alter the paper's contributions and conclusions, and adding them while submitting the camera-ready version bypasses the peer-review process. This is also the reason why many conferences that allow rebuttals to reviews do not allow adding new results even in the rebuttal. For example, the guidelines of CVPR 2021 [state](http://cvpr2021.thecvf.com/node/33):
>
> The author rebuttal is optional and is meant to provide you with an
> opportunity to rebut factual errors or to supply additional
> information requested by the reviewers. It is NOT intended to add new
> contributions (theorems, algorithms, experiments) that were absent in
> the original submission and NOT specifically requested by the
> reviewers. You may optionally add a figure, graph or proof to your
> rebuttal to better illustrate your answer to the reviewers' comments.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2
|
2021/05/27
| 289
| 1,289
|
<issue_start>username_0: My paper was recently published and I submitted a report to my institution for a promotion. However, the research administrator asked me to provide a copy of peer review of my paper, which was reviewed in double-blind. The purpose was for the "validity" of my paper. This is strange and new to me because I never encountered this before. Is it ethical to disclose peer review from a double blind review outside between the author and the editor?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you can reveal them unless you have also signed a non-disclosure agreement, which I doubt happened.
The purpose of double blind review is to assure honesty and accuracy, not long term secrecy per se.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Additionally to what username_1 wrote, there are many issues arising with predatory journals stating that they are doing peer review when they actually are just pocketing author publishing charges. If you get any peer review from these journals, it is usually just something non-committal ("Nice work!"). So submitting your peer-review will show that actual peer-review took place.
I try to engage with papers I am reviewing, asking lots of questions that pop up. And I correct comma errors, which seem to be so prevalent these days ;)
Upvotes: 4
|
2021/05/27
| 695
| 3,070
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it ethical and academically (or otherwise) acceptable to publish a new dataset, derived from an existing, well cited dataset?
The only novelty in this case are:
1. Newly computed features (based on published work), not currently part of the dataset
2. Data re-organisation, not existing previously, that aims to standardize partitioning of the dataset
The dataset in question pertains to Machine Learning.
(Related question at: [Law Stackexchange](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/65333/38366))
**Update**:
The only reason I wish to publish my version is to provide an option of common grounds for paper-methodology comparison. Currently, every author prepares his/her own desired subset and publishes the ML task results. This makes it extremely difficult to compare the papers or sometimes even simple reproducibility.
My proposed subset will be a standardized subset that every one can use directly and will help in comparison across papers.<issue_comment>username_1: As long as you cite the originals you avoid plagiarism. Citation removes the possible charge of plagiarism (unlikely in any case, here).
Just be clear about the origins and what you have done with it.
Also ask whether the license is even appropriate. In other words, does the dataset have enough "creative content" that it is copyrightable? Data *per se* can't be copyrighted. Only creative works can be. If it can't be copyrighted, then it can't be licensed. I don't have enough information here to help you make that judgement. But it would probably be good to make a conservative judgement.
But, you can also ask the authors for a more permissive license for your use if needed. They can do that for a copyrighted work.
The other question, of course, is how you intend to publish it and whether any publisher would be willing to work with you and consider your contribution worth publishing. This, of course, revolves around the issue of whether you have any creative content in the dataset.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest to just make the code available to generate the new features, and reference the data set you've taken from as well as the previously published methods that your code uses, rather than distributing the output.
The code is probably more broadly useful because it could possibly be used with other data, and if new versions of that data set come along your modification will be obsolete whereas your code will not (assuming the structure of the data does not change). If the combination of approaches you've used are themselves fairly novel, it may even be publishable as a paper as well, particularly if you have some results to show why doing these steps is useful in some way.
You could probably find a lawyer to argue that somehow you're allowed to do what you are proposing to do, but I don't see *why*. Even if technically legally allowed because of issues with considering data IP of any sort, it just feels a bit wrong to take someone's work and make it newly available with minor modification.
Upvotes: 2
|